How bout we give anarchy a try. never been done before on a large scale and small scale tests were successful. Besides who wants to be like France.

At 47 minutes ago, maseman33 wrote: How bout we give anarchy a try. never been done before on a large scale and small scale tests were successful. Besides who wants to be like France.

The whole concept of "large scale anarchy" is a paradox.

At 1 hour ago, maseman33 wrote: How bout we give anarchy a try. never been done before on a large scale and small scale tests were successful. Besides who wants to be like France.

Governments don't like to lose control. It's gonna be bloody, but I'm down.

At 34 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: Governments don't like to lose control. It's gonna be bloody, but I'm down.

No you're not. You'll lose you cozy digs and your access to the internet. Also, the food intake you get will be dramatically reduced. I dare you to give that up and not regret it.

At 34 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 34 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: Governments don't like to lose control. It's gonna be bloody, but I'm down.

No you're not. You'll lose you cozy digs and your access to the internet. Also, the food intake you get will be dramatically reduced. I dare you to give that up and not regret it.

Whatever HIS definition of Anarchy, your argument is rather disingenuous. It refutes a political position with the given assumption that it can't function [as defined, providing certain goods necessary to modern standards of living, civilization, etc.]. It's only slightly more sophisticated than me saying 'Socialism doesn't work because it doesn't work'. It might very well be true, but I'm sure you've thought about this issue long enough to share more than a high handed, and unsubstantial dismissal.

And of course the same thing applies to everyone, whether one is arguing against [however you define it] Socialism, capitalism, communism, or anarchism, I am absolutely sick and tired of people giving talking points and anecdotes as if they're new and unheard of before.

Now if someone actually Advocates "Anarchy" they either 1. Believe certain essential goods [whether physical, or 'good' as an actual state of affairs to be desired] can be provided adequately, or even the most effectively, under a state of anarchy 2. Believe certain goods are not necessary or desirable. The same is technically true of any "Ist" of an "Ism"

So for example, Mr. Anarchist can either believe that effectively functional national defense can be provided in a state of anarchy, or can believe that national defense, as a good itself, is unnecessary.

I kinda had more to say, but i'm just not up to it.
____________________________________________________________
________

At 3 hours ago, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 34 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 34 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: Governments don't like to lose control. It's gonna be bloody, but I'm down.

No you're not. You'll lose you cozy digs and your access to the internet. Also, the food intake you get will be dramatically reduced. I dare you to give that up and not regret it.

Whatever HIS definition of Anarchy, your argument is rather disingenuous. It refutes a political position with the given assumption that it can't function [as defined, providing certain goods necessary to modern standards of living, civilization, etc.].

I was trying to be nice, but I guess my point got lost because of it. I wasn't commenting on any political opinion of his. I was commenting on a child of a highly commercialist, highly luxuriated society frothing at the mouth over "revolution". I was poking fun at the fallacy of his yearning for revolution when he would likely not make it past the loss of a single television show. His post represents a stupid trend that I hate: rish suburban white boys embracing revolution as if they had a single reason to revolt.

It's only slightly more sophisticated than me saying 'Socialism doesn't work because it doesn't work'. It might very well be true, but I'm sure you've thought about this issue long enough to share more than a high handed, and unsubstantial dismissal.

Again, I didn't take his pithy post as supporting any political position at all. I was doing nothing but ridiculing there.

At 46 minutes ago, Korriken wrote: government and war are both part of human nature, nothing you can do, except kill off all other humans, can get rid of this.

Exactly. The cases in which "anarchy" worked were small cases that actually more resembled egalitarian tribalism than pure anarchy.

At 19 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

At 34 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote: Governments don't like to lose control. It's gonna be bloody, but I'm down.

No you're not. You'll lose you cozy digs and your access to the internet. Also, the food intake you get will be dramatically reduced. I dare you to give that up and not regret it.

My cozy digs are already payed for and well protected, internet is frivolous and I have a large garden(3/4 of an acre) and breed pigs(about 40). You lose. I don't eat that much anyway.

At 17 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

I was trying to be nice,

So you're statement was meant to be an implicit conclusion about his social background, which could be inferred by a conclusion you arrived to by mere assertion, which then somehow either discredits the position or [more productively] helps to change the person's mind on the issue? That's hardly better.

For every ideology you can usually divide it into two groups, the reflexive and often mindless supporters of a particular doctrine, and those who have developed a positive theory of 'things' and have come to a particular conclusion. For example, Neoconservatism. You've got the useful idiots [such as myself when I was 13] Who argue that anyone who disagrees with The republican party in general and bush in particular is un-American, and supporting the occupation of foreign countries was the patriotic thing to do. You've also got the neoconservative intellectuals.

This is especially true in the case of fringe ideologies. Many people who hold them are either eccentrics, or have developed strong reasons in favor of them despite what people around them say.

People who hold mainstream ideologies might very well be correct, and when they express their views they sound more respectable than the "fringe elements" But they are also more likely to be simply regurgitating talking points that are given to them by television mouthpieces.

And there's obviously a continuum. In my opinion I provide better arguments than most in favor of non-state solutions to problems which usually people think need the state to solve. But i'm not an expert.

Sometimes the motives of those two groups are different, sometimes they're not and the 'smart' group simply has more information and better logic to justify their 'ism'. With Neoconservatism I imagine that the intellectuals and stupid people differ considerably. But that's besides the point.

I never assume from the outset that anyone who makes a statement that sounds indictative of a particular ideology belongs to the idiot camp. And even if they do, it is often the case that people from the idiot camp of X-ism can be reasoned enough to either change to the smart-camp of X-ism, [after at least learning enough to defend their position]

In other words. You could have just said to him "Who will build the roads under a condition of Anarchy" [However it is defined] But instead your response consisted solely of"Your position is absurd, I don't have to provide a single explicit reason why, and you are of a childish mentality"

It's only slightly more sophisticated than me saying 'Socialism doesn't work because it doesn't work'. It might very well be true, but I'm sure you've thought about this issue long enough to share more than a high handed, and unsubstantial dismissal.

Again, I didn't take his pithy post as supporting any political position at all. I was doing nothing but ridiculing there.

Capitalism will fall one day. But when it does, it won't be because someone formulated a new system and implemented it successfully and it just took off. No one invented capitalism. It was an inevitable consequence of the technological and social changes that occurred during industrialization. No one looked at the problems with the feudal system (lack of economic mobility, wide and permanent gap between rich and poor) and devised a better alternative. Capitalism just happened and it fixed a lot of the problems with the feudal system and allowed civilization to progress tremendously. However, we are reaching a point where the gap between the rich and the poor is so massive that all the social and economic mobility that was a major advantage of capitalism is starting to fade away. The system is bound to fail, and when the new economic system comes around to replace it, it won't be because of some Utopian scholar. The next system will emerge out of necessity and inevitability. In the mean time, we need to ride capitalism through the end or become economic wastelands like North Korea. We should, however, do something to restrict the power of massive corporations that are hurting our economy.

At 3 hours ago, SmilezRoyale wrote: So you're statement was meant to be an implicit conclusion about his social background, which could be inferred by a conclusion you arrived to by mere assertion, which then somehow either discredits the position or [more productively] helps to change the person's mind on the issue? That's hardly better.

Come on Smilez, you are way smarter than this.

He was like "revolution!!! Fuck yeah!!! Blood!" and I merely was indicating that I doubt his sincerity to that ideal. Furthermore, had I been a little meaner, I would have pointed out that he likely says this because he thinks it's cool, not because he has any reason to revolt or would be willing to live with the negative consequences of that revolt.

Nothing in his post mentioned, or even referred to anarchy. Just the amorphous and trendy among the angsty and secretly violent 'revolution'. The same kind of revolution people think of when they buy Chez Guevara T-shirts whilst holding Starbucks and tweet via their iPhone.

You think I was ridiculing his views. Nope. I was ridiculing his sincerity. I really don't know where you got the ground to rest your soapbox on.

At 5 hours ago, Korriken wrote:

At 4 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

until a small band of thieves bust into your cozy digs, kill you and take over your place.

........or......or.......or I could shoot them. Just might work.

At 28 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

At 5 hours ago, Korriken wrote:

At 4 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

until a small band of thieves bust into your cozy digs, kill you and take over your place.

........or......or.......or I could shoot them. Just might work.

Unless of course they have guns too. But that's impossible because everyone knows criminals never use guns.

At 5 minutes ago, djack wrote:

At 28 minutes ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

At 5 hours ago, Korriken wrote:

At 4 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

until a small band of thieves bust into your cozy digs, kill you and take over your place.

........or......or.......or I could shoot them. Just might work.

Unless of course they have guns too. But that's impossible because everyone knows criminals never use guns.

We can god back and forth all night. I'd shoot them, no they'd shoot you, I'm sure rocket launchers would be brought up at some point. Let's just end it now and get drunk.

At 15 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:

Come on Smilez, you are way smarter than this.

He was like "revolution!!! Fuck yeah!!! Blood!" and I merely was indicating that I doubt his sincerity to that ideal. Furthermore, had I been a little meaner, I would have pointed out that he likely says this because he thinks it's cool, not because he has any reason to revolt or would be willing to live with the negative consequences of that revolt.

Looking back, I'd forgotten your statement was in response to "I hated patriots" not "maseman33", the latter who simply said to give anarchy. [Still not sure what he means by that] A try.

Usually when I hear about violence and [statelessness] Anarchy it has to do with discussions about dealing with foreign invasions, not actually overthrowing a monocentric legal regime.

So I was reading too heavily into what you were saying. Sorry.

At 3 hours ago, SmilezRoyale wrote: So I was reading too heavily into what you were saying. Sorry.

No worries.

At 8 minutes ago, Korriken wrote:

At 17 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

We can god back and forth all night. I'd shoot them, no they'd shoot you, I'm sure rocket launchers would be brought up at some point. Let's just end it now and get drunk.

5-12 vs 1 is bad odds, i don't care what weapon you have.

Is this the point where rocket launchers are supposed to be brought up? Maybe we should throw in some automated turrets and landmines guarding the front door. Hell, we can drop the pretense and just say magic right? Magic would let one person kill 12 armed robbers without getting themselves killed in the process, right?

Here is a nice story you folks would love to hear

A professor of Economics and Political Science at UF said he had never failed a single student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
"OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A."

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

At 20 hours ago, djack wrote:

At 8 minutes ago, Korriken wrote:

At 17 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

We can god back and forth all night. I'd shoot them, no they'd shoot you, I'm sure rocket launchers would be brought up at some point. Let's just end it now and get drunk.

5-12 vs 1 is bad odds, i don't care what weapon you have.

Is this the point where rocket launchers are supposed to be brought up? Maybe we should throw in some automated turrets and landmines guarding the front door. Hell, we can drop the pretense and just say magic right? Magic would let one person kill 12 armed robbers without getting themselves killed in the process, right?

I'm sorry, Korrike, but if I set up turrets, it's over. that's all I'm saying. They don't even need to be automated. The migrant workers I'll hire to tend to my fields will man them. Add to this attack dogs and possibly some well place, remote activated land mines and I'm sleeping snug as a rug.

At 19 hours ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

While that is a very good illustration of how socialism can fail, it still seems to be quite shallow to me. One class out of many of a college student's life is a pretty small part of their lives. Being so small, it is much easier to let fail.

At 38 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote:
While that is a very good illustration of how socialism can fail, it still seems to be quite shallow to me. One class out of many of a college student's life is a pretty small part of their lives. Being so small, it is much easier to let fail.

well there's a much bigger example of this in the real deal, Mao dove straight into collectivisation as well, forget the cultural revolution, there is a reason he is not listed above Stalin as the evillest man in the world. he didn't kill as many people through purges and what not as a lot of those other guys, his deaths were mostly caused by either war, or the largest group, caused by famine. Pretty much every communist has had at least one famine, but his was by far the worst, even worse than Stalin's government forced famine. His famine happened for the same general reason as what that story outlined. The best farmers didn't get enough compensation for their work, so everyone did as little as they were allowed to do without provoking the reds to break down their doors.

At 23 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: His famine happened for the same general reason as what that story outlined.

Actually, no it didn't. The famine in mid 20th Century China was a result of corruption, and cadre yes men. The famine was largely created by cadre member siphoning tons of wheat away from their people. On top of that, the cadre members vastly overstated their grain output to such an extent (like reporting record growth when in actuality they were having down seasons) that the country could not make up for it.

China is NO example of how socialism actually works. China was merely a dictatorship in Marx clothing.

I think some people are confusing communism with socialism. rofl

At 2 hours ago, Korriken wrote:

At 6 hours ago, Ihatedapatriots wrote:

problem is, the people killing you ARE the migrant workers because they feel they're not being paid enough. now what?

Good point and one I've already thought of and, I believe, come to a decision regarding.

Shock collars.

At 2 days ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: Here is a nice story you folks would love to hear

A professor of Economics and Political Science at UF said he had never failed a single student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said,
"OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A."

After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were upset while the students who had studied very little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who had studied little studied even less and the ones who had studied hard decided that since they couldn't make an A, they also studied less. The second Test average
was a D. No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average grade was an
F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
To their great surprise all failed. The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater
their reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

Three points. One, the story is fiction. http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Two, the story is predicated on a simplistic understanding of "reward". It assumes, following usage in the status quo, that what you receive for a service/product is "earned" - that you have a moral right to it on the basis of deserving it. However, the world is replete with examples of people who get a high salary but actually do very little - investment bankers being a good example. Equally, people who do do useful things - factory workers, for example - often see very poor returns for the provision (and fruits) of their labour. As such, to suggest that in Capitalism people are given their due "reward" is fundamentally not in line with how capitalism has operated. Also, to link reward to hard work in capitalism is just plain fucking stupid - feel free to use the same examples for this point too.

Three, your example, while using non-monetary "rewards" as an experiment, limits its understanding of rewards to being solely monetary in its supposed critique of socialism. Operating under its implicit definition of socialism, the government, even if it takes all the "reward" can not take away the inate pleasure of crafting something, or of enjoying your work.

At 14 minutes ago, Davoo wrote:

At 9 days ago, Camarohusky wrote: Capitalism is the epitomy of economic freedom. Under that people are free to set prices for selling and buying at whatever they can get away with.

Uhhh... really? I always thought you had to have prices equal or lower than everybody else (or be in a better location or have higher quality), and that you couldn't "get away" with anything more than that. But no, I guess Wal Mart sells almost everything so cheap just because they feel more generous than the Mom and Pop stores they run out of business.

Yes really. Setting prices equal to or lower is a method of competition, not a principle of Capitalism. Under capitalism I could sell a book worth $5 to someone for $50 if that person is willing to pay that much. I mean, if capitalism was all about equal or lower, then how come something with the same supply and same demand could cost $10 in NYC, $7 in Seattle and $4 in Kansas City?

At 1 hour ago, Davoo wrote: You're saying competition isn't a part of capitalism. Wow. That's a new one.

Now I'm starting to wonder if you aren't just trolling now. Either that or you're having trouble understanding concepts.

Competition is part of capitalism, but the main idea of capitalism is that the price is formed by the seller pushing the price as high as they can get away with, and the buyer trying to make the cheapest offer they can get away with. It's that simple. Everything else, including competition, is built upon this basic idea.

"Under capitalism I could sell a book worth $5 for $50 if that person is willing to pay that much."
Well first of all, who detirmines the worth of a book? But regardless of that, if the consumer is okay with that price and you're willing to sell it as such, what is the problem with that? And if nobody accepts the price, no one will buy it and you'll be forced to sell it cheaper or get another job. All that sounds exactly like capitalism.

Exactly. The seller is selling it for what he can get away with. So how are you not understanding this?

At 2 hours ago, Davoo wrote: Oh I'm sorry, I completely misunderstood.

No worries. If I had to guess, I'd say about 10% of the arguing on here comes from people who are saying the same thing but in different ways.

My bad; I'm glad to talk to another capitalist on Newgrounds.

Don't assume too much now. Just because I don't know capitalism as much as the others doesn't mean I am a Lasseiz Faire type.

At 13 hours ago, TNT wrote: Yeah I heard of that story before, but that was capitalism vs. communism.

There is a lot of mixing that up around here.

Socialism is in between capitalism and communism in a way.

Generally speaking, Communism is state ownership of all business. Socialism is where the state uses its income to provide strong social services for the people. In actuality socialism and capitlism aren't contradictory as they live in two different realms of government. Communism and capitalism are the contradictory systems.

Socialism calls for too much reliance in the government.