The unspoken moral dilemma of socialists

[jc456]

People who don't participate in village are weights that bring down the village.

Only when you adopt a collectivist attitude. The concept of the village itself is collectivist.

This sounds so much like the fascist creed "All for the state! Nothing against the state!"

Take your state and cram it up your butt.

Incredibly daft.

You keep arguing for statism and outcrying statism at the same time. No wonder you are confused.

Let me explain this very clearly to you - I oppose the state, which is an organized political community that controls a population within a set of abstract borders.

You support taxation. You support the constitution. You support the state.

Still whacking out I see. What's the difference village community? People ruling people you know , your stance. Can't have lazy and survive. Compassion is not allowed in your community. We have it and you want them gone. Wow. I do believe they should work or be detained until they will.

 

[francoHFW]

Who the fk you talking to? You're a kook, admit it. Can you go round in circles? Yep, you're lapping yourself

I believe the problem is that I am discussing advanced political science and philosophy, and it is just going over your head.

Let me be super clear about what my position is.

I believe that a large group of people should go around defending others against aggression. I believe there should be no established law or rulers.

That is all there is to it.

Pure anarchy is for dolts.

 

[Onyx]

People ruling people you know , your stance.

My stance this entire time has been no rulers and no state.

Can't have lazy and survive.

I agree.

Wow. I do believe they should work or be detained until they will.

More fascism.

 

[Onyx]

Pure anarchy is for dolts.

On the contrary, statism is for dolts.

It has brought nothing but death, corruption, rampant crime, civil violence, destructive warfare, and inhumanity for over 5000 years.

 

[jc456]

Socialism is simple well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Right now we have a pander to the rich GOP mess ongoing. The OP is garbage.

Why don't you get the welfare 47% off their asses? Why you worried about people who don't weigh the village down and bleed us all?

 

[jc456]

People ruling people you know , your stance.

My stance this entire time has been no rulers and no state.

Can't have lazy and survive.

I agree.

Wow. I do believe they should work or be detained until they will.

More fascism.

You said governance that implies leader.

 

[Onyx]

You said governance that implies leader.

Are you drunk? Seriously, because this is getting kind of ridiculous.

Good night, JC456.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism is simple well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Right now we have a pander to the rich GOP mess ongoing. The OP is garbage.

Why don't you get the welfare 47% off their asses? Why you worried about people who don't weigh the village down and bleed us all?

They don't exist. Wall St. GOPers?

 

[jc456]

Socialism is simple well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Right now we have a pander to the rich GOP mess ongoing. The OP is garbage.

Why don't you get the welfare 47% off their asses? Why you worried about people who don't weigh the village down and bleed us all?

They don't exist. Wall St. GOPers?

Sure they do they riot and kill each other. 47%

 

[Little-Acorn]

You keep arguing for statism and outcrying statism at the same time. No wonder you are confused.

Let me explain this very clearly to you -

A word to the wise: Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The unspoken moral dilemma of socialists


The moral dilemma Socialists face in this country, is that they are taking money from others and redistributing it in violation of the Constitution.

There's also the fact that their redistributionist schemes have NEVER worked, and always wind up making things worse for society instead of better. Yet they continue doing them. One wonders why.

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism is simple well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Right now we have a pander to the rich GOP mess ongoing. The OP is garbage.

Why don't you get the welfare 47% off their asses? Why you worried about people who don't weigh the village down and bleed us all?

They don't exist. Wall St. GOPers?

Sure they do they riot and kill each other. 47%

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims?

 

[jc456]

You keep arguing for statism and outcrying statism at the same time. No wonder you are confused.

Let me explain this very clearly to you -

A word to the wise: Don't feed the trolls.

So wh are you looking for food?

 

[francoHFW]

The immoral dilemma Socialists face in this country, is that they are taking money from others and redistributing it in violation of the Constitution.

There's also the fact that their redistributionist schemes have NEVER worked, and always wind up making things worse for society instead of better. Yet they continue doing them. One wonders why.

It's worked for the greedy idiot rich the last 35 years.

 

[jc456]

Socialism is simple well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Right now we have a pander to the rich GOP mess ongoing. The OP is garbage.

Why don't you get the welfare 47% off their asses? Why you worried about people who don't weigh the village down and bleed us all?

They don't exist. Wall St. GOPers?

Sure they do they riot and kill each other. 47%

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims?

Which ones are those?

 

[jc456]

The immoral dilemma Socialists face in this country, is that they are taking money from others and redistributing it in violation of the Constitution.

There's also the fact that their redistributionist schemes have NEVER worked, and always wind up making things worse for society instead of better. Yet they continue doing them. One wonders why.

It's worked for the greedy idiot rich the last 35 years.

You mean the job creators?

 

[francoHFW]

Socialism is simple well regulated capitalism with a good safety net. Right now we have a pander to the rich GOP mess ongoing. The OP is garbage.

Why don't you get the welfare 47% off their asses? Why you worried about people who don't weigh the village down and bleed us all?

They don't exist. Wall St. GOPers?

Sure they do they riot and kill each other. 47%

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVER, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims?

Which ones are those?

The 47% that you and Mitt tripped yourselves over. The victims of Reaganism, now including half the middle class.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Capitalism in action:
I put out the money to start a small cafe. People pay me to eat in my establish because the food is delicious. I employ local workers to help me serve the public. I pay them from the proceeds of my business, and I pay myself. We then take that money and fill our tanks with gas at the station down the block. And we buy gifts from the Hallmark store across the street. We shop at the local supermarket. Those businesses pay their employees with the money they received. Then those people come to my cafe to enjoy a good meal... It works perfectly for all involved.

....cool story bro, I never imagined things could be like that, thank you for opening my eyes to these wonderful, whimsical economic arrangements

Not a bro. Don't drink and here is exactly what I described:

Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. An economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets.

 

[owebo]

Governments purpose is NOT to "level the playing field", it is to assure no one blocks, or takes control OF the playing field.

That is not government. That is military.

The belief that the government protects people by instituting laws and documents is nonsense.

Force is what has always maintained order, and is what always will maintain order.

Anarchists believe in separating force from government. (force and government create the state) Some reject force altogether, although I disagree with that notion.

With modern libertarians and those scene kid minarchists , the traditional belief that a common protection force is anarchist has been devalued.

The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine defended people. It was anarchist. It did nothing other than help communities defend themselves against both western liberal government and Soviet communism, so they could be free and practice voluntary organization.

The military is of government....

 

[owebo]

Who the fk you talking to? You're a kook, admit it. Can you go round in circles? Yep, you're lapping yourself

I believe the problem is that I am discussing advanced political science and philosophy, and it is just going over your head.

Let me be super clear about what my position is.

I believe that a large group of people should go around defending others against aggression. I believe there should be no established law or rulers.

That is all there is to it.

So,,you think large groups of people should be in charge of the free people.....

How's that Work?