Communism Is The Only Way Forward

Congratulation for completely missing the point of having a state and state regulation of the economy.
It's honestly getting kind of 50-50 these days. The state is increasingly torn between its role as the guardian of capitalism, and a guardian from capitalism.
 
Not if the Widget-barons control the world's supply of Widgonium, I can't. I have to go and work in the Widget mills, which is more than can be said for the Widget-barons themselves.
The notion that there can be a widget-baron which controls the world's supply of Widgonium in the absence of state support for widget-barons and state-enacted barriers to competition with said barons is a logical impossibility. It has never existed in the history of the universe and it CANNOT exist because there will always be eager beavers anxious to take the barons down. Unless, of course, there are legal barriers which prevent said beavers from jumping in.

Lefties have a bizarre idea that state regulation can somehow rein in powerful corporations and make them work for the common good. This is nonsense. The purpose of the state is to legalize theft by the powerful from the powerless and consequently the bureaucrats and the corporations invariably collude to steal from the rest of us. J.P. Morgan wrote the FED legislation. AT&T came up with the telephone rules. It's still the same today. Do you really think that the Drug companies spent millions of advertising dollars promoting Obamacare because it would rein in their control over us?
 
Is getting money via gifts an explotive behavior then?
Gifts are not given at such a scale as to be relevant when discussing an entire society.

What specifies "labor?"
Productive endeavour.

The notion that there can be a widget-baron which controls the world's supply of Widgonium in the absence of state support for widget-barons and state-enacted barriers to competition with said barons is a logical impossibility. It has never existed in the history of the universe and it CANNOT exist because there will always be eager beavers anxious to take the barons down. Unless, of course, there are legal barriers which prevent said beavers from jumping in.
Good job I never described anything remotely like that, then! :goodjob:

Lefties have a bizarre idea that state regulation can somehow rein in powerful corporations and make them work for the common good. This is nonsense. The purpose of the state is to legalize theft by the powerful from the powerless and consequently the bureaucrats and the corporations invariably collude to steal from the rest of us. J.P. Morgan wrote the FED legislation. AT&T came up with the telephone rules. It's still the same today. Do you really think that the Drug companies spent millions of advertising dollars promoting Obamacare because it would rein in their control over us?
Je suis une anarchiste-syndicaliste.
 
The notion that there can be a widget-baron which controls the world's supply of Widgonium in the absence of state support for widget-barons and state-enacted barriers to competition with said barons is a logical impossibility. It has never existed in the history of the universe and it CANNOT exist because there will always be eager beavers anxious to take the barons down. Unless, of course, there are legal barriers which prevent said beavers from jumping in.

Lefties have a bizarre idea that state regulation can somehow rein in powerful corporations and make them work for the common good. This is nonsense. The purpose of the state is to legalize theft by the powerful from the powerless and consequently the bureaucrats and the corporations invariably collude to steal from the rest of us. J.P. Morgan wrote the FED legislation. AT&T came up with the telephone rules. It's still the same today. Do you really think that the Drug companies spent millions of advertising dollars promoting Obamacare because it would rein in their control over us?

Can somebody simplify the second paragraph for me...
 
Gifts are not exchanged at such a scale as to be relevant when discussing an entire society.

Then is a rich man leaving several billion dollars worth of money/land/whatever to a close friend or family member an exploitive behavior?


Productive endeavour.

Again, clarify. Is...

Working as a clerk in a bank a productive endeavour?

Is working as stock analyst a productive endeavour?

Is teaching philosophy a productive endeavour?
 
I would say a productive endeavor is rather subjective. Clarification is required.

IMO exploitation is productive; does it not yield good results?

Of course the ethics of it is questionable, but there's no doubt in my mind it's productive.
 
Congratulation for completely missing the point of having a state and state regulation of the economy.

Ummm. I just pointed it out. Let me repeat: The purpose of the state is to enable the parasites to legally live off the productive.

That has ever and always been the state's sole purpose and sole objective (well, aside from satisfying the universal human desire to control other people). Ten thousand years of thieves living off decent folk by force of arms. Ten thousand years of death and destruction. Ten thousand years of slavery. Ten thousand years of lies. Ten thousand years of waste, of ruin, of warfare, of everything which is the opposite to justice and law.

During all this time the thieves and killers arrogantly claimed that they were superior to their victims. They were the Sons of the Gods. Or so they said. Thus their theft and their killing was the Mandate of Heaven. They were the Nobles. Their victims were mere commoners. Thus their theft and their killing was the natural consequence of their station in life.

Now we reach the stage of the democratic state. No longer can the thieves and the killers claim to steal and murder because of a God-given right. Now instead, they claim to do it to protect their victims!!!

Yeah. The purpose of state control is ummm...

So tell me again. What precisely is the purpose of legalized control over peoples' lives... except legalized control over peoples' lives?

And theft. And slavery. That's just the baggage which goes along. Right?
 
Then is a rich man leaving several billion dollars worth of money/land/whatever to a close friend or family member an exploitive behavior?
In that he continues to exploit the worker through his retention of unearned wealth? Yes.

Again, clarify. Is...

Working as a clerk in a bank a productive endeavour?

Is working as stock analyst a productive endeavour?

Is teaching philosophy a productive endeavour?
Yes, yes, and yes. A white-collar worker is still a worker.

IMO exploitation is productive; does it not yield good results?

Of course the ethics of it is questionable, but there's no doubt in my mind it's productive.
By definition, no, it is not. That's what marks it as "exploitative", and not "productive". Unless, perhaps, you view the brown rat as amongst our most valued livestock? :p
 
Can somebody simplify the second paragraph for me...
Since I wrote it, let me try to explain.

The purpose of the state is enable the rich and powerful to exploit the poor and powerless. Therefore the purpose of state regulation is to protect rich from upstart competition by lesser people.

Then read through the paragraph for examples.
 
In that he continues to exploit the worker through his retention of unearned wealth? Yes.

And if this rich man, hypothetically, due to mix of luck and intelligence, earned every single penny of his fortune?

Would not then a man have a right to do anything he wants with his money?

The purpose of the state is enable the rich and powerful to exploit the poor and powerless. Therefore the purpose of state regulation is to protect rich from upstart competition by lesser people.

:wallbash:
 
And if this rich man, hypothetically, due to mix of luck and intelligence, earned every single penny of his fortune?

Would not then a man have a right to do anything he wants with his money?
That depends entirely on whether or not he really did "earn" his money, and I, for one, am sceptical as to the possibility of any one human ever producing that much wealth single-handedly. The one grey area is that of intellectual property, which is ever a tricky business for the socialist, although I honestly can't imagine what would allow a man to leap from pauper to billionaire through such means alone.

..and you would know? ;)
Well, there's plenty of Southerners who's heads are easily turned by a man in a nice plaid skirt... :p
 
That depends entirely on whether or not he really did "earn" his money, and I, for one, am sceptical as to the possibility of any one human ever producing that much wealth single-handedly. The one grey area is that of intellectual property, which is ever a tricky business for the socialist, although I honestly can't imagine what would allow a man to leap from pauper to billionaire through such means alone.

So teaching philosophy produces wealth but investing in a textile company does not. Riight.
 
Ummm. I just pointed it out. Let me repeat: The purpose of the state is to enable the parasites to legally live off the productive.

Government is like medicine. There are a lot of types and a lot of ways to apply it. Take too few and you're still sick. Overdose and it poisons you. Take the wrong medicine and it wrecks havoc with your body. What you are saying is like claiming medicine is poison - and indeed many are, in enough quantities, but if applied correctly a few can enhance human life rather than blight it. And any medicine affect different parts of the body in different ways, and not necessarily in a beneficial manner (sideeffects, if you will). "The State" or rather any other type of governmental authority is therefore multifaceted, and merely a tool for people to use, and not necessary for good or evil
 
So teaching philosophy produces wealth...
Firstly, wealthy is not necessarily material. Secondly, one may be involved in the production process indirectly.

...but investing in a textile company does not. Riight.
That depends on the investor and the investment in question. One cannot generalise.
 
I'm really not sure how to interpret this response but.. I am going to take it as agreement. :cool:

I really REALLY am frustrated by lefty twits who believe they that can somehow use an institution whose purpose has always and ever been to enable theft by the powerful from the powerless to magically do the exact opposite.

taillesskangerou - i'm talking to you.


Moderator Action: Please don't resort to name calling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Back
Top Bottom