Before you get to communism, there are a few hurdles that you have to overcome. The communist state owns all property and means of production. You can't say, "Well, in my communist state, people will be allowed to own X, it will just be regulated."
If that were the case then anyone could simply undercut the government's state owned corporations, and put them out of business. Of course, a true communist state would seize that property and means of production and likely imprison the owners. Otherwise, they would make the forceful thievery, I mean taxes, so high that operating the business would be fiscally impossible.
So don't try to circumvent the realities of what a communist state means.
Another hurdle with the implication of seizing property is the whole morality problem of taking something from someone else. I don't think that you communists have really gone over this idea with a fine toothed comb. You just think that communism will spring out of the ground and fairness and equality will soon follow. You don't imagine yourselves as the ones who will have to kill and imprison property and business owners. It's an inevitable step towards the communist state. I own property, and I've asked you this question before, but none of you will answer: who among you will kill or imprison me in the name of Communism? I await your answer. Either answer the question or give up this childish, irresponsible dream.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
C'mon guys. There has to be one among you who can come up with an answer to this dilemma. Make it quick: I sense that the communists are having second thoughts.
This message has been edited by kurjak on Mar 9, 2005 12:46 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Tia. Can I call you Tia? Please refer to my posts in the most recent threads. You have a supporter of Capitalism here to confide with in me here.
It is rather fun to hear the Communists and Socialists rationalize and twist reality to candy coat everything evil to make it sound good. Feel free to read my posts to point out how it unravels.
Good luck
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You know, whenever I push the argument that libertarianism, if implemented, will eventually return humanity to the conditions of the 19th century my adversaries always blank out
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Libertarianism allows everyones freedom to extend to people other than the person exercising their freedom. This means that if someone wants to blast their music next door and it keeps you up all night even though you can hear it on your property, you can't do a damn thing about it. For reference, if I say that Lib. does something, that means that Capitalism doesn't condone it.
Libertarianism is basically collectivists pretending to be individuals. The government is the people, but unlike Communism, there are no laws whatsoever.
Libertarianisms laws are riddled by compromise, meaning that if someone has and issue and someone else has a disagreement, they must compromise. There is no black and white. There is no both profit. They both must give something up to further the cause.
They also claim that Capitalism can be ethically justified on religeous grounds. The ethics of Capitalism have nothing to do with religeon- especially when most Capitalists want nothing to do with religeon.
These are just a few things. Research yourself, if you want more.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Your assuming that the communist government would have absolutely no sence of patience or planning. Only a fool would expect a communist government to try and instantly implement communism, or even insantly implement socialism. Such a huge lead without preperation is a disaster waiting to happen. You would be alowed to keep your private property untill there are systems in place that actuly make giving it up an option. Private property would be more "phased out" over several generations than ripped out as soon as communism came to power, probably via a inheritance tax that would be slowely increased. At first it would be a small increase, so that people who rely on an inheritance would not find themselves peniless, but the slow increase would give people time to adapt too expect less and less property from inheritance to the point that it all a persons property went to the state when they died, and people expected that and didnt build there future plans around it. The key here is giving people time prepare and do it over many many years amd to give the government time to slowely implement communial housing and so on. Such slowely-slowely polices can effect large scale change with a minimum of personal loss and injury, such as the UK's slow shift to democracy over the last 300-400 years, or slow shift to capatelism that ocured in feudal nations. These kinds of changes only cause widespread damage when people try to rush into them like a bunch of idiots.
Businesses being taken over would not be much of a change for the people working in them, it is unlikely that anyone would be fired, there would just be a change of management. This kinda thing happens all the time under capatelism, the hostile takeover is not an uncommon practice. Then the business would be slowely intergrated into the state.
Communism has many problems, but im prepared to keep chippin away at it. The first semblance of state democracy took hold over 2500 years ago, and only in the last few decades has democracy become truly representative, stable and widespread threw-out the world. If people had just given up and said "ah christ/zeus/god/whatever, our democracies keep becoming corrupt and colapsing! whats the point, im going to bed, wake me up when the new king arives" 2000 years ago, the modern would be a much bleaker place. I see communism in the same light, it has its flaws, but its still in its infancy and it has the potential to be well worth the problems that will need to be solved along the way. To strech the democracy comparison further, when democracy was implimented in many countries, many people where forced to give up there power at gunpoint, a "theft" of power, implementing big changes is never a clean business, you just have to make sure those changes are worth it. Socialism is realy an (radical) extention of democracy anyway, democracy attempted to take power from the powerfull and distributed amoungst the powerless via a governmental system, socialism is attempt to do the same with property, thuse making a nation truly democratic as no-one has the personal property to use as leverage as they do in a capatalist democracy
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Libertarianism allows everyones freedom to extend to people other than the person exercising their freedom. This means that if someone wants to blast their music next door and it keeps you up all night even though you can hear it on your property, you can't do a damn thing about it. For reference, if I say that Lib. does something, that means that Capitalism doesn't condone it."
Looks like we have a fundamentally different understanding of 'libertariansism' because every libertarian I come across is pro-private property, pro-free trade, pro-small government, pro-individual, and anti-social services.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Current Topic - communism = genocide and false imprisonment