Hello everyone viewing anti NDAA art. An important recent petition just started against NDAA's SEC1021 in the Hedges VS Obama calling upon the higher federal courts to rule this provision UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! Please show your support, sign it and spread the word around about this important petition.
China is overpopulated, but the Earth certainly is not. It's a horrible, anti-humanist barbaric restriction on reproductive freedom to solve a problem of geography. Another case where the socialist mentality dictates that nationalism trumps the value of human life.
Mistake 1: Disregarding the legitimacy of an entire ideology based on the likely homegrown 'we love you big business' attitude that is prevalent in our country's television networks, radio, and repeated ad nauseum by Democratic and Republican mouthpieces. A debate is made when people come to an agreement, a consensus, and don't try to impose the entirety of their will over one thing. Lenin used regulated capitalism which Stalin derailed despite it bearing fruit, the benefits of some form of market economy, I will not deny. That said clinging to the entirety of a single ideology is asinine, a capitalist state is one where competition is the rule and you are supposed to one up your 'enemies' no matter the cost while imposing upon people an environment that will only benefit a handful of people without caring for the rest.
Mistake 2: Resorting to the 'sure kiddo' when your back is against the wall, if this were a class, you would have gotten an F. Relying solely on the quotes of other people is slightly annoying, Randroids do it all the time, just as some of my comrades take a shine to it. The words of a human have no more weight than any other human, no one should worship your fellow man.
Now that your mistakes have been pointed out I would like to tell you that capitalism in its purest form is not the most free, beautiful thing on this planet. In fact capitalism enjoys the fruits of exploitation of not only the labor force native to the state it is entrenched in but also that of foreigners, on a smaller scale, the cons of uncontrolled capitalism are many but the one that pops up in my mind is corporate espionage and businesses making backroom deals to railroad customers into being forced to use their service and only their service. Another kind of bad thing thing about capitalism is entities such as 'walmart', that and American capitalists - which make up the entirety of our political system - can't seem to remain consistence. Republicans say they want people to be fully independent and do for themselves but at the same time they choose to say 'you must have this child' 'you must not marry homosexuals' 'you must now marry minorities', it's hypocrisy, the Democrats are no better but will still sell you a bullshit line while stabbing you in the back.
You will likely come back and tell me of the evils of Stalin and Mao, well, yes, but most of us have reached the consensus that those were simply fascists in red. They were tinpot dictators who hijacked an ideology for their own benefit, much in the same way that corporations made money off of the Red Scare by saying 'if you don't like X you're a communist!' 'if you don't support X you're a communist!' et cetera.
If you point to the violent revolution of Vladimir Lenin as an example of communist villainy I will point to how the United States killed and committed crimes to win its independence, it is not so different, only that the Russians wanted to change the government instead of simply split away from a larger entity.
how are business taking freedom he says. oh capitalists, you so funny. What would you call a minority of people controlling the majority of the resources we all depend on? I call totalitarian. What would you call it when that minority use this control of resources for self gain? I call it tyranny.
Ever heard of wage slavery? "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" (Abraham Lincoln) Lincoln actually equated hired labor with chattel slavery. Thomas Paine had said "if we examine the case minutely it will be found that the accumulation of personal property is, in many instances, the effect of paying too little for the labor that produced it; the consequence of which is that the working hand perishes in old age, and the employer abounds in affluence."
Thomas Paine had also suggested that public property is a natural state, and private property was essentially theft. "There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it."
"Controlling the resources we all depend on"... what? You work, make money, and use that money to have the resources you depend on, like food, shelter, and optionally luxuries you don't necessarily depend on like travel and recreation. Is your definition of freedom that these things be provided for you regardless of whether you work or not? To you that my sound like equality but to me it's an example of profound inequality, where people who work hard and make a living receive no better consequences for their effort than people who don't. You want to argue it's immoral to have private property? That even though I pay to own a home I have no right to exclude people from it? People can just take it because "man did not make the earth"... what obvious stupidity.
By resources we depend on, I'm referring to the fields to grow that food on, the the tractors that sow the seeds and plow those fields, the trucks that transport that food etc. The machines of production as James Connolly put it, and in more modern terms, commercial property (property used for business, stuff that produces, machines, factories farmland etc.). I by no means said anything to the effect of getting provided for regardless of contribution, that was based off of your poor per-conceived notions. A common slogan among the leftist is, to each according to his labor. Basically, you only get from society, what you contribute (hoarding and lording property over productive people is not contributing to society btw).
Take a workers cooperative for an example. This is a business that is run, and owned collectively, and democratically by everyone who works for the cooperative. Also, since the workers are the shareholders, the profits are paid in dividends to the workers who produced for the company, rather than someone who simply owns it. Technically speaking, most, if not all, cooperative economics are socialist, not capitalist.
Clearly, I have to explain Thomas Paine to you (most people recognize the man who helped in the American revolution, with his pamphlet, common sense) He never said you have no right to your house. You have right over your house because you occupy it, not because you own it. Same way a tenant should have right to their house or whatever over their landlord who makes money for simply owning the lot.
Um, no, a tenant enters into a legal agreement with their landlord to occupy the building in exchange for money, with stipulations. You're suggesting that because you can't rip out the carpet you lack basic freedom? You can file a violation with the U.N. council on human rights but honestly it doesn't keep me up at night. This is pointless, I'm arguing reality against your fantasy. If your solution was actually applied it would involve government confiscation of property from people that it deems are not contributing to the collective. If that sounds like a dreamy happy goodtimes society, that's fine, but to me THAT'S tyranny. And I know who fuckin Thomas Paine is.
Not often will you find an American who is obviously conservative, and very defensive about capitalism, to the point of absurdity, and take shots at Thomas Paine (usually because they haven't read his agrarian justice).
contracts are enforced through the state, and can't exist in the absence of the state. Private property rights can only be protected through either contracts enforced by the state, or by threat of violence, especially in the case of rent, interest and profit "interest, rent, and profit; that these three constitute the trinity of usury, and are simply different methods of levying tribute for the use of capital; that, capital being simply stored-up labor which has already received its pay in full, its use ought to be gratuitous, on the principle that labor is the only basis of price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact, and nothing more; that the only reason why the banker, the stockholder, the landlord, the manufacturer, and the merchant are able to exact usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege." (Benjamin Tucker)
I start to characterize something as the point of absurdity, when they don't use logical arguments to defend something, but instead resort to character attacks, and start talking of logic and reason without actually using logic and reasoning. so, will we get back to the debate? or is this just going to turn into an annoying poo flinging fest?
oh man...you gotta read it. stunning from start to finish. if you haven't the time to read it, i suggest the 1984 version of the film starring John Hurt. it is about as true as possible an interpretation.
Too bad it's not that good a movie. It touches on the themes of the book, but it's too rushed. Maybe I was disappointed because I saw it right after reading the book for the second time and 1984 is just so good.
Let's see... Since 9/11, the following events have slowly eroded our freedoms- Passing of the PATRIOT act, Profiling of American Muslims, Spying on dissenters, Essential nullification of the right to privacy (4th amendment) Assassination of Americans abroad, Almost passing SOPA and PIPA, And passing NDAA, which effectively declares the right to a public and speedy trial null and void. (6th amendment)