Fascism vs Socialism?

[PubliusInfinitum]

... Let the record reflect that what is typical; is that the opposition will respond, if they respond at all; with empty cliches and meaningless platitudes... they will not address that argument, but will flourish in distractions of every conceivable variety.

Pub - have you thought of checking with your doc to see if you have OCD?

ROFL... So YOU couldn't muster the intellectual steam to sit and concentrate through 15 succinct paragraphs of soundly reasoned argument; and you felt compelled to diffuse that inadequacy through humor, projecting that the author who advanced the work as presenting, symptomatic of OCD.

Now, THAT is Fascinatin'...

Tell me Diur, do you feel good about having done so? Or are the feelings of inadequacy echoing; drawing you back to point where you intentionally avoided the argument; which you simply find almost, if not impossible, to consider... digging that inadequacy farther into the abyss that is your soul?

Try fighting the feelings that tear away at you to ignore this and invest one minute considering it.. forcing the fleeting thoughts of 'what's for dinner' from your consciousness... to actually consider the point before you.

Perhaps you could pretend that this is E-TV; and the argument is a segment regarding the current status of Michael Jackson: deceased Pop Icon. Or perhaps... a commercial which would no doubt pique your interests: say... the newest in Pop-multitasking: Massengill Condoms... 'Solving two problems, in one thrust...'

 

[garyd]

All anarchies in history have reverted to authoritarianism within a few scant years. It is in the in the nature of the human animal that politics requires a more solid physical manifistation than is possible in anything you could legitimately reference as an anarchy. In any true anarchy capitalism will always become the economic mechanism of choice simply becuase it is the natural, normal way in which human beings relate to each other finanacially.

Adam Smith did not create a new economic order any more than Darwin created a new natural order both merely defined what - as they saw it - had always been. In the case of Adam Smith it had existed since cave man Joe discovered that he was a lousy hunter but could make the best flint tools in the tribe and reached an agreement with caveman Jim the best hunter in the tribe but the worst flint knapper to exchange flints for meat.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

All anarchies in history have reverted to authoritarianism within a few scant years. It is in the in the nature of the human animal that politics requires a more solid physical manifistation than is possible in anything you could legitimately reference as an anarchy. In any true anarchy capitalism will always become the economic mechanism of choice simply becuase it is the natural, normal way in which human beings relate to each other finanacially.

Adam Smith did not create a new economic order any more than Darwin created a new natural order both merely defined what - as they saw it - had always been. In the case of Adam Smith it had existed since cave man Joe discovered that he was a lousy hunter but could make the best flint tools in the tribe and reached an agreement with caveman Jim the best hunter in the tribe but the worst flint knapper to exchange flints for meat.

Very true... but anarchism is SUCH idiocy...

Anarchy exists only in tiny, temporal moments... as the moment that such comes to pass and two or more gather to 'establish the rules'... Anarchy is OVER; and it becomes whatever form the rules lay down.

I mean in effect, Anarchists will tell you that Anarchy is: "Anyone can do anything anyone wants." But look what happens when they complete the thought: "... and no one can stop them..." OOooops... A rule has popped up.

Now... what if someone tries to stop another? What to do then? And so it goes... with anarchy floundering into authoritarianism.

ROFLMNAO... it's just so funny. Little brown anarchists running up and down some urban street, busting windowns, turning over and burning cars... DEMANDING a new order... But... without order... and THAT's NOT NEGOTIABLE! RULES! So many rules...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Is it not hilarious how the interests in this issue, has evaporated in the would-be advocates of Socialist academic pedanti-cism?

ROFL... funny stuff.

 

[Contumacious]

"Anyone can do anything anyone wants." But look what happens when they complete the thought: "... and no one can stop them..." OOooops... A rule has popped up. Now... what if someone tries to stop another? What to do then? And so it goes... with anarchy floundering into authoritarianism..

* Main Entry: an·ar·chy
* Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
* Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature &#8212; Israel Shenker>
3 : anarchism

Over 200 years ago the Founding Fathers attempted to establish a government to secure the rights of the individuals. The Federal Government was supposed to have only those rights SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED by the Constitution.

What do we have now? A government populated by criminal thugs who can do whatever the fuck they want to do whenever they want to do it.

Is that better than anarchy?

Anarchism has rules, you can not do whatever you want - if you violate my rights I will use my Mossberg 590.

Under the present anarchism the ruling elite invaded the Davidians compound and got away with murder.


.

 

[Diuretic]

... Let the record reflect that what is typical; is that the opposition will respond, if they respond at all; with empty cliches and meaningless platitudes... they will not address that argument, but will flourish in distractions of every conceivable variety.

Pub - have you thought of checking with your doc to see if you have OCD?

ROFL... So YOU couldn't muster the intellectual steam to sit and concentrate through 15 succinct paragraphs of soundly reasoned argument; and you felt compelled to diffuse that inadequacy through humor, projecting that the author who advanced the work as presenting, symptomatic of OCD.

Now, THAT is Fascinatin'...

Tell me Diur, do you feel good about having done so? Or are the feelings of inadequacy echoing; drawing you back to point where you intentionally avoided the argument; which you simply find almost, if not impossible, to consider... digging that inadequacy farther into the abyss that is your soul?

Try fighting the feelings that tear away at you to ignore this and invest one minute considering it.. forcing the fleeting thoughts of 'what's for dinner' from your consciousness... to actually consider the point before you.

Perhaps you could pretend that this is E-TV; and the argument is a segment regarding the current status of Michael Jackson: deceased Pop Icon. Or perhaps... a commercial which would no doubt pique your interests: say... the newest in Pop-multitasking: Massengill Condoms... 'Solving two problems, in one thrust...'

No, I just find your posts - usually - so bereft of a constant argument that I give them only a cursory glance. Maybe if you used dot points it would be clearer. You need to discipline your thinking Pub, make your point, provide your argument and refrain from babbling.

 

[Diuretic]

All anarchies in history have reverted to authoritarianism within a few scant years. It is in the in the nature of the human animal that politics requires a more solid physical manifistation than is possible in anything you could legitimately reference as an anarchy. In any true anarchy capitalism will always become the economic mechanism of choice simply becuase it is the natural, normal way in which human beings relate to each other finanacially.

Adam Smith did not create a new economic order any more than Darwin created a new natural order both merely defined what - as they saw it - had always been. In the case of Adam Smith it had existed since cave man Joe discovered that he was a lousy hunter but could make the best flint tools in the tribe and reached an agreement with caveman Jim the best hunter in the tribe but the worst flint knapper to exchange flints for meat.

Division of labour? That's a social arrangement, a human invention, just like everything else we do. All our economic systems were/are human inventions and each one when it was in place as the orthodox economic form was considered natural. Capitalism is, to date, the most effective economic form humans have invented. But it has been altered by other social forces since Adam Smith identified the process. It had endured but it has changed its form to ensure endurance. Being susceptible to social forces shows that it's an invented form of behaviour, not a natural, innate form of behaviour.

 

[Diuretic]

Anarchism has bad press because it's a complex theory with many offshoots. I'm not knowledgeable about it, I know enough to know I don't know enough, but it seems to me that a post-industrial, post-technological age anarchist society (not it's not an oxymoron) isn't going to look like anything we're familiar with. And I know a future claim is worth nothing because it can't be tested so I'll admit it's pure speculation on my part.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. I do enjoy reading/listening to people who can explain it in terms of its operation by and on humans, its social context. That I get. Two blokes who are very good at this I like to read a lot are Ross Gittins who writes occasionally in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au) and Peter Martin Peter Martin - obviously both firmly in the Australian context but informative nonetheless.

And primary interests - adult education, educational psychology, sociology, criminology and some aspects of philosophy. I'm focusing on adult education and educational psychology now though, the others will have to wait.

"Economics is beyond my understanding. I am hopeless with anything based on numbers. ..."

ROFLMNAO... Numbers my ass... this isn't an issue of math.. its PRINCIPLE... which, sadly, is a concept that you've demonstrated you've no means to comprehend either...

Which leaves one to question just what the hell it is you ARE capable of understanding...

Is this how you inflate your insecure little ego?

By pompously bullying someone who sincerely admits to a lack of understanding on a subject?

What a small way to make yourself feel big.

ROFLMNAO...

Idiocy is idiocy... that I note it, doesn't make it less so, nor does it inflate anything on my end... with 'ego' being no exception.

There is nothing reasonable about Marxism... this is the early 21st century... not the 20th...

The mysteries regarding the potential viability of such have long since been discredited; at the expense of two world wars, the destruction of entire cultures and hundreds of millions of human beings; most of which were incapable of understanding any of it...

 

[JakeStarkey]

And PI clearly does not understand it.

Let's move on.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Anarchism has bad press because it's a complex theory with many offshoots. I'm not knowledgeable about it, I know enough to know I don't know enough, but it seems to me that a post-industrial, post-technological age anarchist society (not it's not an oxymoron) isn't going to look like anything we're familiar with. And I know a future claim is worth nothing because it can't be tested so I'll admit it's pure speculation on my part.

That some idiocy has many 'offshoots' doesn't make it complex... and anarchism is no exception...

Anarchism is the desire of every child, who in the comfort of the life that their parents provide them; wherein they enjoy the securty which is inherent in that lifestyle, they long for more freedom... they imagine themselves the masters of their own destiny, blah, blah, blah...

And in so doing they reject the moorings of their parents rules; they reject civil authority and as a result play out these little fantasies, wherein there are no rules.

No matter how one rationalzies it; without regard for the various idiots how have posed various anarchist philosophies... it all boils down to the same tired assed, irrational nonsense... It's a farce... it's not a sustainable premise and it cannot work, because SOMEONE will always rise to the top and the FIRST order of business is that person sets the freakin' RULES! Whereupon Anarchy has come to a predictable end.

PERIOD!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

All anarchies in history have reverted to authoritarianism within a few scant years. It is in the in the nature of the human animal that politics requires a more solid physical manifistation than is possible in anything you could legitimately reference as an anarchy. In any true anarchy capitalism will always become the economic mechanism of choice simply becuase it is the natural, normal way in which human beings relate to each other finanacially.

Adam Smith did not create a new economic order any more than Darwin created a new natural order both merely defined what - as they saw it - had always been. In the case of Adam Smith it had existed since cave man Joe discovered that he was a lousy hunter but could make the best flint tools in the tribe and reached an agreement with caveman Jim the best hunter in the tribe but the worst flint knapper to exchange flints for meat.

Division of labour? That's a social arrangement, a human invention, just like everything else we do. All our economic systems were/are human inventions and each one when it was in place as the orthodox economic form was considered natural. Capitalism is, to date, the most effective economic form humans have invented. But it has been altered by other social forces since Adam Smith identified the process. It had endured but it has changed its form to ensure endurance. Being susceptible to social forces shows that it's an invented form of behaviour, not a natural, innate form of behaviour.

ROFLMNAO...

Again the secular humanist comes to proclaim that HUMANITY REIGNS SUPREME...

And what's this lofty thinkin' resting upon? Why NO ONE ELSE IS TAKING THE CREDIT... So, it's just gotta be so...

In truth... Capitalism is not an invention... it is a natural process. Breathing is the most effective means of getting the necessary gasses into the blood-stream... Humans do it, but human's didn't invent it. Same with freely trading goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties... OKA: Capitalism; it's the natural process by which individuals interact; trading to their mutual interests. That such is suscetiple to other considerations is also natural, and that such is the case doesn't add complexity to the equation, it simply changes the equation relevant to the new considerations.

Such only becomes 'complex' when one desires to ignore the natural forces; for the purposes of shoving their responsibility onto someone else; whereupon the natural processes simply require that wherever the responsibility goes, so goes the freedom... They don't LIKE that answer, so they stand back, scratch their aching noggin's and declare the otherwise ELEMENTARY calculation to be "HIGHLY COMPLEX"... in a vain attempt to explain their failure to do so.

They're idiots... and it's just no more complex, than that.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub - have you thought of checking with your doc to see if you have OCD?

ROFL... So YOU couldn't muster the intellectual steam to sit and concentrate through 15 succinct paragraphs of soundly reasoned argument; and you felt compelled to diffuse that inadequacy through humor, projecting that the author who advanced the work as presenting, symptomatic of OCD.

Now, THAT is Fascinatin'...

Tell me Diur, do you feel good about having done so? Or are the feelings of inadequacy echoing; drawing you back to point where you intentionally avoided the argument; which you simply find almost, if not impossible, to consider... digging that inadequacy farther into the abyss that is your soul?

Try fighting the feelings that tear away at you to ignore this and invest one minute considering it.. forcing the fleeting thoughts of 'what's for dinner' from your consciousness... to actually consider the point before you.

Perhaps you could pretend that this is E-TV; and the argument is a segment regarding the current status of Michael Jackson: deceased Pop Icon. Or perhaps... a commercial which would no doubt pique your interests: say... the newest in Pop-multitasking: Massengill Condoms... 'Solving two problems, in one thrust...'

No, I just find your posts - usually - so bereft of a constant argument that I give them only a cursory glance. Maybe if you used dot points it would be clearer. You need to discipline your thinking Pub, make your point, provide your argument and refrain from babbling.

ROFLMNAO... well that's not only baseless, it's wholly devoid of sound reasoning; but it serves your needs... which is to avoid the argument; such is the nature of the sub-par intelllect.

You're doing the best ya can Duir... and I'd call it "high performance" for an Australian...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFL... So YOU couldn't muster the intellectual steam to sit and concentrate through 15 succinct paragraphs of soundly reasoned argument; and you felt compelled to diffuse that inadequacy through humor, projecting that the author who advanced the work as presenting, symptomatic of OCD.

Now, THAT is Fascinatin'...

Tell me Diur, do you feel good about having done so? Or are the feelings of inadequacy echoing; drawing you back to point where you intentionally avoided the argument; which you simply find almost, if not impossible, to consider... digging that inadequacy farther into the abyss that is your soul?

Try fighting the feelings that tear away at you to ignore this and invest one minute considering it.. forcing the fleeting thoughts of 'what's for dinner' from your consciousness... to actually consider the point before you.

Perhaps you could pretend that this is E-TV; and the argument is a segment regarding the current status of Michael Jackson: deceased Pop Icon. Or perhaps... a commercial which would no doubt pique your interests: say... the newest in Pop-multitasking: Massengill Condoms... 'Solving two problems, in one thrust...'

No, I just find your posts - usually - so bereft of a constant argument that I give them only a cursory glance. Maybe if you used dot points it would be clearer. You need to discipline your thinking Pub, make your point, provide your argument and refrain from babbling.

ROFLMNAO... well that's not only baseless, it's wholly devoid of sound reasoning; but it serves your needs... which is to avoid the argument; such is the nature of the sub-par intelllect.

You're doing the best ya can Duir... and I'd call it "high performance" for an Australian...

ROFLMNAO... Now the Left would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument to contest this post...

Sadly, due to a distinct absence of options, they opted instead to chose to send someone whose rep-power more resembles their ass... to 'sit on it...' so to speak. Thus for the 5th time in two weeks I've realized ANOTHER 150 POINT NEG-REP slam to my meager rep status from this Critical, Unfit, Neg-reppin' Thug… this time, in a delicious irony, wherein she proclaims the above position to be “BIGOTRY”…

But hey… what goes around comes around and in my experience when one tends to abuse their rights, they tend to have their rights abused. Often when someone abuses their Neg-reps… such as Ravi is prone to do, one can expect to see herself subjected to the same.

Now I would caution those who find Ravi’s ‘tude and her tendency towards using her rep-means to control the dialogue of the board, to consider the potential ramifications of Neg-reppin' Ravi… She carries a TON of Neg-reppin’ ass… which serves reason, as it matches her pants… but where one stands up and courageously neg-reps one of substantial means, one can expect to have her means turned on you. Which is of course the point, now isn’t it?

So be careful… perhaps it’s better to live comfortably under the considerable weight of an addle-minded Rep-tyrant… than to stand up and bust her ample ass with as much of her own medicine as can be administered… BUT! The decision is personal… its just one thru which one’s character is determined.

I caution the board's American member's of substantial Rep-means from Neg-reppin' this individual... She clearly considers board Reputation to be an indication of truth... Meaning that she feels entitled to use her means to shape the opinions presented on this board; and to knock her considerable rep-means down would be a serious blow to her fragile ego... plus she's prone to run to the admin and tattle... which demonstrates her natural tendency towards irony.

 

[Diuretic]

Now you're responding to your own babble. Definitely OCD. Get checked out.

 

[paperview]

Now you're responding to your own babble. Definitely OCD. Get checked out.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

No, I just find your posts - usually - so bereft of a constant argument that I give them only a cursory glance. Maybe if you used dot points it would be clearer. You need to discipline your thinking Pub, make your point, provide your argument and refrain from babbling.

ROFLMNAO... well that's not only baseless, it's wholly devoid of sound reasoning; but it serves your needs... which is to avoid the argument; such is the nature of the sub-par intelllect.

You're doing the best ya can Duir... and I'd call it "high performance" for an Australian...

ROFLMNAO... Now the Left would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument to contest this post...

Sadly, due to a distinct absence of options, they opted instead to chose to send someone whose rep-power more resembles their ass... to 'sit on it...' so to speak. Thus for the 5th time in two weeks I've realized ANOTHER 150 POINT NEG-REP slam to my meager rep status from this Critical, Unfit, Neg-reppin' Thug&#8230; this time, in a delicious irony, wherein she proclaims the above position to be &#8220;BIGOTRY&#8221;&#8230;

But hey&#8230; what goes around comes around and in my experience when one tends to abuse their rights, they tend to have their rights abused. Often when someone abuses their Neg-reps&#8230; such as Ravi is prone to do, one can expect to see herself subjected to the same.

Now I would caution those who find Ravi&#8217;s &#8216;tude and her tendency towards using her rep-means to control the dialogue of the board, to consider the potential ramifications of Neg-reppin' Ravi&#8230; She carries a TON of Neg-reppin&#8217; ass&#8230; which serves reason, as it matches her pants&#8230; but where one stands up and courageously neg-reps one of substantial means, one can expect to have her means turned on you. Which is of course the point, now isn&#8217;t it?

So be careful&#8230; perhaps it&#8217;s better to live comfortably under the considerable weight of an addle-minded Rep-tyrant&#8230; than to stand up and bust her ample ass with as much of her own medicine as can be administered&#8230; BUT! The decision is personal&#8230; its just one thru which one&#8217;s character is determined.

I caution the board's American member's of substantial Rep-means from Neg-reppin' this individual... She clearly considers board Reputation to be an indication of truth... Meaning that she feels entitled to use her means to shape the opinions presented on this board; and to knock her considerable rep-means down would be a serious blow to her fragile ego... plus she's prone to run to the admin and tattle... which demonstrates her natural tendency towards irony.

Now you're responding to your own babble. Definitely OCD. Get checked out.

Am I? The record indicates that despite the baseless assertion you advance here, what I was doing, was responding to the opposition's (You and the others advancing the feelings common to irrational females...) failure to engage the argument; and more specifically, choosing to do so through an overt abuse of the boards Reputation system.

But I appreciate you and our inhouse faux-barrister,Jillian; coming to underscore the cogency of my argument, through the above farce; your most recent obfuscation.

Spot on!

Clearly my argument stands on it's own merit, but it never hurts to have a cooperative demonstration by the subject...

 

[Diuretic]

I'm afraid your verbose prose clouds the argument Pub. I'm sure you believe you've made an argument but I suspect that while that argument is formed in your mind it isn't clear in the prolixity of your prose.