Marxism, what's so bad about it?

[ClayTrainor]

Alright, im no socialist, but i regretfully admit that i am intrigued by some Marxist philosophy, although i've barely read into it at all. Im currently debating a relative on Free Market Capitalism vs Socialism, and im getting confused, and hes winning. Apparently there isnt even currency in a Marxist society, so obviously this is some extreme socialism that im not sure how to deal with.

I understand that the ends do not justify the means but, im debating someone who really seems to know alot about marxism, and is able to spin it in such a way that sounds pretty nice.


Can you guys give me some hard hitting points against Marxism to use?

[yongrel]

Nothing, if it's voluntary. The failure of Marxism is force.

[apc3161]

I would recommend watching all of the videos in my signature. They are very thought provoking. Go with the 1980's series.

[acptulsa]

Repeated failure. Greed may not be much of a thing on which to base your economy, but it is dependable. Even Communist China, even while remaining totalitarian on the social side, has abandoned socialism in favor of a more motivational market. And, yes, the more socialist the U.S. gets the weaker it gets. Just another example.

From each, according to his ability, to each, according to his need discourages ability and encourages need. This is, and always has been, a recipe for failure. And this fact should be the kernel of truth in each of your arguments against this character.

[yongrel]

I would recommend watching all of the videos in my signature. They are very thought provoking. Go with the 1980's series.

I love Free to Choose!

[GreenCardSeeker]

If you want good reasons for rejecting Marxism, see my depiction of Sweden in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=147969

[Truth Warrior]

Ask Ron Paul. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

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

[strapko]

Supply and demand/needs of the people cannot be calculated; on top of that price controls, the two combined is an recipe for shortages(ex:bread).

Austrian Economics has the premise of Humans working for their self-interest. I agree with that premise, thus there is no incentive to work, to innovate; when all your hard work and wealth will be re-distributed.

[Truth Warrior]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
~ Karl Marx, 1875 :p

Who gets to determine abilities? Who gets to determine needs? :rolleyes:

[Brian4Liberty]

Alright, im no socialist, but i regretfully admit that i am intrigued by some Marxist philosophy
...
Can you guys give me some hard hitting points against Marxism to use?

Marxism puts all the power in the hands of the government. Power corrupts, and you end up with Stalin. There is also central planning by the government, which never works.

Socialism was an invention of monarchists and oligarchists to prevent the rise of Marxism. Give the people something for "free" (not really free of course), and it will keep them happy. The elite get to keep power.

[ARealConservative]

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
~ Karl Marx, 1875 :p

Who gets to determine abilities? Who gets to determine needs? :rolleyes:

it's like porn.

"I'll know it when I see it" :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

it's like porn.

"I'll know it when I see it" :rolleyes: Wrong answer ............................ of course. :rolleyes:

[ARealConservative]

Wrong answer ............................ of course. :rolleyes:

it was supposed to be :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

it was supposed to be :rolleyes::rolleyes: The state and the Communist party.

Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

[Truth Warrior]

"Socialism in America will come through the ballot box."
by: Gus Hall
[Arvo Gustav Halberg ] (1910-2000) leader of the Communist Party USA and its four-time U.S. presidential candidate
Source: in an interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (1996)

[Bradley in DC]

Not sure if this helps, but in a weird philosophical genealogical sort of way, we're cousins...the Marxists and Austrians both evolved from the German Historical School, both reject the standard "perfect competition model" and even spoke the same language (metaphorically as well as German).

FYI
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801summereading.htm

I guess Marx did a pretty good job with analysis but a horrible job with prescriptions. That approach might give you something (or maybe not).

[Truth Warrior]

Not sure if this helps, but in a weird philosophical genealogical sort of way, we're cousins...the Marxists and Austrians both evolved from the German Historical School, both reject the standard "perfect competition model" and even spoke the same language (metaphorically as well as German).

FYI
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0801/0801summereading.htm

I guess Marx did a pretty good job with analysis but a horrible job with prescriptions. That approach might give you something (or maybe not).
Marx was a paid agent of the Rothschilds. ;)

Hence the central bank and income tax, in his Manifesto planks.<IMHO>

[Kade]

Nothing, if it's voluntary. The failure of Marxism is force.

Most social programs are voluntary, ie, voted... does that count?

[Danke]

Most social programs are voluntary, ie, voted... does that count?

We know you can do better than that if you are trying to throw support for "social programs"

[LibertyEagle]

Most social programs are voluntary, ie, voted... does that count?

No, because the majority FORCES the minority.

[Kade]

No, because the majority FORCES the minority.

And here we go, back to anarchy....
Alright geniuses, please, name something that isn't forced...

[Truth Warrior]

Most social programs are voluntary, ie, voted... does that count? http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

[acptulsa]

And here we go, back to anarchy....
Alright geniuses, please, name something that isn't forced...

Charity.

[Truth Warrior]

And here we go, back to anarchy....
Alright geniuses, please, name something that isn't forced...
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

[yongrel]

Most social programs are voluntary, ie, voted... does that count?

I didn't vote for Social Security. Did you?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I would recommend watching all of the videos in my signature. They are very thought provoking. Go with the 1980's series.

Milton was too moderate for my liking.

[Kade]

Charity.

Charity is socially forced. And it is almost demanded, given that one will inevitably have that money taken from them somehow anyway...

[Kade]

I didn't vote for Social Security. Did you?

No, I didn't. But I have paid $38,987 into it since my first job...

Says my little sheet from the Federinos.

[Truth Warrior]

The Tragedy of Political Government
http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/079a.php

[LibertyEagle]

Charity is socially forced. And it is almost demanded, given that one will inevitably have that money taken from them somehow anyway...

Social pressure is quite different than government force. No one is going to arrest me for failing to give to charity. At least, not currently. ;)

[Kade]

Social pressure is quite different than government force. No one is going to arrest me for failing to give to charity. At least, not currently. ;)

Isn't a world based entirely on charity only; bordering on anarchy?

[Truth Warrior]

You're an Anarchist (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer60.html)
Me too, says Butler Shaffer. So are all civilized men, in practice.

[LibertyEagle]

Isn't a world based entirely on charity only; bordering on anarchy?

A limited Constitutional Republic, because it entails a very small government, does lean that way, yes. But there is a big difference between a limited government and no government at all at any level.

[pdavis]

First, Marxists do believe in some form of money whether it be a barter or gift economy or credit based on the number of hours one has worked (labor theory of value). Although they don't consider this money, to a certain extent it is since money is just a median of exchange.

Second, Marx's class analysis. While I agree with Marx there is class warfare, I think his analysis is flawed since he includes the bourgeoisie and the working class but not the political class (the state). How can the bourgeoisie exploit the working class without the political class? This flaw causes Marxists to falsely believe the state should take over the means of production in order to combat capitalists and big business, when in fact the state aids big business and would merely become big business if they took over the means of production.

Third, Marxism fails because of the economic calculation problem. If individuals cannot own and trade production goods, how will you know price of production and rationally allocate the number of resources you will need to produce consumer goods?

Fourth, Marxism falsely believes in centralization and large economies of scale as being efficient.

From The Manifesto of the Communist Party:


The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the
population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated
population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a
few hands....
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more
massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations
together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to
industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of
whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured
out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such
productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?...


From "Brandeis and Efficiency:"


There is no help to be looked for by capitalism from a perspective “breakdown” of
efficiency due to size. Size [is] incited by efficiency. [E]fficiency flows from size.
And size will wax and wax to the point when capitalism will “break down,” not
because of the stoppage of efficiency, but because the human agency of efficiency, the
wage-slave class, in whose hands, from captainships down to “high privateships," the
administration of the plants will be found more and more completely lodged, will
discontinue administering for a parasite class, and will administer for themselves.

The problem here is the capitalists (corporatists) used coercive force, with aid from the state to amass property and infrastructure, and to pass down the cost of infrastructure and production through corporate welfare, taxation, land grants, patents and eminent domain.



"Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the
whole people." Vladimir Lenin

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Isn't a world based entirely on charity only; bordering on anarchy?

Nothing wrong with anarchy. :)

[Truth Warrior]

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." ;)

[Kade]

A limited Constitutional Republic, because it entails a very small government, does lean that way, yes. But there is a big difference between a limited government and no government at all at any level.

The State's are HUGE.... there is no such thing as "limited" government in this regard.

I say the more we restrict what the Federal Government AND THE STATES can do the better...


As things get smaller and smaller the social pressure is equivalent to physical force, as it could be life or death for families and groups. This is a evolutionary principle.

Not to mention the severe discrimination associated with the concept... Charities will only help their own groups, until the weak and poor groups are almost completely dissolved...

I guess that is a desire though, isn't it?

I don't like the idea of the Crime Rates getting any higher... or the idea of the jails becoming more full of non-violent offenders than they already are...

I don't like the idea of a swath of uneducated serfs waltzing about my neighborhood after they are done picking grains from WalsoftBurton Farms, or bands of survivalists and Holnists shouting from their trucks, waving their weapons and raping and pillaging the countryside...

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"An anarchist is anyone that wants less government than you do." ;)

I want less government than you. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

With all of that going on, just what is the Federal government doing?

Oh yeah, I remember now, killing Iraqis and Afghans, etc.. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

With all of that going on, just what is the Federal government doing?

Oh yeah, I remember now, killing Iraqis and Afghans, etc.. ;)

I think most everyone here understands that our government is out of control. But, the solution is to return to Constitutional government; not to dissolve the government completely and have anarchy.

[Kade]

I think most everyone here understands that our government is out of control. But, the solution is to return to Constitutional government; not to dissolve the government completely and have anarchy.

Resorting to "charity only" is anarchy...

[Truth Warrior]

I think most everyone here understands that our government is out of control. But, the solution is to return to Constitutional government; not to dissolve the government completely and have anarchy. Unfortunately, you are entitled to your statist opinion. :) When you've finally managed to shrink it ANY, please let me know.

[LibertyEagle]

Unfortunately, you are entitled to your statist opinion. :) When you've finally managed to shrink it ANY, please let me know.

Funny, your hero Murray Rothbard, did not refer to limited government conservatives as statists. But, I guess facts don't matter to you. But, please do be sure and tell Ron Paul that you view him as such and that you are doing everything within your power to destroy what his Campaign for Liberty is trying to do. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Resorting to "charity only" is anarchy...

Nope. You were talking about social programs. The federal government was never supposed to be involved in this. That's where charity comes in.

[torchbearer]

From a sociological perspective, Marx was wrong in his assumption that people will work without equal gratification.
Meaning, why would someone spend 10-12 years in med school to be paid the same as someone waiting tables?
Why would I work 40 hours a week when I can get everything I need by not working at all?
To each according to his need right?
The whole manifesto is a proverbial sounding response to the modern day slavery of that time.
What people were getting was abuses from capitalist, what Marx was offering was slavery to the state.
How are you going to get production in a system with no personal wealth? You have to force people to work. Its the law. You have to report to this facility to learn this trade, for the good of all.
meaning, slave to majority.

[Truth Warrior]

Funny, your hero Murray Rothbard, did not refer to limited government conservatives as statists. But, I guess facts don't matter to you. But, please do be sure and tell Ron Paul that you view him as such and that you are doing everything within your power to destroy what his Campaign for Liberty is trying to do. ;) Sorry. my hero and libertarian mentor was Robert LeFevre. I do like Murray too, however. :D

Hyperbole much? I think that you are merely grossly overestimating my very limited powers and abilities. :rolleyes:

Nice attempted bogus "spin" there, BTW. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry. my hero and libertarian mentor was Robert LeFevre. I do like Murray too, however. :D
You should read more of him then. ;)


Hyperbole much? I think that you are merely grossly overestimating my very limited powers and abilities. :rolleyes:
I didn't say you'd be successful. ;) You won't be, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to try.


Nice attempted bogus "spin" there, BTW. ;)
Nope. Just the facts. :)

[Truth Warrior]

You should read more of him then. ;)


I didn't say you'd be successful. ;) You won't be, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to try.


Nope. Just the facts. :)

"We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

[Fox McCloud]

I have no problem with voluntary marxism--if a group of people want to get together and poo their money/resources/etc and share/own/use them equally, that's fine, it's when that group forces everyone to join their group.

[torchbearer]

I have no problem with voluntary marxism--if a group of people want to get together and poo their money/resources/etc and share/own/use them equally, that's fine, it's when that group forces everyone to join their group.

voluntary marxism would be more like your family. you all share the same things, the property and food, etc.. are held in commune.
voluntary marxism is voluntary communism.
Just like monks at a monestary. nothing wrong with that.

A state forced communism is tryanny.
Just like state forced corporatism.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Alright, im no socialist, but i regretfully admit that i am intrigued by some Marxist philosophy, although i've barely read into it at all. Im currently debating a relative on Free Market Capitalism vs Socialism, and im getting confused, and hes winning. Apparently there isnt even currency in a Marxist society, so obviously this is some extreme socialism that im not sure how to deal with.

I understand that the ends do not justify the means but, im debating someone who really seems to know alot about marxism, and is able to spin it in such a way that sounds pretty nice.


Can you guys give me some hard hitting points against Marxism to use?

If one were to attempt to sue the master class of China for sitting at a different table from its slave class, the Chinese court system would just argue that no slave class exists because no master class exists in China as evidenced by the peasant garments worn by Communist party officials. Material equality is the focus in China and because of this, a broader inequality exists in their classes there.
In the American system, the self evident truths trump all. Tyrants are not allowed to sit at the American dinner table or else he or she is divorced and replaced by the people with the more proper government of a king. So, it isn't equality in the American system but the matter of the same unalienable right being reduced as the conscience of every American soul. This meant that the King of England could not deny knowing the self evident truths because a natural right reduces beyond the idea to become indelibly imprinted equally onto every human soul:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The concept of such a natural right helped put the idea of the social "gentleman" to death in America during the age of American transcendentism. This helped distinguish the American from the more primitive European.

[mediahasyou]

Communism has more corruption than any other government system. And history shows.


Think of money as power. The more you have, the more you can tell people what to do.
Now in a free market society, people can succeed and gain power through the market.
However, in communism you cannot succeed. No matter how hard you try. Therefore, those driven, and focused people go through the government to gain power. And those are the stalins, mao, kim jung ills of society.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Communism has more corruption than any other government system. And history shows.


Think of money as power. The more you have, the more you can tell people what to do.
Now in a free market society, people can succeed and gain power through the market.
However, in communism you cannot succeed. No matter how hard you try. Therefore, those driven, and focused people go through the government to gain power. And those are the stalins, mao, kim jung ills of society.

But the order is Rousseau, Hegel, Marx.
Rousseau argued that peasants desired liberty.
So, the problem was with liberty. Hegel said that it was useless bantering on and on about liberty as long as people didn't own property. The King at one time owned every inch of property. He was the public and the state and everything in between.
Marx took up the issue of property. The proletariat, the exploited working class, winning property from the bourgeoisie, those who own the means of production.
While socialism might seem like an evil thing, it is far from it. The worst system would be the types of primitive caste systems in the past where a master class, those who own everything, rule over a faceless slave class, those who don't even own their own souls.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Shortest answer I can think of: Marxism conflicts with basic human desires.

[Acala]

Charity is socially forced. And it is almost demanded, given that one will inevitably have that money taken from them somehow anyway...

You DO know what force is, right? It is when somebody physically directs your actions, physically harms you or threatens to physically harm you if you refuse to do their bidding.

Amazing that you have offered to educate all of us ignoramuses on so many occasions on the way things are and should be and yet your thinking is so muddled you can say something like "charity is socially forced".

[Defining Obscene]

Marxism would never be truly efficient and satisfying whilst capitalism exists. That, and the people in charge of government have the same greed as every other human. Marxism has a transcendent message, but it is not really possible this day and age with all the corruption, and of course people who are doing quite well in America view this as a leech system. Communism has done well for the Chinese government, not so much for the people. Marxism could work under a world government, but then again, think of the consequences of that.

[Zavoi]

In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWdUIuID8ag) (at about 6:40) Murray Rothbard discusses some points that have already been mentioned: The "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" principle conflicts with everything we know about human nature, but even if a Marxist society succeeds in creating a "New Socialist Man" that will work for the benefit of society as a whole, there is still the insurmountable problem of economic calculation, which is impossible without a free market.

Another problem is Marx's theory of exploitation: observing that workers are paid less then the value of what they produce, Marx concludes that a parasitic relationship exists. The Austrian economic theory rejects this analysis, explaining that Marxist economics does not account for time preference:

What is wrong with this analysis? The answer becomes obvious, once it is asked why the laborer would possibly agree to such a deal! He agrees because his wage payment represents present goods—while his own labor services represent only future goods—and he values present goods more highly. After all, he could also decide not to sell his labor services to the capitalist and then map the full value of his output himself. But this would of course imply that he would have to wait longer for any consumption goods to become available to him. In selling his labor services he demonstrates that he prefers a smaller amount of consumption goods now over a possibly larger one at some future date.
(Source (http://mises.org/books/economicsethics.pdf))

[Conza88]

voluntary marxism would be more like your family. you all share the same things, the property and food, etc.. are held in commune.
voluntary marxism is voluntary communism.
Just like monks at a monestary. nothing wrong with that.

A state forced communism is tryanny.
Just like state forced corporatism.

Voluntary communism is oxymoronic.
I'd deem it more correct to call it voluntary socialism... which is fine in a free society.
All boils down to voluntary > coercion :)

Mises - Media Section: Marx and Marxism (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=47) - For anyone wanting to learn.

Btw, for whoever said something earlier about Capitalism running on Greed. <-- It doesn't....

It runs on individuals pursuing their separate self interests.. ;)

Any system that departs from this, human nature - fails.

[mediahasyou]

Btw, for whoever said something earlier about Capitalism running on Greed. <-- It doesn't....

It runs on individuals pursuing their separate self interests.. ;)

Any system that departs from this, human nature - fails.

GREED: http://www.dailymotion.com/related/1023571/video/xlxq4_in-the-classroom-greed-part-1of3_life

[AutoDas]

Communism would work if we didn't have this damn humanity. :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Communism would work if we didn't have this damn humanity. :rolleyes: Well you've sure gotta give them credit for trying to create a better ( so called ) humanity, by killing off tens of millions of the current one.

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

"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."

[noxagol]

We can have utopia! We merely have to kill everyone that is unhappy! Yes, it really is that easy!

[Truth Warrior]

We can have utopia! We merely have to kill everyone that is unhappy! Yes, it really is that easy! Then they'd just be "left" ( :D ) with a bunch of "happy" killers running things. ;)

Sure sounds sociopathic to me. :p Kinda like the NWO.

[Kade]

You DO know what force is, right? It is when somebody physically directs your actions, physically harms you or threatens to physically harm you if you refuse to do their bidding.

Amazing that you have offered to educate all of us ignoramuses on so many occasions on the way things are and should be and yet your thinking is so muddled you can say something like "charity is socially forced".

So says you my little conformi-bot. Compulsion is also force.

[Kade]

A true liberal.

Nice sig.

[Conza88]

GREED: http://www.dailymotion.com/related/1023571/video/xlxq4_in-the-classroom-greed-part-1of3_life

Greed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A) :)

[Acala]

Compulsion is also force.

This is the lie that ALL thinking socialists have to tell themselves to justify advocating a society based on the boot at the door and the gun butt in the face.

So, being expected to produce things of value for your fellow man before you can take something of value in exchange from your fellow man is the same as having men with guns come to your house and beat the crap out of you and take your property because you don't pay your taxes?

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

expectation is the cause of all suffering

[Kade]

This is the lie that ALL thinking socialists have to tell themselves to justify advocating a society based on the boot at the door and the gun butt in the face.

So, being expected to produce things of value for your fellow man before you can take something of value in exchange from your fellow man is the same as having men with guns come to your house and beat the crap out of you and take your property because you don't pay your taxes?

Gun butt in the face and boot at the door are also use of force. Your anger is noticeable but unwarranted conformi-bot, I will always side with the anti-authority.

[Truth Warrior]

Unless it's the state, of course. ;)

[Kade]

expectation is the cause of all suffering

Exactly nonsensicalian!

I present, "Expecting Food".

http://www.christianthinker.net/images/starving.jpg

A two part artistic representation of two stages of life. One side, suffering because it must wait longer for food, and the other side, suffering because it waited too long for food.

It also displays the unusual nature of humanity, in that often we can eat that which eats us.


I imagine that human culture gave us something wholly unique, the concept that perhaps suffering is the cause of all expectation?

[Acala]

Gun butt in the face and boot at the door are also use of force. .


So you do understand that the socialism you support is based on force, but your position is that all other systems are equally evil? Your position is that free exchange is actually the moral equivalent of armed robbery? Hahahaha!

Name calling will not distract me from my goal of elucidating the lie and immorality at the bottom of your position. :-) Although I might lose interest eventually. So just admit that you think your values should be forced on other people at gun point because you are a superior form of man. Then we will al know where you stand.

[Kade]

So you do understand that the socialism you support is based on force, but your position is that all other systems are equally evil? Your position is that free exchange is actually the moral equivalent of armed robbery? Hahahaha!

Name calling will not distract me from my goal of elucidating the lie and immorality at the bottom of your position. :-) Although I might lose interest eventually. So just admit that you think your values should be forced on other people at gun point because you are a superior form of man. Then we will al know where you stand.

I don't think I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing such a magnanimous twist in logic on these boards yet. Congratulations. You are inept.

That being said, I don't support socialism, and I am a free exchange absolutist. This further proves my point that you all must create enormous straw men in order to attempt to argue against me, and I am thriving off it, because even if I don't convince the majority of you morons that you are conforming to an obsolete form of economic "liberty" that actually stifles real liberty, I am winning the hearts and minds of the right liberty-minded people.

Continue promoting your form of group think absolutism, and propaganda, nobody with any common sense buys it, and anyone who knows where I stand knows better... you on the other hand, stand for only that which you hear, and only that which you can quote mine. When you come out of the box of conformity, give me a shout, and we can have a real discussion.

[Truth Warrior]

Except when you post. :D

[Kade]

I'm so glad I have your dumbass ignored. You are the only person with that distinction because you are the only person without a shred of original thought.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm so glad I have your dumbass ignored. You are the only person with that distinction because you are the only person without a shred of original thought. Thus spake "Chairman Mao". ;)

I'm glad too. It's much more fun me that way. :D

[Mesogen]

I have no problem with voluntary marxism--if a group of people want to get together and poo their money/resources/etc and share/own/use them equally, that's fine, it's when that group forces everyone to join their group.

If I could poo money, I would have way fewer problems.

[Kade]

I have no problem with voluntary marxism--if a group of people want to get together and poo their money/resources/etc and share/own/use them equally, that's fine, it's when that group forces everyone to join their group.

Do you advocate for forcing anything... I dunno, forcing women to keep their babies if they get pregnant, forcing people to pay taxes into a system that filters the money to religious proselytizing... that sort of nonsense?

[Zolah]

Do you advocate for forcing anything... I dunno, forcing women to keep their babies if they get pregnant

Protecting the baby's right to live would be a better way to put it, protecting the baby's right to not have its rights infringed by force.

[Kade]

Protecting the baby's right to live would be a better way to put it, protecting the baby's right to not have its rights infringed by force.

Everything is semantics, everything is words... it's funny how quickly you turn around and use the same logic backwards... none of you see the irony?

What method would be used to get the woman to keep the baby?

Force.

Stay pregnant, carry the baby for 9 months, ripping your insides apart and deliver, like a good spiritual American, and give us more labor... or suffer the consequences of the State.

Nice.

[Truth Warrior]

If I could poo money, I would have way fewer problems. Just get a job at the Fed. They specialize in that. ;)

[Zolah]

Everything is semantics, everything is words... it's funny how quickly you turn around and use the same logic backwards... none of you see the irony?

What method would be used to get the woman to keep the baby?

Force.

Stay pregnant, carry the baby for 9 months, ripping your insides apart and deliver, like a good spiritual American, and give us more labor... or suffer the consequences of the State.

Nice.

Nice spin but no cigar, you don't have the right to kill a person, and proportionate force can be appropriate to stop you from doing so.

I don't actually have a very strong oppinion on the abortion issue though, just giving the argument.

[Kade]

Nice spin but no cigar, you don't have the right to kill a person, and proportionate force can be appropriate to stop you from doing so.

I don't actually have a very strong oppinion on the abortion issue though, just giving the argument.

So any act that you perform, if it can conceivably be proven to "kill a person" appropriate force can be used to stop that act?

I'm starting to lean towards making women into the State Incubators as well... I realized I was arguing on the wrong side, why would I? A tall, attractive, well laid young man, want to continue to promote abortion rights?

I could be an major evolutionary success...

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Exactly nonsensicalian!

I present, "Expecting Food".

http://www.christianthinker.net/images/starving.jpg

A two part artistic representation of two stages of life. One side, suffering because it must wait longer for food, and the other side, suffering because it waited too long for food.

It also displays the unusual nature of humanity, in that often we can eat that which eats us.


I imagine that human culture gave us something wholly unique, the concept that perhaps suffering is the cause of all expectation?

mmm ok. not having something and expecting it to magically be there are two different things.
You may "know" a lot of facts, but you are as unoriginal a thinker as they come, contrary to your delusion of grandeur.

[acptulsa]

I thoroughly approve of Marxism provided it is this brand of it:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0qaye/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/marx_brothers.jpg

[Acala]

After skipping all the ad hominem and diversionary Kadespew, we have this:


That being said, I don't support socialism, and I am a free exchange absolutist.

Maybe we are getting somewhere now.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I thought you were an advocate of government as a tool for extracting property from one group or class of people and giving it to another? That has certainly been Obama's position his whole career and you WERE an Obama supporter, correct? I know you have learned your lesson there (you ARE getting some lessons in real life now aren't you young fella?), but that certainly couldn't be because of any turn he took toward socialism because he was already there. So you WERE supporting an openly socialist candidate. And you do seem to be flinching away from the hard truth about the physically coercive nature of all government activity, as all good socialists must, so it was only natural for me to assume that you were a socialist since, well you exhibit all the characteristics. But apparently I was wrong.

So a free exchange absolutist is what exactly?

Now try and resist your habit of responding to difficult questions with venom and rage. Take a deep breath and explain yourself. Bless us morons with more of your teachings.

[Truth Warrior]

I thoroughly approve of Marxism provided it is this brand of it:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0qaye/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/marx_brothers.jpg

qft!

+ a bazillion :D

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

[Kade]

mmm ok. not having something and expecting it to magically be there are two different things.
You may "know" a lot of facts, but you are as unoriginal a thinker as they come, contrary to your delusion of grandeur.

Your're right, because so many people think the way I do... :confused:



I'm sorry, have you met the bus?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040728/pb6.jpg

[Kade]

After skipping all the ad hominem and diversionary Kadespew, we have this:

Maybe we are getting somewhere now.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. I thought you were an advocate of government as a tool for extracting property from one group or class of people and giving it to another? That has certainly been Obama's position his whole career and you WERE an Obama supporter, correct? I know you have learned your lesson there (you ARE getting some lessons in real life now aren't you young fella?), but that certainly couldn't be because of any turn he took toward socialism because he was already there. So you WERE supporting an openly socialist candidate. And you do seem to be flinching away from the hard truth about the physically coercive nature of all government activity, as all good socialists must, so it was only natural for me to assume that you were a socialist since, well you exhibit all the characteristics. But apparently I was wrong.

So a free exchange absolutist is what exactly?

Now try and resist your habit of responding to difficult questions with venom and rage. Take a deep breath and explain yourself. Bless us morons with more of your teachings.

I'll answer this when it stops dripping with sarcasm, personal insults, and wild assumptions.

[Truth Warrior]

Your're right, because so many people think the way I do... :confused:



I'm sorry, have you met the bus?

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040728/pb6.jpg

Mass transit on the RED line. :D

[Acala]

I'll answer this when it stops dripping with sarcasm, personal insults, and wild assumptions.

Dude, do you ever READ your own posts? You are the most consistently insulting and sarcastic poster on this board.

But I give you credit for at least changing the methods you use to avoid unpleasant truths about your own positions. Plan A for Kade to avoid a question is to hurl insults. Plan B now seems to be to pout and play the vicitm.

[Truth Warrior]

Dude, do you ever READ your own posts? You are the most consistently insulting and sarcastic poster on this board.

But I give you credit for at least changing the methods you use to avoid unpleasant truths about your own positions. Plan A for Kade to avoid a question is to hurl insults. Plan B now seems to be to pout and play the vicitm. "The end justifies the means." -- Karl Marx :p :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

I want less government than you. ;) We can discuss that when we get down to that last 5%. Until then, degrees are moot.<IMHO>

[priest_of_syrinx]

Everything is semantics, everything is words... it's funny how quickly you turn around and use the same logic backwards... none of you see the irony?

What method would be used to get the woman to keep the baby?

Force.

Stay pregnant, carry the baby for 9 months, ripping your insides apart and deliver, like a good spiritual American, and give us more labor... or suffer the consequences of the State.

Nice.
I understand how it would be nearly impossible to enforce any abortion laws, but how can you actually morally justify the killing of a fetus, and where do you think that life actually starts? When is it murder to remove a fetus? When isn't it murder to remove a fetus?

[Conza88]

Your're right, because so many people think the way I do... :confused:

Yeah, like 95% of America. ;)

[Kade]

Dude, do you ever READ your own posts? You are the most consistently insulting and sarcastic poster on this board.

But I give you credit for at least changing the methods you use to avoid unpleasant truths about your own positions. Plan A for Kade to avoid a question is to hurl insults. Plan B now seems to be to pout and play the vicitm.

Those are plans C and D actually.

It appears you dealt with the situation in a way you yourself admonish.

Plan Acala: Giving Medicine to Dead People, since 2008.

[Kade]

I understand how it would be nearly impossible to enforce any abortion laws, but how can you actually morally justify the killing of a fetus, and where do you think that life actually starts? When is it murder to remove a fetus? When isn't it murder to remove a fetus?

I cannot justify it to your satisfaction, I can justify leaving the State out of it.

[user]

Alright, im no socialist, but i regretfully admit that i am intrigued by some Marxist philosophy, although i've barely read into it at all. Im currently debating a relative on Free Market Capitalism vs Socialism, and im getting confused, and hes winning. Apparently there isnt even currency in a Marxist society, so obviously this is some extreme socialism that im not sure how to deal with.

I understand that the ends do not justify the means but, im debating someone who really seems to know alot about marxism, and is able to spin it in such a way that sounds pretty nice.


Can you guys give me some hard hitting points against Marxism to use?
Marxism leads inevitably to poverty, hunger, and death.

Hard-hitting enough? :D

[Truth Warrior]

I swear, that's just about the worst case of cognitive dissonance that I've ever seen, I believe. :D

Lawyers! :p :rolleyes: The larval stage of politicians. :D

[priest_of_syrinx]

I cannot justify it to your satisfaction, I can justify leaving the State out of it.
To my satisfaction? So then you don't have an opinion on when life starts? Or you just know that I'll continue to disagree with you (I will :p) so there's no point in answering?

[Brian4Liberty]

Alright, im no socialist, but i regretfully admit that i am intrigued by some Marxist philosophy, although i've barely read into it at all. Im currently debating a relative on Free Market Capitalism vs Socialism, and im getting confused, and hes winning. Apparently there isnt even currency in a Marxist society, so obviously this is some extreme socialism that im not sure how to deal with.

I understand that the ends do not justify the means but, im debating someone who really seems to know alot about marxism, and is able to spin it in such a way that sounds pretty nice.


Can you guys give me some hard hitting points against Marxism to use?

Marxists vandalize, burn, loot, assault and kill?

[Anti Federalist]

"Socialism in America will come through the ballot box."
by: Gus Hall
[Arvo Gustav Halberg ] (1910-2000) leader of the Communist Party USA and its four-time U.S. presidential candidate
Source: in an interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (1996)

We already got socialism, in spades.

But even I was not so jaded to think that people would freely vote authoritarian Marxism into power.

What a dunce I was.

[Anti Federalist]

I wonder, of all the old timers in this thread, how many:

1 - Are still committed Ron Paul type liberty folks?

2 - Have crossed over to the Dark Side and are now Bernie Bros?

3 - Are now Trump folks?

[Anti Globalist]

Marxism is bad because it results in people getting killed.