A Lesson on Socialism

AssHatZombie said:
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Click to expand...
*sigh* Then read the thread. Actually work on comprehension skills. Your incapacity to understand is only overshadowed by your unbelievable willingness to start speaking on subjects in which you have no intellectual authority to draw upon. It's like arguing with a teenager.
 
Damocles said:
*sigh* Then read the thread. Actually work on comprehension skills. Your incapacity to understand is only overshadowed by your unbelievable willingness to start speaking on subjects in which you have no intellectual authority to draw upon. It's like arguing with a teenager.
Click to expand...

Well. you'll be enlightened to know that the only real difference between the feudalism you abhor and modern governments is centralization.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
If you had any reading comprehension, you'd know that I did indeed say socialism works.......when it's practiced VOLUNTARILY by all the members of the community. And FYI, enforced socialism does lead to communism.

you need an example of a communist government? where do you live again?
Click to expand...

Well I live in the freest economy in the world, where do you live?
I guess your comment refers to China. Or as you people have been taught to say 'Red China' or 'Kammunist China'. China hasn't been communist since 1949. It was totalitarian which, as I am sure you realise, is not the same as communist. But, with an average GDP growth in excess of 9% (what's yours by the way?) and more capitalist investments in your country than you have in theirs, with a bouyant car industry and billionaires growing faster than you could possibly dream of, I guess whatever you call the system they must be doing something right.
No doubt you would wish to argue this. Before you do, just do a little research, there's a good puppet.
 
Lowaicue said:
Well I live in the freest economy in the world, where do you live?
I guess your comment refers to China. Or as you people have been taught to say 'Red China' or 'Kammunist China'. China hasn't been communist since 1949. It was totalitarian which, as I am sure you realise, is not the same as communist. But, with an average GDP growth in excess of 9% (what's yours by the way?) and more capitalist investments in your country than you have in theirs, with a bouyant car industry and billionaires growing faster than you could possibly dream of, I guess whatever you call the system they must be doing something right.
No doubt you would wish to argue this. Before you do, just do a little research, there's a good puppet.
Click to expand...

Now. it's not communist, it's openly fascist totalitarian. this is not an improvement, you hideous fascist.
 
And Lowaicu, how can an economy be free. People can be free, but economies are not sentient beings. I guess you knew saying the people were free was an absurdity.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
tell that to the scots and irish
Click to expand...

I really am very sorry. I have misjudged you. The only people I have ever met who are as generally ignorant as you have been too young to have their own computers.
I suggest you go your own way, believe whatever you like, retake Primary Three and come back when your teacher says you are ready. Good luck.
 
Lowaicue said:
I really am very sorry. I have misjudged you. The only people I have ever met who are as generally ignorant as you have been too young to have their own computers.
I suggest you go your own way, believe whatever you like, retake Primary Three and come back when your teacher says you are ready. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Lowaicu, you are obviously a moronic cretin.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Well. you'll be enlightened to know that the only real difference between the feudalism you abhor and modern governments is centralization.
Click to expand...
And hence my argument against a strong centralized government and/or the over application of such. Again, please actually read the thread so that you don't appear to be so incapable of actual comprehension.

What I argue against is the extremes on both sides. At least you now admit that your idea to rid the world of the current government would be as stupid idea that would bring just more direct force to bear on people. You "disagree" with no merit, we have seen such feudal forms of government form in modern history under the conditions you profess to prefer.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And Lowaicu, how can an economy be free. People can be free, but economies are not sentient beings. I guess you knew saying the people were free was an absurdity.
Click to expand...

Look, It is time I went to bed. I really cannot be bothered with this nonsense.
Economies are assessed on a world scale from freest to least free. Hong Kong's economy is the freest. That means there are fewer trade restrictions than in other countries. It means that it is easier to start and run a business than it is in other countries. It means that tax laws are simpler and the amount of tax paid is less than other countries. But, again, don't take my word for it. Google it.

Note to other Americans: Do you really have people in your country as stupid as this? (Not including Bush, of course)
 
Damocles said:
And hence my argument against a strong centralized government and/or the over application of such. Again, please actually read the thread so that you don't appear to be so incapable of actual comprehension.

What I argue against is the extremes on both sides. At least you now admit that your idea to rid the world of the current government would be as stupid idea that would bring just more direct force to bear on people.
Click to expand...

I didn't admit to such a thing.

And you said it was a strawman argument when I initially brought up centralization. Absurdity begets absurdity. Back atcha. I never claimed shit about what you believe. You're over your head with me, as usual.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I didn't admit to such a thing.

And you said it was a strawman argument when I initially brought up centralization. Absurdity begets absurdity. Back atcha. I never claimed shit about what you believe. You're over your head with me, as usual.
Click to expand...
You admit that feudal forms of government are as restrictive as strong central government, we see in modern history the formation of such governments in the absence of all government, and then you go off into tangents of impossibility and feats of inanity that bear no remarkable match.

The only absurdity is the pretense that "no government at all" is something that will ever be maintained. Bad people with guns will quickly make you into their serf and you'll be wishing for what you had in no time. While we need to work to decentralize the government except for national protection, we still need to maintain the maximum freedom of the individual which is never obtained under the conditions you hope to obtain.
 
Damocles said:
You admit that feudal forms of government are as restrictive as strong central government, we see in modern history the formation of such governments in the absence of all government, and then you go off into tangents of impossibility and feats of inanity that bear no remarkable match.

The only absurdity is the pretense that "no government at all" is something that will ever be maintained. Bad people with guns will quickly make you into their serf.
Click to expand...

So you admit there's no difference as well. I would rather have feudal lords, competing for my allegiance against one another, than a centralized government so elitist that they don't need me at all, and just consider me fodder for the "population control" program.

Which tangent of impossibility or feat of inanity did I reference? I don't remember doing that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you admit there's no difference as well. I would rather have feudal lords, competing for my allegiance against one another, than a centralized government so elitist that they don't need me at all, and just consider me fodder for the "population control" program.

Which tangent of impossibility or feat of inanity did I reference? I don't remember doing that.
Click to expand...
I've said that both were restrictive and bad from the beginning. You again attempt to erect the same straw man to argue and still forget to clothe it. (Tangent)

The feat of inanity is the proclamation that "no government" will get you what you want, and the insistence of its validity against all evidence in past and modern history. Unless you propose you would somehow be one of the "warlords" (modern version of feudal Lord), your situation would be decidedly worse than it currently is once your goal had been met.

Now, can we get to speaking of how to change what we currently have to the best system to ensure the most personal freedoms, or do you again want to insist that the goal of no government at all is a noble one?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Wow. Damo's face is coated in my jizz. Fingerpaints!
Click to expand...
Please. You've been squeegeeing jizz off your face from your first post to your last in every conversation we've ever had. Shoot sometimes you beg for some from other posters within the same threads.
 
Damocles said:
Please. You've been squeegeeing jizz off your face from your first post to your last in every conversation we've ever had. Shoot sometimes you beg for some from other posters within the same threads.
Click to expand...

You got creamed here. First you say anarchy leads to feudalism, then you admit that's no different than what we have now. You're all over the map, defeated, demoralized, humiliated. Go weed the pumpkin patch, my minion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top