• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Freedom of speech

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Ok well by that logic, every and any system is 'unfair' (I don't like capitalism, and yet it is being forced down my throat every day. Your proposed system would violate my 'individual rights', so we could never do it, right?). The majority of people would benefit under socialism, so I just assume the majority would want it. Democratic socialism usually succeeds capitalism. It is democratic meaning that the majority of people want it. If the majority feel they don't like it, they can vote leaders out. The power rests solely in the people.
Yes, every system besides one in which rights are maximized is unfair.

And the reason its unfair is because people do not have equal, maximized rights.


But under a system of true capitalism, everyone DOES have equal rights, and those rights have no limits, so long as you respect the equal rights of others.


Democracy is chosen because the system is democratic.
The MAJORITY votes on what government we get.
So, the MAJORITY controls the lives of everyone.

This is unfair to every minority in existence.

In my proposal, everyone only controls themselves, so there is no 'unfairness'.



anomaly said:
And if that gov't is itself dominated by the people, what does that mean? The people are free to dispose of their leaders. Are you saying that freedom is impossible? Even when the people control everything?
Freedom for all is possible when EVERY person is in control.

It only makes sense that every person should control themselves.

Then their lives will truly be their own, not something for higher-ups to throw around and alter at will.



anomaly said:
Well, here it is shown how important the type of gov't is. Proportional representation is needed. I know you aren't so ignorant of that idea as Fant is, so you probably know that it can work. Minority rights are, of course, important.
You say minority rights are important... but then you propose a majority rules system....

Those two beliefs are contradictory.


In my proposal, everyone is a representative of themselves, and themselves only.

Nobody makes decisions for other people, as it isn't their decision to make.



anomaly said:
Someone ultimatly ends up with more capital than someone else, so they have more power than someone else. This means they can exert a bit of control over someone else. And, in capitalism, a 'large group' or 'small group' does control many things. Monopolies, businesses, corporations. These are controlling groups.
You are misunderstanding influence with FORCE.

When one group controls someone through FORCE (like all governments do),
it does not reflect the interests of the person who is being FORCED.

However, when one uses influence to persuade someone (like companies do),
it reflects the interests of the person which are amplified by influence.

Under influence, the ultimate choice is still for THAT PERSON to make.
This is different than control, where the person has no say in the matter.


The use of FORCE or FRAUD is illegal because it violates a person's rights.



anomaly said:
You have advanced beyond capitalism, you don't even speak of capitalism anymore. You speak of anarchism.
If you don't know this yet, capitalism and anarchism are quite similar.

But anarchism allows for something capitalism does not.
And that is the initiation of FORCE to meet an end.

The use of FORCE in anarchism is what makes the system unfair.
Capitalism eliminates this use of FORCE, which is what makes it fair.



anomaly said:
The Zapatistas had to fight to gain an autonomous zone. Again, why can't communes exist today is capitalism is all volntary and righteous?
Because our government does not practice real capitalism.
Those that would try to create a commune would be put down by our many unnecessary government rules and regulations.

-People would not be allowed to run their own community, as government has designated itself sole provider of that role.
-People would not be able to contribute all labor towards the betterment of the community, because government imposes taxes and the minimum wage.
-People would not be free to maintain such a community, because government has zoning laws, property taxes, owns much of our land, controls our transportation system, and tells everyone what they can and cannot do.

Under a completely free society, people would be allowed to act peacefully however they chose. Communes would be free to prosper, as there would be nobody telling you how to live your life and what is right and wrong.



anomaly said:
Capitalism is dominated by competition and the accumulation of capital, how could a communist zone exist in the middle of such a system? Communists have no need for capital, and yet to the capitalist, the commune is wasting their labor force. To the capitalist, the commune would be using land otherwise being used to accumulate a profit.
And the capitalists could do nothing about it.

The only thing that lets them do something about it is government (thank you, abusive eminent domain laws!).

The capitalists might get antsy because you aren't using capital, but they would have to respect your rights to live how you see fit.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo, I will not even respond to them all, because they all say basically the same thing: Individualism and your hatred of force. Individualism is somewhat good, but you only tell the good side of it. Individualism leads to selfishness, this leads to the want to control capital, this leads to the want to control other people. Individualism can blind one to the rest of the world and its problems. Collectivism is far superior. Idividual needs can be met, but then the focus is on heling the maximum amount of people. Let's look at force. How can you clim that the gov't can dominate the people through force when the gov't is a democratic one! Give the people ultimate control! I don't understand how you could still be a capitalist, I don't think the market left to itself will do the majority of people any good. Agai, the fact is, that capitalism hurts more people than it helps (as said even by the capitalist icon Ayn Rand). I and many others offer to people a system that helps the majority of people, socialism. And then a system that helps everyone, and gives complete freedom, communism. Prouction strictly for human use, that is what we should push for. But I am growing weary of this utopian discussion. Perhaps you should go to my new thread in the econoics forum, and see what privatisation and deregulation in the US leads to. The question for you then is, if that is not the way to capitalism, what is?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Gabo, I will not even respond to them all, because they all say basically the same thing: Individualism and your hatred of force. Individualism is somewhat good, but you only tell the good side of it. Individualism leads to selfishness, this leads to the want to control capital, this leads to the want to control other people. Individualism can blind one to the rest of the world and its problems.
Individualism does accept selfishness.
But that's fine with me, because selfishness is impossible to remove.


However, unlike your belief, it is selfishness that makes us help one another.
It is selfishness that makes us trade with one another.

We realize that we can become more productive when we specialize in something and barter between one another for all goods. Working together makes it better for all those involved.

Thus, the more you work together, the better off you'll be.
People will want to work together more, and their selfishness will lead to cooperation.

This is because of the unique ability of humans to achive more as a collaboration of efforts and talents.

People that remain truly selfish will end up with LESS than those who realize working together benefits everyone involved.


Only when we begin controlling others do we end up with inefficiency. Those that are being controlled see a significant decrease in effort and output, because they are no longer satisfied.

But when everyone acts mutually, kindly, and works together, everyone benefits the maximum possible.



anomaly said:
Collectivism is far superior. Idividual needs can be met, but then the focus is on helping the maximum amount of people.
Of course collectivism is far superior, increasing production rate exponentially.

All the selfish bastards will realize this, and decide upon collectivism themselves.



anomaly said:
Let's look at force. How can you claim that the gov't can dominate the people through force when the gov't is a democratic one! Give the people ultimate control!
Please stop trying to pass off the belief that someone else can decide better or just as good for someone else.

It is a known fact that people choose best for themselves.

A democratic government obviously does not represent each person individually, so obviously not everyone is going to like what happens.

The people as a whole no longer have ultimate control.

The select few that decide things have the control.
All the people get to do is decide how they wish to be controlled.

This is not fair at all.

Why not allow each person to control themself?



anomaly said:
I don't understand how you could still be a capitalist, I don't think the market left to itself will do the majority of people any good. Again, the fact is, that capitalism hurts more people than it helps.
Not true.

Capitalism benefits everyone.

Because people work together mutually, they are able to achieve more.

When EVERYONE achieves more, even the poorer people in that society can have acceptable living conditions.



anomaly said:
I and many others offer to people a system that helps the majority of people, socialism. And then a system that helps everyone, and gives complete freedom, communism. Prouction strictly for human use, that is what we should push for.
Your fancy words do not sway the truth.
I advocate complete freedom for every person within the society.

You do not.
You are just like everyone else.
You want to push your beliefs on everyone, forcing them to conform to your standards.


Why will you not accept my proposal?
Under what I propose, EVERYONE will be able to choose for themselves.


Communists could set up communal societies.
Republicans could set up republican societies.
Monarchists could set up monarchies.
Or, people could choose not to live under any societal restrictions.

The important part is that everyone chooses for themselves.



anomaly said:
But I am growing weary of this utopian discussion. Perhaps you should go to my new thread in the econoics forum, and see what privatisation and deregulation in the US leads to. The question for you then is, if that is not the way to capitalism, what is?
The way to capitalism is to abolish the initiation of FORCE.

Period.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, if capitalism will work exactly as you have stated, I am all for it. I simply find it a bit utopian, and I certainly don't think that further privatization or deregulation of the current economic system will do anything but give corrupt corporations even more power. I see no way of getting from here to there. But, if we could go directly from the current system to your version of capitalism, I have no problem with it, as long as we on the far left are free to set up these' communes', and, likewise, everygroup is allowed to set up their own system. The major problem is that communism usually needs to be achieved globally, as no country is self sufficient. but if communist 'zones'were free to exist, and democracy and freedom ruled, and the communist 'zone' were to be able to be sustained, I have absolutely no problem with your system. But my problem is not the ends, it's the means (of getting to your 'capitalism'). Privatisation and deregulation are certainly not the way to put more power in the hands of the people.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Actually, if capitalism will work exactly as you have stated, I am all for it. I simply find it a bit utopian, and I certainly don't think that further privatization or deregulation of the current economic system will do anything but give corrupt corporations even more power. I see no way of getting from here to there.
Most people don't think it can work.
Most people think its too Utopian.

Nothing wrong with that.
Even I can't be 100% sure it would work.

But its at least worth trying.



anomaly said:
But, if we could go directly from the current system to your version of capitalism, I have no problem with it, as long as we on the far left are free to set up these' communes', and, likewise, everygroup is allowed to set up their own system.
That's the whole point of the system.

With the maximum allowance of freedom to every individual, people would be free to create whatevery type of society they want.

This is the HUGE advantage granted by this government type.

It is the ONLY government type that welcomes ALL people's views and desires.



anomaly said:
The major problem is that communism usually needs to be achieved globally, as no country is self sufficient.
There's no reason the value obtained from labor in a communist society couldn't be traded to another society for desired goods and services.



anomaly said:
but if communist 'zones'were free to exist, and democracy and freedom ruled, and the communist 'zone' were to be able to be sustained, I have absolutely no problem with your system.
Cool. :cool:

Looks like we may be beginning to agree on something.



anomaly said:
But my problem is not the ends, it's the means (of getting to your 'capitalism'). Privatisation and deregulation are certainly not the way to put more power in the hands of the people.
I don't like to think of it as "privatization and deregulation" necessarily.

All people would be more than able to establish societies with whatever amount of regulation and restrictions they desired.

Only those that WANT privatization and deregulation would have it.


But this is only a one-way street.

When the core of the government has no limitations, people are free to add their own.

But it's not possible for a society to live without limitations if the core of the government utilizes them.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do you have a plan for getting from here to there without resorting to further privatization and deregulation of the current semi-capitalist (apparently; or, in your terms) system? I think you may want to jump on board the anti-capitalist movement, many of whom advocate revolution, which is seemingly the only possible way of getting from here to there. What you're describing as 'capitalism' may appear in today's capitalists eyes as anti-capitalist. Quite paradoxical, but true. Today's system, if we really want to define it, is corporatism. As Mussolini said, though, "fascism is corporatism. We live in a fascist society, going by this definition.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
My overall proposal:


Allow anyone to opt out of ALL restrictive government programs and regulations by choice.

They would have to opt out all at once to stop people from only opting out of the negatives while continuing to mooch off the positives.


The people that decided to opt out would get:
-NO benefits from any government special interests
-NO obligation to pay taxes to provide for government special interests
-NO restrictions on mutually consented interactions
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
My overall proposal:


Allow anyone to opt out of ALL restrictive government programs and regulations by choice.

They would have to opt out all at once to stop people from only opting out of the negatives while continuing to mooch off the positives.


The people that decided to opt out would get:
-NO benefits from any government special interests
-NO obligation to pay taxes to provide for government special interests
-NO restrictions on mutually consented interactions
This kind of move would only decrease the size of gov't, and thus, hurt Americans by making business king. We need to nationalize the economy, but first we must reform our gov't by making it into truly a people's state. Decentralising the gov't seems a good first move (speaking of, Gabo, what are your views on gov't decentralisation?), but we also need to reform the electorate process, perhaps regulating campaign spending. This would mean that the winner would not be the party that spends the most. Also, we need proportional representation for the legislative branch of gov't, ensuring that even minority views get representation. Perhaps we need something of a 5 party system: radical left, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and radical right. MAke that 6, since you probably want a libertarian party, which does not fit into any of the previously listed conditions. But, if we can further democratize our gov't, why not democratize the economy (by nationalizing it, thus handing it over to representatives chosen by the people).
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
This kind of move would only decrease the size of gov't, and thus, hurt Americans by making business king.
Business would only be king for those that wanted it to be king.

People like you that hate private businesses and LOVE government regulations can continue to support and use the government system.



anomaly said:
We need to nationalize the economy, but first we must reform our gov't by making it into truly a people's state. Decentralising the gov't seems a good first move (speaking of, Gabo, what are your views on gov't decentralisation?)
My entire proposal IS complete decentralization!

It goes as far to decentralize the government down to each individual.

But of course each of those individuals would be free to come together into a voluntary community.



anomaly said:
but we also need to reform the electorate process, perhaps regulating campaign spending. This would mean that the winner would not be the party that spends the most.
I believe restrictions on campaign spending is unfair.

Many people are aware of 3rd parties, they just don't want to "throw away their vote".


A way to fix this is to institute Instant Runoff Voting.


This system works like this......
When you go to vote, you don't just choose 1 person. You can rank as many or few candidates as you want in your order of preference.
The decision for the winner is done by "runoffs" (hence the name).
First, all primary (1st choice) votes are counted. The candidate with the least primary votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for them has their vote now count for the next choice on their list.
This process is repeated untill all candidates are eliminated, thus revealing the winner.

This is MUCH more fair to 3rd parties, because people won't be afraid to vote for them.



anomaly said:
Also, we need proportional representation for the legislative branch of gov't, ensuring that even minority views get representation. Perhaps we need something of a 5 party system: radical left, liberals, moderates, conservatives, and radical right. MAke that 6, since you probably want a libertarian party, which does not fit into any of the previously listed conditions. But, if we can further democratize our gov't, why not democratize the economy (by nationalizing it, thus handing it over to representatives chosen by the people).
A system flowing from right to left is completely inaccurate.

Do you even know that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line? :confused:

Here is a small political quiz accompanied with a diagram to help you out:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Personally I see no reason for representatives at all.
I believe any matters that need voting (which should be slim to none if we ALWAYS recognize individual freedom) should be decided on with a national vote once a year.
No need for representatives to misinterpret the beliefs of the general public.
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
Hopefully, many here are simply exercising their minds, and not being serious.

It should be clear, that we can't just let people "opt" out of certain things.


I believe in true freedom.

To have more freedom, we actually need rules, laws, regulation, etc.

People who don't think so, just prove how well our great country is working right now.

I remember Rush Limbaugh once saying how ridiculous it was that we needed Rest. inspectors because if the food was bad or if people got sick or died from a restaurant's food, people wouldn't go there, and the market would shut it down.

He forgets that certain illnesses can take years to surface.
He forgets that a business can start out clean and end up dirty.
Also, people can get ill from the food there, and not know the origin for some time if at all.

The point is we need basic standards. We the people through our government need to decide, do we drive on the left side of the road or the right. This gives us the freedom to drive otherwise there'd be accidents galore.

We need to establish legal principles to resolve disputes.
For instance whether a buyer is presumed to know all of the risks of a product or does a seller have to inform them explicitly beforehand.
This allows for the freedom of commerce.

Regulation of the airwaves allows for the freedom to produce radio and t.v. networks and shows. Otherwise no one could be seen or heard possiblly because of the confusion.

If I were free to yell fire everytime you wanted to speak to an audience. You wouldn't be free to speak.

The government should set the rules that promotes as much freedom as possible. There are way too many laws, restrictions, etc. on the books now, which allows people to be extreme in their rhetoric against our laws and government.

We still should remember and reflect that we live in the greatest country ever created, and we can work to perfect it.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
Business would only be king for those that wanted it to be king.

People like you that hate private businesses and LOVE government regulations can continue to support and use the government system.
Uh, wait, in the very next section, you claim to want to destroy gov't and go down to each individual governing himself! So we are free to continue supporting regulations and a gov't that doesn't exist?




Gabo said:
My entire proposal IS complete decentralization!

It goes as far to decentralize the government down to each individual.

But of course each of those individuals would be free to come together into a voluntary community.
Well, what I propose would simply be to give states more power to decide for themselves things like gay marriage, separation of church and state, and things like that. What you propose is complete anarchism. While I agree that anarchism is a noble goal, the question is how to get there. And simply going from a bureaucracy to anarchism doesn't seem the way. My proposal is to go to socialism (a revisionary change, not too radical), thus giving the people more power in their gov't and their economy (it finally would be their economy, rather than businesses'!). From there, anarchism is possible, if the people desire it. What you propose is to get rid of gov't right now, something that since the New Deal has been the only thing protecting the average worker (white and blue collar) from big business. Giving corporations unlimited power will not help everyone as you think.



Gabo said:
anomaly said:
but we also need to reform the electorate process, perhaps regulating campaign spending. This would mean that the winner would not be the party that spends the most.
I believe restrictions on campaign spending is unfair.

Many people are aware of 3rd parties, they just don't want to "throw away their vote".


A way to fix this is to institute Instant Runoff Voting.


This system works like this......
When you go to vote, you don't just choose 1 person. You can rank as many or few candidates as you want in your order of preference.
The decision for the winner is done by "runoffs" (hence the name).
First, all primary (1st choice) votes are counted. The candidate with the least primary votes is eliminated. Anyone who voted for them has their vote now count for the next choice on their list.
This process is repeated untill all candidates are eliminated, thus revealing the winner.

This is MUCH more fair to 3rd parties, because people won't be afraid to vote for them.
But you'd still have the big two getting all sorts of funding from major corporations. The Socialist Party (and other leftist parties) still wouldn't get hardly any funding. And this means still no one will know what they have to offer, while they figure that what the Dems or GOP offers is 'good enough'. Also, you have some people actually believing that the two major parties will follow thru on their promises.




Gabo said:
A system flowing from right to left is completely inaccurate.

Do you even know that the political spectrum is a diamond, not a line? :confused:

Here is a small political quiz accompanied with a diagram to help you out:
http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


Personally I see no reason for representatives at all.
I believe any matters that need voting (which should be slim to none if we ALWAYS recognize individual freedom) should be decided on with a national vote once a year.
No need for representatives to misinterpret the beliefs of the general public.
First off, yes I realize the new 'diamond' political model. I was simply throwing general and vague ideas out there. On to your second part, if there were to be a national vote, what would people be voting on? And how would you decide the winner of the vote? Would it just be the majority winning? But I thought that 'individual rights' means people are free to simply ignore the banter of the majority, as you say they should be free to do with gov't regulations? And what or who would act on this vote, and carry out what the people wanted? There is no government. And do you really think that every person will recognize individual freedom? What if some one wished to own slaves, and so abducted some people at gunpoint and made them work for him? After all, he's simply exerting some individual freedom to do so. Would people be free to murder? There are no laws, since their is no gov't. Many, many questions there about your supposedly 'freer' system. Your system is flawed in that the people have nothing with which to unite them, and so rather than anarchism, you would see anarchy. In my 'utopian system', people would be united under communism. After all, the world would have to decide, as a people, to go that way. Under your system, you simply hand all authority and control that once belonged to the state over to corporations.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
Sorry Creg, but you know absolutely nothing about real freedom.



I would like you to tell me a single law (besides the one that protects our liberty) that INCREASES the freedom of all it is involved with.


The answer is none.



What you DO want, though, is freedom for people like you so it benefits you.
This is not equal or real freedom.
It is selective freedom.



When you buy something from a restraunt, you are taking a chance. You are purchasing food that you don't see being made. It is your own CHOICE to take that chance. It is the restraunt's own CHOICE to sell the food.

Sure, if they give you something they said they wouldn't (like poison), you are free to sue them, etc.


But when you try to PREVENT them from serving such food with rules and regulations, you are LIMITING their freedom.

Not only that, but you are LIMITING the freedom of the consumer. I can no longer purchase diseased or poisoned food.

Also, the cost is most likely to INCREASE because of government mandated regulations. Neither the consumer nor the supplier want this, and it LIMITS their freedom as well.



It's normal to assume a society without these regulations be a horrible, filthy place where everyone serves bad food and everyone gets sick.

But that is just not the case.


In such a society, restraunts would pride themselves on maintaining a clean, poison-free workplace. They know that the success of their business presides exclusively in the hands of the consumer.

A single case of food poisoning can spread like wildfire. Only a few days after someone gets poisoned, media outlets everywhere would have stories persuading people NOT to eat at the restraunt.

Furthermore, the person eating the bad food could sue the restraunt, causing further damage and forcing the restraunt to increase prices to pay for the cost of the damages.


Bad, unsafe restraunts would be out of business in a matter of weeks.
Clean, friendly restraunts would reign supreme, delivering good quality and safe food.



But just because the government has no regulations doesn't mean there can't be any regulations.

Businesses would easily develop to rate restraunts on their service, food, and cleanliness. People would just as easily be able to tell which restraunts are good and which ones are bad.

Those that don't get the seal of approval from respected critics will see less service. Only the people that are willing to take the risk would eat here, but at least they CAN eat here.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Uh, wait, in the very next section, you claim to want to destroy gov't and go down to each individual governing himself! So we are free to continue supporting regulations and a gov't that doesn't exist?
There's this crazy idea where people actually govern THEMSELVES! :eek:

There would be nothing stopping you and the other regulation-happy people from banding together into a community that prohibits free market.



anomaly said:
What you propose is complete anarchism.
Not quite.

In anarchism, the strong (whether physically, mentally, or socially) reign supreme. They are free to FORCE their will upon others.

This is not allowed in a free society.



anomaly said:
And simply going from a bureaucracy to anarchism doesn't seem the way. My proposal is to go to socialism (a revisionary change, not too radical), thus giving the people more power in their gov't and their economy (it finally would be their economy, rather than businesses'!). From there, anarchism is possible, if the people desire it. What you propose is to get rid of gov't right now, something that since the New Deal has been the only thing protecting the average worker (white and blue collar) from big business. Giving corporations unlimited power will not help everyone as you think.
Anarchy: no government
Socialism: as much government as possible


I don't see how creating more government is going to reach the goal of no government....



anomaly said:
But you'd still have the big two getting all sorts of funding from major corporations. The Socialist Party (and other leftist parties) still wouldn't get hardly any funding. And this means still no one will know what they have to offer, while they figure that what the Dems or GOP offers is 'good enough'. Also, you have some people actually believing that the two major parties will follow thru on their promises.
Ummm..... in case you didn't know....

Republicans and Democrats are both socialist parties.

They only differ in HOW they want to spend the money they steal from you.



anomaly said:
On to your second part, if there were to be a national vote, what would people be voting on? And how would you decide the winner of the vote? Would it just be the majority winning? But I thought that 'individual rights' means people are free to simply ignore the banter of the majority, as you say they should be free to do with gov't regulations? And what or who would act on this vote, and carry out what the people wanted? There is no government.
If you read my previous post closely, you would see the part about these decisions having to still respect the complete freedom of individuals.

I can't think of any things to vote on, but there is some things that the government needs to do, mainly the justice system.



anomaly said:
And do you really think that every person will recognize individual freedom?
Since that is basically the only law in this form of government, I would expect most people to follow it.

And those that don't would still receive retribution for their actions.



anomaly said:
What if some one wished to own slaves, and so abducted some people at gunpoint and made them work for him? After all, he's simply exerting some individual freedom to do so. Would people be free to murder? There are no laws, since their is no gov't. Many, many questions there about your supposedly 'freer' system. Your system is flawed in that the people have nothing with which to unite them, and so rather than anarchism, you would see anarchy. In my 'utopian system', people would be united under communism. After all, the world would have to decide, as a people, to go that way. Under your system, you simply hand all authority and control that once belonged to the state over to corporations.
If you have closely followed my posts and opinions, you will see that anarchism is not what I propose.

There is a single law-- I like to call it the Golden Rule-- that goes something like this:
"No individual or group may initiate FORCE upon any other individual or group's life, liberty, and/or property."


Slavery....... FORCE
Murder........ FORCE

These would still be illegal.

And just because the government is minimal doesn't mean it isn't there. The judicial system would be all that is left, there to ONLY give retribution for those who have violated rights.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
There's this crazy idea where people actually govern THEMSELVES! :eek:

There would be nothing stopping you and the other regulation-happy people from banding together into a community that prohibits free market.
So, although the state would still exist, my comrades and I would be able to simply walk out and leave? And then we'd be able to have a sort of real free trade for resources we do not possess? Again, I like the ends, but not the means.




Gabo said:
Not quite.

In anarchism, the strong (whether physically, mentally, or socially) reign supreme. They are free to FORCE their will upon others.

This is not allowed in a free society.
Is that what anarchism is? Anarchism=no government. Some anrchists are collectivists, others, like Ms. Rand, are individualists. What becomes important is redistribution (or the lack of) and democracy (or the lack of). Ms. Rand's version does not include redistribution nor democracy. The 'strong' are free to rule over the 'weak'. You really should read Atlas Shrugged. I hated it, but maybe you'll like it.




Gabo said:
Anarchy: no government
Socialism: as much government as possible


I don't see how creating more government is going to reach the goal of no government....
First, let me clarify that anarchy is a state of no control whereas anarchism simply means no government, bt still some control. There is a difference. Now on to socialism. I was waiting for you to ask this! It does seem a bit oxymoron-ish when you first look at it. But, if socialism is democratic in nature (as Sweden is) this means the people will be free to directly control their economy by electing appropriate representatives. This also gives them the freedom to elect more revolutionary leaders that would push towards anarcho-communism. Communism would have to be a global effort, so the idea is that a country cannot become communist, but one country can become socialist, giving a particular govt's people the maximum amount of power. Since the people rule, once every country is socialist (according to a Marxist, this should be inevitable, as other peoples will see what other countries have done i.e. socialism, and then want a similar system.), the transition to communism is quite easy, as the people of the world just vote for it in one election. I support a total democratic process, others support military involvement.




Gabo said:
Ummm..... in case you didn't know....

Republicans and Democrats are both socialist parties.

They only differ in HOW they want to spend the money they steal from you.
This is just inaccurate. Socialism in the USA is slipping away, as both parties now seem o support the extension of the 'free market'. where are you getting this info from? The Dems were socialist back in the '30s, and since the 70s, have been going to the right. Republicans have never supported socialism. Bush's new budget even includes cutting of 150 social programs (reducing gov't's size dramatically) and the only thing he is spending on is (besides his wars, obviously) privatisation! How are the Dems or the GOP socialist? You're just making yourself look silly by saying this.




Gabo said:
If you read my previous post closely, you would see the part about these decisions having to still respect the complete freedom of individuals.

I can't think of any things to vote on, but there is some things that the government needs to do, mainly the justice system.




Since that is basically the only law in this form of government, I would expect most people to follow it.

And those that don't would still receive retribution for their actions.




If you have closely followed my posts and opinions, you will see that anarchism is not what I propose.

There is a single law-- I like to call it the Golden Rule-- that goes something like this:
"No individual or group may initiate FORCE upon any other individual or group's life, liberty, and/or property."


Slavery....... FORCE
Murder........ FORCE

These would still be illegal.

And just because the government is minimal doesn't mean it isn't there. The judicial system would be all that is left, there to ONLY give retribution for those who have violated rights.
Oh man. You've turned into a hopeless utopian. There is only one rule- the golden rule? This is of course what everyone wants! But it is not realistic. If every human being simply respected every other human being, there would be no need for laws. But this is not the case, as sometimes people do not respect others. I really think you should read Ayn Randand see what realistic measures capitalists support.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
So, although the state would still exist, my comrades and I would be able to simply walk out and leave? And then we'd be able to have a sort of real free trade for resources we do not possess? Again, I like the ends, but not the means.
The only part of government left would be the law of not initiating FORCE, and the justice system to enforce that law.

You and your comrades would have no state laws to "leave" from.

You could simply all sign a contract agreeing to abide by whatever commune rules you decide.




anomaly said:
First, let me clarify that anarchy is a state of no control whereas anarchism simply means no government, bt still some control. There is a difference. Now on to socialism. I was waiting for you to ask this! It does seem a bit oxymoron-ish when you first look at it. But, if socialism is democratic in nature (as Sweden is) this means the people will be free to directly control their economy by electing appropriate representatives. This also gives them the freedom to elect more revolutionary leaders that would push towards anarcho-communism. Communism would have to be a global effort, so the idea is that a country cannot become communist, but one country can become socialist, giving a particular govt's people the maximum amount of power. Since the people rule, once every country is socialist (according to a Marxist, this should be inevitable, as other peoples will see what other countries have done i.e. socialism, and then want a similar system.), the transition to communism is quite easy, as the people of the world just vote for it in one election. I support a total democratic process, others support military involvement.
I support what you wish to do, so long as you do it voluntarily.

It's not fair to FORCE socialism followed by communism on the rest of us.


But you would be free to do it amongst yourselves if we had a free society.



anomaly said:
This is just inaccurate. Socialism in the USA is slipping away, as both parties now seem o support the extension of the 'free market'. where are you getting this info from? The Dems were socialist back in the '30s, and since the 70s, have been going to the right. Republicans have never supported socialism. Bush's new budget even includes cutting of 150 social programs (reducing gov't's size dramatically) and the only thing he is spending on is (besides his wars, obviously) privatisation! How are the Dems or the GOP socialist? You're just making yourself look silly by saying this.
-Every year the Republicrats increase federal spending
-Every year the Republicrats infringe upon more of our rights
-Every year the Republicrats give government more power

Also, while Bush cut many other programs, he still increased the size of the government.
Not only did he increase it to what inflation would allow, but went beyond that.

I guess "socialist" is not the right term.
They could be more properly dubbed "statist" or "authoritarian".



anomaly said:
Oh man. You've turned into a hopeless utopian. There is only one rule- the golden rule? This is of course what everyone wants! But it is not realistic. If every human being simply respected every other human being, there would be no need for laws. But this is not the case, as sometimes people do not respect others.
Of course people do not always respect others.

And that is why we need a law telling them to respect others, and a justice system to provide retribution if they don't respect others.


But that is simply all we need.

Anything else we include is done by personal opinion, and includes FORCING something on people that do not want it.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
The only part of government left would be the law of not initiating FORCE, and the justice system to enforce that law.

You and your comrades would have no state laws to "leave" from.

You could simply all sign a contract agreeing to abide by whatever commune rules you decide.





I support what you wish to do, so long as you do it voluntarily.

It's not fair to FORCE socialism followed by communism on the rest of us.


But you would be free to do it amongst yourselves if we had a free society.




-Every year the Republicrats increase federal spending
-Every year the Republicrats infringe upon more of our rights
-Every year the Republicrats give government more power

Also, while Bush cut many other programs, he still increased the size of the government.
Not only did he increase it to what inflation would allow, but went beyond that.

I guess "socialist" is not the right term.
They could be more properly dubbed "statist" or "authoritarian".




Of course people do not always respect others.

And that is why we need a law telling them to respect others, and a justice system to provide retribution if they don't respect others.


But that is simply all we need.

Anything else we include is done by personal opinion, and includes FORCING something on people that do not want it.
Again, I like the ends, but not your means of getting there. And I am glad that you finally stopped calling Republicans 'socialists'. Most Republicans and Democrats are now moderates, as usually happens in the two-party system.
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
Again, I like the ends, but not your means of getting there.
My way of getting there is simply allowing people to opt out of our oppressive government rules and regulations.

There would be nothing preventing those that enjoyed the rules and regulations from staying.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
My way of getting there is simply allowing people to opt out of our oppressive government rules and regulations.

There would be nothing preventing those that enjoyed the rules and regulations from staying.
So you say. Take a look at Bush's SS plan. His plan will have those who want to take 2-4% out of their SS tax and put it in 'private accounts'. So how will Bush make up this lost money (estimates say that the loss will be roughly 2 trillion)? Here's how he'll have to do it: He'll either raise taxes on everyone, so that people opting to stay in SS (current retirees especially) will have the standard amount of benefits, or he'll have to cut benefits for retirees. So, here's what you've got: raised taxes on everyone to fund the then crippled program, or, those that do not trust the market and stay in the program (me) will see a dramatic decrease in benefits. So how is that fair?
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
anomaly said:
So you say. Take a look at Bush's SS plan. His plan will have those who want to take 2-4% out of their SS tax and put it in 'private accounts'. So how will Bush make up this lost money (estimates say that the loss will be roughly 2 trillion)? Here's how he'll have to do it: He'll either raise taxes on everyone, so that people opting to stay in SS (current retirees especially) will have the standard amount of benefits, or he'll have to cut benefits for retirees. So, here's what you've got: raised taxes on everyone to fund the then crippled program, or, those that do not trust the market and stay in the program (me) will see a dramatic decrease in benefits. So how is that fair?
SS is completely different.

First off, Bush's plan doesn't give us REAL privatization.
It actually increases the government's hold on private business even more.


Secondly, SS is a redistribution program.

Some people (retirees) DEPEND upon others (workers) for the system to work. Because of this unstable nature of the program, it can easily be offset and cause many problems.

This is different than how government spending works. If I opt out of government programs, they do have less money to spend. But they also don't need to provide as much, because I wouldn't be receiving anything.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gabo said:
SS is completely different.

First off, Bush's plan doesn't give us REAL privatization.
It actually increases the government's hold on private business even more.


Secondly, SS is a redistribution program.

Some people (retirees) DEPEND upon others (workers) for the system to work. Because of this unstable nature of the program, it can easily be offset and cause many problems.

This is different than how government spending works. If I opt out of government programs, they do have less money to spend. But they also don't need to provide as much, because I wouldn't be receiving anything.

Huh? SS is the largest gov't program currently in existence. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the gov't spends more on only 'defense' each year. And I think you're wrong in saying that SS is naturally unstable because it is pay as you go, to me, a system always bringing in more money than it pays it is much more stable than the stock market.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
anomaly said:
So you say. Take a look at Bush's SS plan. His plan will have those who want to take 2-4% out of their SS tax and put it in 'private accounts'. So how will Bush make up this lost money (estimates say that the loss will be roughly 2 trillion)? Here's how he'll have to do it: He'll either raise taxes on everyone, so that people opting to stay in SS (current retirees especially) will have the standard amount of benefits, or he'll have to cut benefits for retirees. So, here's what you've got: raised taxes on everyone to fund the then crippled program, or, those that do not trust the market and stay in the program (me) will see a dramatic decrease in benefits. So how is that fair?
There is a surplus in the SS system that can absorb the 2-4% easily. The problem is there is no SS account.Money collected for SS goes into the general fund to be used on whatever programs are created by the politicians (both sides are guilty rep and Dems)that want to be re-elected.There was always more people paying in then collecting causing the surplus. As people live longer, medical care more expensive, and baby boomers retire there will be more people collecting than paying. SS is slowly going broke and I think personal account is the begining of a solution.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
There is a surplus in the SS system that can absorb the 2-4% easily. The problem is there is no SS account.Money collected for SS goes into the general fund to be used on whatever programs are created by the politicians (both sides are guilty rep and Dems)that want to be re-elected.There was always more people paying in then collecting causing the surplus. As people live longer, medical care more expensive, and baby boomers retire there will be more people collecting than paying. SS is slowly going broke and I think personal account is the begining of a solution.
Well yeah, exactly, that surplus is (and has been for quite awhile) being borrowed by the treasury. If this money would ever be repaid, there's your solution right there. But fat chance of that happening, even by 2042. So, since money is continually borrowed, we can't let 4% of people's taxes go into personal accounts. If that happens, the only way to recover this money for current retirees (two trillion dollars estimated) is to raise taxes, or lower retirees benefits. And besides, do you really want to have your retirement floating around in the market? What if the market is down when you retire? You won't have much of anything to retire on! And I am curious of your age, alien, since 40-55 yr old are being completely screwed by this plan (the reasons I mentioned above). But, to reiterate, perhaps the biggest problem is that Bush is not going to save SS through this plan, it is no reform, if his plan goes through we will slowly see the destruction of SS, since it will be underfunded. Then my generation of retirees (under 25) will really receive no SS when we retire. Perhaps you should check out my thrid link on my last post. It's very good.
 

alienken

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
369
Reaction score
4
Location
near Houston, Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To anamoly....Yes I do want my money floating around in the market like a 401K. I trust the market more than politicians. We trusted them with our SS money and they spent it.
 

anomaly

Anti-Capitalist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
6
Location
IN
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
alienken said:
To anamoly....Yes I do want my money floating around in the market like a 401K. I trust the market more than politicians. We trusted them with our SS money and they spent it.
You do realize the risk of the market? If the market is down when you retire, you will take out less than you originally put in. This does not bode well for any retirement purposes. And you do realize that, with the governemnt running SS, you will, with a few minor changes, always see plenty of money to retire on? The market is suspect to fluctuations by nature, by that reason alone, and the fact that recessions and depressions are going to happen under capitalism, your retirement money should not go into the stock market. And again I wonder how old you are, because if you are 40-54, you will not have any time to see your money collect any gains from the market, and if the market is down when you retire, you will be taking out a fraction of what you put in.
 

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
13,357
Reaction score
7,487
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
anomaly said:
You do realize the risk of the market? If the market is down when you retire, you will take out less than you originally put in. This does not bode well for any retirement purposes.

An you realize that the funds they are proposing are very low risk. You also realize that over ANY 25 year span the market has never lost money - including the Great Depression. It would be hard to fathom anyone having less than what was put in.
 
Top Bottom