American Dream!?

[BiG PuFFer]

ohh, you Marxists say the darndest things.

we get it, you HATE capitalism, and we should all be happy little bunnies gamboling about in green pastures sharing all the world equally among ourselves.

nothing is stopping you from joining a hippie commune.

nothing is stopping you from STARTING a hippie commune.

hell, why not go to cuba and enjoy their Socialist Workers Paradise?

because you want what capitalism provides, you just hate that you need capitalism to have it.

you want to kill the Golden Goose because you really love those golden eggs. very logical.

You know what I love more then goose eggs? (which when I think is a big O "zero" a goose egg) Eagles eggs, I'm going to kill the goose and find me an eagle cause they kick ass.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I don't think anyone else cares. I also don't think hereditary ownership of the means of production and resources reconciles with the nonaggression principal.

I don't know where to draw the line. I am inviting ridicule by admitting it but it is just honesty.

again it comes down to DEFINITIONS.

at what point ode the "Personal Property" of one person become "The Means Of Production" for the collective?

big factories?
small factories?
family farms?
shoemaker's shops?
a potter's wheel, kiln and clay pit?
a carpenter's tools?
a shovel?
seeds?

capitalism motivates the shoemaker to make shoes in sizes not used by himself and his family
capitalism motivates the carpenter to build a house he will not be living in himself.
capitalism motivates the potter to make more pots than he personally needs, even in coulours and designs which he may not want in his kitchen.
capitalism motivates the farmer to grow more food than he and his family need
capitalism motivates the miller to mill grain, even if he wont be using it himself.

utopian collectivism relies on the good feelings and happy bunny emotions of the individual to create more than he needs so he can have the joy-joy thrill of sharing it with others.

it has never worked outside small tribal groups

 

[abandonconflict]

Capitalism can not exist with out a government to protect private property.

 

[see4]

again it comes down to DEFINITIONS.

at what point ode the "Personal Property" of one person become "The Means Of Production" for the collective?

big factories?
small factories?
family farms?
shoemaker's shops?
a potter's wheel, kiln and clay pit?
a carpenter's tools?
a shovel?
seeds?

capitalism motivates the shoemaker to make shoes in sizes not used by himself and his family
capitalism motivates the carpenter to build a house he will not be living in himself.
capitalism motivates the potter to make more pots than he personally needs, even in coulours and designs which he may not want in his kitchen.
capitalism motivates the farmer to grow more food than he and his family need
capitalism motivates the miller to mill grain, even if he wont be using it himself.

utopian collectivism relies on the good feelings and happy bunny emotions of the individual to create more than he needs so he can have the joy-joy thrill of sharing it with others.

it has never worked outside small tribal groups

capitalism is not necessary, as you seem to compare it to breathing. it is not. if it were, we would not be here.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Capitalism can not exist with out a government to protect private property.

another slogan.

too bad it is demonstrably FALSE.

governments, from the tribal headman to the modern national state, exist to protect society, as well as the persons who are members of that society from OTHERS who are not members of society and those withing the society who engage in unacceptable behaviour.

modern national states spend most of their effort protecting "The Commons", not the individual or his property.

and we still dont know where you draw the line between "Personal Property" and "The Means Of Production" which you have already established must be collectivized in your imaginary utopia.

 

[Dr Kynes]

capitalism is not necessary, as you seem to compare it to breathing. it is not. if it were, we would not be here.

but what will offer the motivation to produce more than YOU need?
are we to assume every shoemaker will just make shoes for everybody, because he enjoys it so much?
will farmers produce enough food for the artisan, scholar and craftsman out of their respect for the good works these others do?
and who will move these goods from farm to central free shit distribution zones on the village green? (cant really call it a market, cuz thats capitalism) or do teamsters move goods about because they really enjoy moving things about?

capitalism's motivational power is tremendous, and the only other reliable motivator for labour not directly benefiting yourself and your kin, is FORCE

 

[abandonconflict]

another slogan.

too bad it is demonstrably FALSE.

governments, from the tribal headman to the modern national state, exist to protect society, as well as the persons who are members of that society from OTHERS who are not members of society and those withing the society who engage in unacceptable behaviour.

modern national states spend most of their effort protecting "The Commons", not the individual or his property.

When you say "demonstrably false" I expect a demonstration to follow.

The government exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property. You can call it a slogan all day but I don't mind being quoted.

Riot cops don't get called on corporations. They get called on protesters.

 

[Dr Kynes]

When you say "demonstrably false" I expect a demonstration to follow.

The government exists to serve the ruling class and protect private property. You can call it a slogan all day but I don't mind being quoted.

Riot cops don't get called on corporations. They get called on protesters.

i already went down that rabbit hole and you pretended it never happened.

regulation of hunting, fishing, timbering, mining etc SOLELY to protect "The Commons"
construction and maintenance of parks roads schools libraries, etc, AS Commons
stewardship of state and national parks, forests, open spaces, natural wonders, monuments, etc AS Commons.
etc etc etc.

when riot cops get called on "protestors" (read anarcho-vandals trying to destroy somebody else's shit) this is one of the FEW examples of The State protecting shit that is NOT "the Commons".
but thats your whole argument, and thus it is why your attempt to force that meme FAILS.

NO society can exist without The State to protect The Commons, as well as the rights and property of the individual, though the individual can often protect those rights and property himself, which really works better than The State's measures.

 

[abandonconflict]

The state does a horrible job protecting its property. The Commons could do it better if the state stays out of the way.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The state does a horrible job protecting its property. The Commons could do it better if the state stays out of the way.

another specious assertion in the form of a slogan.

if "The State" does not protect "The Commons" who will?
you?
the corporations you despise?
the anarcho-vandals?
the Occupy-Tards?
a team of wizards from Hogwarts?
the 7 foot tall reptilian aliens who power their society on the screams of children?
Cernnunous?
Arwnn and The Wild Hunt?
Shen Nong?
or will mighty Gaia start defending herself with hurricanes tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanoes?

and we STILL dont know where "Personal Property" ends and "The Means Of Production" starts in your vision.

 

[abandonconflict]

Thanks. Many of the facts I state so eloquently could become slogans. Your arguments on the other hand are mostly snide remarks or long winded diatribes. Either way they lack convincing logic.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Thanks. Many of the facts I state so eloquently could become slogans. Your arguments on the other hand are mostly snide remarks or long winded diatribes. Either way they lack convincing logic.

another self-congratulatory non-response.

if "The State" is to be dismantled, who will protect "The Commons"?

if "the State" is simply incapable of protecting "The Commons", WHO CAN?

at what point does "personal Property" become "The Means Of Production"?

how will your utopian anarcho-utopian society ensure that sufficient goods are produced, and how will they be distributed?

how will you ensure that the RIGHT stuff is produced in the first place?

what will happen to those who do not participate in your utopian vision?

how will you defend your utopia from outside aggressors who will naturally want to take over your "Worker's Paradise" by force?

and thats just the start of the conceptual game you must play if you wish to explain why "anarcho-_________ism" is the way to go.

 

[abandonconflict]

None of this is pertinent to the fact that capitalism can not exist with out a state to protect private property. You're just trying to run around in circles to muddy the waters and obfuscate the debate. That is the only way your antiquated views can appear to make any sense.

 

[Dr Kynes]

None of this is pertinent to the fact that capitalism can not exist with out a state to protect private property. You're just trying to run around in circles to muddy the waters and obfuscate the debate. That is the only way your antiquated views can appear to make any sense.

i do not accept the assumption.

capitalism HAS existed without "The State's" protection, and "The State" HAS existed without any measurable capitalism under it's banner.

i am obfuscating NOTHING, it is YOU who makes absurd statements, changes the subject and dodges the questions YOU YOURSELF RAISE.

if your assertion were true (which it AINT) then where there was no "State" there could be no capitalism, and where you do find a "State", there would always be capitalism.

niether assertion is true, therefore your slogans are WRONG.

 

[abandonconflict]

i do not accept the assumption

It's not an assumption or a slogan so your acceptance is meaningless.

 

[Dr Kynes]

It's not an assumption or a slogan so your acceptance is meaningless.

your adamant assertions:

"The State exists solely to protect private property"

and

"Capitalism cannot exist in the absence of The State""

are redonkulously absurd, and thus require HUGE amounts of proof to substantiate them.

without such evidence, they are not even slogans, but rather simple rote repetitions of meaningless sounds, such as what one might coax out of a parrot or mockingbird in exchange for a millet treat.

simple, meaningless squawks from a poor dumb creature which mimics speech.

 

[abandonconflict]

your adamant assertions:

"The State exists solely to protect private property"

and

"Capitalism cannot exist in the absence of The State"

I didn't use the word solely nor would I. If you must include an adverb I would say primarily. The second is acceptable, I assert that.

 

[BiG PuFFer]

Does any one think money in politics is a good thing? Or that government should bail out banks that knowing write up sub-prime mortgages

 

[ginwilly]

None of this is pertinent to the fact that capitalism can not exist with out a state to protect private property. You're just trying to run around in circles to muddy the waters and obfuscate the debate. That is the only way your antiquated views can appear to make any sense.

It's like you read something that sounds good to you and you keep repeating it until you actually believe what you write.

Can you think of state powers that our private property needs protection from? Everyone else can. Castro can, Lenin can, the Kims can.

Do you think "my kill" was ever protected before government by a stick or club? Most people understand this.

So we have examples of "the state" taking private property against the citizens will and we have private property examples before the existence of government. Your scripture doesn't seem very accurate if you take 5 seconds to think about it but I doubt it stops you from repeating it over and over.

 

[BiG PuFFer]

You guys are right. The economy is doing great.