A Lesson on Socialism

Damocles said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sometimes just hitting the reset button is a good thing. Our government now is immune from real change from within the legal framework.


Please discontinue your haughtiness, you just aren't all that.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Sometimes just hitting the reset button is a good thing. Our government now is immune from real change from within the legal framework.


Please discontinue your haughtiness, you just aren't all that.
Click to expand...
That isn't the goal of no government, it is a goal of creating a new one. You argue against yourself now. You've been over matched from your first cry for "no government", and have tried to play a game of catch up since.

So you believe that the only way to improve what we have would be to overthrow it and start over with a whole new AHZ approved system of government? (Note how much that doesn't sound like "no government" anymore... good, you show growth in a conversation and an ability to admit weakness in your own argument that you have heretofore never shown. Now getting you to state, "well let me restate what I really meant" before you do it... baby steps.)
 
Damocles said:
That isn't the goal of no government, it is a goal of creating a new one. You argue against yourself now. You've been over matched from your first cry for "no government", and have tried to play a game of catch up since.

So you believe that the only way to improve what we have would be to overthrow it and start over with a whole new AHZ approved system of government? (Note how much that doesn't sound like "no government" anymore... good, you show growth in a conversation and an ability to admit weakness in your own argument that you have heretofore never shown. Now getting you to state, "well let me restate what I really meant" before you do it... baby steps.)
Click to expand...

You're all strawmen now, booby. Hilariously so.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're all strawmen now, booby. Hilariously so.
Click to expand...
Except I'm not. (You are regressing, this is the "I know you are but what am I?" argument of a person much younger than a teenager.)

You stated you wanted to hit reset. Which form of government would you use to replace this one?
 
Damocles said:
Except I'm not. (You are regressing, this is the "I know you are but what am I?" argument of a person much younger than a teenager.)

You stated you wanted to hit reset. Which form of government would you use to replace this one?
Click to expand...

Except you are.

And the new form of government is not up to me. It may be feudalism for several hundred years. That's preferable to the monstrousity we're in now, where we will be taxed to carry out the basic carbon chemistry of life.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Except you are.

And the new form of government is not up to me. It may be feudalism for several hundred years. That's preferable to the monstrousity we're in now, where we will be taxed to carry out the basic carbon chemistry of life.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. You take responsibility for the destruction, but seek none and then say the results would be better. According to whom? The new serf owned and kept by those stronger?

I disagree with the intent to replace the government with nothing at all thus ensuring centuries of strong government in the form of the strong owning the weak. The goal should never just be to drive humans backwards.
 
Damocles said:
That's interesting. You take responsibility for the destruction, but seek none and then say the results would be better. According to whom? The new serf owned and kept by those stronger?

I disagree with the intent to replace the government with nothing at all thus ensuring centuries of strong government in the form of the strong owning the weak. The goal should never just be to drive humans backwards.
Click to expand...

You mistake centralization for progress.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I know the fear of chaos is not as secure as the certainty of totalitarianism, but please be brave.
Click to expand...
I know the feeling of safety brought on by ignorance makes you feel "brave" but it really is just inanity. Even the founders of the nation began with a plan, a thought of something new that would better allow men to live in a state of freedom that was previously non-existent. Have those freedoms been whittled away over time? Yes. We agree there. Where we disagree is the assumption that only destruction is good.

It is easy, not "brave", to put others under the boot heel of those stronger than they are.
 
Damocles said:
I know the feeling of safety brought on by ignorance makes you feel "brave" but it really is just inanity. Even the founders of the nation began with a plan, a thought of something new that would better allow men to live in a state of freedom that was previously non-existent. Have those freedoms been whittled away over time? Yes. We agree there. Where we disagree is the assumption that only destruction is good.

It is easy, not "brave", to put others under the boot heel of those stronger than they are.
Click to expand...

Maybe guys that that would come along again.

Again you retreat to name calling and unwarranted haughtiness.

There is also the possibility of nicer feudal warlords who will believe in individual rights, and seek to conquer the other warlords and implement those policies which may have mass appeal. maybe freedom could work the next time around.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Maybe guys that that would come along again.

Again you retreat to name calling and unwarranted haughtiness.

There is also the possibility of nicer feudal warlords who will believe in individual rights, and seek to conquer the other warlords and implement those policies which may have mass appeal. maybe freedom could work the next time around.
Click to expand...
Maybe they would. I'd prefer that if such destruction were applied that guys like that would be found previous to the implementation, not just a "perhaps".

It's like suicide, a selfish and weak act. It may take a foolish "courage" to do it, but it is never really a solution and it almost always takes real courage and personal strength to actually face your problems and conquer them.

As for "name calling"... please. matching the tone and pointing out your fallacies is not "name calling", if you feel as if you've been splooged on, that is because you have.
 
Damocles said:
Maybe they would. I'd prefer that if such destruction were applied that guys like that would be found previous to the implementation, not just a "perhaps".

It's like suicide, a selfish and weak act. It may take a foolish "courage" to do it, but it is never really a solution and it almost always takes real courage and personal strength to actually face your problems and conquer them.

As for "name calling"... please. matching the tone and pointing out your fallacies is not "name calling", if you feel as if you've been splooged on, that is because you have.
Click to expand...

Guys like that are considered thought criminals these days. SO it can never happen, they will never be allowed to organize until the current system is torn asunder.

And you are a name caller.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Guys like that are considered thought criminals these days. SO it can never happen, they will never be allowed to organize until the current system is torn asunder.

And you are a name caller.
Click to expand...
lol. I never knew you would cry so much. Similes are not the same as name calling.

For example.

Saying that arguing with you is like arguing with a teenager, simply notes something that arguing with you reminds me of and does nothing about calling you a name. Saying that something you have said is inane is not calling you a name, either.

If you feel "beat up" in the thread it is because you sucked at arguing, not because somebody called you a poopie-head.
 
Damocles said:
lol. I never knew you would cry so much. Similes are not the same as name calling.

For example.

Saying that arguing with you is like arguing with a teenager, simply notes something that arguing with you reminds me of and does nothing about calling you a name. Saying that something you have said is inane is not calling you a name, either.

If you feel "beat up" in the thread it is because you sucked at arguing, not because somebody called you a poopie-head.
Click to expand...

No tears here, johnson and johnson.

But you are a name caller.
 
apple0154 said:
Your reply reminded me of a conversation I had with my brother when I was 7 years old.

After having mastered addition and subtraction in grade one I felt ready to take on the world. A month or so after entering grade two the teacher introduced multiplication.

Multiplication!!?? What the hell....

Anyway, when I arrived home I asked my older brother just what the scoop was. "What's with this arithmetic, anyway? There's addition and subtraction and, now, multiplication. Is there anything else I should know about", I asked.

I recall the crushing feeling as he mentioned grade three introduced division.

"Di....what? Why would one need to learn a way to find out how many 3's in 9? They must already know if they have 9. If you have 9 cookies simply make piles of three and see how many piles you have.

That's not the best part, he went on to explain. "In grade four you have "X" and you don't even know what "X" is. Instead of three cookies you have "X" cookies."

Well, his conversation sounded just like :blah: :viol: :blah: :viol: :blah: :viol: :blah: but you know what? When I got to grade three and grade four it all made sense.

In time, what I'm telling you, Freedom, will make sense. I realize it's all new to you. How can a society function if people are not out there grabbing every dollar they can, right? It doesn't make sense to you, at this time. But it will.
Click to expand...

:bs:
 
apple0154 said:
In time, what I'm telling you, Freedom, will make sense. I realize it's all new to you. How can a society function if people are not out there grabbing every dollar they can, right? It doesn't make sense to you, at this time. But it will.
Click to expand...

My friend, under normal circumstances and with anybody else, you would probably be correct, but in this instance, what you are asking for is hopeless.
 
"One centralized government seems like a great idea at first, but when that government turns against the people as it is now, it's power is absolute, and the people are caught off guard and have no recourse."

The government is not turning against the people. It is helping the people. Obama is not raising taxes so he can build a bigger home for himself. He’s raising, or will raise, taxes so others have access to medical care.

I think some people confuse freedom with money. Let's say I have $100 and one government, we'll call them the Repubs, takes $20 and the other form of government, we'll call them Dems, takes $40 it does not mean I am more free under the Repubs if I can not afford medical services under the Repub government.

It does not mean women are more free if they are able to keep $80 instead of $60 if they are denied the right to an abortion. It does not mean the people who are permitted to retain more of their money are better off if their government does not support stem cell research or lowers education costs so it's affordable to all.

Less restrictions coupled with unfettered access to life's necessities is what freedom is all about.


AssHatZombie said:
I disagree. One centralized government seems like a great idea at first, but when that government turns against the people as it is now, it's power is absolute, and the people are caught off guard and have no recourse.

Our hierarchical and centralized societies merely facilitate a new class of elitists who's full time job is figuring out ways to further enslave the people, while making it legal and brainwashing them into acceptance at the same time. This is the kind of "advancement" we can do without.

If these people were more down in the muck and mire with the rest of us, actually NEEDING our alliance for their own survival, our totalitarianism would not be as complete.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top