Of marxists, socialists, eco-terrorists and other Neo-Coms

Its communism in the sense that there is no real private property and no traditional economy to consentrate power and supress 'unprofitable' ventures, but libraterian in the sense of maximum personal freedoms something atualy helped by the removal of economics. And of cource both phylosiphys endorce maximum public involvment in governance. Allthough many libratariens suport private property it is not a requierment of the ideology, in fact its best described as anarchocapitalism.

Double post

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
there is no real private property and no traditional economy to consentrate power

So you think that if I build a wooden boat with my own hands and skill, it should be taken away from me?

One wooden boat for himself, no not at all what good is it going to do to take it away, but if a man builds boats as his proffesion why does he need more than a few too himself? ultimately my goal is to build a socity were that sort of fource is unnecisery, were contributing to the community is to the benifit to any individual and to the populatoon at large. Capitalism has its own issues witj cphersion as well the left is not the sole sufferer of this issue.

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
but if a man builds boats as his proffesion why does he need more than a few too himself?

He doesnt. Thats why he will give away the other boats in exchange for other goods. He will trade some of his boats and invest others. Thats called Capitalism. Its natural, its humane, and it works.

reply to post by Skyfloating


OR he can pass on his extras to the comunity stores and as a result achive a corosponding increace in acsess to those stores. capitalism is above all messy its a complicated and wastefull system, look at banks for example they serve no pourpose outside of capitalism, they produce no product and oiffer no real service ( unlike cleaners or computer programers). The recent recession also shows how, simply daft capitalism can be - what atualy changed, nothing our countrys had no less resources, our factrys no leess capacity yet we underwent a massive economic decline simply becouse the banks sliped up in there manipulation of the numbers. Beyond the simple inefficiancys of capitalism is its capacity if left unregulated to consentrate welth and hence in this system power into an increacingly small number of people or entitys (corporations etc). While you could argue the same of socialism (but not I must stress full communism) were would you rather have the power, in the hands of an elected goverment you have some degree of control over however limited or an oligarchy
of corporations and elites you have no control over whatsoever.

reply to post by AnonymousJ


You use the word "control" in your last post frequently. This kind of contradicts your previous post of your philosophy not being about control.

What do you care who gains wealth? Let them gain wealth if they want to. Its neither necessary nor even possible to control the wealth of every single person. Let things naturally take their course.

____________________________________________________________

Just foud this anti-socialist gem on the Internet:

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

I found a wonderful Post that displays the mentality of the modern "Liberal". According to it, murder is a natural event that is needed for natural selection.

And they wonder why leftists of the 20th Century always ended up with Genocide.

reply to post by Skyfloating


In regards to control I was speaking not of my ideological intentions but demonstrating a worst case senario/implementation of left or right wing ideologys. I may have articulated this poorly if you have not understood but it was my argument that the worst case senario of a socilism is not as bad as the equivilent for capitalism as the general public still have some say in the runing of their country. Equaly to understand my pespective you need to clearly define the diferences of wealth and power, wealth is a persons acumulated acsess to goods it determines his standard of living eg: the size/comfort of someones house. Power is a mesure of a persons influence on socity anmd say in polotics etc. In capitalism the two are tied together as the richer you become the more financial clout you have to buy or influence busnesses or polititions on top of earning a better standard of living. my goal is to seperate the 2 so while people remain motivated by wealth therew is no consentration of power amongst the few; of cource I do not advocate the huge diffrences in wealth seen today but I do see the value of selfbetterment as motivation. The combination of direct democracy, comunism shared resources and a parcon derived nontransferable currency achive this goal.

hope i cleared some things up!

reply to post by AnonymousJ


Yeah, you cleared things up.

Probably the current society we are living in is not working for you. Hence you look it how to change it. It is working for me - working very well even - so naturally I support it and resist change. Thats what it all comes down to.

I see what you mean but atualy my life, personly is atualy going rather well (bar fears over rising university fees) I just see so much inequality, waste and potential disasters and hence see a need for change. Anyway thanks for a good argument I havent had the chance for a decent debate in ages and youve certinly given me a chalange

Originally posted by AnonymousJ
I see what you mean but atualy my life, personly is atualy going rather well (bar fears over rising university fees) I just see so much inequality, waste and potential disasters and hence see a need for change. Anyway thanks for a good argument I havent had the chance for a decent debate in ages and youve certinly given me a chalange

Yeah its been fun with you - thank you.

Dont they do decent debates at your University?

Atualy Im still at 6th form doing my Alevels its just that when I do go to uni all the higher fees ect will then be in place to deal with. Atualy joining a debating club at uni sounds good but at the moment a serious debate on politics or the like is about the last talking point on the agenda with my mates, nobydys realy intrested. I managed to get the odd convesation going at the election though, but I found the advocacy of a belevelont dictator by one person funny and cringeworthy at the same time.

reply to post by AnonymousJ


Benevolent Dictatorship can work if the guy keeps his own Ego totally out of it (which is rare).

huh the only person I'd trust as a belevolent dictator would be an AI realy (ala Ian M Banks books) but I doubt thats going to happen anytime soon.