Socialism and the purpose of government

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You've just proven my point so well!

You are a simpleton.

You've been living in a hybrid capitalist/socialist you whole life, but your too stupid to realize it!

You proved my point. You don't know what the **** you are talking about.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No, communism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution

Socialism is community ownership of the means of production and distribution.

With socialism no government is needed, if the people are willing.

It is LITERALLY the exact opposite.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In practical terms, there is no distinction between the two. The community can't control anything (own it) without government. The claim that it can is a fantasy.

I agree.

Which also proves my point that communities need government and a community will have government, no matter how hard you try to resist it.

.

 

[bripat9643]

In practical terms, there is no distinction between the two. The community can't control anything (own it) without government. The claim that it can is a fantasy.

I agree.

Which also proves my point that communities need government and a community will have government, no matter how hard you try to resist it.

.

I disagree. Everyone agrees that monopolies are undesirable, and government is the biggest monopoly of all. You don't solve the problem of monopolies by creating a bigger one.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The real problem is the simplistic, binary thinking of the RWNJ's on this board.

They can only conceive of EXTREMES.

The idea of moderation, of a society that is a healthy hybrid of capitalism and socialism, is BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION.

In short, they are MORONS.

What the **** does all this commie bullshit mean?

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. There can be no hybrid.

.

No, communism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution

Socialism is community ownership of the means of production and distribution.

With socialism no government is needed, if the people are willing.

In practical terms, there is no distinction between the two. The community can't control anything (own it) without government. The claim that it can is a fantasy.

Yes, I agree. It is the same fantasy that a society can exist with any authority...otherwise known as anarchy...both are nothing but fiction due to human nature


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I disagree. Everyone agrees that monopolies are undesirable, and government is the biggest monopoly of all. You don't solve the problem of monopolies by creating a bigger one.

You don't resolve any disputes without a monopoly.

You don't adequately provide a coordinated, mutual defense of your territory/property without a monopoly on military command.

Peaceful existence requires mutual assent to rules. Without mutual assent, there is no peaceful existence.

Government without a monopoly is war.

I understand your resistance to the inevitable. I really do. When I came to the conclusion that government will always exist, I was troubled for a long period of time. I quit thinking we could be rid of government force, and started focusing my attention on beating the shit out of the government we have and making it our *****, rather than the other way around.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution has been a dead letter since at least Woodrow Wilson...Time to quit pretending that it has any magical powers to keep politicians and bureaucrats in their lanes.

View attachment 258799

You and Spooner both misunderstand. The Constitution itself isn't supposed to stop anything. The power to keep politicians and bureaucrats in their lanes has always resided in the people. The Constitution is supposed to be our set of instructions on how to accomplish it. If we refuse to follow those instructions and exercise that power and make them behave, then we can't blame the Constitution; we have to blame ourselves.

dont include me in that because after 30 yrs of voting I have not once voted for a dem or republican for this reason among others,,,

I always vote for someone who believes in following the laws and not violating the inherent freedom of the people. Nevertheless, we the people of the United States of America are all in this together. Standing aside and pointing fingers and saying, "Well, I wasn't the one who knocked a hole in the boat!" isn't going to stop us from going down with the ship.

The people ultimately have the power; the people have allowed that power to go unexercised. For good or ill, I am still a member of the people. Whether or not you wish to exclude yourself from that group is up to you.

and at no time have I ever sat back and just pointed fingers,,,my whole life I have been not just screaming from the roof tops that we are being played by the dem and repube partys but trying to show and explain how and why,,,and what the solution is,,,which is why I keep bringing up the constitution

its the true kool-aid drinkers thats the problem,,they just want to hate the other guys and ignore the reality of it all

Wow, you have wandered WAYYYY down the tangent of "Not my fault! Blame them!"

Whenever you're done being defensive and word-parsing, could we return to the ACTUAL point I was making, which is that the Constitution is not at fault here, and it's incorrect to say that it either authorized this mess, or "failed to stop it"?

well it is true,,,


and I didnt either and is why I said the dems and repubes need to get it out read it then apply it,,,

 

[bripat9643]

The real problem is the simplistic, binary thinking of the RWNJ's on this board.

They can only conceive of EXTREMES.

The idea of moderation, of a society that is a healthy hybrid of capitalism and socialism, is BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION.

In short, they are MORONS.

What the **** does all this commie bullshit mean?

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution. There can be no hybrid.

.

No, communism is government ownership of the means of production and distribution

Socialism is community ownership of the means of production and distribution.

With socialism no government is needed, if the people are willing.

In practical terms, there is no distinction between the two. The community can't control anything (own it) without government. The claim that it can is a fantasy.

Yes, I agree. It is the same fantasy that a society can exist with any authority...otherwise known as anarchy...both are nothing but fiction due to human nature


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I said without government, not without "authority," whatever you believe that means. The former has happened, and it can happen again.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, I agree. It is the same fantasy that a society can exist with any authority...

Which is why I always say that Karl Marx was wrong and a dumbass (among other reasons) when he said that socialism would eventually lead to communism. The exact reverse is true.

Communism (a stateless form of existence where the community owns everything) is a form of anarchy, but the distribution of labor and resources must be controlled or conflict will tear the community apart. How will this community administer these distributions? GOVERNMENT, which will own and control such distributions on behalf of the people (socialism).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I said without government, not without "authority," whatever you believe that means. The former has happened, and it can happen again.

Government IS authority. You are making a distinction that does not exist.

 

[bripat9643]

I disagree. Everyone agrees that monopolies are undesirable, and government is the biggest monopoly of all. You don't solve the problem of monopolies by creating a bigger one.

You don't resolve any disputes without a monopoly.

You don't adequately provide a coordinated, mutual defense of your territory/property without a monopoly on military command.

Peaceful existence requires mutual assent to rules. Without mutual assent, there is no peaceful existence.

Government without a monopoly is war.

I understand your resistance to the inevitable. I really do. When I came to the conclusion that government will always exist, I was troubled for a long period of time. I quit thinking we could be rid of government force, and started focusing my attention on beating the shit out of the government we have and making it our *****, rather than the other way around.

All wars are started by governments, so where do you get off claiming that "Government without a monopoly is war?" Without a monopoly on the use of force, you don't have government, so that claim is nonsensical.

Mutual assent to rules does not require government. Just consider common law, which is a non-governmental set of rules that people lived under for hundreds of years.

You can also have mutual assent to rules without government. Again, I refer you to the common law.

The only area where you have any hope of prevailing is when it comes to defense from for foreign invaders. However, solutions to this issue have been devised.

 

[bripat9643]

I said without government, not without "authority," whatever you believe that means. The former has happened, and it can happen again.

Government IS authority. You are making a distinction that does not exist.

Not really. Did Geronimo have authority?

 

[Oddball]

The real problem is the simplistic, binary thinking of the RWNJ's on this board.

They can only conceive of EXTREMES.

The idea of moderation, of a society that is a healthy hybrid of capitalism and socialism, is BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION.

In short, they are MORONS.

The mixture idea is a con. It's how parasites justify their existence.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All wars are started by governments, so where do you get off claiming that "Government without a monopoly is war?" Without a monopoly on the use of force, you don't have government, so that claim is nonsensical.

All wars are started by people. Government is the mechanism those people use to organize and coordinate their efforts.

If one group of people decides that they will not live by the rules the other group lives by, they are no longer working together as a society. They are competing. If they can't reach an understanding on how they will interact with each other, there will be war.

Mutual assent to rules does not require government. Just consider common law, which is a non-governmental set of rules that people lived under for hundreds of years.

Mutual assent IS government. The rules to which they agree is a monopoly. One set of rules governs them all.

You are hamstrung by the notion that government must look a certain way. Your mind can't seem to get past the idea of government being some sort of ruler or king controlling an army that forces all the people to obey all the rules issued from the king.

 

[Oddball]

I disagree. Everyone agrees that monopolies are undesirable, and government is the biggest monopoly of all. You don't solve the problem of monopolies by creating a bigger one.

You don't resolve any disputes without a monopoly.

You don't adequately provide a coordinated, mutual defense of your territory/property without a monopoly on military command.

Peaceful existence requires mutual assent to rules. Without mutual assent, there is no peaceful existence.

Government without a monopoly is war.

I understand your resistance to the inevitable. I really do. When I came to the conclusion that government will always exist, I was troubled for a long period of time. I quit thinking we could be rid of government force, and started focusing my attention on beating the shit out of the government we have and making it our *****, rather than the other way around.

All wars are started by governments, so where do you get off claiming that "Government without a monopoly is war?" Without a monopoly on the use of force, you don't have government, so that claim is nonsensical.

Mutual assent to rules does not require government. Just consider common law, which is a non-governmental set of rules that people lived under for hundreds of years.

You can also have mutual assent to rules without government. Again, I refer you to the common law.

The only area where you have any hope of prevailing is when it comes to defense from for foreign invaders. However, solutions to this issue have been devised.

 

[Oddball]

The real problem is the simplistic, binary thinking of the RWNJ's on this board.

They can only conceive of EXTREMES.

The idea of moderation, of a society that is a healthy hybrid of capitalism and socialism, is BEYOND THEIR COMPREHENSION.

In short, they are MORONS.

 

[Oddball]

Mutual assent IS government. The rules to which they agree is a monopoly. One set of rules governs them all.

Bullshit....I didn't assent to jack shit....The gumbint was in place when I was born, and I was given no choice as to whether I would accept and acquiesce to it or not....And if I choose "or not" they'll eventually be some asshole with a gun strapped to him in my face, to make certain I comply or go to prison.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bullshit....I didn't assent to jack shit....The gumbint was in place when I was born, and I was given no choice as to whether I would accept and acquiesce to it.

You missed the point.

Having a mutual assent to rules of a society is a government. In other words, such an existence is NOT anarchy.

The overall point is that anarchy is impossible.

.

 

[Oddball]

Bullshit....I didn't assent to jack shit....The gumbint was in place when I was born, and I was given no choice as to whether I would accept and acquiesce to it.

You missed the point.

Having a mutual assent to rules of a society is a government. In other words, such an existence is NOT anarchy.

The overall point is that anarchy is impossible.

.

You keep saying that, but offer no proof.

P.S. Begging the question isn't proof.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I said without government, not without "authority," whatever you believe that means. The former has happened, and it can happen again.

The former only happens when you narrow the definition of government to something to specific it will fit in your box.

Maybe this will help...the meaning of the word anarchy...a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.