Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/11/06 09:00 PM, Tancrisism wrote: If you read The Communist Manifesto, you might find that it really does not pertain to today's day and age at all (in America, anyway, I can't say the same about Europe and the rest of the world as I have only been throughout the US), it really is completely based off of the Industrial Revolution and the horrible treatment that the "proletariat" was under by the borgeiouse.

It could be argued that still applies to the presend day because there is a scarce middle class in the U.S. and the upper class has only gotten higher-up while the lower-class has gotten larger, and lower down. I see it personally too. On the way to work I see more and more homeless people than in 2003.

At 10/11/06 09:00 PM, Tancrisism wrote: If you read The Communist Manifesto, you might find that it really does not pertain to today's day and age at all (in America, anyway, I can't say the same about Europe and the rest of the world as I have only been throughout the US), it really is completely based off of the Industrial Revolution and the horrible treatment that the "proletariat" was under by the borgeiouse.

However, this was actually countered by socialist policies. Minimum wage, set work days, ovetime pay, etc. Communism as an economic system is deeply flawed, however it's folly to have a purely Capitalist system, as well. In fact, there is no such thing as a fully Capitalist or Communist system, there never has been and there never will be. The American system is still heavily Capitalist, but it has quite a few more Socialist policies and programs than the Industrial Revolution.

At 10/11/06 09:04 PM, Gunter45 wrote: However, this was actually countered by socialist policies. Minimum wage, set work days, ovetime pay, etc. Communism as an economic system is deeply flawed, however it's folly to have a purely Capitalist system, as well. In fact, there is no such thing as a fully Capitalist or Communist system, there never has been and there never will be. The American system is still heavily Capitalist, but it has quite a few more Socialist policies and programs than the Industrial Revolution.

Finally, someone who is educated. Yes, if you ever open a social science or civics text book it will tell you no nation has ever been 100% one way or the other. Reason being it is impossible to achieve on a large scale, and the people encharge would lose status if the fully evolved forms of either economic alternative took root.

Both these systems take power away from the centralized government and put it in the hands of the people. Yes, it is odd when you think about it, but both communism and capitalism strive for the same end: an anarchy with no government intervention.

At 10/11/06 09:04 PM, Gunter45 wrote: However, this was actually countered by socialist policies. Minimum wage, set work days, ovetime pay, etc. Communism as an economic system is deeply flawed, however it's folly to have a purely Capitalist system, as well. In fact, there is no such thing as a fully Capitalist or Communist system, there never has been and there never will be. The American system is still heavily Capitalist, but it has quite a few more Socialist policies and programs than the Industrial Revolution.

Absolutely. It's not socialist enough, in my opinion, but we are getting there. Unrestricted Capitalism is a frightening concept.

At 10/11/06 09:39 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Absolutely. It's not socialist enough, in my opinion, but we are getting there. Unrestricted Capitalism is a frightening concept.

The reason we're not doing as good as we should is because we too socialist as it is. I guarantee you the day America becomes more socialist than it does capitalist is the time America loses its status as richest and most powerful nation.

As has been said before, balance is essential. You can't have a complete sytem of either, but why not take the best elements of each system and make them work together.

At 10/11/06 09:45 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: As has been said before, balance is essential. You can't have a complete sytem of either, but why not take the best elements of each system and make them work together.

Being around 67% capitalist would be good, instead of this 50/50 bullshit we have right now.

At 10/11/06 09:44 PM, BanditByte wrote: The reason we're not doing as good as we should is because we too socialist as it is. I guarantee you the day America becomes more socialist than it does capitalist is the time America loses its status as richest and most powerful nation.

I would never want America to be more socialist than capitalist. I don't see how that could coincide with our constitution.

The day that happens my ass it outta here.

At 10/11/06 09:47 PM, BanditByte wrote: Being around 67% capitalist would be good, instead of this 50/50 bullshit we have right now.

Nah I'm not on the side of 50/50 everything, I agree with you there, even though we might be at each other's necks in the British Journalist topic, lol. See, the law of moderation states, everything must be done in moderation, even moderation itself. So you can't be just completely 50/50 on everything, you have to deviate from the center at times in order to strike a compromize, and even some rare instances may require a forceful approach just not always.

The only socialist stance the US should take: worker's rights. Things such as unions and such. And public schools, but with vouchers for private ones.

At 10/11/06 10:04 PM, Peternormous wrote: The only socialist stance the US should take: worker's rights. Things such as unions and such. And public schools, but with vouchers for private ones.

What of healthcare? Canada is known for having a healthcare system which is truly affordable because the government purchases massive amounts of medication for the whole country in bulk. THe downside? It takes too damned long to get an emergency attended to! So if you're hemorraging you better hold your head because it might be a while before you recieve medical attention.

At 10/11/06 10:07 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:
What of healthcare? Canada is known for having a healthcare system which is truly affordable because the government purchases massive amounts of medication for the whole country in bulk. THe downside? It takes too damned long to get an emergency attended to! So if you're hemorraging you better hold your head because it might be a while before you recieve medical attention.

'm totally against that. It take up way too much taxes, and it's something I believe charities should help with. I don't fancy paying for some junkie to get better.

At 10/11/06 10:08 PM, Peternormous wrote: 'm totally against that. It take up way too much taxes, and it's something I believe charities should help with. I don't fancy paying for some junkie to get better.

Legalize drugs and open rehabs, and voila, our economy is fixed. Prove me wrong.

Yes, drugs should be legalized. We spend waaaay too much tax-money to house drug offenders who ahve no business in prison.

At 10/11/06 10:15 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Legalize drugs and open rehabs, and voila, our economy is fixed. Prove me wrong.

Not everyone has the same amount of self-control dude. Also, if any drug is to be legalized it should only be marijuana since it is the least harmful. So long as you do it in moderation kids ;)

At 10/11/06 10:17 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/11/06 10:15 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Legalize drugs and open rehabs, and voila, our economy is fixed. Prove me wrong.

Not everyone has the same amount of self-control dude. Also, if any drug is to be legalized it should only be marijuana since it is the least harmful. So long as you do it in moderation kids ;)

Yes, this is true. But even though the harder substances are illegal, people do them. All that their illegality does is take away from our taxes and allow drug lords (who have terroristic tendencies) to flourish. The only way to curb this is to make it illegal.

As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Drugs are in constant demand.

I would compromise for just marijuana right now, as harder drug-addictions are very tragic, but their being illegal helps nothing.

At 10/11/06 10:20 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Yes, this is true. But even though the harder substances are illegal, people do them.

Ah, someone after my libertarian heart.

At 10/11/06 10:22 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:
Ah, someone after my libertarian heart.

Really? You have always seemed for of a lefty to me.

At 10/11/06 10:25 PM, Peternormous wrote:

At 10/11/06 10:22 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote:
Ah, someone after my libertarian heart.

Really? You have always seemed for of a lefty to me.

I'm a left libertarian....it's rare, but it's possible.

At 10/11/06 10:20 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The only way to curb this is to make it illegal.

I know you meant "legal." :)

As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Drugs are in constant demand.

True

I would compromise for just marijuana right now, as harder drug-addictions are very tragic, but their being illegal helps nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. If substances carry the "illegal" label on them, it makes sane, rational and reasonable individuals not want anything to do with them. If substances are later labeled as legal, I think more people would get in on them because they wouldn't feel so bad since they're not breaking the law. Perhaps if they were legalized with an extremely high tax... hm... nah that'd be almost like what we have now.

Besides if cartels aren't transporting drugs, they'll be transporting other things: weapons, organs, immigrants, fake currency, ivory, whores, children, cheap labor, etc...

At 10/11/06 10:27 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/11/06 10:20 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The only way to curb this is to make it illegal.

I know you meant "legal." :)

Woops, that's one hell of a slip-up. I did mean "legal" though. Haha.

As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. Drugs are in constant demand.

True

I would compromise for just marijuana right now, as harder drug-addictions are very tragic, but their being illegal helps nothing.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. If substances carry the "illegal" label on them, it makes sane, rational and reasonable individuals not want anything to do with them.

I am quite sane, rational and reasonable I would think, but the "illegal" label doesn't make me not want to have anything to do with them. The terrible things that they can do to you make me not want to have anything to do with them.

If substances are later labeled as legal, I think more people would get in on them because they wouldn't feel so bad since they're not breaking the law. Perhaps if they were legalized with an extremely high tax... hm... nah that'd be almost like what we have now.

Not necessarily. They could do the same situations that they do with cigarettes now, keep them legal but educate the masses about the horrors of them, with the anti-drug commercials and such. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it should be promoted. I would encourage restrictions on their legality, such as you can only buy rations of them at times like the Netherlands does with marijuana now (it's something like 3.5 grams of marijuana? Don't quote me on that).

Besides if cartels aren't transporting drugs, they'll be transporting other things: weapons, organs, immigrants, fake currency, ivory, whores, children, cheap labor, etc...

Prostitution should be legal as well. And they already do transport those things. That is a very good point though, one I haven't taken into consideration. That is an option, or there is the ideal option that they would just go out of business and Columbia would be a comfortable country. Who knows though.

At 10/11/06 10:27 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Besides if cartels aren't transporting drugs, they'll be transporting other things: weapons, organs, immigrants, fake currency, ivory, whores, children, cheap labor, etc...

By the same argument you're making... should we also legalize those things I listed above? Then cartels will be completely extinct, but does the price justify the reward?

I could get into this discussion….but honestly…it’s twenty to four in the morning and I’m looking at another three hours of work, so I need to conserve energy.

All I’ll say is education is infinitely more powerful than legislation.

At 10/11/06 10:36 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

At 10/11/06 10:27 PM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Besides if cartels aren't transporting drugs, they'll be transporting other things: weapons, organs, immigrants, fake currency, ivory, whores, children, cheap labor, etc...

By the same argument you're making... should we also legalize those things I listed above? Then cartels will be completely extinct, but does the price justify the reward?

I suppose that is a good point. There isn't a huge demand for any of those, though, except whores and maybe weapons. By my argument, if we appease the demands the cartels will be rendered obsolete. There isn't as big a business in immigrants, fake currency, ivory, children, or organs. America's labor laws, by theory, rule out the cruel and cheap labor, although we see this often challenged.

At 10/11/06 10:41 PM, o-r-i-g-i-n-a-l wrote: All I’ll say is education is infinitely more powerful than legislation.

Not to mention infinitely more important. You wouldn't have crappy legislation if you had truly-educated individuals running the show. No not with honorary doctorates but with something they earned from going to University and kicking ass in class with room for expansive discourse and real teaching for at least 6 years.

At 10/7/06 11:05 AM, The-Stefan wrote:

At 10/7/06 10:45 AM, Kev-o wrote: In a true Communist country, they wouldn't fence shit. Communism is like anarchism, but with a national government.

Hmmmm thats the most retarded thing ive heard this day.

No, he's accually right about TRUE Communism!

The Stalin government had concentration camps full of people who didnt like the communist government in siberia.

Yeah, but Stalin fucked up the communist ideoligy

Under communism the government tells the factories wat to produce, what the shops should sell, what the farmers have to grow ect.

Yet again Stalin fucked it up...

Anarchy theres noone telling anyone shit, wich is crap since it would just be every man for himself.

True.

Communism theres a government telling you how to, when, where, why, you should take a dump. Its pretty much like Facism or a rule like that of Iran.

Yeah, but yet another time, Stalin fucked it up.

Communism was born as a new sort of thinking, a smaller sort of anarchy, where people had no right to own more than another one, that everyone should be equal to eachother, no class society as in the US, and most western countries.

Today, if Stalin didn't come to power, communism would maybe be a better alternative to capitalism, since the economy had grown during the past 90 years.

Stalin fucked it up with his dictatorism, by making everyone severly poor, conscripting military personell to fight in other countries, so that his power would be much bigger. And the worst thing was that he lived a life in great wealth with women, money, russian caviar etc. while children in his OWN country starved.

So keep in mind that ORIGINAL communism ain't a oppressing economy/ruling way.

Am I the only one who doesn't want to live in ACTUAL communism? The idea of everyone being equal, everyone else having my money, and everyhing else just scares the hell out of me, quite frankly.

And another thing: If communism develops into anarchism, what is stopping me from being capitalist?

Communism sucks. The only good thing about it is that everyone is equal. Which actually is not so good. If there was communism in America NG probably wouldn't be running a,long with any other website runned in America.

The best thing about communism is that it's an effective idiot test.

Example