I like the 'throwing stones' comment. Who threw stones? I'm happy with our system (although improvements could be made), but it IS NOT a purely capitalistic society (nor should it be).
Also, the idea that progress is only motivated by currency is a fallacy. One of the most important scientific discoveries of the last century was Jonas Salk's polio vaccine and he literally patented it and gave it away for free. Believe it or not, there are people in the world that are motivated by things besides a bank account.
You appeared to be throwing stones with the comment that man hasn't achieved a communist society because we're too predatory and greedy etc.
Anyway, the example of the polio vaccine is misleading. Why did Jonas Salk become a doctor in the first place? Why didnt he just raise chickens? Maybe it was because he genuinely wanted all the extra schooling, but for most people its the financial security. He gave away the polio vaccine in altruism, but thats more the exception than the norm.
Also, volunteering your time is not the same as creating something. It's nice, but doesn't illustrate how communism advances progress. Because it just doesn't. Sure, a lot of things are invented by accident, and might thus be used, but you'd basically be living in an Amish village. You'd have to be, because all the jobs have to be of equal value and importance or else people wouldnt do them all for equal pay.
Why be a cop and risk your life if you can sit at a cash register? In our society its because at the register you make 8 bucks an hour, and as a cop you make 60k a year. Why would someone do it in a communist society tho?
I know you said you like the system we have, but you make it sound as if communism is the ideal scenario. It's really not, because its not like something we can work towards. It's an impossible scenario in modern society that most people wouldnt even want if they understood what it would really be like.
You appeared to be throwing stones with the comment that man hasn't achieved a communist society because we're too predatory and greedy etc.
Anyway, the example of the polio vaccine is misleading. Why did Jonas Salk become a doctor in the first place? Why didnt he just raise chickens? Maybe it was because he genuinely wanted all the extra schooling, but for most people its the financial security. He gave away the polio vaccine in altruism, but thats more the exception than the norm.
Also, volunteering your time is not the same as creating something. It's nice, but doesn't illustrate how communism advances progress. Because it just doesn't. Sure, a lot of things are invented by accident, and might thus be used, but you'd basically be living in an Amish village. You'd have to be, because all the jobs have to be of equal value and importance or else people wouldnt do them all for equal pay.
Why be a cop and risk your life if you can sit at a cash register? In our society its because at the register you make 8 bucks an hour, and as a cop you make 60k a year. Why would someone do it in a communist society tho?
I know you said you like the system we have, but you make it sound as if communism is the ideal scenario. It's really not, because its not like something we can work towards. It's an impossible scenario in modern society that most people wouldnt even want if they understood what it would really be like.
This.
Actually nowadays most communists are mainly 14-18 year old teenagers with the brain filled of "idealist and saving the world" thoughts.
Nobody with half a brain or with some sort of maturity believes or supports communism, and if they do they actually lieing to your face cause they just as capitalist as anybody, if not more.
...because the definition of a 'tyranny' includes a dictator with absolute power. If it doesn't exist in our society, it isn't a tyranny.
Thats really just a semantical argument. If you like I'll frame it this way. Theres two governmental systems coercive and non-coercive. I don't see a distinction between systems based on force.
I know you said you like the system we have, but you make it sound as if communism is the ideal scenario. It's really not, because its not like something we can work towards. It's an impossible scenario in modern society that most people wouldnt even want if they understood what it would really be like.
Actually, I said that absolute capitalism, absolute communism and absolute socialism would all be disasters. I'm not going to argue in favor of an absolute communist society because I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in it.
I noted that the reason there has yet to be an absolute communist society is because of the power-hungry nature of man... Which is true. I didn't say that if it was created, it would be ideal... Just that it has yet to be introduced in its purest form.
I've said time and again that a mix is the best way to go.
Thats really just a semantical argument. If you like I'll frame it this way. Theres two governmental systems coercive and non-coercive. I don't see a distinction between systems based on force.
If there's a difference in how much force they use, isn't that.........a difference??
I don't know of any that if I resist to a certain point of provocation will let me go. Obviously different things are permissible in different countries, but an individual has no authority to decide what. The counter argument in the freer societies is representative government but that isn't a choice to opt out. Rebellion is illegal thus you have no free will, and are forced to be part of the state and cede to others the authority to interfere with what is permissible in all matters.
Good book, I just finished reading it not long ago.
i've never heard of that book. i might have to find a copy of it and check it out - i'm not much into reading lengthy texts off a computer screen. the only modern strongly libertarian manifestos i've ever read are from ayn rand, though this one seems to argue religion as the basis for the merits of individualism in the course of human progress. it's interesting, especially because the libertarian authors i've read most, like rand and all of the classical liberal writers have been so opposed to the idea of organized religion. though i suppose if you distinguish the social culture of religion from the moral teaching and ensuing interpretations, you can run with the latter alongside libertarianism.
Re: Im a communist and a good person
