Laws are only ideas too but there is consequence for breaking them right?
Fucking hippies...
1. I am no hippie. perhaps you dont realize most folks think like me. they believe in peace, they believe in just actions, they believe in civil rights, they believe in standing up for whats right, they believe in a right to privacy, they believe in a right to choose, they believe in the right to dissent, they believe in workers rights, they believe in people over profit, they believe in freedom, they despise the horrors of war, and they believe in ending this illegal war and bringing home all of our men and women stuck in a hell while you blindly point to a signature on page 15.
2. A contract or law cannot make you commit murder or commit an illegal act. I believe you have an obligation to disobey these said laws and contracts, now "lawmakers" or a "court of law" may order a punishment for breaking a law, but they are unjust for enforcing it. and they must be stood up to. they must be disobeyed. MLK jr spent time in jail for christs sakes? nd we was on the hgreatest of crusades, the crusade of equality. So you stand in line and take unjust orders that you do not support, and i will piss on the contract that orders me to participate in the slaughter of innocents humans.
YEAH! Right on! I don't want to pay on my car loan anymore! I don't feel like paying off my credit cards either! I shouldn't get in trouble either! Even though, as an adult of clear mind, I voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract and it is my responsibility to make good on the terms of that contract or face penalties of my actions! Fuck it!
YEAH!
:rolleyes:
...
You CAN stop paying your car loan or your credit cards... you will be subjected to the consequences... JUST LIKE these soldiers are.
In case you didn't know... 'Brig' is a military term for 'Jail'.
...
ADD... And just because you signed up for a car loan doesn't mean the lender can tell you how to operate and where to drive your car, right?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Someone educate me ... What's the difference between libertarian socialism and communism? Communism in the Marxist sense, not communism as it is actually practiced by world governments.
Someone educate me ... What's the difference between libertarian socialism and communism? Communism in the Marxist sense, not communism as it is actually practiced by world governments.
The Communist worships the state. The Libertarian Socialist pretends he doesn't need it to achieve his goals. Libertarian Socialism is an equal opportunity employer of disillusioned anarchists and communists alike. But perhaps I should let a less biased person address your question
The Communist worships the state. The Libertarian Socialist pretends he doesn't need it to achieve his goals. Libertarian Socialism is an equal opportunity employer of disillusioned anarchists and communists alike. But perhaps I should let a less biases person address your question
In all seriousness, there are some differences. Libertarian Socialists are primarily influenced by Marx, but also by the Russian and European anarchists of the last century. I'm sure someone who subscribes to it could explain the major differentiations.
In all seriousness, there are some differences. Libertarian Socialists are primarily influenced by Marx, but also by the Russian and European anarchists of the last century. I'm sure someone who subscribes to it could explain the major differentiations.
Indeed ... There seems to be a general anti-government flavor to the ideology that you don't get with pure Marxism.
Indeed ... There seems to be a general anti-government flavor to the ideology that you don't get with pure Marxism.
Yep -- the LS movement relies more on morality than it does on the state. Whereas communism simply prescribes behaviors via the force of the state, LS believes that you can prescribe behaviors by affecting the morality of those who make the choices. Unfortunately, LS's morality is simply Communistic morality, and, well, that can just speak for itself.
Yep -- the LS movement relies more on morality than it does on the state. Whereas communism simply prescribes behaviors via the force of the state, LS believes that you can prescribe behaviors by affecting the morality of those who make the choices. Unfortunately, LS's morality is simply Communistic morality, and, well, that can just speak for itself.
I wonder how many LS folks lost the faith in the common man's morality when Bush won that second term in office?
Question about LS. The wiki entry says ".... the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes." This seems like quite the statement with nothing to back it up. I find it hard that anyone could adopt this philosophy. But then again I believe in God so what do I know.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Question about LS. The wiki entry says ".... the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes." This seems like quite the statement with nothing to back it up. I find it hard that anyone could adopt this philosophy. But then again I believe in God so what do I know.
When you take that statement at face value, it basically says that SOMEONE will still be in control ... There will still be a ruling class.
Question about LS. The wiki entry says ".... the abolition of private property, thereby giving direct control of the means of production and resources to the working class and other unpropertied classes." This seems like quite the statement with nothing to back it up. I find it hard that anyone could adopt this philosophy. But then again I believe in God so what do I know.
This stems from Proudhon's "property is theft" ideology. It's an easy philosophy to adopt, so long as you don't wish to own anything.
This stems from Proudhon's "property is theft" ideology. It's an easy philosophy to adopt, so long as you don't wish to own anything.
I get lost at this idea. So they just assume control of land in order to grow food but they wouldn't care if someone then assumed control of that same land a week later to build a house. Just as long as the house was meant for all, so they could happily starve to death while indoors.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This thread isn't about this and I would like to keep it that way. In fact , I'd like avoid all pointless and endless debates with you that always result in the same condescending mockery and ego stroking.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This thread isn't about this and I would like to keep it that way. In fact , I'd like avoid all pointless and endless debates with you that always result in the same condescending mockery and ego stroking.
This thread is about individual dissent in the face of the orders of society, is it not? This thread implies that each individual owns his body and his mind, does it not? This thread is a rejection of state control, is it not?
This thread is about individual dissent in the face of the orders of society, is it not? This thread implies that each individual owns his body and his mind, does it not? This thread is a rejection of state control, is it not?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary "socialism" is "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of the means of production are not socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are not socialist nor are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
According to the American Heritage Dictionary "socialism" is "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of the means of production are not socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are not socialist nor are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).
That definition only fits neatly with the implication of "libertarian" if the words "political power" had no meaning. Otherwise, you are talking about tyranny. When you produce wheat and can dictate what I, a bread producer, may do, you are not talking about Libertarianism. You are talking about collectivism.
That definition only fits neatly with the implication of "libertarian" if the words "political power" had no meaning. Otherwise, you are talking about tyranny. When you produce wheat and can dictate what I, a bread producer, may do, you are not talking about Libertarianism. You are talking about collectivism.
"To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers' control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what they use to produce goods). Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist."
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
This thread isn't about this and I would like to keep it that way. In fact , I'd like avoid all pointless and endless debates with you that always result in the same condescending mockery and ego stroking.
"To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers' control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships.
I do support "authoritarian social relationships". That means I support your right to give authority over yourself to anyone you choose, or to be an authority figure to anyone who chooses you.
To suggest that liberatrianism is against authority is ridiculous, and the very fact that you quote someone here as an authority shows that you don't even accept that. Libertarianism is against force, not authority.
To support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what they use to produce goods).
Hehe...by what authority will this happen? And how will they "own" something in the absence of authority?
Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist."
Thus it requires me??? Again, by what authority, abook?
I completely believe that workers should control their own activity and the products of their labor. That is the core of economic Libertarianism and Objectivism. But when a worker sells his labor to his employer, he has sold that labor and the products of it. They are no longer his. This is the essence of the differentiation between an employee and an entrepeneur. Those who wish to sell their labor, should. Those who wish to own their labor, should. But you cannot sell something and then continue to own it.
Finally, the use of the word "control" throughout this should tell you much about the violent and contradictory logic behind the statements. If workers will control their labor absolutely through force and coersion, what was so wrong about other "authorities" doing the same before that? If "ownership" and "control" are no longer two concepts, violence becomes the root of everything economic.
I do support "authoritarian social relationships". That means I support your right to give authority over yourself to anyone you choose, or to be an authority figure to anyone who chooses you.
To suggest that liberatrianism is against authority is ridiculous, and the very fact that you quote someone here as an authority shows that you don't even accept that. Libertarianism is against force, not authority.
I never said this guy was an authority of anything. These thoughts just echo my own and I chose to use them.
Thus it requires me??? Again, by what authority, abook?
I completely believe that workers should control their own activity and the products of their labor. That is the core of economic Libertarianism and Objectivism. But when a worker sells his labor to his employer, he has sold that labor and the products of it. They are no longer his. This is the essence of the differentiation between an employee and an entrepeneur. Those who wish to sell their labor, should. Those who wish to own their labor, should. But you cannot sell something and then continue to own it.
Finally, the use of the word "control" hroughout this should tell you much about the violent and contradictory logic behind the statements. If workers will control their labor absolutely through force and coersion, what was so wrong about other "authorities" doing the same before that? If "ownership" and "control" are no longer two concepts, violence becomes the root of everything economic.
They own it because it's theirs. The power hungry and abusers of your system have proven your system can not work with any hope for equality in this world. Power of a few over many always corrupts whether it be a state or bussinessmen.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
1. I am no hippie. perhaps you dont realize most folks think like me. they believe in peace, they believe in just actions, they believe in civil rights, they believe in standing up for whats right, they believe in a right to privacy, they believe in a right to choose, they believe in the right to dissent, they believe in workers rights, they believe in people over profit, they believe in freedom, they despise the horrors of war, and they believe in ending this illegal war and bringing home all of our men and women stuck in a hell while you blindly point to a signature on page 15.
2. A contract or law cannot make you commit murder or commit an illegal act. I believe you have an obligation to disobey these said laws and contracts, now "lawmakers" or a "court of law" may order a punishment for breaking a law, but they are unjust for enforcing it. and they must be stood up to. they must be disobeyed. MLK jr spent time in jail for christs sakes? nd we was on the hgreatest of crusades, the crusade of equality. So you stand in line and take unjust orders that you do not support, and i will piss on the contract that orders me to participate in the slaughter of innocents humans.
You CAN stop paying your car loan or your credit cards... you will be subjected to the consequences... JUST LIKE these soldiers are.
In case you didn't know... 'Brig' is a military term for 'Jail'.
...
ADD... And just because you signed up for a car loan doesn't mean the lender can tell you how to operate and where to drive your car, right?
Hail, Hail!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialist
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Oh man, Proudhon got to you too, huh?
I'm aspiring to be a Reptile Zebra myself.
Someone got to you.
Edit: and I'm guessing it wasn't you.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'm not mocking anyone. I simply find it hard to believe that one can merge two contradictory ideals into a single ideal.
Hehe...probably.
The Communist worships the state. The Libertarian Socialist pretends he doesn't need it to achieve his goals. Libertarian Socialism is an equal opportunity employer of disillusioned anarchists and communists alike. But perhaps I should let a less biased person address your question
Aha .... Nope, I got it, thanks.
In all seriousness, there are some differences. Libertarian Socialists are primarily influenced by Marx, but also by the Russian and European anarchists of the last century. I'm sure someone who subscribes to it could explain the major differentiations.
Indeed ... There seems to be a general anti-government flavor to the ideology that you don't get with pure Marxism.
Yep -- the LS movement relies more on morality than it does on the state. Whereas communism simply prescribes behaviors via the force of the state, LS believes that you can prescribe behaviors by affecting the morality of those who make the choices. Unfortunately, LS's morality is simply Communistic morality, and, well, that can just speak for itself.
I wonder how many LS folks lost the faith in the common man's morality when Bush won that second term in office?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
When you take that statement at face value, it basically says that SOMEONE will still be in control ... There will still be a ruling class.
This stems from Proudhon's "property is theft" ideology. It's an easy philosophy to adopt, so long as you don't wish to own anything.
Ideals X 1,0000,2000,5456438764373... ideals
what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
No, that's just your interpretation. The Earth owns you, realistically, it's this universe that owns you, you don't own squat.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Whatever floats your boat.
This thread isn't about this and I would like to keep it that way. In fact , I'd like avoid all pointless and endless debates with you that always result in the same condescending mockery and ego stroking.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Hehe...ok. Let's just toss your "means of production" into the next black hole we find then.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This thread is about individual dissent in the face of the orders of society, is it not? This thread implies that each individual owns his body and his mind, does it not? This thread is a rejection of state control, is it not?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary "socialism" is "a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods." This definition fits neatly with the implications of the word "libertarian" indicated above. In fact, it shows that socialism is necessarily libertarian, not statist. For if the state owns the workplace, then the producers do not, and so they will not be at liberty to manage their own work but will instead be subject to the state as the boss. Moreover, replacing the capitalist owning class by state officials in no way eliminates wage labour; in fact it makes it worse in many cases. Therefore "socialists" who argue for nationalisation of the means of production are not socialists (which means that the Soviet Union and the other 'socialist" countries are not socialist nor are parties which advocate nationalisation socialist).
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
That definition only fits neatly with the implication of "libertarian" if the words "political power" had no meaning. Otherwise, you are talking about tyranny. When you produce wheat and can dictate what I, a bread producer, may do, you are not talking about Libertarianism. You are talking about collectivism.
"To be a true libertarian requires you to support workers' control otherwise you support authoritarian social relationships. To support workers' control, by necessity, means that you must ensure that the producers own (and so control) the means of producing and distributing the goods they create (i.e. they must own/control what they use to produce goods). Without ownership, they cannot truly control their own activity or the product of their labour. The situation where workers possess the means of producing and distributing goods is socialism. Thus to be a true libertarian requires you to be a socialist."
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
dead on :cool:
I do support "authoritarian social relationships". That means I support your right to give authority over yourself to anyone you choose, or to be an authority figure to anyone who chooses you.
To suggest that liberatrianism is against authority is ridiculous, and the very fact that you quote someone here as an authority shows that you don't even accept that. Libertarianism is against force, not authority.
Hehe...by what authority will this happen? And how will they "own" something in the absence of authority?
Thus it requires me??? Again, by what authority, abook?
I completely believe that workers should control their own activity and the products of their labor. That is the core of economic Libertarianism and Objectivism. But when a worker sells his labor to his employer, he has sold that labor and the products of it. They are no longer his. This is the essence of the differentiation between an employee and an entrepeneur. Those who wish to sell their labor, should. Those who wish to own their labor, should. But you cannot sell something and then continue to own it.
Finally, the use of the word "control" throughout this should tell you much about the violent and contradictory logic behind the statements. If workers will control their labor absolutely through force and coersion, what was so wrong about other "authorities" doing the same before that? If "ownership" and "control" are no longer two concepts, violence becomes the root of everything economic.
I never said this guy was an authority of anything. These thoughts just echo my own and I chose to use them.
Communal ownership which includes everyone. I believe we are all connnected to each other and our actions should always reflect that.
They own it because it's theirs. The power hungry and abusers of your system have proven your system can not work with any hope for equality in this world. Power of a few over many always corrupts whether it be a state or bussinessmen.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde