socialism, property, and the state

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not owning, hoarding. Taking more than you need and stocking up. It's just a flip example. I could have said public urination or something.

Would supermarkets be considered hoarding food? They certainly have more than most (non-crazy-Texan-seperatist) people. But if we didn't have supermarkets we wouldn't be able to effectively distribute massive amounts of highly diversified foodstuffs at a relatively low cost.

Capitalists don't just sit on food. They sell it, and they sell it for whatever price other people are willing to pay.

As far as the free beer Che, it may be free, but it won't last long. People will just grab as much as they can, and if they don't hoard it, they'll drink it. And collective drunks can't work in the collective breweries very well so no more collective beer will be made until they collectively sleep off their collective hangover. It's a vicious cycle, it's true.

[chequita guevara]

Actually, socialists in the form of the Green Party got more support than the Libertarians, Floyd. When our ideas are put before the American people, without party affiliation attached, they get about 33% support. So, like I said, never is a very long time, and we don't have to wait that long.

And during a period of hardship, such as might occur during civil war, hoarding food would most definately be a crime against your neighbors. No Felch, food distribution centers would obviously not be considered hoarders of food. Use your brain instead of trying to score points looking for non-existent logical inconsistencies.

Just because beer would be free doesn't mean people would gab it all up and drink it. If its free, you can always come back and get more later. Beer is cheaper than milk in some cases. It doesn't disappear for very long, even when it does disappear.



Hmmmm, beer. Think I'll go get me some chicken wings and beer over at BW3s.

[Ramo]

Where did I bring legality into it?

By always referring to murder, property, etc.

However, if you believed that murder was moral, it still wouldn't be so.

According to me, it would be so. According to you, perhaps not.

Murder CAN be illegal killing, but a better definition is unjustified killing.

That would be a hyperbolic, utterly useless definition. And one that no one accepts.

From dictionary.com:

mur·der Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.

And it proves that there are certain absolutes, by definition.

No. All you pointed out is that if something that is immoral, it is immoral. I don't disagree with that, but you haven't proven anything.

If you could show that something is immoral without getting into a circular justification, OTOH, we might be getting somewhere.

Come on, even Rand didn't use circular reasoning this obviously (though, I haven't read much of her).

I disagree. Murder is wrong because it violates natural rights, not because the government says it is.

If you use your crazy definition, murder is wrong because that's how it's defined!

Natural rights don't have anything to do with your "argument."

Socialism is by definition not liberty because it involves massive amounts of coercion.

Total bull****! Another definition you've got screwed up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, socialists in the form of the Green Party got more support than the Libertarians, Floyd. When our ideas are put before the American people, without party affiliation attached, they get about 33% support.

Proof? This sounds very fishy to me... or loaded questions .

[chequita guevara]

I think it was The Nation, and it was about 10 or more years ago that I read it.

[David Floyd]

I'm drunk and canont contribute anything just now.....beeeeeeer

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Nation?

Ah, loaded questions .

[chequita guevara]

I'm saying The Nation conducted the poll. I'm just saying that's where I think I read about it.

[Inverse Icarus]

all you need to do in order to start a communist state is gather a bunch of communists, and group them in the northeast american states (NY, Mass, Maine) and invade canada.

they're practically socialist as it is

[chequita guevara]

No beer for chegitz. The SO is too tired to get up to go. . . . Maybe I can pick some up at the store.

[GeneralTacticus]

Capitalism wasn't tollerated by Nazism, it was the reason for Nazism. It was the capitalists who put the Nazis in power. Capitalists gave them the money, loaned them the cars, gave them the airplanes to fly around Germany for their campaigns. It was capitalists who opened their factories to the Nazis so they could beat the crap out of their workers. And it was the capitalists who benfitted most from Nazi rule, as the unions were crushed and replaced with subservient union, profittablity was restored, and even guaranteed by subsidies from the state, slaves were provided at state cost, and finally new areas were added to the German empire for German capitalists to exploit.

Actually, for most of Hitler's rise to power, most capitalists distrusted him, as he led a party which was socialist in it's name at least. At the very end, they started funding him, when it seemed that they were the best alternative to the status quo, but that was just opportunism. Hitler crushed independant trade unions and such because his ideology didn't allow for them.

Anyway, Nazism did not come about because of capitalism. The capitlists made use of Nazi policies because they could, and the Nazis made use of the capitlists because it was the most practical thing to do.

It is well known the the US deliberately plaid up the danger of the USSR, claiming bomber gaps, missile gaps, tank gaps, and fighter gaps

Well the missile gap theory was triggered by sputnik and Krushchev then announcing that Soviet missiles were rolling off the production lines 'like sausages'.

I'm not sure about the other 'gap' theories, but you can't deny that the Soviets had way more weapons than the Americans. And I do know that at one point the Soviets actually flew their bombers over Moscow several times to make the Americans think they had more than they really did.

The US threatened to attack during the Berlin Crisis.

Which was technically an act of war. They were blockading what had been agreed was essentially American territory (until the ocupation was over, anyway), and it was due to American restaint (and Soviet strength) that the U.S. didn't use military force to break the blockade.

You could say that, but since Stalin's "Socialism in One Country" obviously means no external revoltuion, you'd be wrong. The Soviets, from very early on, tried to get along with the West, even if at first it was merely to buy time. Under Stalin and his successors, it became permanent policy. Everytime the Soviets stretched out a hand of friendship, it was rebuffed.

Regardless, it was a basic part of communist ideology that all capitlism had to be overthrown. 'Socialism in One Country' just meant 'not right now'.

The US did bomb the Soviets during the Korean War, near Vladivostok.

That was an airfield very close to the NK border, the pilots thought it was North Korean.

Because no Western power could have justified attacking the USSR in 1945. It took several years to convince the people of the West that the Soviets were a new enemy. The Soviets also had the Communist Parties of Italy, Greece, and elsewhere back away from their wartime victories. It was the Communists who liberated Greece and Italy from the Nazis, not the Allies, and yet Stalin had them surrender to the Allies. He tried to do the same in China, but Mao didn't listen fortunately.

The allies never lifted a finger to prevent Soviet control in Eastern Europe and North Korea. Even if they couldn't start an all-out war, they could have sent support to the anti-communist elements in those, countries, employed propaganda, etc. They didn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
The allies never lifted a finger to prevent Soviet control in Eastern Europe and North Korea. Even if they couldn't start an all-out war, they could have sent support to the anti-communist elements in those, countries, employed propaganda, etc. They didn't.

Actually, they did. Hence the terrorism I'm always pointing out. The CIA got its recruits from former facsist collaborators of those countries. Trained them, armed them, and funded them. It's actually rather well known in espionage history.

[GeneralTacticus]

Actually, they did. Hence the terrorism I'm always pointing out. The CIA got its recruits from former facsist collaborators of those countries. Trained them, armed them, and funded them. It's actually rather well known in espionage history.

All I can say to that is that it mustn't have been very effective.

[chequita guevara]

The Soviet Union is gone, isn't it?

[Jon Miller]

the soviet union was rotting from the inside out

it was a noble idea, but got derailed

Jon Miller