Agree or disagree - a question from the new citizenship test

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Equal money and power are not prescribed by communism. Money and power relative to need are prescribed by communism. And nothing within a communist system has a greater "need" than the state. That is why the heads of communist states tend to have a bit more than the needs of the "proletariat".

and why is that? becos they get a taste of power and they want and need more so they become self-serving, just as the winners in capitalism do.

so... do you want government to have that unlimited power to control things, or the wealthy elite to have that unlimited power to control things? that's your choice in capitalism vs. communism.

or, you can do the unthinkable, mix these economic theories, and set these two up as checks on each other... as we do right now.

cos otherwise, your argument is pointless. you say capitalists shouldn't abuse others, but we know they do and will. i could just as easily say communists shouldn't take more for themselves, but we know they do and will. if everyone in the system was willing to play by the rules, sure, we'd have capitalist and communist utopias. but they don't. so it's just a matter of picking your poison.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

sure they do. and neither do capitalism and communism. now before you go "huh"... rum is an alcoholic drink, coke is a sweet carbonated drink. but both are drinks. capitalism is hands off economics, communism is totally regulated economics. but they're both still economic systems. and you CAN mix them... it's called socialism. a general freedom of economy, but with some regulation and protection against abuse. im sorry, but im a bit more concerned about the abuse of the weak by the strong than i am about the "abuse" of a rich guy having to pay a few taxes.

You cannot have "a general freedom of economy". That's just a pathetic obfuscation for control. If I lock you in a room, you don't have a "general freedom of movement". You are forcibly confined.

Socialism is not a mix of communism and capitalism. It is a pre-statist communist economy. There is no individual ownership of property in socialism. Ownership is collective.

quit being a pussy man

Awesome.

we covered that already.

Where?

becos my body is worth more to me than 10,000 acres of land filled with gold. if you wanted to buy my body in the sense that you OWN it as you own your property, it's worth a hell of a lot more than that lot of property.

Ok. Name your price. If I want to own your body for 24 hours, what would it cost me?

ownership is indefinite. you're talking, at best, about renting my body, not owning it. you cannot own someone else's body, ever. that is called slavery. their body is worth more than any piece of property becos it can never be bought.

Slavery would violate your will. If you agree to it, it isn't slavery. And ownership is not really "indefinite". Ownership is transferrable, based on willful exchange. I own something until I sell it.

Finally, a body can certainly be bought. Laborers sell their bodies. So do prostitutes. People sell their organs.

but you are, your system demands it. your property is absolute and their body and soul and personhood (under your ideology) are worth no more than their labor can provide to you. so if a poor mcd's worker with no skills tries to steal your diamond, you are entitled to kill, maim, batter, and destroy him to protect the greater value of your diamond.

Huh? If someone "steals my diamond", my response to him has nothing to do with the value of that diamond. My response is only based on the fact that he doesn't believe in property. There is no justice in killing, maiming, battering or destroying a theif. There is only justice in recovering what he stole.

becos he's worth less than the diamond. you said yourself right up above that someone's life and body aren't worth any more than property...

No. I said it depends on the life, the body, the property, and the wills of those involved.

their only value is their ability to work for you. they're the means to your end and have no inherent value themselves.

No one is ever a "means to my end". If you've understood anything I've said in these posts, you would understand how that completely contradicts it all.