Laid Off

[Osomir]

Under a state without tyranny of the majority, slavery reigned supreme. Also, to address your other point, anarchism assumes the capitalist modes of production are already set up, along with a educated society that has already industrialized.

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

 

[Marxist]

Under a state without tyranny of the majority, slavery reigned supreme. Also, to address your other point, anarchism assumes the capitalist modes of production are already set up, along with a educated society that has already industrialized.

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?
Karl Marx referred to this as the way society evolves, and I am not necessarily opposed, I just hate how the laborers are underpaid, In horrible conditions, and that these countries are purposefully exploited.

 

[Osomir]

Under a state without tyranny of the majority, slavery reigned supreme. Also, to address your other point, anarchism assumes the capitalist modes of production are already set up, along with a educated society that has already industrialized.

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

 

[Marxist]

Under a state without tyranny of the majority, slavery reigned supreme. Also, to address your other point, anarchism assumes the capitalist modes of production are already set up, along with a educated society that has already industrialized.

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

 

[Osomir]

Under a state without tyranny of the majority, slavery reigned supreme. Also, to address your other point, anarchism assumes the capitalist modes of production are already set up, along with a educated society that has already industrialized.

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

Sure I have.

 

[initforme]

In the end he's better off without theta company as it is obviously a poorly run company and there is no argument against that. He can do ALOT alot better than that company. Too bad he couldn't have just got up, walked out, and quit. No notice nothing. It is exhilarating. One of the best days of my life other than my kids being born, walking out on two jobs without telling anyone. I advise anyone that can to secure a better job and don't show up for the old one. Awesome experience.

 

[Marxist]

Under a state without tyranny of the majority, slavery reigned supreme. Also, to address your other point, anarchism assumes the capitalist modes of production are already set up, along with a educated society that has already industrialized.

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

Sure I have.

Then tell me how it didn't protect minorities. Oh wait..

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, good God, the melodramatic feelz! "My boss doesn't care about me! *sob, sob*" When did we start thinking life was about everyone giving us snuggles, for crissakes?

Why can't life be about everyone working together and caring about each other?

It is, dear, but not the way you mean it. The "everyone" that most people work with and care about would be the small circle around them that they've chosen to share their lives with (friends and family), and if there's time and energy left over, those people and causes outside their circle that particularly resonate with them. Humans aren't built to be altruistic all the time and across the board, nor do I find any reason to believe that you are smarter and wiser in your personal design specs than Mother Nature is.

I will never understand why leftists think it's their job to "improve" fundamental human nature, or even that it's possible.

Assume human nature under capitalism has always been human nature and you have your argument. -.-

Capitalism doesn't form human nature. Human nature forms capitalism. Contemplate the nature of cause and effect, and stop confusing them.

Utter bullshit, and you know it is. Capitalism came about after feudalism..

Which accomplishes the job of refuting my point how?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, good God, the melodramatic feelz! "My boss doesn't care about me! *sob, sob*" When did we start thinking life was about everyone giving us snuggles, for crissakes?

Why can't life be about everyone working together and caring about each other?

It is, dear, but not the way you mean it. The "everyone" that most people work with and care about would be the small circle around them that they've chosen to share their lives with (friends and family), and if there's time and energy left over, those people and causes outside their circle that particularly resonate with them. Humans aren't built to be altruistic all the time and across the board, nor do I find any reason to believe that you are smarter and wiser in your personal design specs than Mother Nature is.

I will never understand why leftists think it's their job to "improve" fundamental human nature, or even that it's possible.

Assume human nature under capitalism has always been human nature and you have your argument. -.-

Capitalism doesn't form human nature. Human nature forms capitalism. Contemplate the nature of cause and effect, and stop confusing them.

Humans existed for thousands of years without the concept of any economic system or private ownership of production. LOL. Capitalism just pushes forward the worst parts of humanity.

But amazingly, humans still managed to have the basic concepts that capitalism addresses: self-interest and -preservation, and personal property. These have always been intrinsic to human nature, which is exactly why I say that the economic system of capitalism does not form human nature. Human nature formed the economic system.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Osomir]

1.) We don't have slavery in such a state anymore because of constitutionalism and our Bill of Rights which we can update as needed. Anarchy doesn't have that security for minorities. It is far more arbitrary and in the moment based (once again emotive discourse over reason). We have seen this happen time and again in areas without effective state control.

2.) Why can't your society (if it works so well) build a means of production and education on its own? If you need capitalism to get started doesn't that rather point to a heavy flaw in your system? and if we need capitalistic development in order to get to your end product then why are you so opposed to capitalistic style development in developing countries?

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

Sure I have.

Then tell me how it didn't protect minorities. Oh wait..

It didn't survive long enough to be tested.

 

[Marxist]

Why can't life be about everyone working together and caring about each other?

It is, dear, but not the way you mean it. The "everyone" that most people work with and care about would be the small circle around them that they've chosen to share their lives with (friends and family), and if there's time and energy left over, those people and causes outside their circle that particularly resonate with them. Humans aren't built to be altruistic all the time and across the board, nor do I find any reason to believe that you are smarter and wiser in your personal design specs than Mother Nature is.

I will never understand why leftists think it's their job to "improve" fundamental human nature, or even that it's possible.

Assume human nature under capitalism has always been human nature and you have your argument. -.-

Capitalism doesn't form human nature. Human nature forms capitalism. Contemplate the nature of cause and effect, and stop confusing them.

Utter bullshit, and you know it is. Capitalism came about after feudalism..

Which accomplishes the job of refuting my point how?

Actually, Marx wrote about how society evolves through different stages to eventually reach communism, but the concept of human nature is a funny one, it's not human nature to be capitalists.

 

[Marxist]

Why can't life be about everyone working together and caring about each other?

It is, dear, but not the way you mean it. The "everyone" that most people work with and care about would be the small circle around them that they've chosen to share their lives with (friends and family), and if there's time and energy left over, those people and causes outside their circle that particularly resonate with them. Humans aren't built to be altruistic all the time and across the board, nor do I find any reason to believe that you are smarter and wiser in your personal design specs than Mother Nature is.

I will never understand why leftists think it's their job to "improve" fundamental human nature, or even that it's possible.

Assume human nature under capitalism has always been human nature and you have your argument. -.-

Capitalism doesn't form human nature. Human nature forms capitalism. Contemplate the nature of cause and effect, and stop confusing them.

Humans existed for thousands of years without the concept of any economic system or private ownership of production. LOL. Capitalism just pushes forward the worst parts of humanity.

But amazingly, humans still managed to have the basic concepts that capitalism addresses: self-interest and -preservation, and personal property. These have always been intrinsic to human nature, which is exactly why I say that the economic system of capitalism does not form human nature. Human nature formed the economic system.

Thank you for proving my point.

You're lying yet again. Humans have existed before without the concept of personal property, and human nature also formed feudalism, I suppose, if you want to claim human nature is a static thing.

 

[Marxist]

You assume a sort of legal system wouldn't exist?

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

Sure I have.

Then tell me how it didn't protect minorities. Oh wait..

It didn't survive long enough to be tested.

Can you imagine if this same argument was made when people lived under feudalism?

 

[Osomir]

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

Sure I have.

Then tell me how it didn't protect minorities. Oh wait..

It didn't survive long enough to be tested.

Can you imagine if this same argument was made when people lived under feudalism?

I don't need to, I've studied the eras and the early constitutional movements. They evolved very gradually out of constant warfare and conflict in Europe. It wasn't a giant civilizational leap that took place, but a slow evolution of governance despite the popularity of things like the US and French revolutions.

This is also one reason why I have been asking you for supporting evidence for some of your claims that exist within imperfect societies. That way you can demonstrate viability of them. If you can't support the viability of the individual variables that make up your overarching thesis you aren't going to attract many followers / supporters for your movement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is, dear, but not the way you mean it. The "everyone" that most people work with and care about would be the small circle around them that they've chosen to share their lives with (friends and family), and if there's time and energy left over, those people and causes outside their circle that particularly resonate with them. Humans aren't built to be altruistic all the time and across the board, nor do I find any reason to believe that you are smarter and wiser in your personal design specs than Mother Nature is.

I will never understand why leftists think it's their job to "improve" fundamental human nature, or even that it's possible.

Assume human nature under capitalism has always been human nature and you have your argument. -.-

Capitalism doesn't form human nature. Human nature forms capitalism. Contemplate the nature of cause and effect, and stop confusing them.

Utter bullshit, and you know it is. Capitalism came about after feudalism..

Which accomplishes the job of refuting my point how?

Actually, Marx wrote about how society evolves through different stages to eventually reach communism, but the concept of human nature is a funny one, it's not human nature to be capitalists.

And your evidence is that Marx theorized otherwise? Sorry, but the ability of someone to imagine things proves nothing except perhaps that he had too much time on his hands.

 

[defcon4]

I am assuming, based on past and current anarchy style legal systems that they would continue to operate as they have in the past and currently continue to operate: Arbitrarily and based on emotive discourse, and without adequate legal protections for minorities; thus far, you haven't presented me with any reason as to why I should expect something different under your system.

Then you haven't read into free Ukraine...

Sure I have.

Then tell me how it didn't protect minorities. Oh wait..

It didn't survive long enough to be tested.

Can you imagine if this same argument was made when people lived under feudalism?

If you lived under feudalism and could read and write you wouldn't give shit because you belonged to the nobility.
Serfs did not read and write notwithstanding debating governmental issues.

 

[defcon4]

Why can't life be about everyone working together and caring about each other?

It is, dear, but not the way you mean it. The "everyone" that most people work with and care about would be the small circle around them that they've chosen to share their lives with (friends and family), and if there's time and energy left over, those people and causes outside their circle that particularly resonate with them. Humans aren't built to be altruistic all the time and across the board, nor do I find any reason to believe that you are smarter and wiser in your personal design specs than Mother Nature is.

I will never understand why leftists think it's their job to "improve" fundamental human nature, or even that it's possible.

Assume human nature under capitalism has always been human nature and you have your argument. -.-

Capitalism doesn't form human nature. Human nature forms capitalism. Contemplate the nature of cause and effect, and stop confusing them.

Humans existed for thousands of years without the concept of any economic system or private ownership of production. LOL. Capitalism just pushes forward the worst parts of humanity.

But amazingly, humans still managed to have the basic concepts that capitalism addresses: self-interest and -preservation, and personal property. These have always been intrinsic to human nature, which is exactly why I say that the economic system of capitalism does not form human nature. Human nature formed the economic system.

Thank you for proving my point.

Try to read upon the Plymouth Rock Experience, you will discover something about human nature.
We have it here and now. If I get my sustainment without working, why should I work?

 

[MaryL]

Friends husband was just laid off from job he has had for 11 years.IT/Computer etc. Outsourcing entire department to Philippines! Oh the wonderful joys of Capitalism. Bosses get richer,long term SKILLED employees get the shaft and slaves do work for pennies in Philippines....or should I say indentured servants.He is filing for unemployment but that's not the point...its wrong and should be stopped.

Keep voting dimocrap.

You ain't seen nothing yet

Ever try emoting, creepy poster person? Better than being a cybertroll.

 

[depotoo]

If that were the case, and profit was their only aim, then they never would have opened in the US to begin with. They want to give American's jobs, but when their survival is threatened due to excessive regulations, taxation, and forced labor wages above what a position can possibly sustain, and which begin to put their whole livelihood into jeopardy, then they will have to move, for their mere survival. Sadly, many people do not understand this.

Funny how many fail to recognize a busineses moving for survival is determined by excessive regulation and taxation.

Friends husband was just laid off from job he has had for 11 years.IT/Computer etc. Outsourcing entire department to Philippines! Oh the wonderful joys of Capitalism. Bosses get richer,long term SKILLED employees get the shaft and slaves do work for pennies in Philippines....or should I say indentured servants.He is filing for unemployment but that's not the point...its wrong and should be stopped.

Funny how everyone's so cool about capitalism until it bites them in their own ass.

Or the simple cost of labor.