socialism, property, and the state

[David Floyd]

the people will vote as such

History and common sense show otherwise.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But why would the soldiers turn against their own officers? No, they would follow orders to fight the coup and return the proper elected government to power.

The scenario assumes we are the elected government. The coup would be to remove the socialists from government.

I categorically reject any argument that murder can ever be OK based upon society - I fail to see how society's whims can determine if something is right or wrong.
Look at it like this - in an era before organized society, if someone tries to kill you, would you say he committed a wrong?

You can catagorically reject whaever you like. Just realize that your ideas are merely ideas. Ideas do not exist outside of humans thinking them. If a human is not thinking them, they do not exist. Therefore, rights do not exist until we think of them.

Before organized society existed, if someone tried to kill me, I would not necessarily say that person was wrong. Right and wrong are concepts. I might think of him simply as an enemy, and that's what enemies do, they try to kill you.

[David Floyd]

The scenario assumes we are the elected government. The coup would be to remove the socialists from government.

And my point is that assuming a socialist/communist victory in the US is ridiculous.

You can catagorically reject whaever you like. Just realize that your ideas are merely ideas.

I'm afraid we have little common ground if you can't agree that murder is wrong regardless of society.

Ideas do not exist outside of humans thinking them. If a human is not thinking them, they do not exist.

Sorta like gravity or electricity, huh?

Before organized society existed, if someone tried to kill me, I would not necessarily say that person was wrong. Right and wrong are concepts. I might think of him simply as an enemy, and that's what enemies do, they try to kill you.

Sure, and you would see a problem with that. No matter what words you used, the concept would be "What he's doing is wrong."

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Jon, don't get me wrong. I think murder is wrong. I don't want to be murdered. I don't want anyone I know to be murdered. I don't even want to hear about people being murdered. But there's no law of nature that says it's wrong. It's just not in our individual or collective interests to permit it. On the other hand, most Americans apparently see nothing wrong with murdering foreign nationals if our government is the one doing the murdering.

And the officers should be arrested because they will be the ones trying to make the coup. It's part of their job. But that's my opinion, not any party line. It's just how I feel, not anything I've clearly thought out. Maybe I'm wrong.

but america is (mostly and should be) defending me and making my life better, and they gave up some of their right to life to there government, which then expended them in a struggle with the US (As some american lives were lost for the whole)

there is a difference between murder and killing

maybe generals should be arrested

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by monkspider
Look at Gandhi and Martin Luther King, they both faced situations which could have easily merited violence. However, their alternative means of gaining freedom allowed them considerable victories.

You are divorcing these victories from their context. First off, I doubt these victories would have happened had they Nazis occupied America or the Japanese India. Secondly, the victories of Indian indpendence and Black civil rightsoccuried in the context of the existence of the USSR as a viable pole of attraction to 3rd world colonies. In the case of the later, the US needed to show to Africa that it would respect the rights of Black Americans, lest they side with the Soviet Union. In the former, a weakened Great Brtiain could not hold on to its Indian Empire if a violent revolution broke out, as was happeneing in China, Indochina, and elsewhere. Nothing happens in a vacuume.

[monkspider]

David: In regards to Communist-officals never being elected. As Che said, never is a very long time. In Europe, and as close to home as Canada, socialist-leaning candidates are being widely elected. It's simply the natural evolution of humanity. The United States is behind most of the western world in respects to many civil rights, such as health care and education. But I suspect one day soon the United States will extend these rights as well. It is simply one step closer on the natural path of humanity to socialism. I'm sure many conservatives one hundred years ago never suspected things as revolutionary as female suffrage or the civil rights movement could have ever taken place. It was simply unthinkable! So while it's true that Socialists do not yet hold a popular mandate, to say that it is impossible that they ever will is foolish.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by David Floyd


History and common sense show otherwise.

this was a response to Vagabond

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by monkspider
David: In regards to Communist-officals never being elected. As Che said, never is a very long time. In Europe, and as close to home as Canada, socialist-leaning candidates are being widely elected. It's simply the natural evolution of humanity. The United States is behind most of the western world in respects to many civil rights, such as health care and education. But I suspect one day soon the United States will extend these rights as well. It is simply one step closer on the natural path of humanity to socialism. I'm sure many conservatives one hundred years ago never suspected things as revolutionary as female suffrage or the civil rights movement could have ever taken place. It was simply unthinkable! So while it's true that Socialists do not yet hold a popular mandate, to say that it is impossible that they ever will is foolish.

the US also has issues because it was against the US

Jon Miller

[monkspider]

Che: You have a good point regarding divorcing events from their past histories. But on the same coin, the Nazis would not have risen to power if World War I had not taken place, and the Japanese would not have carved out their empire had the Europeans not actively pursued imperialism in Asia.
You see, Violence begets violence. If we can break the cycle somewhere, there will be little need for violence in the future.

[David Floyd]

David: In regards to Communist-officals never being elected. As Che said, never is a very long time. In Europe, and as close to home as Canada, socialist-leaning candidates are being widely elected. It's simply the natural evolution of humanity.

Not really. In the US, we are moving away from socialism rather than towards it, and many European nations are electing right wing governments.

The United States is behind most of the western world in respects to many civil rights, such as health care and education.

How are those civil rights? And if those are rights, then surely the simple act of owning a gun must also be a right, eh?

But I suspect one day soon the United States will extend these rights as well. It is simply one step closer on the natural path of humanity to socialism.

I'm telling you, socialism/communism has next to 0 popular support in the US, with no rise on the horizon.

I'm sure many conservatives one hundred years ago never suspected things as revolutionary as female suffrage or the civil rights movement could have ever taken place. It was simply unthinkable! So while it's true that Socialists do not yet hold a popular mandate, to say that it is impossible that they ever will is foolish.

OK, they never will in the forseeable future.
Further, how can you argue socialism is the natural progression of man? Does this mean you accept that some things are not determined by society?

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's ridiculous - the West never had any intention of invading the USSR

That's not true. Anyway, the USSR was under enormous pressure from all sides, much more than any other participant of the Cold War. It was practically alone against the whole world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sorta like gravity or electricity, huh?

Gravity and electricty exist independently of human beings. Ideas are a product of our brains. To assume that ideas are inherent in nature is as illogical as assuming hat there is a giant invisible friend watching over the universe who also has a special interest in you.

Sure, and you would see a problem with that. No matter what words you used, the concept would be "What he's doing is wrong."

No, I don't think I necessarily would. I don't know the situation. Maybe I'm raping his sister. Is it wrong then? Maybe he's my best friend and secretly covets my wife. Maybe he's a stranger from another tribe. Depending on the situation, murdering me may or may not be wrong.

We do know that in certain societies, certain classes understood that their lives belonged to their lords, and that those lords had the right to take those lives when ever they saw fit, even for personal amusement.

[David Floyd]

That's not true.

Yes it is. Show otherwise.

Anyway, the USSR was under enormous pressure from all sides, much more than any other participant of the Cold War. It was practically alone against the whole world.

If you were a murderous/barbarous pariah state you should expect a cold shoulder

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
the people will vote as such

If this was a response to me, then I'll tell you the following. People can vote for whatever they want, but this does not mean that what they vote for is realizable.

[David Floyd]

To assume that ideas are inherent in nature is as illogical as assuming hat there is a giant invisible friend watching over the universe who also has a special interest in you.

Unless, of course, it's true.
The point was, though, as an example, that regardless of what society thought, the earth was not the center of the Universe - someone just had to prove it. Same thing here. Rand and Locke have already adequately proved the existence of natural rights, you just don't accept it.

Maybe I'm raping his sister. Is it wrong then?

It isn't murder then

Depending on the situation, murdering me may or may not be wrong.

So you think that the unjustified killing of someone can be justified? That's incoherent.

We do know that in certain societies, certain classes understood that their lives belonged to their lords, and that those lords had the right to take those lives when ever they saw fit, even for personal amusement.

Yes, and slaves "belonged" to their masters. Some even believed it - coercion can do a lot to a person's brain.