new capitalism vs communism thread

[Az]

Well Che, in 2002 there were 95,136 forcible rapes, 16,204 murders, and you Communists have quite an exciting history of forcing people from "thinking what they will", so I'm not too sure what your point is.

JohnT is not playing by the rules.

[JohnT]

I'm not?

Please clue me in so I don't have to read the thread.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
the reason murder doesn't happen that often is because a) killing a person is far more extreme than stealing a piece of bubble gum

Exactly, inflicting violence on other people is extreme. It is far easier psychologoically to steal than to physically hurt someone, regardless of risk.

and b) the punishments are far harsher.

Most studies have determined that fear of punishment is not a major factor in deterring crime.

There usually isn't much of an advantage to killing someone,

There are frequently advantages to murder. You can rob them more easily if theyr are dead, they can't squeal on you for another crime you may have committed, they pissed you off, etc.

I don't see how you can argue that rape doesn't happen that often and maintain consistency with your posts in all of the various feminism threads.

Rape is frequent enough, but it is still uncommon. Everyone's been robbed. Most people have stolen. Most men have not committed a rape. Most men would deal with a rapist very harshly, while most people would not resort to violence if they found out someone was a theif (unless caught in the act).

Finally, the world is replete with examples of people trying to keep others from thinking what they will

Religions and governments, yes. Individuals frequently do not engage in thought policing.

[Kuciwalker]

The rule is, no historical example of schmooism or communism exists, so you can't refer to the USSR or China (or the capitalist counterparts). This is a purely theoretical debate

[Az]

Originally posted by JohnT
I'm not?

Please clue me in so I don't have to read the thread.

Blaming the other side for crimes and wrongdoings is prohibited. The only reference to the past that you can make is the consequences of certain policies.

[Ned]

Originally posted by skywalker


Ned, if you're going to quote something, please make the post that follows it have SOMETHING to do with the quote you're beginning to sound like CBH (though without the run-ons).

Skywalker, why do even address posts to me?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by skywalker
The rule is, no historical example of schmooism or communism exists, so you can't refer to the USSR or China (or the capitalist counterparts). This is a purely theoretical debate

Ahhhh. Then I'll just bow out 'cause I hate wasting my time talking past people.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned


Ogie, if you then extend the prinicple to everyone's wallet, every day, and the answer might be different.

Unfortunately I do and it explains much of the leftist movement world wide.

Small bastions of conservatism hold their ground but more often than not the prevaling thought is whats in it for me?

All about reallocation of wealth to what is 'fair". "Fair" being defined as how can I get more without concerning longer term implications.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
There are frequently advantages to murder. You can rob them more easily if theyr are dead, they can't squeal on you for another crime you may have committed, they pissed you off, etc.

Those are advantages to the fact that a lot of law enforcement people will be trying to find you?

Religions and governments, yes. Individuals frequently do not engage in thought policing.

DUH. Individuals frequently are INCAPABLE of engaging in thought policing.

That's like saying that humans must have some inherent aversion to war, because individuals frequently do not declare war

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Well Che, in 2002 there were 95,136 forcible rapes, 16,204 murders,

And over two million buglaries.

and you Communists have quite an exciting history of forcing people from "thinking what they will",

Actually, more punishing people from saying what they think publically. Bad mouthing the government in private was as common as it is here. Again, however, that is institutional, not individual, of I could go all Liberatarian and say government theft is universal, while ven the worst governments don't kill everybody.

so I'm not too sure what your point is.

That property rights are not "natural" in the same way as the right not to be subjected to violence is. People are far more willing to violate proeprty rights than any other right, so the right cannot be that ingrained in our nature.

[Az]

What is a "corporation"? They don't exist in schmooism - there is only a buyer and a seller (or more properly, just two parties to a contract).

Corporations arise from private property. But you don't want to have them? Ok. How will big bussiness develop then? And without big bussiness, how will sophisticated goods be manufactured?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
Those are advantages to the fact that a lot of law enforcement people will be trying to find you?

As I mentioned, punishment doesn't have much o a deterent effect. Most people do not engage in violence not because they are afraid o being punished, but because violence is alien to them. It is a deeply wrong thing.

Religions and governments, yes. Individuals frequently do not engage in thought policing.

DUH. Individuals frequently are INCAPABLE of engaging in thought policing.

You think so?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Unfortunately I do and it explains much of the leftist movement world wide.

Small bastions of conservatism hold their ground but more often than not the prevaling thought is whats in it for me?

All about reallocation of wealth to what is 'fair". "Fair" being defined as how can I get more without concerning longer term implications.

People are selfish, not stupid. This is my point. If everyone's money was redistributed every day, soon everyone would bring a little as he could to class. In the end, everyone would bring exactly the same small amount so that everyone would exist in the school environment just at the starvation level. (Which is what happens under socialism, btw.) Realizing this, they will eventually vote to repeal the paradigm, having learned their lesson in spades.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, man of ideas, are you afraid of the truth?

Well, let me re-read your troll:

The goal of capitalism is to make everyone rich which necessarily eliminates poverty. The goal of socialism to make everyone equally poor so by definition there is no poverty.

Sorry sir, but the goal of capitalism is to make capitalists rich, certainly not the common man. Don't forget, we educated people having enough free time to discuss on this Internet board based on a video game are near the very top of the global pyramid of capitalism.
Our computers have been disigned by scientists that are well paid, but the whole prodution process, from those who extraced the minerals with which the comp is built, to those who wrote your adress on the packaging, are not precisely well paid.
The cashiers that make it possible for you to enjoy your riches with consumer goods belong to a very difficult working class. Ask Speer or Nationalist, our two resident "paupers" (which is very relative, they are filthy rich in comparison with the average Indian), if they feel they have been enriched by capitalism. Ask the Haitians who are making the Disney toys you'll buy to your children or grandchildren at Christmas, if they feel enriched by capitalism. Ask the Kenyan miners who extract the sulfur used on your matches. Ask the janitor at your office if he feels capitalism has enriched him. Ask all those people if they don't feel victim of an injustice.

Socialism is not about making everybody poor. Socialism is about making an efficient economic system that benefits everybody, rather than a select few. If there are so many people mourning socialism in former socialist countries, despite the despotic political regime, that's because these people have been plunged in poverty since capitalism. That's because there wasn't even a hint anymore of resource sharing.

So, if the above post wasn't a troll, it is incredibly misinformed.

[chequita guevara]

Or they'd realize the only way they could get more was to bring more so there's be more to share, while ostracizing freeloaders. You aways seem to think people in communal situations are incapable of solving probems.