Messages

This person has no clue what they're talking about.
1. Simply because I am selfish does not mean that I cannot care about others. I consider myself selfish, but guess what? I don't go around killing babies and being a total asshol all the time. Why? Because O want to feel good about myself so instead I help others give to charity and "other" selfless acts, this person is on the opposite side of the normal, far more naive, standpoint that there is such a thing as "sefless" action. Only seflish actions exist but selfish is not the same as f*** others by a long shot
2. All people will not by their very nature become corrupt with power, communism wouldn't work even if everyone was the "ideal communist man" because of the problems of calculation and price. The current system wouldn't work even if all politicians were little angels.
3. The point is to create an environment and system where no one could use force, where it becomes unprofitable. Decentralize power so that everyone has power and that to abuse it would be suicide.
4. Not everyone would have to accept the NAP, simply fear the consequences if they did, but also the NAP is what I consider to be built into "natural law" and therefore the natural sense of justice. Almost no one considers the initiation of violence, on a personal and open basis, to be moral and most would never perform such an action.
5. The more monopolistic a system is, the more cut off from the subjective preferences of a large group of people, the more likely it is to become corrupt, and the harder it will be to cut off funding to it, that is to say to kill the corrupt institution. Therefore we must attempt to create as much competitition as we can in order to avoid as much corruption as possible.

And the mouseover text: "The fifth panel also applies to postmodernists."

For the love of god what exactly are postmodernists? I've never actually encountered one but everytime I try to read the wikipedia discription on it I just can't grasp exactly what these people are supposed to believe.

That and "think as I think or else."
At least he didn't have any qualms defending socialism.
As Shane would probably say, "at least he has the balls to defend it."
There are many who will just deny that state provided health care is socialism at all.
*coughFightAtheistcough*

Lol. For most people socialism is just a boogyman. They pretty much advocate it but the word socialism makes them think of tyranny and the soviet union.... Thank god most people are too dumb to ever actually realize what socialism is, or that many people who are, are smart enough to see why centrally planned chaos might just be a bad thing.

You know I think that the entirity of his argument can be summed up by the phrase "just not getting it"

Racism is a plauge on nearly all but the basic levels.
This being said, I think that statism is a plauge on all but the very basic levels, and even on those levels it is incorrect. Should I have the right to violently enforce my preference against statist speech?
While they would not agree with the statist speech part of that (damn commies) they would still agree that any have the right to defend themselves against violence, be it racially inspired or not, but merely speaking is not violence. Are the conservatives to enforce their preferences for only conservative speech? The Religeous to enforce their preference for that speech which alligns itself to their faith? However if this is a direct threat against someone, based upon their race or not, then it is directly threatening and should be treated as the possible opening of violence, like waving a weapon around.

I think that he's honest but unfortunatly he just fails. This has been up for a while but no one seems to have posted much of anything in return.
1. Your entire premise is that capitalism causes instability and that therefore capitalism must be abolished. This is false as all capitalism can do is to create massive surpluses of goods and services. The more goods there are the more stable your society will be. People today don't have to worry about starvation because there are a massive amount of goods which are dirt cheap.
2. The state instigates the boom/bust cycle which increases instability
3. The state decreases productivity which increases prices and therefore decreases stability
4. The state stops places which are far, far more unstable than the area you currently living in from becoming more stable by allowing various buisnesses and so forth to develope and mobility of labor.
5. I'm sorry population rates worldwide were increasing dramatically far before the end of WWII.
6. The further increase in population rates were due to the massive post world war II boom caused by massive new free markets coming online and the fact that during the war the labor unions were discarded and smashed.
7. All real and healthy rises in wages are a result of increased productivity, not because of arbitrary whims of things like minimum wage and other legislation.
8. They want to hit the reset button in order to view what would happen with the new technological increases culminating with full free market competition. When the free markets were originally introduced they were attempting to recover from 5,000 years of state induced poverty and war (everywhere outside of America and America felt this result as a byproduct)
9. These organizations which supposedly cause stability have their voluntary counterparts on the free market. Your very concern about stability shows that there is a demand for associations which attempt to make the livelihood of each and every person more stable, there is no reason why the state is required for this. All the removal of the state from, say, agencies which will provide unemployment benefits in the case of one of its members losing their job, would do is to actually introduce societal demand, that is what people are actually WILLING TO PAY for this, and competition to see who can provide the best benefits at the lowest cost.
10. Everything you are advocating goes against the demands of society and towards barbarism where people sate their whims arbitrarily and then pursue these ends with force.
11. You repeatedly imply that all of these gains are confined within the system of capitalism, but socialism by its very nature is unstable and cannot price things correctly bringing the economy into chaos, it also removes the competition mechanism which will stunt development and raise costs. It also leads to shortages that will inherently increase the amount of disparity and instability.
12. You talk about greed... I'm sure that the minute that we get the state to do things that there will be no greed whatsoever. Also you're very greedy for wanting everyone to conform to your standards. I wish that I could see a single f***ing attack against greed that understood what greed was.

Well, y'see, welfare is when money is take from the people who earned it and given to someone else who is deemed to be either more needy, more deserving, or able to use it better. Whereas subsidies are when money is take from the people who earned it and given to someone else who is deemed to be either more needy, more deserving, or able to use it better.

Hope that clears up any confusion.

Lol
Subsudies are "sold" to the tax payer through the excuse that whoever the subsudy is given to will actually produce something so of course there's no way they can get funding except by stealing from people... While welfare is "sold" because needy people are needy and so we should steal in order to give the things they need.
So basically subsudies are supposed to be kind of like a loan, while welfare is kind of like a gift. Although I hate to bastardize both of those perfectly good words in such a context.

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/487878

Well according to the first definition one cannot be a dogmatist of freedom because freedom is utterly rational, and the second can also be answered. I can't give one to the "dogma of freedom" because among other things it's not worth my time, no one advocates total slavery these days so I don't know what exactly I'd want proven.
However I would probably depend upon a logical proof more than empirical "evidence" becuase I believe that evidence (when dealing with social sciences of course not natural) is very hard to determine the cause to with so many variables existing in human society

What exactly defines "dogmatism"

Nope, still got full libertarian.

Something I've wondered but never bothered to ask: What exactly, if anything, is the difference between communism and socialism?

There can be a great deal of differences depending on exactly what kind of "socialism" you are talking about, however a communist society by definition must have an equal populace and all of the means of production must be centrally controlled. Communism will also have the definition of supposedly lacking a state depending upon who you talk to. The other problem is that there are a great number of types of socialism, I'm serious, there are alot.

Great vid.

Number 10. Once that is achieved, all the others will follow.
As a side note I think that everyone should read the communist manifesto at least once in their lives, just to see exactly how much of a f***ing abomination that this piece of horse terd has been responsible for one of the most influential ideologies in human history, it is honestly pathetic, vulgar, and absolutley unscientific in any way you can use the term (Marxism is always stated as somthing scientific when classified in economics, and I can never understand why) except in the way that soothsaying must have been scientific.

It's extorting money from people and spending it on sports which are unlikely to be economically viable. I consider it stupid and morally evil. I don't think that there is a single justification that I would begin to consider valid.
When one wakes up to the nature of the state, things like this no longer pose an issue.