Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

no but my point is there's nothing oppressive about capitolism, it's a free market plain and simple. there's nothing oppressive about freedom

A free market is oppressive. A free market leads to a greater disparity between the poor and the rich and hardening social class. In a free market the chances are that if you are born poor you will die poor. It is a serious restriction on freedom. (It also inevitably leads to the erosion of rights, ut that's another matter.)

Personal freedom can only be secured at the expense of economic freedom, it is perfectly sensible. It works vice versa as well.

yes it's possible to have authoritarian-right, and libertarian-left. it just makes less sense

You don't understand. It is impossible to create a system where you are given both maximum economic and social freedom.

Basic level American political science. The American bill of Rights is not the be all to end all of rights.

yeah but a right, represents your ability have or do something without the government restricting you from it or forcing/helping you to have it. so property ownership is a right as long as you aren't forced to have it or someone else isn't forced to give it up

This is like talking to a brick wall. The American Bill of Rights is not the only bill of rights in the world.

Ahem, no.

yes it is, communism isn't actually enslavement but it relates to it. again two very strong principles of enslavement are being forced to work and not being allowed to work elsewere, both of which happen in communism. unlike enslavement you get paid so it isn't actually enslavement but there are ways in which it relates

I disagree with your definition of Communism. Frankly I'm wasting my time replying to you.

---

At 5/11/03 08:55 AM, Slizor wrote:
A free market is oppressive. A free market leads to a greater disparity between the poor and the rich and hardening social class. In a free market the chances are that if you are born poor you will die poor. It is a serious restriction on freedom. (It also inevitably leads to the erosion of rights, ut that's another matter.)

no, oppressive would be where it's forced by the government to be that way. it is in no way a restriction on freedom as you are allowed legally to become rich and believe or not there are actually ways of acheiving it. is it hard? well no shit, yeah it's going to be harder to make more money, wouldn't make much sense if it wasn't(nor would money be worth that much). and many people(including myself) are poor because we are happy with ourselves. i don't need to be rich, i can make enough to live off of and then some and a-ok. there is absolutly nothing oppressive about a FREE system, you can't spin that no matter how much you try

Personal freedom can only be secured at the expense of economic freedom, it is perfectly sensible. It works vice versa as well.

no it's not set that way, there have been many authoritarian-left governments(in fact there are still some) and the american goverrnment was originally a libertarian-right government. by your logic netheir of these could have existed, but since they did you are wrong

You don't understand. It is impossible to create a system where you are given both maximum economic and social freedom.

no it is not impossible, you are making it up

yeah but a right, represents your ability have or do something without the government restricting you from it or forcing/helping you to have it. so property ownership is a right as long as you aren't forced to have it or someone else isn't forced to give it up

This is like talking to a brick wall. The American Bill of Rights is not the only bill of rights in the world.

if you read what i said you would see i didn't refer to any bill of rights this time, nice try

I disagree with your definition of Communism. Frankly I'm wasting my time replying to you.

well i'm sorry that's what it is, your forced to have a certain job and no other. just the way you are in enslavement

---

A free market is oppressive. A free market leads to a greater disparity between the poor and the rich and hardening social class. In a free market the chances are that if you are born poor you will die poor. It is a serious restriction on freedom. (It also inevitably leads to the erosion of rights, ut that's another matter.)

no, oppressive would be where it's forced by the government to be that way.

See, you admit it is oppressive, but deny that it is oppressive by saying it's not the government being oppressive.

it is in no way a restriction on freedom as you are allowed legally to become rich and believe or not there are actually ways of acheiving it.

A technicality. You can't actually do it.

there is absolutly nothing oppressive about a FREE system, you can't spin that no matter how much you try

An economically free system comes at the expense of the rights of the people.

no it's not set that way, there have been many authoritarian-left governments(in fact there are still some) and the american goverrnment was originally a libertarian-right government. by your logic netheir of these could have existed, but since they did you are wrong

No, the authoritarian left government can exist, you can take away both freedoms. As for the American Government it was totally different due to the fact people could just up and leave and make a life for themselves. We are talking about the post-frontier days.

You don't understand. It is impossible to create a system where you are given both maximum economic and social freedom.

no it is not impossible, you are making it up

No..it is. It's very easy, if you just think about it. In a free market ultimate power is given to the business, it can do what it likes.

Let's go with a few rights.
Freedom of Speech.
Straight away big business can silence any opposition by calling it slander, or they could not roadcast it on the corporate owned media.
Freedom of Association.
Simple one, they don't hire anyone who has views contrary to their own.
Right to Assembly
Well, we've all seen the protesters who are crushed by big business skull crackers.

Two things. Big business' will create monopolies and cartels, it is in their interest and they will destroy people's rights, as it is also in their interest.

yeah but a right, represents your ability have or do something without the government restricting you from it or forcing/helping you to have it. so property ownership is a right as long as you aren't forced to have it or someone else isn't forced to give it up

This is like talking to a brick wall. The American Bill of Rights is not the only bill of rights in the world.

if you read what i said you would see i didn't refer to any bill of rights this time, nice try

Argh, you're so stupid this is pointless. Do you not see that the "Right to Property" is not a universal right? Do you not see that rights are a matter of opinion?

---

At 5/11/03 02:53 PM, Slizor wrote:
See, you admit it is oppressive

exactly where did i say that? nowhere? that's right

A technicality. You can't actually do it.

yes you can do it, the fact that it isn't easy doesn't mean you can't

An economically free system comes at the expense of the rights of the people.

no it doesn't, you are making it up

No, the authoritarian left government can exist, you can take away both freedoms. As for the American Government it was totally different due to the fact people could just up and leave and make a life for themselves. We are talking about the post-frontier days.

oh right so you admit it's possible since in a free system people can "just up and leave and make a life for themselves" but you still try to deny it after you said that? smart(not)

No..it is. It's very easy, if you just think about it. In a free market ultimate power is given to the business, it can do what it likes.

yeah and? the consumer can't? you really aren't very bright

Two things. Big business' will create monopolies and cartels, it is in their interest and they will destroy people's rights, as it is also in their interest.

no they don't destroy anyone's rights. they can't tell you how to spend your money or force you to do anything. apparently you know nothing of the french boycott

Argh, you're so stupid this is pointless. Do you not see that the "Right to Property" is not a universal right? Do you not see that rights are a matter of opinion?

well no actually i'm not the one saying freedom is oppressive, you are. you still failed to address this:

yeah but a right, represents your ability have or do something without the government restricting you from it or forcing/helping you to have it. so property ownership is a right as long as you aren't forced to have it or someone else isn't forced to give it up

---

I have seen this topic for a while now and never commented on it. I shall do that now.

I'm registered republican which means it's easy to lie your ass off when you register to vote.

I'm a free thinker. Fuck political allegences, they're only for people who feel a need to belong to something. Conservative, liberals, left wing, right wing, it's all perverted bullshit one way or another. Both extremes believe in censorship. Should it matter if it's done to protect the children of if it's done in the name of God?

---

actually the republicans strongly oppose censorship. there are exceptions, just like the are democrates who are anti-drug, but the exceptions do not define the party

---

At 5/5/03 11:35 AM, Shih wrote: Evolutionary-anarchist

Can you explain this a little more?

*Readies the anti-anarchy (AA) guns*

---

evolutionary anarchist is someone who believes that crimes are the result of people being corrupted by governments and that we should be reset back to the days before there were any. the truth is it's probably more due to how primitive the lifestyle was back then, when lifestyles became less primitive people began to want order. however with time some wanted more order and others less and blah blah blah we have corrupt politics, so it's not totally untrue

---

At 5/13/03 02:37 PM, PreacherJ wrote:

At 5/5/03 11:35 AM, Shih wrote: Evolutionary-anarchist

Can you explain this a little more?

*Readies the anti-anarchy (AA) guns*

*readies primary shields*
It's really pretty simple. I have a simple belief that govermental systems in existence have now failed their citizens. Note I'm not really angsty about it just pointing it out. I also believe that goverment is fundamentally tied to the very existence of life itself. As people evolve socially, spiritually, and mentally so too will our goverments, if they're given the necessary room too.
Since the goverments in place have a vested interest in maintaining themselves, like any large collective a goverment system can take on a will to live of it's own, they will not allow this necessary growth. I believe that for a functional goverment to exist the current systems must be removed from power and a new sytem begun from the ground up.

Begin your salvos Judge.

---

Okay, this is the last reply. You're not even up to the standard of swayside.

See, you admit it is oppressive

exactly where did i say that? nowhere? that's right

You implied it, "no, oppressive would be where it's forced by the government to be that way."

A technicality. You can't actually do it.

yes you can do it, the fact that it isn't easy doesn't mean you can't

In a completely free market system it would be impossible, state-funded schools....gone, grants, gone, any meagre form of healthcare....gone. All things which allow social mobility....gone. In a truely free market system social mobility would be the same as feudal times.

An economically free system comes at the expense of the rights of the people.

no it doesn't, you are making it up

See, this is the thing. When you "debate" with someone you don't claim they are "making things up". You have to attack their premises or the logic of their conclusion, if these are not present then they are "making it up". However, both premises and conclusions exist, thus you need a better argument then "you're making it up".

No, the authoritarian left government can exist, you can take away both freedoms. As for the American Government it was totally different due to the fact people could just up and leave and make a life for themselves. We are talking about the post-frontier days.

oh right so you admit it's possible since in a free system people can "just up and leave and make a life for themselves" but you still try to deny it after you said that? smart(not)

You have no idea what context is, do you? This is a hint "We are talking about the post-frontier days." I guess I'll have to explain, since you can't even understand the most basic concepts. People could "just up and leave and make a life for themselves" during the days of the Frontier, when there was "free" land. But it is now post-frontier, the frontier is gone, thus people can not up and leave and make a life for themselves.

No..it is. It's very easy, if you just think about it. In a free market ultimate power is given to the business, it can do what it likes.

yeah and?

If it can do what it likes it can infringe on people's rights. Understand?

Two things. Big business' will create monopolies and cartels, it is in their interest and they will destroy people's rights, as it is also in their interest.

no they don't destroy anyone's rights. they can't tell you how to spend your money or force you to do anything. apparently you know nothing of the french boycott

Do you know what a cartel is? Do you know what a monopoly is?

Argh, you're so stupid this is pointless. Do you not see that the "Right to Property" is not a universal right? Do you not see that rights are a matter of opinion?

well no actually i'm not the one saying freedom is oppressive, you are. you still failed to address this

I'm not saying freedom is oppressive, I'm saying a free market system is oppressive. I don't think the right to exploit people is a right.

yeah but a right, represents your ability have or do something without the government restricting you from it or forcing/helping you to have it. so property ownership is a right as long as you aren't forced to have it or someone else isn't forced to give it up

This is irrelevant. You talk about the ability to have, or waive your right, not what the right implies in itself.

---

At 5/14/03 02:58 PM, Slizor wrote: Okay, this is the last reply. You're not even up to the standard of swayside.

ie. you're losing and you know it

You implied it, "no, oppressive would be where it's forced by the government to be that way."

and? government doesn't force anything on the economy in capitolism

In a completely free market system it would be impossible, state-funded schools....gone, grants, gone, any meagre form of healthcare....gone. All things which allow social mobility....gone. In a truely free market system social mobility would be the same as feudal times.

okay:

1. private schools exist, always did and always will. that and there are well known to be better than public schools

2. healthcare gone? so what? with the lack of taxes they may just have enough money to pay for it themselves. also there is a sort of private owned healthcare that is rather popular, know what it is? health insurance

3. "social mobility" would not be gone, you are making it up

4. it is totally false to say you can't have social freedoms in free economy. not only have you not proven it, but you've failed so miserably. you can't prove it, it is simply not true

An economically free system comes at the expense of the rights of the people.

no it doesn't, you are making it up

See, this is the thing. When you "debate" with someone you don't claim they are "making things up". You have to attack their premises or the logic of their conclusion, if these are not present then they are "making it up". However, both premises and conclusions exist, thus you need a better argument then "you're making it up".

well you are, you just say, "An economically free system comes at the expense of the rights of the people." without proof. that doesn't prove anything other than the fact that you are making something up

You have no idea what context is, do you? This is a hint "We are talking about the post-frontier days." I guess I'll have to explain, since you can't even understand the most basic concepts. People could "just up and leave and make a life for themselves" during the days of the Frontier, when there was "free" land. But it is now post-frontier, the frontier is gone, thus people can not up and leave and make a life for themselves.

nice way to prove that. "oh in the 1800's people could up and leave, but not anymore. why? because it's the 2000's now and because i say so". things have changed, but people can do things the same way they could back then. they can't buy land? actually you can, it's not as available but not everyone owned their own land back then either, in fact it was far from everyone. but the system worked without it being anywhere near everyone, why? because people knew what the fuck they were doing, and land ownership was irrelevant anyway. i've already explained how it works, you don't like a buisness, BOYCOTT. not that the last statement has anything to do with what you said, as what you said has nothing to do with free markets

No..it is. It's very easy, if you just think about it. In a free market ultimate power is given to the business, it can do what it likes.

yeah and?

If it can do what it likes it can infringe on people's rights. Understand?

and the consumers can do what they want and cripple the buisnesses. understand?

Do you know what a cartel is? Do you know what a monopoly is?

do you know what BOYCOTT is? how like it can stop monopolies? no? i thought not

I'm not saying freedom is oppressive, I'm saying a free market system is oppressive. I don't think the right to exploit people is a right.

yes you are saying freedom is oppressive, you said capitolism(economic freedom) was oppressive. the right to exploit is a right. as is the right to ruin someone for exploitation

yeah but a right, represents your ability have or do something without the government restricting you from it or forcing/helping you to have it. so property ownership is a right as long as you aren't forced to have it or someone else isn't forced to give it up

This is irrelevant. You talk about the ability to have, or waive your right, not what the right implies in itself.

no it is not because it proves that property ownership is in fact a right