3rdreich

[~>John<~]

 First off [I've read the topic Juby] I find it interesting that you say that in Communism crimes will go down but then say that Communism has never been tried. Which is it? If it hasn't been tried you don't know it will go down.



Sorry, let me rephrase that Juby. I was actually directly quoting someone else. Now that I read it more thoroughly, I can see several mistakes in it. However, against your arguments:

The average stay average, so he was having poor being blind and rich having 2 eyes, while average have one right now.

The "gang" thing is wrong. He made a mistake here. It can be argued whether or not the "majority" in Communist countries were fully knowlegeable or just wanted to get rid of the curreent leader, or if they were a majority at all.
American farmers could produce MUCH more food.

YOU HAVE PROVED MY POINT! People are greedy and so it will fail. As to your thing on God being greedy, I know there are many people who aren't. However, many will remain greedy, and while it is good for the rich to give to the poor, government compulsory action is not the best way.

This is Something to think about:
[Thornwell Simons]
"Often on the web I'll see people who say things like "Communism would be real nice if it worked." The idea seems to be that Communism would be a wonderful system, but people just aren't good enough to make it work: that the ideals of Communism are worthy, even if the practice of it seems to keep winding up with those dratted gulags and the odd bit of mass starvation here and there. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sounds like a hunky-dory little phrase, if you don't think about it too much. Since most people don't think too much about politics, there's a tendency to nurse, somewhere in the back of the mind, the notion that Communism might be kinda nice,"if it worked." This is the real problem with Communism: like most other liberalism, it sounds nice. Far nicer than it really is. At its heart, Communism is not nice: it is evil.


    To understand why, the first thing one has to do is get a reasonably clear understanding of what Communism is. What sets Communism apart from other systems of government is the particular goal of the system, which is the redistribution of goods among the governed, in accordance with the above-mentioned principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need." In practice, this means that each separate individual living under a communist government should be willing to sacrifice their own good for the good of the community. After all, if you've been able to advance yourself, and someone else hasn't, then by Communist doctrine not only should you be willing to sacrifice some or all of that advancement to help that other person, but the state should force you to do so. Raising the lowest common denominator becomes the highest good. Since, in any society, some people are going to be more capable of advancement than others, and some people are going to be more productive and efficient than others, it becomes the responsibility of those few to support the needs and wants of the society as a whole; the most capable members of the community are, in essence, forcibly harnessed to the common good. There is a term for that, and it's "slavery."

    Now, some try to get around this by arguing that, in an "ideal state," such servitude would be voluntary; that if somehow the force and compulsion of government could be separated from the system, everything would go all hunky-dory roses. Even if this were possible, it would be, essentially, arguing that slavery is fine as long as it's voluntary. Is it any less evil to allow a man to break himself in your service, than to break him in such service yourself? For any community of people to say, to an innocent individual, "our collective needs outweigh your individual ones," is an insanely, horribly selfish act on the part of that community, whether they then force that poor individual to sacrifice his needs or not. This is not to say a community cannot protect itself against individuals who do it harm; there is nothing unjustly selfish in telling the murderer he must sacrifice his life (in prison, if not in death) in order that he may not kill again. Yet to say the same thing to one who has in no way caused harm -- to one who has done nothing but create some good that did not exist before, and that the community now desires -- merely because he has done so, to say that merely because someone has surpassed their community they must sacrifice themselves to it, is the height of unjust selfishness. It is nothing more than collectivized greed. Sharing that greed out among the community does nothing to lessen the stink of it.

    Once a community has made that step -- once it has, collectively, agreed that the (community-defined) needs of the community outweigh the (community-defined) needs of any given individual within that community, then the above desire that such an ideal Communist state be absent government is rendered inevitably void. Any system of rules by which a group of people agree to live their lives is at least in some sense a government; and the minute any amount of force or compulsion is coupled with those rules --which is necessary if they are to be rules at all -- it is unquestionably such. ("Government" is often defined as "a monopoly on force" for precisely this reason.) Even if those rules are merely the lightest of guidelines, even if the only force behind them is the collective disapproval of the community, they are still a form of government over that community, an enforced common agreement. If that common agreement sacrifices the good of innocent members of the community, in order to further the good of the community as a whole, then it is a covenant based on sacrifice, a common pact grounded in the enslavement of some for the better of others. The fact that the enslaved happen to be the brightest members of the community does not change that.

    Many people try to argue against Communism based on practical considerations: that it saps productivity because people are denied the chance to advance themselves, that the State is incapable of organizing anything as complex as a working, efficient economy, that it just doesn't work for any number of reasons. All of those are valid objections to the practice. Yet they sidestep the real question, the moral question: whether or not, even if we could attain such a system, and make it work, it would be morally right or wrong to try to do so. And the answer is that to pursue Communism is horribly, horribly wrong: not just because it doesn't work, and not just because it leads to a whole host of other, secondary, economic and social problems, but because it is evil, an evil system built upon evil principles. There is no moral difference between a society built upon Communism and a society built upon slavery. "

[Juby (Tercios)]

 How did I prove your point John?  I think people are not inherantly greedy, I beleive that this is developed, my evidence is various aboriginal communities throughout the world where the concept of greed never occured to them, the fact that greed is not a universal to every group of humans pushes my idea that it is just a product of our culture and can be gotten rid of.
you saying americans can produce much more and easily feed the world shows that the your whole idea is mute because their is enough food so saying people would starve is untrue.  Also I was astute in my comments on the eye analogy, the average person earns 25 grand a year, blindness in the analogy would be earning 0, if the 25 grand people had one eye, then the 50 grand people would have two, you can't act as though someone who earns 50 grand is comparable to a hundred billionaire like Bill Gates or the owner of wal mart.  The analogy is flawed.
Once again I reiterate, read this entire thread, don't just jump in, it annoys me that I have retype things and re-explain things to you when the first is example is already just sitting their.
Using an editorial by some schmuck you agree with is not evidence and he never provides evidence either, he doesn't use statistics nor examples from real life and half of his arguements are just statments that he expects you to accept for no reason and the other half was an arguement made of needles, the whole structure is making assumptions based on the last assumption being true based on the previous assumption being true and so on and so on.
As far as what he says, I would argue that what would anybody advance on the next person in? that does not make sense, if somebody produces more then usual, does that mean they need more then usual? no of course not.  Also, why does a person who is say more intelligent deserve more, do stupid people not deserve as much food or enjoyment in life, aren't we all supposed to be equal, and shouldn't you beleive that we are all equal in the eyes of god and so how can you justify giving one person more based on GOD GIVEN talents.  and how can he call the society wanting everyone to be equal selfish? if anything it's the opposite, anyone who thinks they deserve more then somebody else is selfish,  how can you begrudge someone for wanting middle class?  saying that the poor are selfish is just idiotic, the rich person thinks he or she deserves like 20 cars, the poor person says hey I should A car, and then the rich wo/man calls them selfish.  I don't care how much money you have, I don't care if your more intelligent, I don't even care if you invented something usefull or if you play a sport really well, you can't justify that you deserve more then another person, an athlete does not deserve luxury any more then a poor person, an inventor does not deserve more entertainment then a poor person, plain and simple, when you go before god, do you think s/he'll care how much money you made or how many touch downs you made or even that you had an idea, s/he'll look at your charecter and does inventing something make you moral, does making money make you moral(if you read some other points i've made it could be said that having money is immoral because money is finite and having more then the average leaves less for the poor, you having needless amounts of money that not only is taking away from the average pool and the fact you could donate it but feel you deserve more then another person), does being a good athlete or a gifted musician make you moral? NO.  Communism is not slavery, in a democratically elected government, if all production was redistrbuted equally would that mean you couldn't vote agianst them in the next election.  You could still say whatever you wanted.  You could still pick the CD's you wanted and the books you wanted and all that, the only thing is that you wouldn't be able to get more then anyone else, but you having hte freedom to earn more is limiting resources therefore forcing the group to earn less, where as in Communism, you may not have the freedom to earn more, but you have the security of equality.  But really, why would you define your freedom based on the amount of material goods you can have?  why would you only consider yourself free if you could have a ferrari, if you define your whole life by what you have more then the next person, I pity you.  In Slavery you get the bare minimum an individual, not the majority can give you, who rules you can give you in food, water, clothes and shelter without you dieing and pocketing the rest, slavery is super capitalism, all the profit goes to one person, the owner, therefore 1 person rich, the rest poor.  Under communism they equally divide all the profit amoung everyone their for maximizing the what can be given, therefore everyone is middle class.  comparing it to slavery is just silly.  Slavery is about one being all and everyone else being nothing, communism is about equality.