User Controls
Communism
-
2017-07-06 at 8:25 PM UTCWow so much hate in the world
-
2017-07-06 at 8:25 PM UTCIn the LIghtening
I think you know who made this
-
2017-07-06 at 8:28 PM UTC
-
2017-07-06 at 8:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon First of all, /r/thathappened tier $100% true story.
Second of all, you have to literally be 5 years old to seriously use the taxation-is-theft line of argument, and think it can be replaced with charity. The fact is that you live in a fucking society. Nothing you do is in a vacuum. Every single penny you've made has come off the back of public infrastructure. For every generous person like me, there will be a greedy jedi like you, who isn't willing to pay back in. You didn't magically pull the spirit of industry out of your asshole.
Third I already do a fuck load of charity, but the point of taxation and social programs isn't "charity". This is just a fundamentally retarded statement that displays the silly mindset you are in. The point of social programs is to establish a baseline for the standard of living in a fucking country so you can't starve and go homeless in the US of A in 2017.
And finally, I am also talking long term; when hundreds of unemployed niggers who lost their jobs due to automation are going hungry and the greedy jedis aren't paying in, and then they break down the golden estate gates and rape their wives and daughters and steal their bread, we'll see how much charity can be relied on, and how much sympathy they have for their estates.
I don't agree with your stance (or your bank account) but at least you've got your head screwed on right. Taxes are so much more than charity. I don't know how anybody, as a citizen of a first world nation, could not think that improving the lives of everybody in your country is worth pursuing. -
2017-07-06 at 8:34 PM UTCautomation wouldn't be a problem if the work that was left that could only be performed by humans was split equally among all humans. but just like now, the rich industrial elite do not want that. without unemployed masses they would have no leverage to continue paying the ridiculously low wages they currently pay, which enables them to pay themselves such obscene fortunes.
ever wondered why the government sets the working week hours so that the work cannot be divided fairly and leaves workers unemployed?
. -
2017-07-06 at 9:31 PM UTC
-
2017-07-06 at 9:37 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 12:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo It did last week, don't care if you believe me or not. The point is still the same.
I never said taxation = theft. Some taxation is, but certainly not all. I'm not an AnCapper.
Yes, I sincerely believe social programs can be replaced by private charities. It's more complicated than simply abolishing social programs and letting society sort itself out, however. A good starting place would be fortifying the family unit so we don't have 80 somewhat percent of niggers running around without fathers.
And 'greedy jedi'. Yeah. Ok bud. Because you know all about what I do with my time and resources. Don't demonize people just because they disagree with your theories, it looks bad.
I'm glad you donate to charity, I do as well and think everyone should as they are able. Social programs are a form of charity, sure, but a shitty one at that. Charities need to be privatized. The government should have nothing to do with them, except in the instances of insane asylums where people become wards of the state.
As for a baseline standard of living, no one owes you jack shit. You are not entitled to a house, three meals a day, clean water, etc. You must earn all of that, and only then will you truly be grateful for what you have. If you can't, yes, you will go homeless and potentially starve to death. To get to that point you must be a true degenerate, however, and deserve your fate.
Now, that's not to say I'm against helping the poor. Charities exist as a safety net for an individual who is temporarily down on his luck and has exceeded the resources of his family and friends. The problem with governmental programs is that they not only diminish the sense of community among citizens by placing care in the hands of the state, but enable perpetual degeneracy and the poor decisions that got the person in trouble in the first place.
Also, lol. "IT'S 2017 GUISE!"
Hahahaha. Whut.
I'm talking long term as well. And, why don't we address the reason so many niggers rely on shitty jobs that have been taken over by automation in the first place? Or the suffocating policies discouraging entrepreneurship, small businesses, and overall economic growth?
Ok. Nice rape scenario. Way to get the jedis in there too. Please, please tell me you understand the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. Capitalists do not support businesses getting in bed with the government on any level, and therefore hate the 'domineering greedy ass jedis' just as much as everyone else.
Post last edited by Dargo at 2017-07-06T20:14:51.067833+00:00
Social programs cannot be replaced by charities purely because social programs are not charities, and the fact that you'd say something like "you aren't entitled to shit" as a way to dismiss them is very telling. You're also not entitled to shit. Including shit you consider your own shit. Every cent you have comes from your participation in society. Boohoo, you have to pay back in. The concept is no different than insurance. -
2017-07-07 at 12:38 AM UTC*prophet
unless you were making a Dogma joke but that joke was shit to begin with -
2017-07-07 at 12:58 AM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Social programs cannot be replaced by charities purely because social programs are not charities, and the fact that you'd say something like "you aren't entitled to shit" as a way to dismiss them is very telling. You're also not entitled to shit. Including shit you consider your own shit. Every cent you have comes from your participation in society. Boohoo, you have to pay back in. The concept is no different than insurance.
Name one service social programs provide that charities cannot provide privately.
I'm not inherently entitled to shit. I am entitled to what I work for and what I earn. Capitalism is the most altruistic form of economy because if I don't work to give YOU something that YOU want, I fail. It doesn't matter if I hate you, disagree with everything you stand for, etc., I must provide a service that YOU are willing to buy.
Communism (or Socialism) on the other hand, is based off the notion that I am entitled to something simply because I exist. In fact, I am even entitled to things which I did not earn, and are taken forcefully from others. This creates a philosophy that is more than a failure, it's downright immoral. Communism is driven by covetousness and greed, and cannot survive without theft.
No matter how you look at it, voluntary exchange (charities, free market economy) is better than redistribution at gunpoint. I am all for people paying back into their communities, and in ways that go beyond monetary donations too. I think we can also agree that there's a considerable shortage of people doing this, Communism and increased governmental involvement just isn't the answer. -
2017-07-07 at 1:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Dargo Name one service social programs provide that charities cannot provide privately.
The government isn't a magical entity above humanity, it is a social structure. So of course there is nothing a government can technically do that a charity cannot technically do. The problem is not whether or not a private charity can accomplish the same things, but whether or not it can do so without enforcing taxation as law so the greedy don't get to keep their money. Which is the prime difference between a charity and social security.I'm not inherently entitled to shit. I am entitled to what I work for and what I earn.
Why? Says who?Capitalism is the most altruistic form of economy because if I don't work to give YOU something that YOU want, I fail.
If only it worked. If only externalities weren't a real thing. If only, if only.Communism (or Socialism) on the other hand, is based off the notion that I am entitled to something simply because I exist. In fact, I am even entitled to things which I did not earn, and are taken forcefully from others. This creates a philosophy that is more than a failure, it's downright immoral. Communism is driven by covetousness and greed, and cannot survive without theft.
Do you jerk off into a copy of Anthem every night? Do you think that you are not a product of society? Do you think that there are no advantages afforded to you, or that nobody else deserves a shot that you might have gotten, even those advantages and opportunities you take for granted?No matter how you look at it, voluntary exchange (charities, free market economy) is better than redistribution at gunpoint. I am all for people paying back into their communities, and in ways that go beyond monetary donations too. I think we can also agree that there's a considerable shortage of people doing this, Communism and increased governmental involvement just isn't the answer.
No. Social security is not charity. Our society operates on the principle that we can all have a mutually beneficial relationship with one another. It works better for some than others, and we should seek to bring all up... Whether you like it or not. -
2017-07-07 at 9:45 PM UTC
-
2017-07-07 at 9:51 PM UTCHow about we do this.. sort of capitalist but some socialism
No one goes homeless.
Everyone works (unless they drop out or have a real doctor say "This dude can't work) then they go to a hospital.
Then have like .. random I dunno 10-15 class base brackets you work into. But you work. something. Run errand for the boss and pickup his dry cleaning.
people of higher classes have P.A.'s to go pick up their shit and make reservations for dinner (business or other), plane flights..etc
Something has to work.. or suddenly some fucked up mystery virus seems to want to kill off the poorer class -
2017-07-07 at 10:02 PM UTCOh I noticed I said "He" lots. I mean MANKIND er sumthen
-
2017-07-08 at 2:57 PM UTC
Originally posted by Totse 2001 Oh I noticed I said "He" lots. I mean MANKIND er sumthen
which post are you talking about? if its the one immediately preceeding this one then i cannot see the word 'he' once. i can see 'his' but that doesn't make sense. you say 'he' in the post before that one, but again it doesn't make sense that you meant mankind.
. -
2017-07-08 at 7:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist which post are you talking about? if its the one immediately preceeding this one then i cannot see the word 'he' once. i can see 'his' but that doesn't make sense. you say 'he' in the post before that one, but again it doesn't make sense that you meant mankind.
.
I was trying to explain (yet not in clear detail) that females can be apart of the same situation as men are. It's like saying God is a He or "Our Father" probably because "Carpenter" is used a lot as one who builds. Which Carpenters were usually Male specific Jobs in the days of Old. Like the one who built the Universe with the ones he created to aid him. Most likely God is non gender specific or multi gender.
I wasn't trying to sound like a non P.C. figure in this particular post because there wasn't humor or sarcasm intended.. much.
Edited: Post #213
I said Dude.. not Dudette :|
Post last edited by Totse 2001 at 2017-07-08T19:30:36.694089+00:00 -
2017-07-08 at 8:09 PM UTC
-
2017-07-09 at 10:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by benny vader they call this feudalism
No because the class system isn't Job specific really. and unless wealthy hire a certain percentage of people then their tax bracket must be raised and enforced the wealthy can reduce pay to the Government by keeping lower class and educated working and perhaps invest in real estate to offer low rent for more comfort.
no low income ghetto shit. strict security in these places which has rules. no making shitloads of noise and loitering or having company over that stays more than x amount of days per year.
non resident guest not staying must not enter rental area unless over 18 and anyone under 18 must go find somewhere else to hang out.
keeping order while not having to meddle in peoples business
