Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.

the Masked Mole man

Communism is a great and wonderfull concept except that it counts on human nature in a irreal fantasy state. Communism doesn't work because human nature doesn't want te be equal... It always wants to be a bit more equal then the stranger on the other side of the street. Kapatilism, in many way it's opposite is just as wrong though.

Socialism isn't focussed on bringing perfect equality, but on making sure everyone is provided for in it's basic needs and supported where nessisary. This is an objective I personally feel is more important then perfect equality, and is actually an obtainable goal.
 

James the Hunter

Well thats your opinion. In the end, we have all our sepearate political standings. Here I stand so if you stand with me, glad 4 the support. If your on the other side against and trying 2 take me down, you will be taken down. And if you want no part in this, then stand aside as we show the politics that THIS IS WHERE WE FIGHT AND WHERE WE STAND!!!
 

the Masked Mole man

I wonder when politics turned into WWF matches... This is where we stand and fight? Seriously, on the internet? And where did highschool jocs come into this political discussion all of a sudden? I agree that this is a discussion doomed to end in CAPS and exclamation marks!!! since it's basis is as of yet as wobbly as one of those car dogs.
 

Justin Michael

Communism is a great and wonderfull concept except that it counts on human nature in a irreal fantasy state. Communism doesn't work because human nature doesn't want te be equal... It always wants to be a bit more equal then the stranger on the other side of the street.

You are 100% correct. Furthermore, Communism offers men absolutely NO incentive to work hard - if he does, he won't earn any more money to support his family and secure his basic needs. Communism guarantees that all men will be equal by depriving them all of opportunity. Everyone is as poor as dirt. Of course, the Communist officials all live in opulence.

Socialism isn't focussed on bringing perfect equality, but on making sure everyone is provided for in it's basic needs and supported where nessisary. This is an objective I personally feel is more important then perfect equality, and is actually an obtainable goal.

First you say that communism doesn't work and then you say that it's objective is obtainable! That is irrational.

Also, it is none of the government's business to take care of me or anyone else. "Government, leave me alone!" :mad: When I become dependent upon the government, I become enslaved to the government and lose my freedoms.
 

Justin Michael

"Give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry
henry5_lg.jpg
 

Lorgos

You are 100% correct. Furthermore, Communism offers men absolutely NO incentive to work hard - if he does, he won't earn any more money to support his family and secure his basic needs. Communism guarantees that all men will be equal by depriving them all of opportunity. Everyone is as poor as dirt. Of course, the Communist officials all live in opulence.



First you say that communism doesn't work and then you say that it's objective is obtainable! That is irrational.

Also, it is none of the government's business to take care of me or anyone else. "Government, leave me alone!" :mad: When I become dependent upon the government, I become enslaved to the government and lose my freedoms.

socialisim is diffrent than communisim as far as personal advancement and sharing of wealth goes . Its still a big government system but not as intrusivee as comunisim.

Assuming you live in the USA you are already dependant on the government for some very basic things. I just hope we dont become even mopre dependant on them
 

Justin Michael

I am not dependent upon the government. However, I know what you mean. The fact that our government has taken such a parenting role upsets me very greatly. By taking on such responsibilities our government has violated the Constitution. By violating the Constitution, our government has forfeited its right to our loyalty. I say REVOLT. Let us reestablish pure capitalism as it was in the first years of our nation.
 

Justin Michael

In 1776, the founding fathers of our once-great nation declared their independence from the rule of the king of England. Their reasons were simple – the king had usurped their rights as Englishmen and had placed them under the authority of a legislative body in which they had no representation. The charters of the colonies placed them under the direct authority of the king and nowhere mentioned any governing by parliament. By subjecting the colonies to the acts of parliament, particularly taxation, fundamental rights that had been long given to Englishmen were now being violated.
By failing to carry out his duties in the colonial charters and by allowing additional regulation by parliament, the king of England had effectively broken his contracts with the colonies. They were now free and independent states and fought to prove it.
The central government of the United States of America is guilty of the same misgoverning as the king of England was. Our contract – the Constitution – has been broken. The rights of the states and their citizens have been violated and we have been placed under the authority of a legislative body in which we have no representation; a body which even by exercising legislative powers has broken the contract between the central government and we the people. By legislating from their bench the justices of the American judicial system have become tyrants – able to change the laws of our land without any checks or balances. This is a role which our founding fathers never intended them to play. As Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite once said, “Our branch of government [the judicial system] cannot encroach on the domain of another without danger. The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.”
In the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America we are told that the Constitution was penned to establish justice. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of the law. These tenants of the Constitution have been broken every day as a result of the Supreme Court ruling – or more properly, Supreme Court legislation – Roe vs. Wade.
The Supreme Court has extended the powers of the central government to such an extent that it can no longer be said that we have a federal form of government. Our government has become a unitary system – the central government possesses all of the power and the state and local governments are merely an extension of the central government.
With the expansion of power comes many violations of the Tenth Amendment. In landmark cases such as Garcia vs. San Antonio Metropolitan Authority, which ruled that state governments had to comply with the same minimum wage and maximum-hour legislation as was required for federal employees by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Supreme Court has given Congress almost unlimited reign over the states.
Many Congressional act and regulatory agencies interfere in areas which, according to the Tenth Amendment, should be left to the state and local governments to control. All powers not delegated to the central government in the Constitution are to be left to the states! Any actions otherwise are in direct violation of the Constitution. Congressional legislation such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, the Liability Act of 1980; the Water Quality Act of 1965; and the Americans with Disabilities Act, in which the exact angle of handicap ramps was negotiated, are a few examples of Congress governing in affairs in which they have no right to govern. If state and local governments are not even in control of the construction of their own sidewalks, what are they other than puppets of the central government?
The policies of the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the New Frontier adopted by Congress all show Congress’s great disrespect of staying within the bounds of the powers that are delegated to them in the Constitution. The Motor Voter Act is a perfect example of the Congress showing a complete disregard even for matters that are clearly outlined in the Constitution. Elections and voter registration are clearly stated in the Constitution to be matters regulated by state governments. However, we as Americans have become so accustomed to the federal government stepping in to “fix” things that the question of state rights hardly even enters our minds anymore.
Government regulatory agencies such as the FDA, OSHA, the EPA, and the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) often have no regard for state rights or our rights as citizens of the United States and are more concerned with expanding their own power than helping people obey government regulations. Furthermore, these federal agencies exercise authority in areas in which the federal (or central) government has no Constitutional authority to regulate.
Agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the FBI have shown immense disrespect for our bill of rights. To cite an example, the incident in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, will do perfectly. In 1992, U.S. marshals were sent to arrest Randy Weaver for failing to appear in court on charges of violating federal firearm laws. The marshals entered Weaver’s property from the woods rather than from the road and were dressed in camouflage and armed with machine guns. As they advanced through the woods they saw Weaver’s son, Sammy (who was fourteen years old), and Kevin Harris, a friend of the family, both carrying hunting rifles and following a dog. The dog discovered the marshals and one of them shot it. Sammy shot back at the unidentified attackers and in the resulting firefight both Sammy and a U.S. marshal were killed. The marshals retreated and assaulted again the next day with the FBI. In the attack Weaver was wounded and his wife was killed by a snipers bullet while she was standing in the doorway of her cabin holding a child. In the lawsuit that followed, Weaver was awarded 3.1 million dollars, but the FBI never acknowledged their guilt.
Furthermore, in the assault on the Branch Dividian Cult in Waco, Texas, half of the casualties were children. From these examples – and there are many more – it should be clear that these government agencies have greatly abused the unconstitutional powers that they have been delegated
By controlling areas of our lives that the central government has no jurisdiction in, the Congress of the United States has broken its contract with the American people. By giving unconstitutional powers to agencies that have no regard for our bill of rights, the legislative and executive branches of the United States government have broken their contract with the American people. By out stepping their Constitutional role of interpreting the law by legislating from the bench, the judicial branch has violated its contract with the American people. By allowing millions of Americans to be deprived of life before they are even born – and therefore violate the Fifth Amendment – the central government has broken its contract with the American people.
Therefore, the Constitution of the United States ought to be null and void. The states of this Union ought to dissolve their bonds of unity and again take their places among the nations of the world. The central government which these states have united themselves under has failed them; thus, these states ought to be free and independent nations, and as such should be able to (as our the fathers of the American Republic said) “levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.”

written by, Justin Michael
 

the Masked Mole man

[weird attempt at humor]A revolution you say? Oh Poppycock. As if the brits still wanted you as part of their nation after you dared dump their precious tea into the ocean as if it were a giant cup! Shame on you! ;) [/weird attempt of humor]

anyway...

First you say that communism doesn't work and then you say that it's objective is obtainable! That is irrational.

Please explain to me why you think communism and socialism are the same, because they aren't.

And please explain as well how you can dispute and discard all governmental influence and draw upon the constitution to make this point? A constitution is just a meaningless set of words if not an agreement between a group of people as to the way they desire to interact and live with one another. Discard one and you discard the other.
 

intreker05

american children are brought up to believe that their country is better than any other country in the world. they are taught that it is perfectly fine to massacre an entire continent to save a single American citizen (this hasn't happened yet, but similar things have. give it time.). the way children are taught like this reminds me of the Hitler Youth of Nazi germany.
Really, I missed this curriculum in middle school. We're taught about American history, probably the same as you're taught Irish history, but because Ireland is also part of the European Union, and is part of a much closer multi-national organization than the US is, it makes sense that you would learn about other countries. That being said, in 10th grade I took European history and in 7th grade I took world economics so it's not like I was ignorant to other cultures. I think that your opinion of our education is based on some kind of ignorant stereotypes you've decided to adhere to out of some baseless animosity towards American culture.

Americans are amost all either obese, highly prejudiced, or religiously fundamentalist. or idiots. you honestly think that electing a half-black president clears you of centuries of treating african- and native americans like a lesser race? it took you just two ammendments to your constitution to allow citizens to own guns, but it took thirteen to abolish slavery; 15 to allow all races to vote; and 19 to allow women to vote!

Women were allowed to vote in the US in 1920, it wasn't until 1928 that women were allowed to vote in Ireland. So, yes, it may have taken us 19 amendments, but we were still doing it for eight years before you were in Ireland. Besides, binge drinking and alcoholism is much more common in Ireland than the US. In terms of religious fundamentalism, well, again, I think you're wrong. According to the 2006 census in Ireland, only 4% of the population claims to be atheist whereas in the US that number was, in 2001, around 15%. I doubt it's gone down that much since then but those were the most recent numbers I could find so it's possible I suppose.
I agree with you, though, that Americans are obese, because a large number of them are, mainly because fast food was introduced here much sooner than in Ireland. But don't worry, according to some reports I've seen recently, you guys are catching up. The same with numbers of racially motivated crime. I just thought you'd like to know, since your country seems so perfect to you.

You continue to use the death penalty, which no truly developed country should. I have seen many examples of how Americans think that much more humane countries such as the UK continue to hang or decapitate people. This is not the case - the USA is one of very few developed countries which still kills criminals.

I agree with you here. Especially given the cost of execution, there's no reason the US should still use it. But, the criminal justice system has always been conservative, and because of the governmental system of checks and balances, as long as one group, be it house, senate, or presidency, is controlled by the conservative right, then the laws won't change.

And you operate Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners can leave all hope of basic human rights behind. This is one of the most sick and disgusting places on earth. But no, America is truly the land of the free(!)
I agree with you here, but you have to understand that Guantanamo bay is the action of the Presidency that doesn't have the support of the majority of the people. To take a single place and use a broad stroke against the entire American people is very ignorant of you. I don't expect Gitmo to stay around very much longer under the new administration, at least not in its current mode of operation.
I would support almost every country in the world before I support the USA. Need any more proof?

The worst part is that when you read this post, you will consider it an act of JEALOSY. I assure you that here in Ireland, or indeed the rest of the world, we have absolutely NO sense of jealosy toward cruel and backward countries such as yours.
I don't think you're jealous. I just think you're ignorant. Have a nice day. ;)
 

intreker05

Both communism and anarchy are flawed concepts. Logically, they don't work with human nature. In terms of communism, humans are always jostling for position on some cosmic hierarchy, especially when the motivation to improve and do better is there, but, you take away the motivation and the hierarchy and there's no point in working. If the government is giving me the same thing he's giving the guy next to me and I can do half the work and still get the same, why wouldn't I do half the work. I have a good work ethic but still, I need motivation, some reason to accomplish something, otherwise there's no reason for me to succeed. Communism could work in small communities, maybe 500 or less, where the impact of individuals working or not working could be seen immediately, but otherwise its worthless.
Anarchy, on the other hand, is flawed because people seek companionship, unity, and a sense of belonging. People seek out order. Sure, some people don't, but the majority does. After all, that's why, and how, governments were created in the first place, the small nomadic tribes gathered in one place, created agriculture, economy, and government. So, doing away with one government might result in a form of temporary anarchy, but it wouldn't be an extended one. Eventually, government and control would return. So, it's great in some teenage punk's wet dream where he can listen to the sex pistols, have green hair, and not go to school, but realistically, its a horribly flawed system.
 

Violette LeDrunc

Anarchy, on the other hand, is flawed because people seek companionship, unity, and a sense of belonging. People seek out order. Sure, some people don't, but the majority does. After all, that's why, and how, governments were created in the first place, the small nomadic tribes gathered in one place, created agriculture, economy, and government. So, doing away with one government might result in a form of temporary anarchy, but it wouldn't be an extended one. Eventually, government and control would return. So, it's great in some teenage punk's wet dream where he can listen to the sex pistols, have green hair, and not go to school, but realistically, its a horribly flawed system.

This is a misunderstanding of what anarchism actually is.

Firstly, anarchism is not one single "system" that can be debunked in a few sentences. There are many branches of anarchist political philosophy, some socialist, some capitalist, so you would need to be more specific about which one you are referring to when you say it is horribly flawed.

Also, anarchism as a political philosophy is in no way synonymous with chaos or unbridled nihilism. Or the Sex Pistols. Anarchism does not reject community, (or "companionship, unity and a sense of belonging). What it does reject is the authority of government over both individuals and communities. Because government was not "created in the first place" by the individuals under its control. It was created by gross power imbalances, aggression and repression. And even the most cursory glance at the "borders" of our governments today would reveal unequivocally how little nations reflect our actual communities.

Anarchists for the most part actually have highly developed social consciences and a sense of moral responsibility. They simply consider their own moral authority more legitimate than that of the "government". Ghandi, for example, was a self-described philosophical anarchist. And I would suggest that more people are actually anarchic in their own philosophy than only those who label themselves so.

As for the idea that government is required for social order, to paraphrase... If man is incapable of ruling himself, how could he possibly be capable of ruling others?
 

Justin Michael

Communism could work in small communities, maybe 500 or less, where the impact of individuals working or not working could be seen immediately, but otherwise its worthless.
You've got the correct idea intreker05; however, Communism cannot work in any society without someone acting as the authority - which kinda goes against the whole vision of Communism.

Someone asked why do I keep on referring to Communism and Socialism as though they are one in the same. This is why: What Socialism strives to accomplish through legislation and laws, Communism strives to accomplish through war and violence. Their goal is the same.

The final goal of both Socialism and Communism is a society in which men are in complete harmony and work according to their ability and take according to their need. This won't work, people. First of all, who is going to decide what my ability is when it comes to work? Second, who is going to tell me what I need? The system requires that mankind is hard-working an greed-less. I got news, mankind is greedy and lazy! Capitalism is the only system that works. It rewards hard work. It gives people an incentive. Without that, men don't work.

I think that it is so ironic that many of the men who want to foist this communism/socialism on us are lazy men who don't work. Karl Marx was a lazy man who drank away any money that he came across and let his family starve.

Anarchy? intrecker05 had it right. Anarchy in all forms leads to unrestricted crime. I don't care what school of anarchy you subscribe to.
 

Violette LeDrunc

Anarchy? intrecker05 had it right. Anarchy in all forms leads to unrestricted crime. I don't care what school of anarchy you subscribe to.

An unsubstantiated assertion is not an argument.

If you can provide a) an example of an Anarchy present or past (which is not the same as a society with no government or a government in chaos) and b) proof that said Anarchy has/had an horrendous amount of unaddressed crime, please do.
 

David Schofield

I am a communost. I am also a nazi. I also am a liberal. I dont like america because its mean, big and scary. I like apple pie and cinnimen. Yay me!!! 卐

sarcasim...
 

James the Hunter

Anarchy is a group that is AGAINST the government and stands up against them. Anarchy isn't all blood and guts and crime. Anarchy can be USED as a good thing. Rebellion against a corrupt government is a form of anarchy. Breaking laws that are wrong are also anarchy. Believing in a religion in say, a Communist country, and breaking a law that says you can't have this religion is guess what? ANARCHY!!! So this is proof. A) Anarchy can be a good thing! and B) Anarchy isn't just breaking laws and then doing whatever the hell you want. Governments just pose anarchy as a horrible and wrong thing. Do they tell you the truth when something goes wrong in war? Say, crashes and losing planes to hidden enimes and saying it's a training exercise gone wrong is an example. So will they tell you "Anarchy has been used as a good thing" If they did, we'd all be an anarchist and the government would be out of a job. Take THAT into account!
 

David Schofield

I have one thing to say over and over again.

USA! USA! USA!


I win tha post :p
 

intreker05

This is a misunderstanding of what anarchism actually is.

Firstly, anarchism is not one single "system" that can be debunked in a few sentences. There are many branches of anarchist political philosophy, some socialist, some capitalist, so you would need to be more specific about which one you are referring to when you say it is horribly flawed.

Also, anarchism as a political philosophy is in no way synonymous with chaos or unbridled nihilism. Or the Sex Pistols. Anarchism does not reject community, (or "companionship, unity and a sense of belonging). What it does reject is the authority of government over both individuals and communities. Because government was not "created in the first place" by the individuals under its control. It was created by gross power imbalances, aggression and repression. And even the most cursory glance at the "borders" of our governments today would reveal unequivocally how little nations reflect our actual communities.

Anarchists for the most part actually have highly developed social consciences and a sense of moral responsibility. They simply consider their own moral authority more legitimate than that of the "government". Ghandi, for example, was a self-described philosophical anarchist. And I would suggest that more people are actually anarchic in their own philosophy than only those who label themselves so.

As for the idea that government is required for social order, to paraphrase... If man is incapable of ruling himself, how could he possibly be capable of ruling others?


What you're talking about is this ridiculous modernization of anarchy. There are plenty of anarchists that are all about chaos and violence. Anarchy itself is defined as chaos, and an absence of government, an absence of control, would lead to chaos because people are not inherently good. People need control, they need rules and regulation because most people are not capable of doing the right thing unless there are consequences to their actions. But this idea, this politicization of anarchy, is just, again, a logical fallacy. People ruling themselves doesn't work. In some cases, overthrowing the government has worked, in other cases it's plunged the countries into chaos. But in the cases that it's worked, the government has always been replaced. There isn't a country in the world without a government that isn't in a state of chaos. Look at Darfur, Iraq a couple years ago (or now), and various other places throughout history. Anarchy is a flawed system. Enough said.
 

Violette LeDrunc

I should have known it was a waste of time to rejoin this flamey thread.

What I have written is not a modernisation of anything. It is based on the original thinking of anarchist political philosophers from the 18th century which has continued through to this day. Historically, anarchism has been one of the least violent political creeds.

Dafur is not an Anarchy. Iraq is not an Anarchy. If you want to critique examples of Anarchies in action, try parts of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Try parts of the Ukraine after the Russian Revolution before the Bolsheviks took over. If you want to know how people who are Anarchists behave, look at Ghandi and much of the non-violent direct action which took place around the world during the last century.

Try reading something other than a dictionary which contains only a simplistic, unnuanced translation of the original Greek word which bears no relationship whatsoever to what Anarchist political philosophy is and what it always has been since it began.

The goal of Anarchists is decentralised and self-regulating society (note the word "regulating"), not disorder. I don't really care if you agree with that goal or not, but if you want to argue against particular political ideas, you need to argue against the actual ideas. And for that, you need to know what those ideas actually are.

A dictionary isn't going to help you.
 

pimentel

I say God bless the world and all its countries & nationalities & goverments! What works for some may not work for others, as for you moronic cowards who like to point fingers & play the blame game & do nothing but complain you are not part of the solution just part of the problem! Whant to make a change look into a mirror take a deep look into yourself & start there!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top