stupid americans

Collin

trappedinmyradio wrote:

it would be thievery in that, right now, american business is private...if a communist system were to takeover, those business would no longer be private, and a person would not be personally benefiting from their brainchild.

True. But I'd prefer that over a government who takes my money and fights all kinds of wars I'm absolutely against. And also you would get something in return and you wouldn't really 'need' personal benefit but maybe I should leave that debate to the communists here.

Byrnzie

trappedinmyradio wrote:

it would be thievery in that, right now, american business is private...if a communist system were to takeover, those business would no longer be private, and a person would not be personally benefiting from their brainchild.

When the gap between rich and poor in America becomes wide enough, and popular resentment against the Government becomes strong enough - which, at the present time is the direction we see - then something will have to give. This is the case as proven throughout all history. It has always been so, and will be so again.

trappedinmyradio

Byrnzie wrote:

When the gap between rich and poor in America becomes wide enough, and popular resentment against the Government becomes strong enough - which, at the present time is the direction we see - then something will have to give. This is the case as proven throughout all history. It has always been so, and will be so again.

we'll see...

trappedinmyradio

Collin wrote:

True. But I'd prefer that over a government who takes my money and fights all kinds of wars I'm absolutely against. And also you would get something in return and you wouldn't really 'need' personal benefit but maybe I should leave that debate to the communists here.

i was just giving you the reasoning behind it being thievery...

CorporateWhore

Collin wrote:

Well, if the majority of the US people wanted communism it wouldn't be 'forcing'.

I believe you have some very fascist views.

My natural rights are available to me whether the majority agrees or not; therefore, if the majority of the U.S. wanted Communism, that does not mean Communism is in sync with the natural rights of all. This is part of the reasoning in granting freedom to the slaves.

sponger

Shapur wrote:

You do know that without the workers there would be no profit, right?

Explain to me logically why workers, who are the majority and have the power to take-over a factory, should not do it, and instead keep working for wages that are lower then what their labor-power is worth?

Logically it doesn't make sense. And your argument doesn't make sense either. Was it a return on investment to buy slaves 200 years ago and have them work on your land for nothing? Do you condone that?

It's the same thing. Just because they had the idea to start it and enough money to start it (I wonder where they got that money from?), doesn't mean that they have the right to exploit and enslave others.

Re-read my previous post and go over the part where I talk about unionized labor. Unionized labor is a good thing. It is a successful aspect of our capitalist economy. I can right off the bat think of a few companies where unionized labor allows investors to profit while keeping workers from being "exploited". It's easy to counter my point of view when you counter a point of view that I don't even have.

shapur wrote:

Look at the internet. People are independently making new software that are as good, if not better, than the ones made by corporations, and they put them out for free.

Look at the USSR. Did science and technology stay behind or advance there? It arguably advanced further than ever before in any nation in the history of mankind.

Now look at Africa, South-America, or [insert third world capitalist country]. Are any of those more advanced than Cuba? No, then why are you using Cuba as a comparison with the US economy when it is obvious that Cuba doesn't have the same amount of capital to invest?

It's really intellectually dishonest when people do that. If you want to compare Cuba to another country then compare it to other third world countries like it, and you'll see that people there have it much in Cuba, and that Cuba is just as, if not more, advanced.

First off, your software example is consistent with your point, but not significant enough to justify a restructuring of our economy. Just walk into any patent office and ask people if they feel the need to invent and contribute just for the sake of being creative.

The technological advances in the USSR came at a price of the destruction of their economy. Their space program, military technological programs...etc. all drew heavily on funds that should've gone to public services. It's common knowledge that Russian leaders bankrupted the country in an effort to "keep up with the jones" in terms of technological development.

Prior to the communist takeover, Cuba's economy flourished in comparison to what it later became under Castro's rule. It is most certainly capable of improving its own standard of living if it were to switch to a free-market economy. Notice how its economy is worse than any of its neighbors? Could it be the lack of privatization?

shapur wrote:

Logically it doesn't make sense. And your argument doesn't make sense either.

It's really intellectually dishonest when people do that.

Here's your filler. Recycle if need be when you don't know what else to say.

Scubascott

CorporateWhore wrote:

My natural rights are available to me whether the majority agrees or not; therefore, if the majority of the U.S. wanted Communism, that does not mean Communism is in sync with the natural rights of all. This is part of the reasoning in granting freedom to the slaves.

I'm curious about this concept of 'natural rights' that you keep mentioning. I was under the impression that humans were born with a body and mind, and that any 'rights' that are bestowed upon them are purely contructs of the society that they are raised in. I didn't know that one could be born with certain rights as well.

What are the natural rights of humans? Who decides what they are? Can one have these rights confiscated through their actions?

I'm just curious.

CorporateWhore

Scubascott wrote:

I'm curious about this concept of 'natural rights' that you keep mentioning. I was under the impression that humans were born with a body and mind, and that any 'rights' that are bestowed upon them are purely contructs of the society that they are raised in. I didn't know that one could be born with certain rights as well.

What are the natural rights of humans? Who decides what they are? Can one have these rights confiscated through their actions?

I'm just curious.

The Founders of America believed that human beings were born with certain inalienable rights, based on their humanity. God created man free; therefore, man should remain free. The only reason man had his freedom taken away was due to governments, which are fairly recent in the history of man.

God would not create man free only for him to be subjugated and made into a slave to other men. This is opposed to reason. Because we follow the will of God, we are free.

When God gives a human being life, there is a rational purpose for that human being's life. If God did not intend for mankind to have liberty, God would have created man without freedom; specifically, he would've created a creature that obeyed all of His commands.

Rushlimbo

CorporateWhore wrote:

The Founders of America believed that human beings were born with certain inalienable rights, based on their humanity. God created man free; therefore, man should remain free. The only reason man had his freedom taken away was due to governments, which are fairly recent in the history of man.

God would not create man free only for him to be subjugated and made into a slave to other men. This is opposed to reason. Because we follow the will of God, we are free.

When God gives a human being life, there is a rational purpose for that human being's life. If God did not intend for mankind to have liberty, God would have created man without freedom; specifically, he would've created a creature that obeyed all of His commands.

This sounds like cultist rhetoric.

fanch75

Ya'll must be crazy

CorporateWhore

Rushlimbo wrote:

This sounds like cultist rhetoric.

Wikipedia "Natural Law"

Rushlimbo

CorporateWhore wrote:

Wikipedia "Natural Law"

Natural Light is awesome.

CorporateWhore

Rushlimbo wrote:

Natural Light is awesome.

That is something we can agree on.

fanch75

Rushlimbo wrote:

Natural Light is awesome.

Fuck an A!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/fanch75/Avatars/08920Nat20light20girl.jpg

Scubascott

CorporateWhore wrote:

The Founders of America believed that human beings were born with certain inalienable rights, based on their humanity. God created man free; therefore, man should remain free. The only reason man had his freedom taken away was due to governments, which are fairly recent in the history of man.

God would not create man free only for him to be subjugated and made into a slave to other men. This is opposed to reason. Because we follow the will of God, we are free.

When God gives a human being life, there is a rational purpose for that human being's life. If God did not intend for mankind to have liberty, God would have created man without freedom; specifically, he would've created a creature that obeyed all of His commands.

So let me see if I have it right. Because we follow the will of God, we are free. But man's liberty is evident is his tendancy to disobey God's commands?

How old do you believe the earth is?

Scubascott

Anyway, you didn't answer the second part of my question. Can a person's 'natural rights' be justifiably taken away? You seem anxious to lock all those who oppose your point of view in jail, but what gives you the 'right' to take away their freedom? Especially if it was given to them by none other than God himself?

CorporateWhore

Scubascott wrote:

Anyway, you didn't answer the second part of my question. Can a person's 'natural rights' be justifiably taken away? You seem anxious to lock all those who oppose your point of view in jail, but what gives you the 'right' to take away their freedom? Especially if it was given to them by none other than God himself?

A person's natural rights can be taken away if the government decides to through something called due process. The government must have probable cause and all that shit.

If someone violates the natural law, they are subject to their rights being taken away. Or, if the government that the individual consents to be governed by (by living under that government) determines that they broke a law that the individual agreed to (directly or indirectly through Republicanism), then the individual can have freedom taken away.

As for Communists who try to take away my natural liberties, I believe they can be put in jail. They try to take my liberty, they break natural law. They go to jail. It's simple. I don't have to follow laws or systems of law that do not uphold my rights.

Scubascott

CorporateWhore wrote:

A person's natural rights can be taken away if the government decides to through something called due process. The government must have probable cause and all that shit.

If someone violates the natural law, they are subject to their rights being taken away. Or, if the government that the individual consents to be governed by (by living under that government) determines that they broke a law that the individual agreed to (directly or indirectly through Republicanism), then the individual can have freedom taken away.

As for Communists who try to take away my natural liberties, I believe they can be put in jail. They try to take my liberty, they break natural law. They go to jail. It's simple. I don't have to follow laws or systems of law that do not uphold my rights.

Wow.

So you consent to be governed by the united states government, and agree to abide by its laws, by choosing to live in the united states.

But, you 'don't have to follow laws or systems of law that do not uphold my rights'. So if you decide that your government is no longer upholding your rights, you do what? Become an anarchist?

What about those who did not consent to live under your government's laws? Ever heard of David Hicks? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks) When did he agree to have his liberty confiscated?

Coming back to life

The triangle one is my favourite

Cuntified C

I am a university educated person and I have to say that even I wouldn't know the answers to some of those questions.