Question for Political Science Majors..

[Ceos]

I remember talking to my father back when I was taking Physics in HS. He told me about how his Physics teacher always brought everything they did in class back to F=ma .

I was wondering if in political science they do the same thing, as in bring everything back to the basic principles. If its not traced back, then whats the backing?

[Conza88]

I don't do Political Science... not that it really matters.


Basic principles are as follows:
S=G
USA=Demo
Ty>Fr

S = State
G = Great
USA = United States of America
Demo = Democracy
Ty = Tyranny
Fr = Freedom

[New York For Paul]

I remember talking to my father back when I was taking Physics in HS. He told me about how his Physics teacher always brought everything they did in class back to F=ma .

I was wondering if in political science they do the same thing, as in bring everything back to the basic principles. If its not traced back, then whats the backing?

As a graduate with a political science degree, I would say they are still trying to figure it out.

Here is one of their upcoming conferences. They can be way to theoretical and have not been in the real world. Many are blinded by their liberal ideology.

Many of their scientific articles could be pulled apart and criticized.

http://www.apsanet.org/

There are a few smart political scientists, but they are few and far between.

You can learn just as much if not more by being involved in politics and participating with candidates, consultants, interest groups and being an activist.

[Ceos]

Thanks for the feedback.

I was expecting to hear fundamental doctrines like Habeas Corpus.

So what exactly do political scientists use as a base for arguement? I find it difficult to argue effectively when you don't have fundamentals.

I was curious on this subject because I see Ron Paul goes back to the Constitution for his views. I wanted to know what other people in our government used to justify their views.

[10thAmendment]

I remember talking to my father back when I was taking Physics in HS. He told me about how his Physics teacher always brought everything they did in class back to F=ma .

I was wondering if in political science they do the same thing, as in bring everything back to the basic principles. If its not traced back, then whats the backing?
I'm not a political science major but...

The problem is that, as a consequence of most people not knowing the Constitution and its history anymore, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution prevail. In analogy, F=ma except on Tuesdays, for example.

[Truth Warrior]

Political Science is an oxymoron.<IMHO>

[Mini-Me]

I'm not a political science major but...

The problem is that, as a consequence of most people not knowing the Constitution and its history anymore, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution prevail. In analogy, F=ma except on Tuesdays, for example.

Technically, F might not = ma on Tuesdays, if you're driving to work at relativistic speeds that day. ;)


Thanks for the feedback.

I was expecting to hear fundamental doctrines like Habeas Corpus.

So what exactly do political scientists use as a base for arguement? I find it difficult to argue effectively when you don't have fundamentals.

I was curious on this subject because I see Ron Paul goes back to the Constitution for his views. I wanted to know what other people in our government used to justify their views.

Quite frankly, I don't think many of our Congresspeople or Senators have even thought any of their positions through to their logical conclusions. I don't really think any of them (even consistent ones like Kucinich) except for Paul rigorously justify their positions based solely on fundamental principles...especially not fundamental principles centered on inalienable individual rights. Rather, I think most of them have an "anything goes" mentality about government where it's the government's right and responsibility to do whatever it deems necessary for some kind of greater good. Because of this fuzzy and permissive mentality towards government's boundaries and limitations, it opens up a whole subjective can of worms about just "how much" the state should meddle in the market, and just "how much" domestic spying should be done. Representatives always seem like they're trying to strike this supposedly perfect "balance" and "moderation." Every law seems to have a whole bunch of very specific and arbitrary details and exceptions, which just highlight the arbitrary decision-making process they go through. If any of them based their legislation off of truly consistent principles, the way to vote would always be obvious, and all laws would be based on obvious fundamental and general principles. I think each representative has a few weak, fuzzy guidelines that they like to stick by which often center around the party platform, and when it comes to wedge issues, they base their opinions on emotion. When they discuss legislation, their practical analysis of each bill's consequences is shallow, and because so few have unwavering principles, discussion based on solid principles rarely occurs. This contributes greatly to the inconsistent voting pattern most show, and it also contributes to the gradual expansion of government: When they meddle and things seem to go well, more meddling must work better. When they meddle and bad things happen, they clearly just didn't do "enough." Plus, I think that Congresspeople and Senators believe that because it's their full-time job, they just must spend it doing something...so they just continue to make more and more laws to "fix" real and perceived problems.

[Truth Warrior]

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx

[mtmedlin]

I am a Poli Sci major but you must remember that within any science there are many disciplines. There is campaign management, polling, general poli sci.....etc. I did a little of all three and I go back to the constitution, English common Law, some napoleonic Code and maybe a dash of Islamic code (yes, it did influence the constitution).
I also reference certain major documents. My favorite is the federalist Papers.


Is that what you were looking for?

[mtmedlin]

Political Science is an oxymoron.<IMHO>

Ya, try doing polling or data analysis. Without a background in advanced math the average man would fail Empirical Political Analysys, which is a basic Poli sci class. It is within the arts and sciences department of most universities but many schools are starting to focus harder within the math area and moving it to a BS instead of a BA.

[Truth Warrior]

Ya, try doing polling or data analysis. Without a background in advanced math the average man would fail Empirical Political Analysys, which is a basic Poli sci class. It is within the arts and sciences department of most universities but many schools are starting to focus harder within the math area and moving it to a BS instead of a BA.

Ya mean something like statistics and numerical analysis? :D A little history plus a little marketing. :rolleyes:

[mtmedlin]

Ya mean something like statistics and numerical analysis? :D A little history plus a little marketing. :rolleyes:

Throw in a dash of Calculus and some trig. Its not like being a math major, I only had 16 credits of college math but Algebra, Statistics, Trig and Calc is not the easiest of loads and does give a Poli Sci major a better hold on analysis then the average monkey. Throw in all the other courses and I tend to believe we are some of the best and well rounded students coming out of a Bachelors. In truth, Poli Sci doesnt really hit its stride until the masters level because there are too many different fields and at the masters is where you specialize. I had an adjunct who was a masters student and we compared his specialty of Polling with an engineer and there was only 2 classes less math. Yes, Its a science and in all honesty should become harder. I do think there was a little too much fluff in the degree.

[yongrel]

Throw in a dash of Calculus and some trig. Its not like being a math major, I only had 16 credits of college math but Algebra, Statistics, Trig and Calc is not the easiest of loads and does give a Poli Sci major a better hold on analysis then the average monkey. Throw in all the other courses and I tend to believe we are some of the best and well rounded students coming out of a Bachelors. In truth, Poli Sci doesnt really hit its stride until the masters level because there are too many different fields and at the masters is where you specialize. I had an adjunct who was a masters student and we compared his specialty of Polling with an engineer and there was only 2 classes less math. Yes, Its a science and in all honesty should become harder. I do think there was a little too much fluff in the degree.

The issue in Poli Sci that I encounter more often than I would like is plenty of students declare it as their major because they "like politics and stuff." My classmates watch CNN and call themselves "political junkies." I hate that term. I hear it all too often.

These kids who were "political junkies" in high school because they knew who the Secretary of State is aren't prepared for college political science. They think it will be like their AP History class. It's not.

[mtmedlin]

The issue in Poli Sci that I encounter more often than I would like is plenty of students declare it as their major because they "like politics and stuff." My classmates watch CNN and call themselves "political junkies." I hate that term. I hear it all too often.

These kids who were "political junkies" in high school because they knew who the Secretary of State is aren't prepared for college political science. They think it will be like their AP History class. It's not.

Agreed, and that Is why I think the mandatory course load should be intensified a little. The biggest problem is that it is so generalized at the BA level that it really isnt hard enough or specific enough. I think they should make areas of concentration, similar to the MA, so that the work can be more focused. I personally would have taken Campaign Managment and Polling as my two areas. If I get some free time, I want to take some courses from Harvard and GW. They both have telecourses with some really great professors.



btw. Sig is still the MAN!

[Truth Warrior]

Poli Sci is probably a very good college major choice for the next generation of statist "politics junkies". ;)

:p

:rolleyes:

[RockEnds]

Back before the Clinton administration, polling was still a subject of controversy in the Poli Sci Dept. I guess that's all changed. The degree did require statistics, but the public opinion class was optional.

My degree concentrated on the historical and philosophical roots of various political systems. The point of our undergraduate work, as explained by the head of the department, was to learn how to research, form an opinion, and communicate that opinion to others. We were encouraged to question everything. I would have had no interest in political science if the coursework had been a training seminar for for pushing through policies and politicians.

[Truth Warrior]

Let's all hear it for a required college level course in "Critical Thinking".

YAY!

[mtmedlin]

Back before the Clinton administration, polling was still a subject of controversy in the Poli Sci Dept. I guess that's all changed. The degree did require statistics, but the public opinion class was optional.

My degree concentrated on the historical and philosophical roots of various political systems. The point of our undergraduate work, as explained by the head of the department, was to learn how to research, form an opinion, and communicate that opinion to others. We were encouraged to question everything. I would have had no interest in political science if the coursework had been a training seminar for for pushing through policies and politicians.

Polling has gotten a bad name by the work of some people. What we did needed to be accurate because it wasnt public polling. When a candidate hires you to find out what issues people are interested in, you damn well better get it close. Also, there are many internal campaign polls that we did and the raw data was turned over. People like Rasm, or Zogby never use raw data. When they release it is always the adjusted numbers and is usually not worth a damn.

We also did roots of political systems. Also did alot of reading on various political writers. I actually quite enjoyed Marx. Almost made me a believer.....oknot really but he is quite convincing.

[Truth Warrior]

Polling has gotten a bad name by the work of some people. What we did needed to be accurate because it wasnt public polling. When a candidate hires you to find out what issues people are interested in, you damn well better get it close. Also, there are many internal campaign polls that we did and the raw data was turned over. People like Rasm, or Zogby never use raw data. When they release it is always the adjusted numbers and is usually not worth a damn.

We also did roots of political systems. Also did alot of reading on various political writers. I actually quite enjoyed Marx. Almost made me a believer.....oknot really but he is quite convincing. You are aware that Marx was another paid agent of the Rothschilds of course. ;)

[RockEnds]

Polling has gotten a bad name by the work of some people. What we did needed to be accurate because it wasnt public polling. When a candidate hires you to find out what issues people are interested in, you damn well better get it close. Also, there are many internal campaign polls that we did and the raw data was turned over. People like Rasm, or Zogby never use raw data. When they release it is always the adjusted numbers and is usually not worth a damn.

We also did roots of political systems. Also did alot of reading on various political writers. I actually quite enjoyed Marx. Almost made me a believer.....oknot really but he is quite convincing.

Yeah, Marx is idealist, but I fell in love with Locke.

The trouble with polling the people to learn which issues interest them is that this whole system is based on the protection of the minority by the rule of law--a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Granted, the rule of law doesn't pay well, but the first thing I learned in economics is that money isn't real. ;) I don't think that was the professor's intention, but he nonetheless made me a believer.

[mtmedlin]

Yeah, Marx is idealist, but I fell in love with Locke.

The trouble with polling the people to learn which issues interest them is that this whole system is based on the protection of the minority by the rule of law--a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. Granted, the rule of law doesn't pay well, but the first thing I learned in economics is that money isn't real. ;) I don't think that was the professor's intention, but he nonetheless made me a believer.

Locke is definitely one of my favs. People really don't give Marx a fair shake. I had a war with a dumbass named Seekliberty about him. Most people don't realize that Marx never advocated force and that Communism was supposed to be the next step after Democracy.
We also had to read Aquinas....Never liked his stuff. Federalist papers were great....the first two times. Probably my favorite was Alexis De Tocqueville.

[RockEnds]

Locke is definitely one of my favs. People really don't give Marx a fair shake. I had a war with a dumbass named Seekliberty about him. Most people don't realize that Marx never advocated force and that Communism was supposed to be the next step after Democracy.
We also had to read Aquinas....Never liked his stuff. Federalist papers were great....the first two times. Probably my favorite was Alexis De Tocqueville.

I read Aquinas on my own. It's been a long time ago, but I don't remember being impressed at all. Curiously, I haven't read Tocqueville. Maybe I should put it on my list of things to do this winter.

Marx does get a bum wrap in a sense. He was very idealistic, and initially, it looks good on paper. It is tempting. He makes a persuasive argument. I believe he developed his system with the best of intentions, but I don't think it could ever be practically applied.

I've heard from other recent poli sci grads here on the forums that many colleges no longer offer any courses that focus on the Constitution. Were they offered to you?

[Conza88]

People really don't give Marx a fair shake. I had a war with a dumbass named Seekliberty about him. Most people don't realize that Marx never advocated force and that Communism was supposed to be the next step after Democracy.

Give him a fair shake? What the FUCK below is not an advocation of force, and tell me how Communism AFTER democracy; changes anything at all?


1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee76/WildCatZA/GTFOwithFAIL.jpg

[RockEnds]

Well, you must admit that Marx isn't far from the system already in place, and when you're young, having had everything provided by your parents, it's difficult to understand how expecting people to share could be construed as the use of force.

People speak of Utopia as if it were a wonderful place. Marx is kinder and gentler than More. IMO, Utopia would be hell on earth. I think the bedtime was 8 pm, if I remember right, and if you didn't have your travel papers, you were made a slave. Like chain gang, hard labor slave. You weren't even allowed to know who your children were. There have been some pretty bad ideas that have become quite popular. I absolutely cringe when I hear people speak of Utopia as if it were a pleasant idea.

I'm not trying to defend Marx at all. I don't like his political system, and I do not now nor have I ever advocated it. But Marx isn't a far cry from what we hear everyday on tv. In my political theory class, there were several students whose first choice in political philosophers was Marx, and I had a libertarian professor.

[mtmedlin]

Give him a fair shake? What the FUCK below is not an advocation of force, and tell me how Communism AFTER democracy; changes anything at all?




http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee76/WildCatZA/GTFOwithFAIL.jpg
Edited

[mtmedlin]

Well, you must admit that Marx isn't far from the system already in place, and when you're young, having had everything provided by your parents, it's difficult to understand how expecting people to share could be construed as the use of force.

People speak of Utopia as if it were a wonderful place. Marx is kinder and gentler than More. IMO, Utopia would be hell on earth. I think the bedtime was 8 pm, if I remember right, and if you didn't have your travel papers, you were made a slave. Like chain gang, hard labor slave. You weren't even allowed to know who your children were. There have been some pretty bad ideas that have become quite popular. I absolutely cringe when I hear people speak of Utopia as if it were a pleasant idea.

I'm not trying to defend Marx at all. I don't like his political system, and I do not now nor have I ever advocated it. But Marx isn't a far cry from what we hear everyday on tv. In my political theory class, there were several students whose first choice in political philosophers was Marx, and I had a libertarian professor.

Marxist communism could only work within small groups that were dedicated to the lifestyle. It takes a level of advanced citizenship along with the ability to have no selfish desires. Its not the system that is the failure, it is the people. It really is a theory and not a true form of government because for it to work, people would have to be much more advanced and society would have to have dramatically different values. I personally wouldn't mind a commune similar to Walden II. Something based on intellectual pursuit, yet financially independent. Communism isnt wrong at all, as long as the people involved are there voluntarily.

[Truth Warrior]

The Communist Manifesto planks by Karl Marx

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

This is the infamous "abolition of private property" that is at the root of Marxist Socialism. Can you truly own land in America today? Do you pay a property tax on your home and the land upon which is sits? If you do, you are effectively paying rent to the government. If you are renting something from someone, you are certainly not the true owner. And, yes, those rents do go for public purposes. A very bright man named Bill Medina pointed out to me years ago that the word "public" in present-day usage (and obviously in Marx's lexicon) really means government-owned. Do you own your car? You must pay the government rent in the form of a registration fee and in the form of a license fee if you are going to get any use from that vehicle. The two most significant purchases of private property that most people makes in their lives, their home and their car, are actually nothing less than leasing agreements made with the State. (Marx liked to capitalize the word "State.")

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Do we have a progressive income tax imposed upon us by the federal government and, in many instances, the particular state of the Union in which we live? Therefore, your paycheck is not your private property either, is it?

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Do we have inheritance tax in this nation? You cannot pass down what you believed was your private property to your children without giving the State a juicy piece of the action, can you?

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

If you move out of America and don't keep paying your taxes on your property (even if you are no longer a social burden upon "the system") your property will be confiscated. If you rebel against the system, and become a tax honesty advocate your property be confiscated (without Constitutional due process, I might add) by the IRS

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

This is the Federal Service System. Ironically the Fed is not a government body. It is a privately-owned and incorporated banking monopoly controlled at international levels. This fact is the most blatant indication of who was, and is, behind the creation and sustenance of Communism. The State pretends that the Fed is a national government banking system. The State enforces the edicts of the Fed with armed police authority. "State capital" is the fiat currency known as Federal Reserve Notes (unbacked by gold or silver, and created out of thin air). If you want to know if the Fed's funny money is a monopoly, try printing your own and using it in commerce.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

We have the Federal Communication Commission that regulates what you can hear over the radio and taxes the radio stations. Telephone communication is regulated and taxed by the government. And the State now lusts for a chunk of the Internet. Additionally, the state licenses, taxes, surcharges, and regulates all transportation on land, in the air, and on the waterways, whether it be for private or commercial use. If you do not pay the fees, you will be arrested on the highway, on the landing strip, or on the river.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

The control of industry by government has expanded into every factory and instrument of production (essentially that's a human being, according to Marx). Your little wood shop is not yours, you are the manager doing the will of the State. You may think you own yourself as a means of production, but you have to give damn near half of what you produce to the State every payday. As for the bringing into cultivation of wastelands, we can see this every time the government allows logging, mining or grazing on public land. This cultivation of these resources by apparent private concerns is heavily taxed. The state always gets a share, the improvement of the soil in accordance with a common plan is nothing more than the insidious corporate monopolization of farmland via government-sponsored chemical fertilizer schemes, irrigation boondoggles, and sneaky agricultural lending and foreclosure policies.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We picture a bunch of Russian peasants being marched out for their day in the potato fields, but your labor is already liable, as the income tax. We all do our fair share for the greater good, don't we? Where the Soviets could only get most of the people to chip in for the common good, our wonderful democratic (I thought we had a Republic) form of government has each and every one of us dripping sweat for its benefit.

9. Combination of Agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by the equitable distribution of population over the country.

Hmmm, they haven't done this one yet! But wait...Almost all former family farms are now owned by multi-national corporations. Remember that what we have now is Fascist Communism so that the Government and the Corporations are basically the government.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc..

Remember, public means government-controlled. The government gets to educate your kids and turn them into nice little obedient production units that will be shepherded as a human resource. Child labor in factories was really nasty, so we'll just use NAFTA and GATT to exploit the kids of the Third World. Industrial producers and the military exploit medical and technological discoveries by students in taxpayer-funded universities, so I guess we're on our way with that one as well.

[mtmedlin]

I love a cut and paste war....its so original.

Marx ideas have value as long as their applied within a system that is voluntarily entered. I am not getting into a pissing match with half the foums because all I will get is a shitload of cut and paste and not one damn original thought or idea.

[mtmedlin]

I read Aquinas on my own. It's been a long time ago, but I don't remember being impressed at all. Curiously, I haven't read Tocqueville. Maybe I should put it on my list of things to do this winter.

Marx does get a bum wrap in a sense. He was very idealistic, and initially, it looks good on paper. It is tempting. He makes a persuasive argument. I believe he developed his system with the best of intentions, but I don't think it could ever be practically applied.

I've heard from other recent poli sci grads here on the forums that many colleges no longer offer any courses that focus on the Constitution. Were they offered to you?

Yes they were. I took COnstitutional law and learned a great deal. At the masters level, they offer two courses on it but I got my masters in Education....At times I wish I had gone with Poli Sci.

You got to read Tocq. he really takes AMerica to task and his forethought is amazingly accurate.

[Truth Warrior]

I love a cut and paste war....its so original.

Marx ideas have value as long as their applied within a system that is voluntarily entered. I am not getting into a pissing match with half the foums because all I will get is a shitload of cut and paste and not one damn original thought or idea. If you can't refute the FACTS, then just bitch and whine about the "posting styles". :rolleyes: If I were you I wouldn't either, since you obviously know so very little of what you are talking about.

Yep, just like in Russia, 1917. totally voluntary. :rolleyes: 61,000,000 DEAD.

Like in China, 1948, totally voluntary. :rolleyes: 80,000,000 DEAD

"By their body count ye shall know them."

[RockEnds]

Yes they were. I took COnstitutional law and learned a great deal. At the masters level, they offer two courses on it but I got my masters in Education....At times I wish I had gone with Poli Sci.

You got to read Tocq. he really takes AMerica to task and his forethought is amazingly accurate.

I know he does. I pulled it off the shelf already! I will read it this winter--maybe sooner.

[Conza88]

Edited

Ohh! *standing ovation*! Best rebuttal in the history of the internetz. :rolleyes: Answer my questions. All legitimate and origional thought; you have failed to address the points I made. You failed. Please try again.


Marxist communism could only work within small groups that were dedicated to the lifestyle. It takes a level of advanced citizenship along with the ability to have no selfish desires. Its not the system that is the failure, it is the people.

Marxist communism does NOT work. Period - and that is by clinical definition. Ohhh, geezus fken christ @ the bold. How deluded do you want to be? NO - the system is a FAILURE, because it's PREMISES of what PEOPLE / HUMAN NATURE is like are FLAWED. PURE and simple. Your analysis fails as much as Marx's.


It really is a theory and not a true form of government because for it to work, people would have to be much more advanced and society would have to have dramatically different values. I personally wouldn't mind a commune similar to Walden II. Something based on intellectual pursuit, yet financially independent. Communism isnt wrong at all, as long as the people involved are there voluntarily.

Another remarkable fail. Humans, being individuals - will always follow their independent & separate self interests. If you try to CHANGE that, or destroy the self you end up with anything but what can be called a civilized society, or civilization.

Communism is collectivist. It is fken coercive. It is highly immoral. It is TOTALITARIAN. It is a failed ideology that would see to the eventual destruction of civilized humanity should it take shape in the form of one world government.

@ bold 2. See, there is your ignorance. Communism isn't voluntarily. Be definition. I think what you're trying to talk about is SOCIALISM.... there is VOLUNTARY socialism (i.e you go live in your commune with other people who have volunteered to be there, earn no wages etc etc.) and then there is COERCIVE socialism (Pretty much every single person who calls themselves a socialist, fits in this category - because their too brain dead / stupid to realise that there is an alternative)

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

[mtmedlin]

If you can't refute the FACTS, then just bitch and whine about the "posting styles". :rolleyes: If I were you I wouldn't either, since you obviously know so very little of what you are talking about.

Yep, just like in Russia, 1917. totally voluntary. :rolleyes: 61,000,000 DEAD.

Like in China, 1948, totally voluntary. :rolleyes: 80,000,000 DEAD

"By their body count ye shall know them."

You are confused as to the application of the system and the theory itself. Also, russia and China really followed a Lenin approach to Communism and not a Marx. The 10 planks are a "what needs to happen" if the system is to be in place. And is only one way to get there. If you were a poli sci major you would have sat through a class that discusses whether or not the system could work and how. As scientist we attempt to measure and figure out why the systme failed in its current application. Communes have been around forever and many are succesful. What do you think the Monks of Tibet live by?
I am not saying it is my preference nor am I saying that it will work for everyone but to me there are some attractive qualities. Working for the betterment of all and giving up the pursuit of selfish treasures rings true in my heart. Its not for everyone. As for America, no I don't want it hear but a commune within the US would work just fine.
Please try to seperate theory from Application. If you really want to compare, try looking at the body count for the history of the US. I think you will see that we arent so far off.

[mtmedlin]

Ohh! *standing ovation*! Best rebuttal in the history of the internetz. :rolleyes: Answer my questions. All legitimate and origional thought; you have failed to address the points I made. You failed. Please try again.



Marxist communism does NOT work. Period - and that is by clinical definition. Ohhh, geezus fken christ @ the bold. How deluded do you want to be? NO - the system is a FAILURE, because it's PREMISES of what PEOPLE / HUMAN NATURE is like are FLAWED. PURE and simple. Your analysis fails as much as Marx's.



Another remarkable fail. Humans, being individuals - will always follow their independent & separate self interests. If you try to CHANGE that, or destroy the self you end up with anything but what can be called a civilized society, or civilization.

Communism is collectivist. It is fken coercive. It is highly immoral. It is TOTALITARIAN. It is a failed ideology that would see to the eventual destruction of civilized humanity should it take shape in the form of one world government.

@ bold 2. See, there is your ignorance. Communism isn't voluntarily. Be definition. I think what you're trying to talk about is SOCIALISM.... there is VOLUNTARY socialism (i.e you go live in your commune with other people who have volunteered to be there, earn no wages etc etc.) and then there is COERCIVE socialism (Pretty much every single person who calls themselves a socialist, fits in this category - because their too brain dead / stupid to realise that there is an alternative)

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

I edited what I said because I was in a bad mood and used some language that I shoudn't have. You havent a clue as to what you are talking about and I really have no desire to get in another pissing match. Go back and find the thread with Seekliberty and I. It had my arguments there.

btw...You made NO points, you simply cut and pasted the ten planks. If that is your idea of debate then I was correct in my assesment that your not up to the task.

[Conza88]

I edited what I said because I was in a bad mood and used some language that I shoudn't have. You havent a clue as to what you are talking about and I really have no desire to get in another pissing match.

Well thanks for not being in a bad mood when replying to this. :) I regretfully inform you though; I do have a clue as to what I am talking about, and it is in fact you who has been shown to be clueless. As far as a "pissing match" goes, just a little tip from the wise - it's not smart to aim into the wind. ;)


Go back and find the thread with Seekliberty and I. It had my arguments there.

Ok, I went ahead and found it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=124926). <-- lmfao... :D You are more than welcome to re-copy & paste all you want from your "arguments" to try refute mine. ;)

btw...You made NO points, you simply cut and pasted the ten planks. If that is your idea of debate then I was correct in my assesment that your not up to the task.
For everyone's reviewing pleasure. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616301&postcount=23) The ten planks where added for your & everyone elses benefit. They were what was being discussed; they had not previously been shown. I added them, in order to ease your rebuttal. The questions asked of you are above; you failed to address them and continue to avoid every, single, argument I have proposed to you.

Furthermore; you say all I do is cut and paste and you were "correct in [your] assesment that your not up to the task." Then please enlighten me; wtf is this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616578&postcount=32)?

How about you have some integrity and admit you were wrong / dunno wtf you are talking about. Instead of trying to save face, which only goes to make you look more ridiculous... :)

[mtmedlin]

Well thanks for not being in a bad mood when replying to this. :) I regretfully inform you though; I do have a clue as to what I am talking about, and it is in fact you who has been shown to be clueless. As far as a "pissing match" goes, just a little tip from the wise - it's not smart to aim into the wind. ;)
So are you now comapring yourself to wind, because at this point it just seems more like hot air,



Ok, I went ahead and found it here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=124926). <-- lmfao... :D You are more than welcome to re-copy & paste all you want from your "arguments" to try refute mine. ;)

For everyone's reviewing pleasure. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616301&postcount=23) The ten planks where added for your & everyone elses benefit. They were what was being discussed; they had not previously been shown. I added them, in order to ease your rebuttal. The questions asked of you are above; you failed to address them and continue to avoid every, single, argument I have proposed to you.

Furthermore; you say all I do is cut and paste and you were "correct in [your] assesment that your not up to the task." Then please enlighten me; wtf is this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616578&postcount=32)?

How about you have some integrity and admit you were wrong / dunno wtf you are talking about. Instead of trying to save face, which only goes to make you look more ridiculous... :)

Conza,
Posting the planks is not making an argument. What exactly have I said have you refuted. Nothing. You posted planks...thats it. Its not an argument, its cutting and pasting already known material. Now, would you like to forma question or an argument?

[mtmedlin]

Ohh! *standing ovation*! Best rebuttal in the history of the internetz. :rolleyes: Answer my questions. All legitimate and origional thought; you have failed to address the points I made. You failed. Please try again.

Showing civility isn't a failure. Also going into a waste of my time is never a failure and I am near certain that debating this with you will be an epic failure. Your statements lead me to believe that you have no objectivity and therefore willnot learn anything.



Marxist communism does NOT work. Period - and that is by clinical definition. Ohhh, geezus fken christ @ the bold. How deluded do you want to be? NO - the system is a FAILURE, because it's PREMISES of what PEOPLE / HUMAN NATURE is like are FLAWED. PURE and simple. Your analysis fails as much as Marx's.

Clinical definition??? Please, post your scholarly research and prove this otherwise I call bullshit.
You say the premise is flawed. Based on what? Communism is a what could be and not necessarily what is. Yes, changes in how we perceive wealth and needs would dramatically have to change but that isn't a failure in the theory if the theory acknowledges that the changes would have to be made. It is accounted for within the theory.
Sorry but your argument isn't absed on fact, its based on irrational emotion and if you truly want to discuss this, your gonna have to do better.



Another remarkable fail. Humans, being individuals - will always follow their independent & separate self interests. If you try to CHANGE that, or destroy the self you end up with anything but what can be called a civilized society, or civilization.

And what do you base your assesment that it will destroy civilization. Personally I think that the desire for more and the conquest for riches has killed and destroyed quite a bit. On a comparative basis, I cant say that capitalism has been any better when it comes to destruction of civilizations. Just because ours is still standing doesnt dictate that it always will. Hell the romans had a great run but we all know the outcome.


Communism is collectivist. It is fken coercive. It is highly immoral. It is TOTALITARIAN. It is a failed ideology that would see to the eventual destruction of civilized humanity should it take shape in the form of one world government.

Coerocive in the forms that we have seen on this planet but it also isnt truly Marxist Communism. It is like saying that the United States is following a Plato based republic just because Plato theorized about it. His execution and ours is dramatically different.



@ bold 2. See, there is your ignorance. Communism isn't voluntarily. Be definition. I think what you're trying to talk about is SOCIALISM.... there is VOLUNTARY socialism (i.e you go live in your commune with other people who have volunteered to be there, earn no wages etc etc.) and then there is COERCIVE socialism (Pretty much every single person who calls themselves a socialist, fits in this category - because their too brain dead / stupid to realise that there is an alternative)

Communism can be voluntary. Again, you arent talking about Marx theory, you are talking about the how Lenin and others have used it. their execution isnt the same as the theory. there is a difference.


"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

Wron again. They can co-exist, easily. In truth a real commune would require libertarian principles to work and it is the failure of that by Lenin and others that ultimatly caused the failure within their system.


Now, have I answered your questions?

[Truth Warrior]

You are confused as to the application of the system and the theory itself. Also, russia and China really followed a Lenin approach to Communism and not a Marx. The 10 planks are a "what needs to happen" if the system is to be in place. And is only one way to get there. If you were a poli sci major you would have sat through a class that discusses whether or not the system could work and how. As scientist we attempt to measure and figure out why the systme failed in its current application. Communes have been around forever and many are succesful. What do you think the Monks of Tibet live by?
I am not saying it is my preference nor am I saying that it will work for everyone but to me there are some attractive qualities. Working for the betterment of all and giving up the pursuit of selfish treasures rings true in my heart. Its not for everyone. As for America, no I don't want it hear but a commune within the US would work just fine.
Please try to seperate theory from Application. If you really want to compare, try looking at the body count for the history of the US. I think you will see that we arent so far off.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[Scofield]

The issue in Poli Sci that I encounter more often than I would like is plenty of students declare it as their major because they "like politics and stuff." My classmates watch CNN and call themselves "political junkies." I hate that term. I hear it all too often.

These kids who were "political junkies" in high school because they knew who the Secretary of State is aren't prepared for college political science. They think it will be like their AP History class. It's not.

I'm thinking about majoring in PoliSci. Is it a difficult major?

[Truth Warrior]

I'm thinking about majoring in PoliSci. Is it a difficult major?
Nope, just a very minor step up from PE and Education. :rolleyes:

[yongrel]

I'm thinking about majoring in PoliSci. Is it a difficult major?

Poli Sci requires a ton of writing and a lot of dense reading, so if that's a turn off you might look elsewhere. A class I'm in this semester called "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" reads Marx, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, etc. Hundreds of pages read weekly, and it ain't Reader's Digest.

Also, I'm in DC, so there's a lot of application stuff too. We get to putter around the capitol and we have all sorts of clinics for hands-on things (Campaign Management, Press Relations, Grassroots Coordination, Legislative Action, etc).

Poli Sci is a difficult major if you aren't interested. If you enjoy the subject, it's hard work, but it's a blast.

[Scofield]

Poli Sci requires a ton of writing and a lot of dense reading, so if that's a turn off you might look elsewhere. A class I'm in this semester called "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" reads Marx, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, etc. Hundreds of pages read weekly, and it ain't Reader's Digest.

Also, I'm in DC, so there's a lot of application stuff too. We get to putter around the capitol and we have all sorts of clinics for hands-on things (Campaign Management, Press Relations, Grassroots Coordination, Legislative Action, etc).

Poli Sci is a difficult major if you aren't interested. If you enjoy the subject, it's hard work, but it's a blast.

Well I am interested in the subject, so hopefully It's a blast like you say.

What do you plan on doing with your degree?

[yongrel]

Well I am interested in the subject, so hopefully It's a blast like you say.

What do you plan on doing with your degree?

As of now, I'm planning on law school, maybe graduate school in addition/instead.

Running for office would be interesting.

[mtmedlin]

Poli Sci requires a ton of writing and a lot of dense reading, so if that's a turn off you might look elsewhere. A class I'm in this semester called "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" reads Marx, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, etc. Hundreds of pages read weekly, and it ain't Reader's Digest.

Also, I'm in DC, so there's a lot of application stuff too. We get to putter around the capitol and we have all sorts of clinics for hands-on things (Campaign Management, Press Relations, Grassroots Coordination, Legislative Action, etc).

Poli Sci is a difficult major if you aren't interested. If you enjoy the subject, it's hard work, but it's a blast.

VERY dense reading. I can remember going over passages multiple times and the quantity of writing is insane. Senior year I took 24 credits in a single semester. (given I didnt work that semester and college was all I had) It damn near killed me. 3 out of the 6 classes had a paper due every week. The other three had three major papers (20 to 40 page range) and one was the capstone course, which required a nice 50+ pager. That semester alone I would estimate I wrote somewhere in the 200 pages plus and it was all based off of the authors mentined above plus the Federalist Papers. (which isnt light reading)

The most rewarding was when the professors would let us sit in on their conversations. You get 4 professors from different disciplines sitting in a classroom debating the issues of the day, the best thing you can do is sit back, shut up and enjoy. I would occasionally throw in a question but that is about it.

What law schools are you looking at?

[mtmedlin]

Well I am interested in the subject, so hopefully It's a blast like you say.

What do you plan on doing with your degree?


As a piece of advice, think about getting a minor in something like Public Administration or Economics. There a little more practical and it is easier to find jobs. Most employers in the political fields (polling, campaigns, research) are looking for someone that is a specialist, so it takes at least a masters to get in.

[Truth Warrior]

It should just be a BS. :D

[mtmedlin]

It should just be a BS. :D

Doyou say ever say anything of value or do you just think its cool to be a hateful disagree prick all the time?

[Truth Warrior]

Doyou say ever say anything of value or do you just think its cool to be a hateful disagree prick all the time?
Pretty much. ;) But then again, at least I'm not a Marxist hanging out on the RPF, nor an Education major. :p

[Conza88]

Pretty much. ;) But then again, at least I'm not a Marxist hanging out on the RPF, nor an Education major. :p

I LOL'd... :D

[Primbs]

Poli Sci requires a ton of writing and a lot of dense reading, so if that's a turn off you might look elsewhere. A class I'm in this semester called "Individual Freedom vs. Authority" reads Marx, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Locke, Hobbes, etc. Hundreds of pages read weekly, and it ain't Reader's Digest.

Also, I'm in DC, so there's a lot of application stuff too. We get to putter around the capitol and we have all sorts of clinics for hands-on things (Campaign Management, Press Relations, Grassroots Coordination, Legislative Action, etc).

Poli Sci is a difficult major if you aren't interested. If you enjoy the subject, it's hard work, but it's a blast.

Most of the schools in the DC area are great for practical political science. However, many of the classes focus on who does what in the government. Not many professors advocate trying to cut back government.

Even the very math oriented political scientists lack the practical knowledge of how campaigns work, government works and what really makes things move in Washington.

[Truth Warrior]

Most of the schools in the DC area are great for practical political science. However, many of the classes focus on who does what in the government. Not many professors advocate trying to cut back government.

Even the very math oriented political scientists lack the practical knowledge of how campaigns work, government works and what really makes things move in Washington. Power, money, sex, money, booze, money, etc., money and of course money. :D

[Primbs]

Power, money, sex, money, booze, money, etc., money and of course money. :D

Those factors in academic types of studies don't look impressive in academic journals, but those factors sure do have alot of influence in politics.

[Truth Warrior]

Those factors in academic types of studies don't look impressive in academic journals, but those factors sure do have alot of influence in politics.

"If you want to understand, what's REALLY going on, just follow the money!"

;)

:D

[Primbs]

"If you want to understand, what's REALLY going on, just follow the money!"

;)

:D

Lets follow the money.

These guys have tried to study bribes, but I would expect not many corrupt officials would want to give very many insights into how it works. These studies might be typical of political science studies, but they barely scratch the surface.

Bribe-Taking by Bureaucrats: Personal and Circumstantial Determinants

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8668/

The Politics of Money and the Economics of Politics:
The Philippine Case


http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kt838FWBRsoJ:www.needs-network.org/pdfs/jakartaForum/The%2520Politics%2520of%2520Money%2520and%2520the% 2520Economics%2520of%2520Politics%2520CASPILE2.pdf +the+economics+of+bribery+in+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us

The Economics of Corruption/
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:y5mU6r-aW8MJ:vedamsbooks.com/no45055.htm+the+economics+of+bribery+in+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us

[Truth Warrior]

Lets follow the money.

These guys have tried to study bribes, but I would expect not many corrupt officials would want to give very many insights into how it works. These studies might be typical of political science studies, but they barely scratch the surface.

Bribe-Taking by Bureaucrats: Personal and Circumstantial Determinants

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8668/

The Politics of Money and the Economics of Politics:
The Philippine Case


http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:kt838FWBRsoJ:www.needs-network.org/pdfs/jakartaForum/The%2520Politics%2520of%2520Money%2520and%2520the% 2520Economics%2520of%2520Politics%2520CASPILE2.pdf +the+economics+of+bribery+in+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us

The Economics of Corruption/
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:y5mU6r-aW8MJ:vedamsbooks.com/no45055.htm+the+economics+of+bribery+in+politics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us
And let's not forget the Fed, Income Tax and a $3 TRILLION per YEAR annual federal government budget. ;)

I assume that you realize that it took the federal government 60 years ( 1789 - 1849 ) to spend the first BILLION $.

What is wrong with this picture?

[mtmedlin]

Pretty much. ;) But then again, at least I'm not a Marxist hanging out on the RPF, nor an Education major. :p

Well, as long as we agree that you offer no substance and are at best a prick then I guess we have found some common ground.
and I am proud of all the degrees I have attained....especially having the ability to teach the future of this nation. You see, I value the fact that I add a positive effect to this world, instead of just being a dumbass who enjoys being snarky on a forum.

[mtmedlin]

Most of the schools in the DC area are great for practical political science. However, many of the classes focus on who does what in the government. Not many professors advocate trying to cut back government.

Even the very math oriented political scientists lack the practical knowledge of how campaigns work, government works and what really makes things move in Washington.

Try George Washington U. It has a great Campaign Management degree.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, as long as we agree that you offer no substance and are at best a prick then I guess we have found some common ground.
and I am proud of all the degrees I have attained....especially having the ability to teach the future of this nation. You see, I value the fact that I add a positive effect to this world, instead of just being a dumbass who enjoys being snarky on a forum. Each to their own self righteous illusions and delusions, Whiny butt.

[yongrel]

Try George Washington U. It has a great Campaign Management degree.

AU also has something called the Campaign Management Institute, which is two weeks of 9-5 grinding and learning. They bring in pros like David Axelrod and whatnot to teach. It's bloody brilliant.

[Truth Warrior]

A reall killer two weeks, I bet. :rolleyes:

[mtmedlin]

AU also has something called the Campaign Management Institute, which is two weeks of 9-5 grinding and learning. They bring in pros like David Axelrod and whatnot to teach. It's bloody brilliant.

My mouth waters when I read something like that. I wish I lived near DC. THe closest school that I have for Campaign Management is The University of Florida. It's not bad but it's not DC.

[mtmedlin]

Each to their own self righteous illusions and delusions, Whiny butt.

No illusion or delusion, Ive had over 2000 kids be introduced to libertarian ideals while I was a teacher....what the fuck have you done?

[Truth Warrior]

No illusion or delusion, Ive had over 2000 kids be introduced to libertarian ideals while I was a teacher....what the fuck have you done? Well among many other things, NOT bothering to justify myself to arrogant childish Marxist twits like you, Goober. :D

[Primbs]

Try George Washington U. It has a great Campaign Management degree.

I have been there. That brings up a whole other debate. Campaign Management might be closer to marketing than to political science.

The quality of innovations and creativeness from the Ron Paul grassroots compares favorably to what you would learn at GWU and AU. If not better.

What both schools would teach is how to target your campaign resources better.
Even with that type of education, there is still so much more to learn about campaign politics. Plus it helps to have a killer instinct as well. Some people are more cut out for campaign management than others. There are also many successful consultants who are skillful in one area like financial campaign management that are not so good in other areas like psychology, salesmanship, organization, logistics and advertising creativeness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

Political science is a branch of social science that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. Political Science is often described as the study of who gets what, when and how.[1] Political science has several subfields, including: international relations, political theory, public policy and public administration, national politics, and comparative politics.

Political science is methodologically diverse. Approaches to the discipline include classical political philosophy, interpretivism, structuralism, and behavioralism, realism, pluralism, and institutionalism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, uses methods and techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought: primary sources such as historical documents and official records, secondary sources such as scholarly journal articles, survey research, statistical analysis, case studies, and model building.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_management

Marketing management is a business discipline focused on the practical application of marketing techniques and the management of a firm's marketing resources and activities. Marketing managers are often responsible for influencing the level, timing, and composition of customer demand accepted definition of the term. In part, this is because the role of a marketing manager can vary significantly based on a business' size, corporate culture, and industry context. For example, in a large consumer products company, the marketing manager may act as the overall general manager of his or her assigned product [1]

From this perspective, the scope of marketing management is quite broad. The implication of such a definition is that any activity or resource the firm uses to acquire customers and manage the company's relationships with them is within the purview of marketing management. Additionally, the Kotler and Keller definition encompasses both the development of new products and services and their delivery to customers.

[mtmedlin]

Well among many other things, NOT bothering to justify myself to arrogant childish Marxist twits like you, Goober. :D

Good one fucktard. Now are your going to do anything productive in this thread or do you just want to go back to being a worthless piece of shit?

[mtmedlin]

I have been there. That brings up a whole other debate. Campaign Management might be closer to marketing than to political science.

The quality of innovations and creativeness from the Ron Paul grassroots compares favorably to what you would learn at GWU and AU. If not better.

What both schools would teach is how to target your campaign resources better.
Even with that type of education, there is still so much more to learn about campaign politics. Plus it helps to have a killer instinct as well. Some people are more cut out for campaign management than others. There are also many successful consultants who are skillful in one area like financial campaign management that are not so good in other areas like psychology, salesmanship, organization, logistics and advertising creativeness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

Political science is a branch of social science that deals with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. Political Science is often described as the study of who gets what, when and how.[1] Political science has several subfields, including: international relations, political theory, public policy and public administration, national politics, and comparative politics.

Political science is methodologically diverse. Approaches to the discipline include classical political philosophy, interpretivism, structuralism, and behavioralism, realism, pluralism, and institutionalism. Political science, as one of the social sciences, uses methods and techniques that relate to the kinds of inquiries sought: primary sources such as historical documents and official records, secondary sources such as scholarly journal articles, survey research, statistical analysis, case studies, and model building.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketing_management

Marketing management is a business discipline focused on the practical application of marketing techniques and the management of a firm's marketing resources and activities. Marketing managers are often responsible for influencing the level, timing, and composition of customer demand accepted definition of the term. In part, this is because the role of a marketing manager can vary significantly based on a business' size, corporate culture, and industry context. For example, in a large consumer products company, the marketing manager may act as the overall general manager of his or her assigned product [1]

From this perspective, the scope of marketing management is quite broad. The implication of such a definition is that any activity or resource the firm uses to acquire customers and manage the company's relationships with them is within the purview of marketing management. Additionally, the Kotler and Keller definition encompasses both the development of new products and services and their delivery to customers.

I wouldnt say its more like marketing. It really depends on how you build your degree. At the Masters level, you really should have alot of input on what you want to study. Campaing management should have some polling, grassroots organization, marketing, Public relations, fundraising, etc. It really has applications in many other fields other then Political which makes it a great degree.

[Truth Warrior]

Good one fucktard. Now are your going to do anything productive in this thread or do you just want to go back to being a worthless piece of shit?
You started this crap, asshole, with your Marxist bull shit. :rolleyes:

[mtmedlin]

You started this crap, asshole, with your Marxist bull shit. :rolleyes:

No it was your inability to understand what I was saying, whereas the other two people that I was talking to fully understood. Then again, they are educated and you are you. Sorry about your luck, not all of us can have intellectual capacity but please always rememeber. I like my fries hot and my orders are always to go. Keep your name badge straight and your hair combed, asshole....one day you'll make management.

[Truth Warrior]

No it was your inability to understand what I was saying, whereas the other two people that I was talking to fully understood. Then again, they are educated and you are you. Sorry about your luck, not all of us can have intellectual capacity but please always rememeber. I like my fries hot and my orders are always to go. Keep your name badge straight and your hair combed, asshole....one day you'll make management. Classic!

I could lose 30 IQ points and still be much brighter than you, from what I've seen so far. Hell you couldn't even identify the planks of the Communist Manifesto. :rolleyes:

Then you just go off on your lame half assed "posting style" critique, instead of merely addressing the issues.

Your batting way out of league here, junior. :p And just MORE bluff, bluster, false bravado and bull shit ain't gonna save your ass.

[mtmedlin]

Classic!

I could lose 30 IQ points and still be much brighter than you, from what I've seen so far. Hell you couldn't even identify the planks of the Communist Manifesto. :rolleyes:

Then you just go off on your lame half assed "posting style" critique, instead of merely addressing the issues.

Your batting way out of league here, junior. :p And just MORE bluff, bluster, false bravado and bull shit ain't gonna save your ass.

132 IQ dumbass and I addressed all questions, you just dont have what it takes. It must be difficult packing a 22 caliber mind in my 50 caliber world.

[Truth Warrior]

132 IQ dumbass and I addressed all questions, you just dont have what it takes. It must be difficult packing a 22 caliber mind in my 50 caliber world. 165 IQ, dip shit bb brain. Like I said you're out of your league. Is that why you talk to children for a living?

[SeanEdwards]

Political Science is an oxymoron.<IMHO>

I took a political science course a couple of semesters ago, and the first day of class the teacher asks us to write down what we hope to learn in the class, and that was my comment: 'I want to know what makes political science not an oxymoron."

It turns out that there are some interesting precepts that seem to arise from the interaction of nation states. One example that I can recall was a principle of checkerboard alliance formation. Nation states tend to want to form defensive alliances with other nation states that they do not share land borders with, leading to a checkerboard pattern of alliances. In recent history, it can be argued that much of the concept of the "domino theory" was a misinterpretation of this classic checkerboard pattern asserting itself in SE Asia.

There is stuff like that arises naturally from the interaction of different governing systems that is somewhat scientific and worthy of study. The class also vastly increased my knowledge of the history of the Peloponnesian war, which turned out to be a fascinating subject.

[yongrel]

165 IQ, dip shit bb brain. Like I said you're out of your league. Is that why you talk to children for a living?

Rule #3,124,046 of the Internet: Everyone lies about their IQ. Everyone.

[Truth Warrior]

I took a political science course a couple of semesters ago, and the first day of class the teacher asks us to write down what we hope to learn in the class, and that was my comment: 'I want to know what makes political science not an oxymoron."

It turns out that there are some interesting precepts that seem to arise from the interaction of nation states. One example that I can recall was a principle of checkerboard alliance formation. Nation states tend to want to form defensive alliances with other nation states that they do not share land borders with, leading to a checkerboard pattern of alliances. In recent history, it can be argued that much of the concept of the "domino theory" was a misinterpretation of this classic checkerboard pattern asserting itself in SE Asia.

There is stuff like that arises naturally from the interaction of different governing systems that is somewhat scientific and worthy of study. The class also vastly increased my knowledge of the history of the Peloponnesian war, which turned out to be a fascinating subject. I'm happy that you were able to derive some value from it. :)

[Truth Warrior]

Rule #3,124,046 of the Internet: Everyone lies about their IQ. Everyone. OK! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. That's gonna be a tough one for a TW.

195 IQ.

I sure wouldn't want to break the Internet rule. ;)

:D

[Conza88]

So are you now comapring yourself to wind, because at this point it just seems more like hot air,

Haha, I'm a hot air balloon. I rise & soon, if you follow with me - you'll see the horizon. :D


Conza,
Posting the planks is not making an argument. What exactly have I said have you refuted. Nothing. You posted planks...thats it. Its not an argument, its cutting and pasting already known material. Now, would you like to forma question or an argument?

Wrong. Evidence # 1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616301&postcount=23). Please refer to first line after quote. So in fact, I'm way ahead of you here - still waiting for you to catch up. ;) Kind of a characteristic associated with all communists / collectivists / totalitarians. All living in the stone age. Tyranny is old, freedom is new. :cool:


Showing civility isn't a failure. Also going into a waste of my time is never a failure and I am near certain that debating this with you will be an epic failure. Your statements lead me to believe that you have no objectivity and therefore willnot learn anything.

I wasn't addressing civility as your failure. Nor would I ever. What I was addressing was your FAILURE to address my questions to it. I am open to persuasion mate, I consider myself philosophical - and to self analyse, rather self righteous. I want to have the right arguments; and but naturally I contend I already have them - so I defend them with vigor. I am open though; to new and better ways. Teach me, I'm all ears. :) Better yet though; how about you put down your know it all attitude; and be open to persuasion yourself.. Otherwise you'll just be a brick wall. And brick walls always crumble.


Clinical definition??? Please, post your scholarly research and prove this otherwise I call bullshit.

Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Disagree with the definition? And if so, what is yours? This system does not work. It's not based on reality.


You say the premise is flawed. Based on what?

Praxeology. :cool:


Communism is a what could be and not necessarily what is. Yes, changes in how we perceive wealth and needs would dramatically have to change but that isn't a failure in the theory if the theory acknowledges that the changes would have to be made. It is accounted for within the theory.

Communism has been. You won't change basic human nature; i.e self interest of individuals. The 'theory' is based on that; THAT is NOT going to happen. Thus it is flawed.


Sorry but your argument isn't absed on fact, its based on irrational emotion and if you truly want to discuss this, your gonna have to do better.
Soviet Union. 97% public property. Pretty much every single plank enacted. That not fact enough for you? :rolleyes: It's been tried. It failed. ;)


And what do you base your assesment that it will destroy civilization. Personally I think that the desire for more and the conquest for riches has killed and destroyed quite a bit. On a comparative basis, I cant say that capitalism has been any better when it comes to destruction of civilizations. Just because ours is still standing doesnt dictate that it always will. Hell the romans had a great run but we all know the outcome.

I said civilized society. I base it on the fact that a civil society requires basic property rights. Do you agree? If not, too bad - I just stole your computer because it fulfills my needs more than yours... guess I shouldn't wait for a reply too soon, eh? ;) The STATE has conquered for riches (Imperialism), Capitalists want as small a state as possible. Capitalism doesn't destroy civilizations; it saves them. The US doesn't have capitalism; get that into your ignorant head. I'm not too sure, you actually know what true capitalism is... Hahah; tell me - what SAVINGS / CAPITAL are used to increase productivity in the US these days? I'm see a shitload of debt... YEAH, like the ENTIRE SYSTEM. Now tell me, the 5th plank - the Federal Reserve System; COMMUNISTIC - not exactly Capitalistic is it now.... ? :D Fascism aka Corporatism - also COLLECTIVIST is what the US is now. Capitalism has nothing to do with it, so don't go blaming it. Hmm k? ;)

[Conza88]

Coerocive in the forms that we have seen on this planet but it also isnt truly Marxist Communism. It is like saying that the United States is following a Plato based republic just because Plato theorized about it. His execution and ours is dramatically different.

Of course coecion isn't just applied in Communism. Are you crazy? Yeah, I've read Plato's Republic, one of the first things I ever did.. it's nothing like the United States political system. So your point is moot. What would be more correct is; what did the Founding Fathers theorize about... ;) Then try comparing their execution & George Bush's - which are dramatically different.. :confused: lmfao. Your point is fallacious. :)


Communism can be voluntary. Again, you arent talking about Marx theory, you are talking about the how Lenin and others have used it. their execution isnt the same as the theory. there is a difference.

Lol.. just what on earth definition are you using, so you can come up with that illogical conclusion :confused:. Communism can be voluntary... Hahahaha... seriously. Come again? What's the difference then. :rolleyes:


My Quote:
"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

Wron again. They can co-exist, easily. In truth a real commune would require libertarian principles to work and it is the failure of that by Lenin and others that ultimatly caused the failure within their system.

No - right again. Boaz didn't differentiate between coercive socialism and voluntary. For the brain dead and mentally challenged; it should be:

"The difference between libertarianism and coercive socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a voluntary socialist community, but coercive socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community."

;) Ohhh ok, so you consider the system a failure... Good, we're making progress :D

[mtmedlin]

Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Disagree with the definition? And if so, what is yours? This system does not work. It's not based on reality.

You make a blanket statment that it isn't based on reality. Reality of what. This time and this age. You may be right. Then again, you can go through history and see many times when the system used here in the US wouldn't have worked. I am not saying Communism is an ideal form of government. This whole damn argument started over peoples inability to see the differences between the failed attempts at communism and the theory itself. Communism could work but it takes different types of people and in a small format. The biggest issue that I have with that people are saying is that the comparisons are always to Russia and China. These two countries put ego in with Communism. They believed it was so superior that they forced people to stay. They also took the delegation of power too far. Marx never intended for the state to dictate what job you MUST work. There was supposed to be centralized control of what would be produced but not necessarily by whom. In fact some market forces have to come about within communism. Obviously the jobs nobody wants would have to come with some incentives. Pay would increase for the jobs that nobody wants. Many think that Communism means that everybody would be equal and make the same monies. Not true, this is further supported by the advocation of the progressive income tax. Russia just decided to force people to do those jobs. That was a huge mistake. They also didn't allow for people to leave the country. Voluntary communism would have a much higher success rate. Look at America and see how many people are willing to pay more taxes to have universal health care. These are the people Marx dreams of. Communism doesnt have to be a complete police state. Centralized planning does not necessarily mean stripping the citizens of all rights.
Some people are not like us. They speak of liberty but really dont want to live it. Many humans are lazy and would rather have their lives given to them without much forethought or work. These are communist....they just live in America and are too ignorant to know the difference.


I find #9 of the planks to be of most interest. If multinational corporations controling farms is essentially the same as the government owning them, then wouldnt this have been the outcome within a true capitalist society. Business will always consume and grow larger while eliminating the smaller businesses. The only real difference between communism and capitalism within this plant is the degree of government intervention, but who really cares which master we bow to. Under communism it would be the government, under capitalism it would be the largest multinationals. Either way, something as important as food distribution would lead to power and power to corruption.

Now without being a dick, I have addressed some of your points. PLease remember that I always will and always have thought that a more Libertarian Republic is the best form of government. This hijacking of this thread that we have done all started based off of commentry about the study of the philosophy behind communism. I do not advocate it, but then again I don't fall into the trap of condeming it outright. Almost all forms of government have some advantages at certain times.
PLay civilization by Sid Meyers, it's actually an interesting way to see the benefits of each and their downfalls. Democracy is one of the hardest and is a bit of a pain in the ass. But the payoffs are pretty great.

[Conza88]

You make a blanket statment that it isn't based on reality. Reality of what.

I've actually already answered that; in the VERY next word. ;) Catch up time again. :p


This time and this age. You may be right. Then again, you can go through history and see many times when the system used here in the US wouldn't have worked. I am not saying Communism is an ideal form of government.

Human action wasn't different then. And it isn't different now. I am right. Yes. :)


This whole damn argument started over peoples inability to see the differences between the failed attempts at communism and the theory itself. Communism could work but it takes different types of people and in a small format.

It continues, over your inability to see that the theory is flawed, and so then will the attempts be to reach it's goal. Also again you continue in your in-ability to to comprehend that communism cannot work; it doesn't take different types of people in a small format. Voluntary socialism - yes, of course! But Communism is coercive - by it's base function; those that do not want to be under its influence, will be made to be.


The biggest issue that I have with that people are saying is that the comparisons are always to Russia and China. These two countries put ego in with Communism. They believed it was so superior that they forced people to stay. They also took the delegation of power too far. Marx never intended for the state to dictate what job you MUST work.

Ok then, Cuba. ;)


There was supposed to be centralized control of what would be produced but not necessarily by whom. In fact some market forces have to come about within communism. Obviously the jobs nobody wants would have to come with some incentives. Pay would increase for the jobs that nobody wants. Many think that Communism means that everybody would be equal and make the same monies. Not true, this is further supported by the advocation of the progressive income tax. Russia just decided to force people to do those jobs. That was a huge mistake.

*Shakes head in disbelief* I mean realllly... you are trying to apply free market ideology to Communism. :confused: It is for that exact fken precise reason, it failed... because it's system is a 100% planned economy. Tell me how you have a "market" when no-one owns private property? You don't sell stuff do you now? = Because that'd be CAPITALISM.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx

Centralized Planning
"In such economies, the state or government controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income, much like a communist state.[4] The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods"

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." – Manifesto of the Communist Party - Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

You said: "There was supposed to be centralized control of what would be produced but not necessarily by whom."

See what your fault is, under Communism. There is no private property - ask your mates Marx & Engels... thus, you don't own your body. The state does. ;)
It tells you the work to do. If you don't, off to the Gulag. Pure & Simple.


They also didn't allow for people to leave the country. Voluntary communism would have a much higher success rate. Look at America and see how many people are willing to pay more taxes to have universal health care. These are the people Marx dreams of. Communism doesn't have to be a complete police state.

They wouldn't let people leave. Because it was a totalitarian regime. It was collectivist. They needed slave labor; ohhhhh I mean workers for the common good! People vote with their feet = aka, leave the country because its system failed. Taxation is theft = yes, america is becoming more Communistic with every day. Barack Obama - Yes, we can! And yes, people who are brain dead and supremely ignorant are the people who Karl Marx dreams of.

Voluntary communism = oxymoron.. Dude seriously, wtf is your fascination with the word? :confused: You can have all the socialist wetdreams you want, just call it 'voluntary socialism' & go have a collective party.


Centralized planning does not necessarily mean stripping the citizens of all rights. Some people are not like us. They speak of liberty but really dont want to live it. Many humans are lazy and would rather have their lives given to them without much forethought or work. These are communist....they just live in America and are too ignorant to know the difference.

Just the rights to life, liberty and property. :rolleyes:


I find #9 of the planks to be of most interest. If multinational corporations controling farms is essentially the same as the government owning them, then wouldnt this have been the outcome within a true capitalist society.
Business will always consume and grow larger while eliminating the smaller businesses.

Your lack of understanding as to what the free market actually is & to the extent it operates, is outstanding.. But never the less understandable... since you're defending communism.

Multinationals owning farms is not the same as government owning them. When government owns them, there is no competition, thus less efficiency, higher prices. In a truly capitalist society, you would have an insane more amount of competition. Thus lower prices with better products, including more of them.

No... businesses will consume and grow larger - because of what? (I assume you mean "money") Ask yourself; why do they have that money, why are the growing? :rolleyes: Is it because they are offering a product, goods or service that the market wants? WTF in a free market, is going to stop the consumer going to their competitor if they offer the same good for a lower price, or a better one? Smaller businesses, more local - less overheads etc.. unique niche markets etc...


The only real difference between communism and capitalism within this plant is the degree of government intervention, but who really cares which master we bow to. Under communism it would be the government, under capitalism it would be the largest multinationals. Either way, something as important as food distribution would lead to power and power to corruption.

*Facepalm* And you think you have a High IQ? :rolleyes:


Now without being a dick, I have addressed some of your points.
PLay civilization by Sid Meyers, it's actually an interesting way to see the benefits of each and their downfalls. Democracy is one of the hardest and is a bit of a pain in the ass. But the payoffs are pretty great.

You addressed, what.. one point? You have still failed to answer the very first questions proposed to you... many, many pages back - having been re-displayed in my consecutive posts.

Ok, I think this will cure you... Please watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvhKOsn-0AY).

"What is a Communist? One who has yearnings – for equal division of unequal earnings." – Ebenezer Elliot

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." – Ayn Rand

[mtmedlin]

I've actually already answered that; in the VERY next word. ;) Catch up time again.



Human action wasn't different then. And it isn't different now. I am right. Yes. :)




It continues, over your inability to see that the theory is flawed, and so then will the attempts be to reach it's goal. Also again you continue in your in-ability to to comprehend that communism cannot work; it doesn't take different types of people in a small format. Voluntary socialism - yes, of course! But Communism is coercive - by it's base function; those that do not want to be under its influence, will be made to be.

WRONG! Again you confuse the application of communism in Lenins concept instead of debating the theory presented by MARX. You fail to understand that humans adapt and evolve. The governments that we had 1000 years ago are dramatically different then the ones that we have today. Just because Democracy wouldnt have worked in Feudal England doesnt mean it is a failure. It means at that time, for those people it wouldn't have worked. Follow me?




Ok then, Cuba. ;)



*Shakes head in disbelief* I mean realllly... you are trying to apply free market ideology to Communism. :confused: It is for that exact fken precise reason, it failed... because it's system is a 100% planned economy. Tell me how you have a "market" when no-one owns private property? You don't sell stuff do you now? = Because that'd be CAPITALISM.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - Karl Marx

Centralized Planning
"In such economies, the state or government controls all major sectors of the economy and formulates all decisions about their use and about the distribution of income, much like a communist state.[4] The planners decide what should be produced and direct enterprises to produce those goods"

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." – Manifesto of the Communist Party - Karl Marx and Frederick Engels

You said: "There was supposed to be centralized control of what would be produced but not necessarily by whom."

See what your fault is, under Communism. There is no private property - ask your mates Marx & Engels... thus, you don't own your body. The state does. ;)
It tells you the work to do. If you don't, off to the Gulag. Pure & Simple.



They wouldn't let people leave. Because it was a totalitarian regime. It was collectivist. They needed slave labor; ohhhhh I mean workers for the common good! People vote with their feet = aka, leave the country because its system failed. Taxation is theft = yes, america is becoming more Communistic with every day. Barack Obama - Yes, we can! And yes, people who are brain dead and supremely ignorant are the people who Karl Marx dreams of.

Voluntary communism = oxymoron.. Dude seriously, wtf is your fascination with the word? :confused: You can have all the socialist wetdreams you want, just call it 'voluntary socialism' & go have a collective party.



Just the rights to life, liberty and property. :rolleyes:



Your lack of understanding as to what the free market actually is & to the extent it operates, is outstanding.. But never the less understandable... since you're defending communism.

Multinationals owning farms is not the same as government owning them. When government owns them, there is no competition, thus less efficiency, higher prices. In a truly capitalist society, you would have an insane more amount of competition. Thus lower prices with better products, including more of them.

No... businesses will consume and grow larger - because of what? (I assume you mean "money") Ask yourself; why do they have that money, why are the growing? :rolleyes: Is it because they are offering a product, goods or service that the market wants? WTF in a free market, is going to stop the consumer going to their competitor if they offer the same good for a lower price, or a better one? Smaller businesses, more local - less overheads etc.. unique niche markets etc...



*Facepalm* And you think you have a High IQ? :rolleyes:



You addressed, what.. one point? You have still failed to answer the very first questions proposed to you... many, many pages back - having been re-displayed in my consecutive posts.

Ok, I think this will cure you... Please watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvhKOsn-0AY).

"What is a Communist? One who has yearnings – for equal division of unequal earnings." – Ebenezer Elliot

"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism -- by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide." – Ayn Rand

WEll, it has become clear that debating you is fruitless. You add what is not there. You base on emotionalism and not fact. Based simply off of your comment
"human action wasn't different then. And it isn't different now. I am right. Yes. :) It shows that you havent a clue as to what you are talking about. Governmental systems have evolved to the changing needs of humans for thousands of years. If you cannot understand that basic concept then this is a waste of my time.

You keep refering to Russia and China and not the theory itself. lets make this clear, hopefully you will understand. I AM NOT DEBATING THE POORLY APPLIED COMMUNIST REGIMES. I MADE A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE THEORY OF COMMUNISM. Your arguments that use what Russia and China have done have NO BASIS within this argument. THEY ARE NOT MARXIST COMMUNISM. They are loosely based on his theories, just as the United States is based loosly on PLatos theories. Application is rather differed then theory. Understand?

You also stated that under communism you dont own your own body. Sorry, you cant add what isnt there. The right to own property does not correlate to not owning your own body. Aspects of a free market do exist within MARXIST communism. Under Marx, certain jobs would be paid at a higher rate then others. This is how they get those jobs to be done. The price would be defined by market. This is one basic aspect of Capitalism.

[Truth Warrior]

"By their fruits, ye shall know them". :rolleyes:

[mtmedlin]

"By their fruits, ye shall know them". :rolleyes:

and by your dumbass quotes we know you.


At least Conza puts thought into his debates. What do you do, flip through dumbass quarterly and drop your finger, whatever it lands on you type?

[Conza88]

WRONG! Again you confuse the application of communism in Lenins concept instead of debating the theory presented by MARX.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

* Please don't be a complete retard & make some lame comment AGAIN about copy & paste. I am referencing this piece of trash; so you & the rest of the forums can browse this Marxist bullshit easily & ask yourself the following...


People really don't give Marx a fair shake. Most people don't realize that Marx never advocated force and that Communism was supposed to be the next step after Democracy.

Now for the FORTH TIME; What the f--k above is not an advocation of force & tell me how Communism AFTER democracy; changes anything at all?


You fail to understand that humans adapt and evolve.

Will human beings evolve to where they are not individuals pursuing their separate self interests? :rolleyes:


The governments that we had 1000 years ago are dramatically different then the ones that we have today. Just because Democracy wouldnt have worked in Feudal England doesnt mean it is a failure. It means at that time, for those people it wouldn't have worked. Follow me?

Freedom > tyranny. Tyranny is old. Freedom is new. Collectivism is old, individualism is new. Follow me?


WEll, it has become clear that debating you is fruitless.

Right back at you. It appears you get your ideology & ideas based on a computer game called Civilization.


You add what is not there. You base on emotionalism and not fact. Based simply off of your comment It shows that you havent a clue as to what you are talking about. Governmental systems have evolved to the changing needs of humans for thousands of years. If you cannot understand that basic concept then this is a waste of my time.

I added the missing pieces your ignorant ass has failed to recognise. All I have given you is fact. Human needs - you think it's governments role to fulfill human needs??!? :rolleyes:


You keep refering to Russia and China and not the theory itself. lets make this clear, hopefully you will understand. I AM NOT DEBATING THE POORLY APPLIED COMMUNIST REGIMES. I MADE A FEW POINTS ABOUT THE THEORY OF COMMUNISM. Your arguments that use what Russia and China have done have NO BASIS within this argument. THEY ARE NOT MARXIST COMMUNISM. They are loosely based on his theories, just as the United States is based loosly on PLatos theories. Application is rather differed then theory. Understand?

From what got it all started, See # 1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616301&postcount=23) - answer the question posed there. You, do, everything, you, can, to avoid it. I think from now on, all I'm going to do is keep pasting that. I quote Marxist theory, you have said he did not advocate FORCE... I would like you to explain to me, the logic behind your statement. How in the world, are the 10 planks - not coercive - an advocation of force?

Enwighton meeeee oooo alllll no-inggg masstarrrrr!111111


You also stated that under communism you dont own your own body. Sorry, you cant add what isnt there. The right to own property does not correlate to not owning your own body.

WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? :D

Bahahaha.... Who owns your own body then? You're obviously not a libertarian. Let me guess, the state owns it? :rolleyes: (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)


Aspects of a free market do exist within MARXIST communism. Under Marx, certain jobs would be paid at a higher rate then others. This is how they get those jobs to be done. The price would be defined by market. This is one basic aspect of Capitalism.

Who determines what certain jobs would be higher paid than others? NOT THE MARKET THATS FOR FKEN SURE.. ;) So the state determines what jobs will be paid, so it's still a planned economy. Hahah... you contend there is capitalism in Marxist communism... you've lost your marbles.

Look, do you still teach?... Because if I had kids, I wouldn't let you within shouting distance.

[Mini-Me]

You are confused as to the application of the system and the theory itself. Also, russia and China really followed a Lenin approach to Communism and not a Marx. The 10 planks are a "what needs to happen" if the system is to be in place. And is only one way to get there. If you were a poli sci major you would have sat through a class that discusses whether or not the system could work and how. As scientist we attempt to measure and figure out why the systme failed in its current application. Communes have been around forever and many are succesful. What do you think the Monks of Tibet live by?
I am not saying it is my preference nor am I saying that it will work for everyone but to me there are some attractive qualities. Working for the betterment of all and giving up the pursuit of selfish treasures rings true in my heart. Its not for everyone. As for America, no I don't want it hear but a commune within the US would work just fine.
Please try to seperate theory from Application. If you really want to compare, try looking at the body count for the history of the US. I think you will see that we arent so far off.

This may be going off on a bit of a tangent at this point of the thread, but I feel like I should address this:
I agree that people can voluntarily join a socialist community (commune) in a free society, and I think a lot of people here might be misunderstanding your comments. Based on what I've read, it seems that you do not advocate collectivism through government force - rather, it seems you're merely interested in the idea of free people voluntarily pooling their resources and living a communal lifestyle under Marxist rules, amongst the larger free market (meaning they're entirely free to leave the commune if they so choose). That's a hell of a lot different (although if it's done on a large scale, it's still doomed, as I'll get to ;)).

Still, I think monks are probably a poor example for illustrating the economic sustainability of such a system: Although I'm not very familiar with how the Tibetan monks make their living (do they farm their own food?), monks in general have historically made ends meet largely through the generosity of the surrounding population. Obviously, this particular pattern would not be self-sustainable in a closed system responsible for creating its own wealth/means of survival.

More importantly though, monks present a poor example of how socialistic systems generally work because their communes are on such a small scale. Technically speaking, you could call an ordinary family a commune - a family lives together, pools resources, shares, etc. It works well precisely because it's so small and simple.

As you well know, the biggest moral problem with state-enforced socialism and Communism is that they are totalitarian, collectivist ideas with no regard for individual rights of property (and such vast state power inevitably overruns individual rights to life and liberty, as well). However, there's another problem that both voluntary and forced socialism/Communism share: The larger and more complex a community becomes, the harder it is for a central planner to decide the best use of resources and labor. At a certain point (a point well below the size of a nation), the population gets big enough and the economy gets complex enough that even the smartest planners in the world will make gross misallocations of capital. For example, at times there will be either way too much food or not enough (not to mention too much/little grain, too many/few vegetables, or too much/little meat, etc.):

If there's not enough and the information is not communicated well enough, certain parts of the population will get their planned ration, and others will get absolutely nothing and starve (whereas in a free market, the price goes up to force demand in line with supply, causing people to buy less and leave more food for others to make ends meet). This is essentially what happened during the Great Chinese Famine during their Glorious Revolution: The causes of the shortage itself were partly natural and partly the result of unavoidably poor planning and misallocation of resources, but the shortage turned into a famine because the centralized distribution model was broken.
On the other hand, if there's way too much food, that means some other part of the economy was left wanting for attention - and hopefully that wasn't transportation for the supply chain of food. ;) At best, planners could try selling the food on the larger market to buy up what they could have produced with the wasted resources and labor. Unfortunately, since the overfarming was accidental and not a calculated decision to exploit a market shortage of food, the food will probably not sell for enough other goods and services to make up for the mistake. This inefficiency results in the economy as a whole possessing less collective wealth than it would under a competitive free market system.

When central planning decides what is produced and how much, many mistakes like this are made...the larger the population a planner is dealing with, the more numerous and disastrous these errors will be. Some result in small inefficiencies, but many small inefficiencies add up to make huge waste. Other mistakes result in catastrophic situations, like the Great Chinese Famine. This is why, even voluntary socialism/Communism cannot succeed in the economic sense.

Furthermore, others have alluded to the "moral hazard" problem inherent to collectivist systems: Communism and socialism inherently assume that human nature is entirely selfless to the level where the self is almost entirely immaterial. It's true that many people are like this (e.g. Mother Theresa), but the vast majority of people are somewhere in between this extreme and the extreme of belligerent selfishness. Because the systems rely on such a false assumption, they're inherently broken systems. Saying otherwise is like saying, "A totalitarian government isn't broken, it's the fault of the people who run it!" A good system is one that can robustly handle operator error. (I'm a programmer, in case nobody noticed...;))

Anyway, back to the "moral hazard" problem: When the person responsible for a decision or behavior does not expect to face the full consequences of their actions, they're much less likely to make careful decisions (in the case of planners) or put forth their best effort (in the case of workers). Collectivist systems just take away all selfish incentives for going above and beyond, and for most people, that means they take away almost all incentive. Even for the best people, working your ass off for the "greater good" can feel kind of hollow when nobody else is doing the same. When you look around and everyone's just doing a half-assed job because they know they can, that kind of takes away a bit of incentive to work your ass off for THEIR benefit. The irony is that all of these collectivist "greater good" incentives exist in a free market anyway, because in addition to being entirely responsible for your own living, you making a living inherently means that you're creating wealth for others in the economy to use (because they'll only trade with you if it benefits them to do so)...so really, collectivist systems take away all selfish incentives without even adding any new selfless incentives. The end result is much more inefficiency (on top of the inefficiency of central planning).

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what kind of socialism/Communism has a greater "moral hazard" issue, either. On one hand, state-enforced collectivism is so soul-crushing and disgustingly immoral that if any significant portion of the population resents it (which they damn well should), that's sure enough incentive for them to drag their asses (they'll work just hard enough to not be executed :rolleyes:). On the other hand, voluntary collectivism seems like it would primarily appeal to people who can't or don't want to pull their weight in the free market (i.e. in simple terms, people who want to consume more wealth than they produce). In that case, voluntary collectivism might just suffer from this problem even more, because such a socialistic community would have an entirely population of people purposely trying as hard as they can to live off each other while doing the least. Under a totalitarian Communist system, state "education" just might successfully brainwash enough people to alleviate the "moral hazard" problem just a bit, compared to voluntary socialism. ;)

EDIT: Now that I've thought about it a little bit more, it seems that Marx may have had some cognitive dissonance when he thought about human nature. On one hand, he considered humans inherently selfish and evil under a free market society, and argued that they will essentially exploit each other to no end. Regardless of how right/wrong he was about human nature, this certainly demonstrated his poor economic sense, since people cannot exploit each other without end in a free market anyway, no matter how much they might want to (odds are, when he thought of the "free market," he thought of the something much like the manipulated and half-managed economy we have today - like so many, he misdiagnosed the problem and applied the wrong solution). Anyway, Marx then did a complete turnaround and decided that under a Communist system, people are unfailingly selfless. This may have been cognitive dissonance, or he may have just purposely morphed his assumptions about human nature depending on what was convenient at any particular point in his argument.

Still, there's evidence that Marx was aware of the moral hazard problem and the natural incentives to make sloppy planning decisions and have a lazy work ethic under a Communist system. If you read between the lines, his tenth plank is not about education but indoctrination. Even if he did not imagine it that way, all of the practical implementors of Communist ideology in the 20th century were "smart" enough to see it that way. They knew that a free-thinking human would come to resent and despise being forced to live under Communism and collectivism, which was one big reason that the totalitarian state apparatus expanded to crush liberty and life, as opposed to only property (that's aside from the age-old natural tendency of the unchecked state to continually expand its coercive power). That's why Communist rulers have always been so united in their opposition to free speech, free press, decentralized education, etc. The only way for a state-enforced Communist system to even remotely work is to systematically destroy the individual human spirit and turn people into something else - mindless, "happy" working machines. Communist rulers failed to see that even this isn't enough to make the system work on the economic level, due to the natural pitfalls of central planning. Still, that's the purpose of indoctrination and "reeducation." Someone could say that all of this was a misapplication of Marx's ideas, but unless Marx was entirely schizophrenic about his thoughts on human nature, it seems that this was indeed the intended application. In any case, as before...if any system unreasonably assumes narrowly constrained conditions (such as an unrealistic sense of human nature) and cannot robustly handle operator error without falling apart, it's a poorly designed system.

[Truth Warrior]

and by your dumbass quotes we know you.


At least Conza puts thought into his debates. What do you do, flip through dumbass quarterly and drop your finger, whatever it lands on you type? I passed your type of sad and ignorant sorry ass about 50 years ago. If Conza wants to play with you now, that's between you and him. Personally I don't waste much time in the little leagues. And besides, you ain't even worth the typing, let alone the effort. Try again after you grow up a bunch, junior.

"By their fruits, ye shall know them". :rolleyes:

[Conza88]

http://www.graphicaddiction.com/fark/clapping.gif

All very well said :)


Communism and socialism inherently assume that human nature is entirely selfless to the level where the self is almost entirely immaterial. It's true that many people are like this (e.g. Mother Theresa), but the vast majority of people are somewhere in between this extreme and the extreme of belligerent selfishness.

I would add though, Mother Theresa and people like that - they could be following their self-interest, ie. they get more pleasure out of helping others etc. Essentially though; if they are sacrificing their self, their existence is going to be a miserable one. The Fountainhead addresses this extremely well. :D

[Truth Warrior]

good documentary on the dumbing down of amerca? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=151143) ;)

[mtmedlin]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

* Please don't be a complete retard & make some lame comment AGAIN about copy & paste. I am referencing this piece of trash; so you & the rest of the forums can browse this Marxist bullshit easily & ask yourself the following...



Now for the FORTH TIME; What the f--k above is not an advocation of force & tell me how Communism AFTER democracy; changes anything at all?



Will human beings evolve to where they are not individuals pursuing their separate self interests? :rolleyes:

Ok, sarcasm aside, I see nothing that is the use of force in the above...AS long as they are not required to stay. Within Marxism, giving up land and property rights is the price paid to essentially be taken care of for life. Just as we in America have given up some rights for certain benefit, the same is true for communism. The problem comes when people look at lenins application of the 10 planks. He FORCED people to stay under communist rule. Marx is a theory that can be applied but in order to work, they must be willing participants.
To answer two of your questions at the same time, the thought was that at some time, humans would evolve to a point of peace and harmony. They would no longer put individual interests ahead of the collective good. All men acting in the best interest of all men. Is this reality, now...no. Could it be in the future, possibly but this is why I think that communism would only work within a smaller group and on a completely voluntary basis. There simply is not enough people in the world who are willing to essentially turn over that much control of their lives to what is for all means, a benevolant dictatorship by commitee.
What I have been trying to get people to undestand about Marx is that his system does not have to be based on force. That is how it was applied but there is a difference between application and theory.




Freedom > tyranny. Tyranny is old. Freedom is new. Collectivism is old, individualism is new. Follow me?



Right back at you. It appears you get your ideology & ideas based on a computer game called Civilization.
Actually the problems/advantage that are associated within the game are very real to the what has played out in real life. Don't believe me? Play the game, youll see I am not bullshitting you on this.




I added the missing pieces your ignorant ass has failed to recognise. All I have given you is fact. Human needs - you think it's governments role to fulfill human needs??!? :rolleyes:

Yes, this is the only reason that people join a group/society/country. In America we have a contract that spell out these needs (Constitution), such as defense, freedom of speech etc. Each society has different contract and communism is one type. As long as it is entered into voluntarily, then it is a perfectly good form of government.



From what got it all started, See # 1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1616301&postcount=23) - answer the question posed there. You, do, everything, you, can, to avoid it. I think from now on, all I'm going to do is keep pasting that. I quote Marxist theory, you have said he did not advocate FORCE... I would like you to explain to me, the logic behind your statement. How in the world, are the 10 planks - not coercive - an advocation of force?

Enwighton meeeee oooo alllll no-inggg masstarrrrr!111111

I believe that I covered that. Application of the theory does not match the theory itself. we all gie up certain individualities in order to be a part of a social group. Some people are willing to give more then others. In communism you have to give alot. Much more then you or I would be willing but as long as it is entered into on a willing basis, then it is an acceptable and possibly good form of government for those people. I know more people on government assistance who would more then likely enjoy communism. I personally wouldnt. To each his own.




WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? :D

Bahahaha.... Who owns your own body then? You're obviously not a libertarian. Let me guess, the state owns it? :rolleyes: (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf)



Who determines what certain jobs would be higher paid than others? NOT THE MARKET THATS FOR FKEN SURE.. ;) So the state determines what jobs will be paid, so it's still a planned economy. Hahah... you contend there is capitalism in Marxist communism... you've lost your marbles.

Look, do you still teach?... Because if I had kids, I wouldn't let you within shouting distance.

Of course the state is going to determine what jobs get a higher pay rate. It is determined quite easily. If nobody is wanting to do the job and there is still unemployment, then the price paid for that job goes up. Thats the theory. It is not how it was applied but whether or not you like it, that is capitalism. It is the most basic concept...supply and demand. Even within a planned economy there are market forces.

Now, have I not answered every question. We don't have to agree but I have given you the answers that you were asking.

[mtmedlin]

This may be going off on a bit of a tangent at this point of the thread, but I feel like I should address this:
I agree that people can voluntarily join a socialist community (commune) in a free society, and I think a lot of people here might be misunderstanding your comments. Based on what I've read, it seems that you do not advocate collectivism through government force - rather, it seems you're merely interested in the idea of free people voluntarily pooling their resources and living a communal lifestyle under Marxist rules, amongst the larger free market (meaning they're entirely free to leave the commune if they so choose). That's a hell of a lot different (although if it's done on a large scale, it's still doomed, as I'll get to ;)).



Exactly and thank you for the summation. Have you ever read a book called Walden II. This would be a similar example and much better then Tibetan Monks. I agree that Marx assesment was innacurate. In truth, I think communism would take a higher level of commitment to making it work then democracy.
I never advocate anything through the use of governmental force as long as it is contrary to the social contract that was voluntarily agreed upon. This is why I am not happy with the US and why the current application of Communism would never work for me.
Your writings are very accurate and I would say that you spelled out my point and original intent far better then I. thank you.

[Conza88]

I see nothing that is the use of force in the above...AS long as they are not required to stay. Within Marxism, giving up land and property rights is the price paid to essentially be taken care of for life.

Geezus fcken christ. Marxists advocate International Socialism; say if it was totally achieved = where the F#*% can you go? :rolleyes: So, none of the 10 planks of involve the "use of force".... bahahah... Just making sure I am hearing this right.. :confused: lmfao. You contend marxism means you will be taken care of for life? LOL.

I've pretty much had enough of your failed, flawed and perverted logic.


Now, have I not answered every question. We don't have to agree but I have given you the answers that you were asking.

"Who owns your own body then?"

- You didn't answer that one... You're answer isn't going to add anything of value; as per the other answers - I'm just interested in what loonish answer you'll come up with. :)



Your writings are very accurate and I would say that you spelled out my point and original intent far better then I. thank you.

Wow... you really are delusional. :rolleyes:


On the other hand, voluntary collectivism seems like it would primarily appeal to people who can't or don't want to pull their weight in the free market (i.e. in simple terms, people who want to consume more wealth than they produce). In that case, voluntary collectivism might just suffer from this problem even more, because such a socialistic community would have an entirely population of people purposely trying as hard as they can to live off each other while doing the least.

Anyway, I've got some homework for you.

Marx and Marxism by Mises.org (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=47)

And these. (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ST0PandL00K)

More specifically.... watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0); and tell me what is wrong with it? :rolleyes:

ie. Communism ;)

[mtmedlin]

Geezus fcken christ. Marxists advocate International Socialism; say if it was totally achieved = where the F#*% can you go? :rolleyes: So, none of the 10 planks of involve the "use of force".... bahahah... Just making sure I am hearing this right.. :confused: lmfao. You contend marxism means you will be taken care of for life? LOL.

I've pretty much had enough of your failed, flawed and perverted logic.



"Who owns your own body then?"

- You didn't answer that one... You're answer isn't going to add anything of value; as per the other answers - I'm just interested in what loonish answer you'll come up with. :)



Wow... you really are delusional. :rolleyes:



Anyway, I've got some homework for you.

Marx and Marxism by Mises.org (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=47)

And these. (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=ST0PandL00K)

More specifically.... watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5_N86Pblj0); and tell me what is wrong with it? :rolleyes:

ie. Communism ;)

No, it is I who is done. I attempted to be civil and educate you on some basics but you have just decided to be an ass no matter how civil I become. The point of the thread is lost and we are getting nowhere.
Marx does advocate International socialism but I see nothing in his writings about doing it by force. Just because you want something to be everywhere does not necessarily mean he will use military strength to make it so. (Lenin, ...maybe)
Yes, I answered the question as to who owns your body many posts ago. You didnt read it.
and what the hell is wrong with me thanking another poster for making a great summation of the arguments that I laid out. Are you pissed because he basically agreed that my points were valid.

Listen dont bother responding, I am done. Many on this board have Pm'd me and told me to stop wasting my time and that they agree. Several have posted that they agree and most of them are poli sci or at least educated in philosophy. I will stick with my group, you with yours and well just have to agree that we disagree.
Bare minimum we agree on the message of freedom and Ron Paul and just because I don't think communism is inherently evil doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Libertarian Democracy far more and wish that it was the international standard.
Thats all I got to say.

[torchbearer]

http://www.graphicaddiction.com/fark/clapping.gif

All very well said :)


I would add though, Mother Theresa and people like that - they could be following their self-interest, ie. they get more pleasure out of helping others etc. Essentially though; if they are sacrificing their self, their existence is going to be a miserable one. The Fountainhead addresses this extremely well. :D

meaning mother theresa could have also been an objectivist if she was really putting a higher value of sacrifice for the sake of making one feel better over worldly possessions that made her feel bad.

[Conza88]

No, it is I who is done. I attempted to be civil and educate you on some basics but you have just decided to be an ass no matter how civil I become. The point of the thread is lost and we are getting nowhere.
Marx does advocate International socialism but I see nothing in his writings about doing it by force. Just because you want something to be everywhere does not necessarily mean he will use military strength to make it so. (Lenin, ...maybe)
Yes, I answered the question as to who owns your body many posts ago. You didnt read it.

Educate me on some basics... :confused: What was it you were trying to teach me? As for your answer to who owns your body, I would have read it; if it actually existed. Looking at your post; (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1623533&postcount=88) I see no mention of it at all - care to enlighten me?

I was civil until it's become quite clear cognitive dissonance is your master. Anyway, I would regard myself as having remained civil.


and what the hell is wrong with me thanking another poster for making a great summation of the arguments that I laid out. Are you pissed because he basically agreed that my points were valid.

LOL.:eek:


Listen dont bother responding, I am done. Many on this board have Pm'd me and told me to stop wasting my time and that they agree. Several have posted that they agree and most of them are poli sci or at least educated in philosophy. I will stick with my group, you with yours and well just have to agree that we disagree.
Bare minimum we agree on the message of freedom and Ron Paul and just because I don't think communism is inherently evil doesn't mean that I don't appreciate Libertarian Democracy far more and wish that it was the international standard.
Thats all I got to say.

Who pm'd you? :D Ohh yeah 1000's pm'd me aswell. :cool: lolz
Btw, "Libertarian democracy" - yeaahhh uhh, bit of an oxymoron there. Pure democracy; is mob rule... no rights are protected from the mob.

You know the US is a Constitutional republic right?... no a democracy? ;)

[user]

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx

He was smarter than the other Marx. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

He was smarter than the other Marx. ;)

And he made me laugh a lot. The other one just makes me cry. :p :rolleyes:

"By their body count, ye shall know them."

[Conza88]

And he made me laugh a lot. The other one just makes me cry. :p :rolleyes:

"By their body count, ye shall know them."

I want to know how many times you've used that quote. LMFAO :D

Never gets old though :p

[Truth Warrior]

I want to know how many times you've used that quote. LMFAO :D

Never gets old though :p Maybe kludge can do a look up on it here. ;)

Actually, I've used it for decades. I guess I kinda must like it too. :D