In politics the threat of violence exists only because a few people want power. The real solution is to take away thier power before a war can start. (Don't confuse this with 'starting a war'. For more info, see Iraq)Except when confronted with violence, or the threat of violence--in politics, in law enforcement, in military, and sometimes in everyday situations gone wrong.
I am inclined to disagree as we have cultures that are highly group-oriented instead of individualistic. Many Asian cultures fall under this category. Some people can live like that, some cannot.I don't think it's in a person's nature to follow an ideaology that places the group over ourselves, which is what communism implies. A person sees himself as himself before he sees himself as, well, a brick in the wall. And that's not incorrect thinking - he is himself before the group. Communism asks that you give up your individualism and suppor the group. It's foolhardy and bordering on dangerous for the human psyche.
If they wont raise up against the government, let me just remind you that even dictators eventually die.No, actually I can say with some certainty that they'll like the power too much to give it up, and the people will be so brainwashed from all of the forced reeducation that they won't rise up in revolution unless something really drastic happens. And if they do, they'll be quickly put down, as one of the major ways to make people listen to you is take all the guns. Look at the feudal system. It took the Black Death to make significant changes.
I wouldnt say that they would be so braindwashed that they wouldnt even raise upp against the government, people are people, they're all rather inteligent. If they cant make such a desicion, something is wrong.
Yes, but you're breaking forum rules by changing the subject to a more personal attact against me. Please don't, mister.Uh, Mr. Air Field, you do realize you are insane, don't you?
Now I'm chocked, you even guess you're able to know what I expect! This is an outrage!Insanity is the state where you perform the same actions repeatedly, yet expect a different result every time.
That's tremendeaous, you must be the most social guy I have ever seen, you even speek for the entire human race tought history! You're great!ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY proves what you say wrong.
I'm sure that you've missed Gandhi in your raport. I'm also sure you've missed me and a cupple of other people. Martin Luther King, Fidel Castro and the cuban revolution, Rosa Parks, Thich Quang Duc and well, I can just state that you're statistic got some holes.Every war, every social movement, everything ever put down on paper that records or explores or studies human behavior all contradicts what you seem to believe.
Is that what you want? becouse this would make you a narcisist and those people arent really ideal, especially in political issues. Ehter way, So you'd tather lower youreself to the level of using "slavery" rather then to be left more in peace by the bullies by leaving them in peace? If you find what the bullies did to be wrong, is it right by you to use what they did against them? I think not, you'd just be worse then them becouse you'd also be a hypocrite.Violence is the use of power to force another to comply with your will.
So you want to be feared by sommeone?You beat them once, and they fear *you*... you then protect others, and they'll stop entirely for fear of you stopping them by force.
Let's look on it, using violence is an act. If you dislike this act, try not to use violence.
You can also just tell them to let you people be, get organized with your friends, the bully's other "victims" and theyr friends and just live peacefully with them. I dont know wether or not he'll attack, but if he does, you could just hold him back and take him away, no need to harm him to much.
Nothing but power, eh? He's more power full then you becouse he can forgive you. If he wanted to, he could quicky gather a nice, larger, heavyer group of people and attack you, and he'd have no problem in that.It has nothing to do with "right" and "wrong"... it's nothing but power.
What I want? Yes most certanly.Boycotts are still the use of power to force another to do what YOU want, instead of what THEY want.
Women food-striking in the feminist movement, tibetan monks burning themselves in the name of peace, workers boycotting theyr office bcouse they want better rights, but they're not payed when they're preforming this act.
Look, where's the enemy's blood? The government is free to reject these things, they're not forced to follow this. The government isnt bleading, the president wont break hes foot. None is hurt but the boycotter.
And therfore you say that it dosnt make a difference wether the black buss boycotters would have boycotted the busses, or thrown bombs at the president to keep him afraid? It's basically what you're stating.That is no more or less right than beating the crap out of them. Subtler, yes, and probably more effective, but still violence.
that is incorect, good sir.Communism asks that you give up your individualism and suppor the group.
It just asks for you to support the group. You're an induvidual wether you're working in good conditions (The democratic communism asks for corporations to follow strict laws) or not (today's corporations), and wether your'e a poor sick guy (communism = free health care) or a rich sick guy (MONEY in many nations are more worthy then humanity.)
You're a great person, this is what communism tells you, you're value isnt messured in cash, and you can do whatever you want, you'll still have as much respect as a doctor.
So you messure people's soul and induvidual by what they own?Nationalizing my soul, if you will
The best sollution for Iraq would have been if the civiles raised against Saddam. The US could have sent some letters to him asking him to leave hes possition, the entire would could have. They should have sent support to the civiles telling them to raise against him. They should have had sent men to the Iraqi-reveloution leaders. They should have held a revolution.In politics the threat of violence exists only because a few people want power. The real solution is to take away thier power before a war can start. (Don't confuse this with 'starting a war'. For more info, see Iraq)
Eveyrone can, it just takes time. You shouldnt devide these groups as races, I'm not saying that you did, I'm saying this for everyone.I am inclined to disagree as we have cultures that are highly group-oriented instead of individualistic. Many Asian cultures fall under this category. Some people can live like that, some cannot.
There are no dangerous races, just different cultures. Cultures are shaped and formed very accuratelly, you see. If this sort of life theory became "law" for a while, we would be right in an outstanding utopia.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
And more will replace them. There are two ways to keep people in line in this day and age. A) Brainwashing. Easily done, and if you wanted to attempt to install an anarchic or socialist system, you would HAVE to brainwash people into acting as you dictate. There is no way around it. B) Control of force and weaponry. Also easily done. If you don't manage to brainwash the populace, if you control all the weapons, you can MAKE someone do what you want fairly easily. A man with a gun can kill dozens of people without even getting scratched. If you control all of the guns, you control everybody.If they wont raise up against the government, let me just remind you that even dictators eventually die.
I wouldnt say that they would be so braindwashed that they wouldnt even raise upp against the government, people are people, they're all rather inteligent. If they cant make such a desicion, something is wrong.
Again--it's a nice idea, but it just won't work.Originally Posted by The New Liquid Air Field!
Send letters to Saddam asking him to leave? Yeah. That's a good one.
Iraq has been under UN embargos and trade restrictions (or was supposed to be, if certain parties--i.e. France, Germany, etc.--weren't dealing under the table) for decades, and they didn't do anything but breed more animosity towards the Western world.
By the way--there was a revolution against Saddam, shortly following the Persian Gulf war. By both the Kurds and the Shi'ites, I believe. It was brutally crushed, and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered. What are we gonna do, write letters of encouragement to the next generation to tell them Saddam won't have them mowed down in cold blood like he did their parents?
"Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
Version 2:
"Hey Saddam. We're tired of your, and we ain't gonna put up with it anymore. Get your ass out of there and stay out, or we're gonna bomb the hell out of you. You got a week. See you Thursday.
-America"
That's right, and that's why the Second Amendment was put in, to make sure that doesn't happen.
But what if I don't want to support the group? What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself? What if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned? Would the group allow it?that is incorect, good sir.
It just asks for you to support the group. You're an induvidual wether you're working in good conditions (The democratic communism asks for corporations to follow strict laws) or not (today's corporations), and wether your'e a poor sick guy (communism = free health care) or a rich sick guy (MONEY in many nations are more worthy then humanity.)
You're a great person, this is what communism tells you, you're value isnt messured in cash, and you can do whatever you want, you'll still have as much respect as a doctor.
No, but that is one way to do it. I meant, you must see that communism functions under a banner that proclaims "Shut up and obey the collective," which is why I said that. My soul or spirit or whatever is not up for auction, to be squeezed out for another man or men. Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.So you messure people's soul and induvidual by what they own?
Thank you, that is possibly the greatest compliment I have ever been given... I am actually honored by that statement, touched to the point where it's actually kinda embarrassing. That I would be compared to such a great (if fictional) person. What should amaze you is 1. that I even got that reference and 2. I'm not being sarcastic about my above statements.
Anyways, back to subject. No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution. Oh, and Ghandi or Reverend King were effective only because the public outcry became greater than the resistance. Hell, in Ghandi's case, there was fear of his believers starting a revolution, actually. (that fear was probably not justified, but that makes it no less real to those who felt it). As for King... well... I already explained boycotts, and sit-ins are even more forceful... as for marches, those are a show of force... Rome loved using THAT method, and no informed person would consider them peaceable.
All were, and are, methods to compell others to obey YOUR will, instead of their own. Racists were forced to at least pretend not to be racist. That is violence. Armies were broken by the mere threat of public reaction. Again, violence. No matter how you slice it, these were methods of violence, even if they lacked the physical signs. Call it mental violence... which, much like emotional abuse, is quite possibly more powerful. After all, destruction can be measured... whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
Last edited by udsuna; 06-16-2005 at 08:30 AM.
Not really, braindwashing isnt an option, I wouldnt call it that, it's a change in the culture, thats all. By your statement, we're all braindwashed.
That is completelly true. Bush had promessed them that he would help. Have you seen the movie "Three Kings" ? It's exactly about that issue. These people would have won the revolution if everything had gone as planed, and if Bush had done what he had been telling them, Bush's son wouldnt have had to deal with the problem afterwards. But when the new Bush delt with the problem, he did it wroung, becouse the people of Iraq didnt join in, they were held in theyr possition. He should have joined a revolution that the Iraqi's had started. Annyone in Iraq, really, just not America.By the way--there was a revolution against Saddam, shortly following the Persian Gulf war. By both the Kurds and the Shi'ites, I believe. It was brutally crushed, and hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.
That, but without the rape point. Rape is still as frequent, must you know."Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
Leters like that is what Amnesty International usually send. Such a letter would wake other people upp. The lether should be sent publically, not written.
You mean like, you dont want to give the poor people a chance to get cured in a normal hospita, and you wouldnt like other people to have a good time becouse they earn less, or becouse they want to give what they have to other people?What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself?
Well, then you're a narcasist, and should have nothing to say about society and big groups of people. Really.
But you forgot one thing: Cash is un-existent in communism, you're mixing it with socialism.
And we're discussing cops and cop-power.
You're not taking what another person has earned, that cash goes to everyone, and not to you as a single induvidual. Free health for everyone is an issue that is worth more then that little cash you give away to that issue alone. As the entire state gives for it, it's all good.hat if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned?
I never siad that. I never said Shut Up, I'm not a facistic kind of communist, I'm an anarco communist. You're mixing me with facism, please, don't do so.I meant, you must see that communism functions under a banner that proclaims "Shut up and obey the collective," which is why I said that.
I'm saying that we're gradually moving toward that field of the political specter. I'm opposed to dictatorship, but sometimes it's ok, deppends on the dictator.
I never said "Hey! Let's have communism tomorrow!" This thing takes time. You can get fairly close with a nice revolution, but you still need time afterwards to althern people culture to be more gracefull for what they have and what they gives, for humanity, for enviroment, for the beauty of different foods and different people, and less gracefull for economy, cars that drive fast but pollute a bit, violent solutions and well, that kind of stuff.
Well, that's only if you didnt work for that before. You're not putting one man or woman trought this hell. All, or most of that cash goes to the state, what means that all that cash collected by the entire state gets mixed. Really, they'd all collect cash so that eveyrone could have a good time. Bills? what bills? they would all had been taken care of by the state. That man or woman in your example have no bills to pay herself or himself, so what difference does it make?Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.
Not all, might I ad. What difference would it make if the cityzen of Hiroshima attacked the US after that bomb? These people were allreddy dead, and the war was finished shortly after.No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution.
Troy? Might be, but that was many years ago, people have or should have learned allot since.
If I had a doughter and she was raped, raped again, killed, then raped, I would protest if the pedophile murderer was charged for death penality.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would make the world blind, young sir.
Dissagree. Of course these cases were world famous, Gandhi had to deal with the famous England, King had to deal with the evil racism in the US.Oh, and Ghandi or Reverend King were effective only because the public outcry became greater than the resistance.
It's all a mather of where the enemy was. Of course, the fact that manny people knew about didnt harm.
Not likelly, hes believers loved him becouse he'd never use violence. They'd never use violence ether.Hell, in Ghandi's case, there was fear of his believers starting a revolution, actually. (that fear was probably not justified, but that makes it no less real to those who felt it).
A peacefull revolution? Nice. But I dont see why this should spread much fear.
You're mixing King with Malcolm X. King didn't like Violence in protests at all. Just paecable marches, where they walked, or they satt, and did nothing to harm anyone.As for King... well... I already explained boycotts, and sit-ins are even more forceful... as for marches, those are a show of force... Rome loved using THAT method, and no informed person would consider them peaceable.
Boycotts? who's bleeding? what's burning? There is no form for violence in a normal boycott.
What? Boycotts? yes indeed. But it's YOUR chose wether to accept the request or not.All were, and are, methods to compell others to obey YOUR will, instead of their own.
None's forcing you to say yes.
They were not, youngster!Racists were forced to at least pretend not to be racist. That is violence.
They became even more racist after Martin Luther King, but atleast the black people got theyr rights. Martin Luther King, as he had some agreers on the white side, had some people that was negative to hes words on the Black side.
What he did cant be considdered egoistic. He didnt force anyone to obey him, the state just decided to agree, but society? That's another mather.
Please, reform this. I'm not born in an English talking nation, please understant.Armies were broken by the mere threat of public reaction. Again, violence.
They were not, none has ever been forced to do anything in these examples you mentioned.No matter how you slice it, these were methods of violence, even if they lacked the physical signs.
It isnt called mental violence, it's called pacifism. You're not forcing anyone, people feel guilty, society changes, you putt youreself on play, you never use your fists or guns. There is no violence involved.Call it mental violence... which, much like emotional abuse, is quite possibly more powerful.
Yes...whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
And that's why forcing the children with racist parents to collaborate with children of other nations is a great way to deal with racism.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
First of all, you can stop with the "youngerster/youngin'/young man" crap. It doesn't matter what age any of us here are, only our knowledge of the subject at hand and maturity in the way we debate it.
Actually, "Three Kings" was about a few soldiers who wanted to steal the gold that the Iraqis had stolen from Kuwait during their invasion. It centered around that, and the uprisings in smaller villages, but not on the revolution on a grander scale. America did tell the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but when they did--expecting American assistance--they were struck down and trampled, tortured, executed, and worse.
You're serious about this? Hell, I was being sarcastic, if you didn't notice. And by the way, random rapes may still be as frequent, but women no longer have to worry about being kidnapped and raped by entire squads of Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers. But letters like this haven't changed much of anything in the past, and they wouldn't change anything in this case--if you haven't noticed yet, violence is never a first resort.That, but without the rape point. Rape is still as frequent, must you know."Dear Saddam.
I would be really happy if you stopped using nerve gas and blistering agents on your own people. It would be really nice of you to stop letting women be raped by dozens of your soldiers while thier husbands look on, and to shut down the vats of acid and chipper-shredder machines that you put innocent civilians through. All of this would make me very happy. Just wanted you to know.
Love, America."
Leters like that is what Amnesty International usually send. Such a letter would wake other people upp. The lether should be sent publically, not written.
What? You want to KEEP some of they money you earn? You're evil! You're selfish! You're narcisitic! What kind of world would we live in, if people actually had a motivation to work?!? If one man's greater work ethic put him above another man's laziness? Oh, the horror--oh, the humanity!You mean like, you dont want to give the poor people a chance to get cured in a normal hospita, and you wouldnt like other people to have a good time becouse they earn less, or becouse they want to give what they have to other people?What about if I want to keep the money I earned for myself?
Well, then you're a narcasist, and should have nothing to say about society and big groups of people. Really.
No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.You're not taking what another person has earned, that cash goes to everyone, and not to you as a single induvidual. Free health for everyone is an issue that is worth more then that little cash you give away to that issue alone. As the entire state gives for it, it's all good.hat if I felt the only thing I owed another human being was that same right - that I'd never take from what another earned?
All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.
They'd "all collect cash to that eveyrone could have a good time"??? Yes, because we all know that everybody in Communist and Socialist countries just have the time of their lives every day, they couldn't be happier, right? :rolleyes2:Well, that's only if you didnt work for that before. You're not putting one man or woman trought this hell. All, or most of that cash goes to the state, what means that all that cash collected by the entire state gets mixed. Really, they'd all collect cash so that eveyrone could have a good time. Bills? what bills? they would all had been taken care of by the state. That man or woman in your example have no bills to pay herself or himself, so what difference does it make?Likewise, if I lived in a communist country (or even a socialistic one) and I was sick and had my health care paid for, free of charge, I'd hate to think what kind of hell I put a man through so he could pay off my bills.
Yes, your bills would all be taken care of--by everybody else. And you'd be paying everybody else's bills. Income would be distributed equally, and the entire population would be completely equal in their poverty.
If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, the war would have went on for months, possibly years, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more soldiers on both sides. By using (extreme) violence against the citizens of Japan, that was avoided. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it works.Not all, might I ad. What difference would it make if the cityzen of Hiroshima attacked the US after that bomb? These people were allreddy dead, and the war was finished shortly after.No, I don't think that physical violence is the ONLY answer, nor is it even the BEST answer... but I think that the citizens of Troy, or of Hiroshima, would disagree with anyone who says it's an ineffective solution.
Troy? Might be, but that was many years ago, people have or should have learned allot since.
If I had a doughter and she was raped, raped again, killed, then raped, I would protest if the pedophile murderer was charged for death penality.
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would make the world blind, young sir.
If you had a daughter that was brutally raped and mudered, you would shame your family by placing more value on the life of the rapist/muderer than the life of your daughter, and I pray nobody like you ever breeds.
According to your illogic, that would be forcing something upon those children, which would make it violence, and very very wrong.Yes...whereas a merely implied threat remains forever cloaked in the most terrifying thing humans have yet to encounter: the unknown.
And that's why forcing the children with racist parents to collaborate with children of other nations is a great way to deal with racism.
No, you may not beat me.
It's just my way to say Sir or Miss without knowing your sex. Do you have another sugestion for that?First of all, you can stop with the "youngerster/youngin'/young man" crap. It doesn't matter what age any of us here are, only our knowledge of the subject at hand and maturity in the way we debate it.
You are all young, not neccesarraly yuonger then me, but you're still young, so I yought "Young one" shuld be an OK word to use. I'll refere to you as Good miss, then, and guess that you're a woman.
But then they ended up freeing some helpless people. People that were fighting becouse they had heard that they should have support from the US under the revolution. Help they didnt get. That's the part I reffered to, not the rest. I reffered to the movie from the middle to the ending, that, being the importance and impact of the movie.Actually, "Three Kings" was about a few soldiers who wanted to steal the gold that the Iraqis had stolen from Kuwait during their invasion. It centered around that, and the uprisings in smaller villages, but not on the revolution on a grander scale. America did tell the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, but when they did--expecting American assistance--they were struck down and trampled, tortured, executed, and worse.
If the US had helped the rebbels, the US would had done something nice. But by telling them to fight, they basically told them to jump on armed guns. These people were under-equiped. They were tortured indeed, I blame it all on the US.
Of course you was sarcastic, but it's my oppinion and yes, if many people did it, Iraqi rebels might have had gotten some backbone to stand upp against Saddam. They would then have asked for help, and the US soldiers would have been welcome, with the Russians, the Italians, the French, the German, the Danish, the Japanese, the Chinese and well, everyone that would like a nice revolution. I wouldnt count on the US on that as a revolution is gennerally looked uppon as being farly leftist, but Bush wanted a war, so they could agree on it.You're serious about this? Hell, I was being sarcastic, if you didn't notice.
But it isnt a last resort ether. Letters like this would potentially give influence to everyone who heard them. Surounding countries would care, the Iraqui's would even get to hear it if the message was sent at the corect TV chanel. If not, you could allways send a letter to Iraqui journualists with a nice video clipp. Much like what Osama Bin Laden does, but without the treats.And by the way, random rapes may still be as frequent, but women no longer have to worry about being kidnapped and raped by entire squads of Iraqi Republican Guard soldiers. But letters like this haven't changed much of anything in the past, and they wouldn't change anything in this case--if you haven't noticed yet, violence is never a first resort.
Rapes were even more frequent right after the war, and before the ellection. Things should be more normal now, tough.
I never said evil, you're just like the rest of them. People would work becouse they want to help other people. For survival, like wolfs in tribes, they hunt for food together. If one wolf is sent outside the tribe, that wolf is dead. We're a bit more intelligent so we wont die alone, but we'll hunt in a group, with society, if you get me.What? You want to KEEP some of they money you earn? You're evil! You're selfish! You're narcisitic! What kind of world would we live in, if people actually had a motivation to work?!? If one man's greater work ethic put him above another man's laziness? Oh, the horror--oh, the humanity!
As you're reffering to Socialism in most cases, you get to keep some of your money, but you have to give around 50% to the government. It isnt much, considdering all that the government gives back to you.
It's more socialist to have free health care then to force every civile habitant to pay for theyr own health care. Should rich people have right to higher medication? I think not.
Not really, medics are farly common in Cuba.No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.
And do you really think that a title is more important then civil rights?
Is a lawer more important then the smiling guy who serves food at a common resturant? Not really. Food coulnd be served without the waitress.
What about the bussenis man (edducation needed) in countrary to the artist (creativety needed)? The artist is, in my oppinoin, clearly more important, as he contributes more to society then the bussenis man.
The fundamental importance in this logic is that people are allways, whitout any exeption, more important then cash or any item.
The level they should be? I strongly disagree!All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.
They all play an importance to our society. Without the baker, people couldt get bread from the market. Without the garbage men, people would live in a more clean nature. There are people alive today that care for nature even tought caring for it dosnt putt you in a high job possition, I guess these people would still care if theyr title gave them as much importance as the medic.
Of course this is sacasm, but I didnt mean it like the time of theyr day. I ment it like, if everyone in those countries had free health care, they would be more happy then if everyone in those countries had to fight or sell theyr body just to cure theyr decease.Yes, because we all know that everybody in Communist and Socialist countries just have the time of their lives every day, they couldn't be happier, right? :
But of course, they can allways organize something funny with each other. You cant buy happyness etherway, what's the difference?
When I said that bills would be payed by others, I ment that it would be more or less free. It's rather common these days that you can use stuff for free. Take the net, now we have broadband, what could also be distribuited for free by the government. The same could be done with electricity. Nothing to pay, really.Yes, your bills would all be taken care of--by everybody else. And you'd be paying everybody else's bills. Income would be distributed equally, and the entire population would be completely equal in their poverty.
Completelly equal in their poverty and wealth, yes. What's the problem?
If they all can eat every day, I see no problem what so ever. If they get sick, they've got a cure for free, unless it's an incurable deseace of course. They'll live in a cleaner enviroment, and they'd just be happy with each other.
That's brutal! I'd rather see 3.000 dead soldiers then 30 dead civiles. Years? not likelly WW2 didn't last long enugh for that. Months? possible.If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, the war would have went on for months, possibly years, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands more soldiers on both sides. By using (extreme) violence against the citizens of Japan, that was avoided. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it works.
I wouldnt shame my family! I would not put more value in the raper, I'd just put enugh value in him not to get him killed. That would be more a honour then a shame, really. Strenght is to forgive. My family, as far as I can rememmber, has allways been opposed to death penality.If you had a daughter that was brutally raped and mudered, you would shame your family by placing more value on the life of the rapist/muderer than the life of your daughter, and I pray nobody like you ever breeds.
Not really. It's not a brute force, I basically mean that they should putt those children in the same project as the foringers, at a very young age. The childrens would learn early that foringers arent nessesarraly evil, what theyr parents try to say.According to your illogic, that would be forcing something upon those children, which would make it violence, and very very wrong.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
People would not work becuase they want to help other people. They would be forced to work, and they would do it under a banner of "humanitarian principles. Humans are neither loners who can/could go through their entire life without human beings, but nor are we "pack animals" looking out for the good of the pack. We trade. No matter how glorified you make it out to seem that people help each other expecting nothing in return. That reduces humanity to mutual slavery, prostating themselves to others and expecting to be bowed to back.
And another quick thing - no one has the "right" to medication. One has a right to life (basic and obvious), liberty (freedom of choice - i.e. where one's money goes, to think and speak as they want, etc) and the pursuit of happiness (to achieve the most that one can in this lifetime). Socialism/communism hampers the last two inalienable rights and reduces the first to a level of sustenence - and intends to justify it by claiming that since all people are poor, it's all right.
Medication needs to be paid for. It's not a right, but it is possible. It requires personal responsibility.
No offense, but this is wrong. I would think society would need the lawyer a hell of a lot more than the waiter. That is why the lawyer is paid a hell of a lot more. And, the business man is obviously in more need than the artist. The artist fulfills a fundamental need of a human - art- but he does not lead an industry that will create products to help everyone existing in that society. (Oh, and he does it for the money, not to help people. Everyone wins.)Not really, medics are farly common in Cuba.No, you're not taking from what another person has earned--you're taking from what every person has earned. And if you do a more valuable job than every other person, you get no reward for it--leading people to forsake the more difficult, more educated, more important jobs to go for the easier, more common jobs.
And do you really think that a title is more important then civil rights?
Is a lawer more important then the smiling guy who serves food at a common resturant? Not really. Food coulnd be served without the waitress.
What about the bussenis man (edducation needed) in countrary to the artist (creativety needed)? The artist is, in my oppinoin, clearly more important, as he contributes more to society then the bussenis man.
The fundamental importance in this logic is that people are allways, whitout any exeption, more important then cash or any item.
...hrm. I understand your logic, and it's true. Every spot needs to be filled. But what Sasquatch (and I, any anyone who recognizes the importance of capitalism and freedom) is stressing is that these people be placed there on ability. That is true freedom - allowing a person to go as high and as far as his ability can take him. Just like someone destined for fast food should not be the president, neither should a person worthy of the president should be a fast-food worker.The level they should be? I strongly disagree!All men are created equal. Their lives place them on the level they should be, and seperate the equality we have at birth.
They all play an importance to our society. Without the baker, people couldt get bread from the market. Without the garbage men, people would live in a more clean nature. There are people alive today that care for nature even tought caring for it dosnt putt you in a high job possition, I guess these people would still care if theyr title gave them as much importance as the medic.
Im sorry guys im gonna have to report this thread to the Office of Homeland Security...
j/k
Yeh revolutions could happen not likely anymore though.
Essentially, yes. Have you taken a good hard LOOK at society recently? Brainwashed.Not really, braindwashing isnt an option, I wouldnt call it that, it's a change in the culture, thats all. By your statement, we're all braindwashed.
Heck, I could even say you've been brainwashed, either by yourself or by someone else, into believing what you believe. You might contend that I am brainwashed because I believe what I believe, although I can produce substantial evidence that my brainwashing is at the very least not severe, if not for the better (as I've been taught to question and analyze). Not saying that you've actually been brainwashed, but one could easily infer such a thing from what you've been saying.
Humans are NOT out for the good of all. For the most part, we couldn't care less what happens to someone in the next state, much less thousands of miles away. Our brain is specifically wired to look after its own interests. We have a self-serving bias that is extremely powerful, for example we are much more interested in something if we know how it applies to us than if we do not. We care about number one. After that, we care about our close family and friends. Beyond that, we tend to be a bit nationalistic, but the rest of the world if pretty much beyond our cares entirely. Expecting humans to actually care about most of the people in their country is foolhardy. It isn't going to happen unless you somehow manage to heavily brainwash people, and even then, it won't really work. Most cases of people who've had strictly authoritarian parentage are known to revert back to how they normally are fairly soon after moving out and no longer living under such authority. We are who we are, and most of us just don't care.
Actually, the war with Japan could have gone on for another DECADE if we stuck with conventional weaponry. Their government was designing a new super-plane (by back then's standards) that was faster than anything we had by far, had better firepower, was more manuverable, and could carry a heavier missile/bomb payload. Analysts believe that the things could have taken on our planes in 3 to 1 odds, and still won the battles. And, whatever you want to say about it, the Japanese pilots were just *BETTER* than ours in the sky. Mostly because our pilots wanted to live, and theirs would rather die in combat than return in defeat. Oh, we would have eventually won, after their population started starving to death, but not any time before then. So, sometimes, the ultimate weapon is the only weapon that works.
"Armies were broken by the mere threat of public reaction. Again, violence."- haven't you ever heard of this? Or did Vietnam escape your history lessons. America LOST that war (uh, "police action"), not because we got beat in the field, but because the people back home WANTED US TO LOSE!!! Therefor, public reaction crushed that army.
Other countries were less bold, and the second it became clear that they would end up fighting in unpopular wars, they backed out. I know Ghandi's people were pacifists, no one would disagree with that, but the only ones who knew it THEN, were his people. And a portion of the world learned it. If anyone attempted to force them to comply, the nation's own habitants would have fought back, in every way available to them. Not to mention a few trade embaragoes, and some suitably damning propaganda.
As for King, his marches were certainly non-violent, which is why they attracted so many non-blacks. However, it was a CLEAR show of force. Klan members could have marched strait at them, and been trampled underfoot as they moved forward. Numbers are the greatest power humans have. And his way drew in numbers, and thus power.
Posting Permissions
