Americans are mindless robots under capitalism

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

It can be done and Lamar flirts with the solution it has to do with trade, bartering and ideas unfortunately we can't seriously discuss solutions here.

You aint lying.... you cant even discuss wallyism here without being threatned with a ban...

but change for the better is happening, sooner or later, there will be an alternate to the dollar and many people who never had an opprotunity to do anything because of white supremecist capitalism will find more opportunity in the more evolved system.... it wont be perfect but it will be better..


Can you imagine if Qaddafi pulled off the Dinar and Africans started trading in that, and not have to deal with economic hits from western countries..??

that shit wouldve sent the whole western world into turmoil.. a free and independent Africa is the destruction of western civilazation as we know it...

most americans have no idea how important it is for capitalism to get Qaddafi.. the funny shit is, nobody is asking why do we give a fuck about Qaddafi, when south africa was treating its black populations much worse under apartheid, and not one bomb was dropped by nato.. pw botha and deklerk shouldve both been hung like saddam..

and chased down like they are doing Qaddafi... but white supremecy protects its own...

I digress the citiznes need to lay down our own corporate free fiber optic lines and control are own mediums but we think we are too powerless to do it...

if folks can throw money and diseases that aint never going to be cured, we can throw money at projects that will benefit us, free from corporate tryanny...

we need our own tele thons....

 

[nittie]

You can discuss the solutions here. You simply haven't done so.

Nor have you answered how people would get food, water, shelter, or education for "free." Dude if you can't answer it just say so.

No one is going to give you the solution to getting food, shelter, or education for free you are going to have to figure that out for yourself. You are the reason we can't seriously discuss solutions here too many geniuses trying to get something for nothing.

 

[BrainChild09]

You aint lying.... you cant even discuss wallyism here without being threatned with a ban...

but change for the better is happening, sooner or later, there will be an alternate to the dollar and many people who never had an opprotunity to do anything because of white supremecist capitalism will find more opportunity in the more evolved system.... it wont be perfect but it will be better..


Can you imagine if Qaddafi pulled off the Dinar and Africans started trading in that, and not have to deal with economic hits from western countries..??

that shit wouldve sent the whole western world into turmoil.. a free and independent Africa is the destruction of western civilazation as we know it...

most americans have no idea how important it is for capitalism to get Qaddafi.. the funny shit is, nobody is asking why do we give a fuck about Qaddafi, when south africa was treating its black populations much worse under apartheid, and not one bomb was dropped by nato.. pw botha and deklerk shouldve both been hung like saddam..

and chased down like they are doing Qaddafi... but white supremecy protects its own...

I digress the citiznes need to lay down our own corporate free fiber optic lines and control are own mediums but we think we are too powerless to do it...

if folks can throw money and diseases that aint never going to be cured, we can throw money at projects that will benefit us, free from corporate tryanny...

we need our own tele thons....

In this post you seem to more so be speaking against the world as it currently is. You point out corruption that exists & that is obviously wrong. Our government and governments all across the world are indeed corrupt, deceitful, and doing more harm than good to the majority of its citizens. I also agree that things such as the war on Libya or Americans being forced to use the dollar (the government making it illegal to use other currencies for trade) severely hurt people here & abroad.

I also agree that the black community needs to become more self-sufficient & do "throw money at projects that will benefit us" so to speak. But how do these views demonstrate that capitalism in itself is the same as slavery & how does it demonstrate how people get "everything for free" as you say they should be?

 

[BrainChild09]

No one is going to give you the solution to getting food, shelter, or education for free you are going to have to figure that out for yourself. You are the reason we can't seriously discuss solutions here too many geniuses trying to get something for nothing.

Still can't answer the question. I don't believe people can get food, shelter, or education in the form we currently consume these things for free i.e. without costs. You suggested that they can & that they should. You my friend have for two days now been unable to answer this question. Trying to diss me isn't fooling anyone reading this thread. You don't know how. It's painfully obvious & there's more than the people who've posted in this thread that see that you & the others have no answer.

I've explained my stance (without compensation I may add). You aren't even willing or able to counter it. What have I done to keep you from discussing a solution? You haven't even attempted to. Then you chide me by claiming I'm trying to get something for nothing? Lol. Isn't that the definition of getting something for "free." That's what you're for. I'm just asking for some free education my man. I mean it's like you said right, what other species has to pay for education???

 

[BrainChild09]

Brainchild I grew frustrated like I'm sure you did when you were trying to explain how these guys make no sense. They feel giving no explanation at all excuses their points. The absence of contrary evidence won't make your point any more valid then freddygoodbud comes through and comes up with this fictional system that in fact will end up being a system.

It's like people who hate political parties say we should get rid of them but people will end up with like ideas and forming a group which is exactly what a political party is. There will be a system regardless of some sort.

I appreciate what you posted Brainchild and wish you could have done it face to face because maybe it would hit home. But then again these guys sound like the type who are going to be against everything by theory just to do so.

Thanks bruh. I agree with you about the face to face thing. By this discussion taking place on a forum they can continue to avoid answering what I'm asking them without it seeming as blatantly obvious that they don't have a well thought out answer. But it still is blatantly obvious & I'm glad you (and others who I'm sure been reading this thread but not posted in it) have realized it.

 

[Cruise]

When did I EVER say that the State provided these things. I described how people acquire these things & you seem to be stuck on calling that the State. To this point I still don't know why you think I believe that the State provides any of these things. This entire time I've been talking about how people acquire these things and it never involved the State. Please show me where I said the State provides these things.

& after you do that, describe a better way for people to acquire these things different from the way I said PEOPLE (not the State) provide these things for themselves.

Finally understand this. If you did actually ever answer that question, me doing what you did would be like me then out of no where calling that "Introduction to the State Manifesto." You'd be wondering "what the hell?" "When did I ever say something about the State?"

When you use the terms of the state (e.g. cost and labor (capital-ism), free (commun-ism), education (social-ism), consumers (consumer-ism)) you are using State terms.

Whether you realized it or not, the very way you frame the question is to advocate for State control.

It's like asking do I want a lot or a little without offering any other alternative. And, when I said a lot or a little are unacceptable, you cry that the question is not being answered. That is because you are asking the wrong question.

Your whole position is just a series of apologies for State action.

The State does not create land, so who are they to charge for it?
The State does not create water, so who are they to charge for it?
The State does not create oil, trees, nor soil, so who are they to charge for it?

In your world, everything has a cost that requires a price. But who decides that? Is it the State?

Society needs not cost, price, work, labor, or any other State-control mechanism. These are fictions of the State system, to control and manipulate society. What society deems necessary to be done, will be done. There is no need for coercion, manipulation, nor violent force.

For some reason, you refuse to accept that your definition of work, cost, price, and free is useless outside of the State.

 

[BrainChild09]

When you use the terms of the state (e.g. cost and labor (capital-ism), free (commun-ism), education (social-ism), consumers (consumer-ism)) you are using State terms.

Whether you realized it or not, the very way you frame the question is to advocate for State control.

It's like asking do I want a lot or a little without offering any other alternative. And, when I said a lot or a little are unacceptable, you cry that the question is not being answered. That is because you are asking the wrong question.

Your whole position is just a series of apologies for State action.

The State does not create land, so who are they to charge for it?
The State does not create water, so who are they to charge for it?
The State does not create oil, trees, nor soil, so who are they to charge for it?

In your world, everything has a cost that requires a price. But who decides that? Is it the State?

Society needs not cost, price, work, labor, or any other State-control mechanism. These are fictions of the State system, to control and manipulate society. What society deems necessary to be done, will be done. There is no need for coercion, manipulation, nor violent force.

For some reason, you refuse to accept that your definition of work, cost, price, and free is useless outside of the State.

So any word I use you label as a product of the State and from there dismiss anything I've said. Do you not realize that this nonsensical argument you're trying to make can be flipped right back at you? I can just as easily say every word you use, "coercion", "manipulation", "violent force" are products of the State. Now you're a State agent & because of this you can't understand what I'm saying so I will continue to not describe or explain how any of this will come about. I'll just say "society" (which some other perosn playing the same lame game could label as a State term) will work it out.

You say that the way I frame the question advocates for State control. How? Tell me the link between the State, which I believe we now agree is the government (or something like it i.e. any group that uses force/violence or the threat thereof against individuals or other groups in order to accomplish its goals), and me saying that in order to have food in the way we consume it, someone has to do some work.

I provided a definition of the word "work." Exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something. Do you deny that even this very activity, regardless of what you call it, must take place in order for people to have anything?

You say I refuse to accept that the definition of these things are useless outside of the State. Explain, using non-State words if you like, how society provides these things for themselves. I've stated a number of times now that I don't think the State provides these things. Also, why do you say that the State charges for all the things you listed? I certainly have said that they do or that I think it should.

I don't even think you're an anarchist to be honest. You're just a confused guy without a shred of substance to back up your supposed philosophy. You're shaming people who really do know something about & support anarchy. You still haven't answered the how. You keep saying society will provide what it needs. I agree with this & haven't at all disputed it. But simply saying they'll provide it doesn't explain how. I gave a how & explained it. You say I used terms that somehow advocate for the State. I don't agree but again I say fine. Now provide your explanation.

Nothing comes from nothing. People still have to do something. It's almost like me telling another person, "You don't have to scramble eggs in order to eat eggs." Then the person says "well how else can I eat eggs?" & my response is "You don't have to scramble them." In this example I'd be correct that eggs don't have to be scrambled to be eaten but I still haven't answered there question at all. Even this example gives what you've done too much credit because I wouldn't have accused the person of being a cannibal for scrambling eggs (you know, attaching a label to them that has no logical connection with what they do or have indicated they believe) & the statment I would have made about there being other ways to eat eggs is one I would be prepared to explain.

 

[Cruise]

So any word I use you label as a product of the State and from there dismiss anything I've said. Do you not realize that this nonsensical argument you're trying to make can be flipped right back at you? I can just as easily say every word you use, "coercion", "manipulation", "violent force" are products of the State. Now you're a State agent & because of this you can't understand what I'm saying so I will continue to not describe or explain how any of this will come about. I'll just say "society" (which some other perosn playing the same lame game could label as a State term) will work it out.

Society is the answer to the absence of the State. That is the natural state of mankind and how man has existed since his beginning. There is no structure to society other than what society chooses to be most appropriate for that time. Since no one is coerced into doing anything they don't want to do, society can always find the fastest, most efficient, and practical way to accomplish any goal they find necessary at any given time.

Why is this so hard for you to accept. Are you so married to the State that you cannot consider any possibility outside of it?

Personally, I think you want someone to hold your hand through the process of the end of State control, because you are scared. Without the State apparatus, you can't get on your high horse and act like you are better than everyone else, just because the State says so.

In society, everyone carries their weight as far as they want. What business is it of yours how society functions, unless you are trying to create another State apparatus to control society. That seems exactly like your intention. To control society, in your own personal State system.

But, for the State-leech, who "works" for a living, they believe it means they are better than everyone else, with their "education" at State-run schools, eating their State-regulated "food" in their State-controlled "shelter" purchased with their State-issued credit. OOOhhhh, look at me, I'm better than you, the State says I "work" for a living.

You say that the way I frame the question advocates for State control. How? Tell me the link between the State, which I believe we now agree is the government (or something like it i.e. any group that uses force/violence or the threat thereof against individuals or other groups in order to accomplish its goals), and me saying that in order to have food in the way we consume it, someone has to do some work.

I provided a definition of the word "work." Exertion or effort directed to produce or accomplish something. Do you deny that even this very activity, regardless of what you call it, must take place in order for people to have anything?

Why are you so fixated on the word "work" when I already showed that your definition is ridiculous. It encompasses immoral activity (in your own words), destructive activity, and wasteful activity.

In society, there is no "work" by your definition so your question is irrelevant.

Your definitoin of work allows bankers, soldiers, politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, and military contractors to thrive. Their whole purpose is to destroy society, which means "work" in your world means the State.

You say I refuse to accept that the definition of these things are useless outside of the State. Explain, using non-State words if you like, how society provides these things for themselves. I've stated a number of times now that I don't think the State provides these things. Also, why do you say that the State charges for all the things you listed? I certainly have said that they do or that I think it should.

Didn't I explain that. If I like to fish, is that work? If I like to hunt, is that work? If I like to make clothes, is that work? If I like to invent, is that work?
In your world, if I like to murder, that is work. If I like to play games, that is work. If I like to steal from people, that is work.

Your definiton of work is so ridiculously vague, as to be a useless definition for anything other than advocacy of State control.

If you didn't make it, who are you to charge for it? According to the State, they can (fines, regulations, taxes, duties, charges, permits, penalties, assessments, and on and on).

I don't even think you're an anarchist to be honest. You're just a confused guy without a shred of substance to back up your supposed philosophy. You're shaming people who really do know something about & support anarchy. You still haven't answered the how. You keep saying society will provide what it needs. I agree with this & haven't at all disputed it. But simply saying they'll provide it doesn't explain how. I gave a how & explained it. You say I used terms that somehow advocate for the State. I don't agree but again I say fine. Now provide your explanation.

This is my problem with your type. You want to order everyone around and act like YOU get to decide who is what and when and how.

That is the thinking of the State agent. But, your thinking is so dominated by State control, you cannot see how dependent you are on it.

You are right, I am not an anarchist. That is your label. I do not support any formal structure of anarchy or those who purport to decide who is or is not an anarchist.

You want a formal structure of society and for someone to tell you what that is. In other words, you want the State.

No matter what explanation I provide, you try to turn it into some form of the State. What can I say?

Your statements are typical of those who say they want freedom but just want the State under a different name.

 

[QueEx]

Cruise, your self-definition of "ism" is just that, yours. There are all kinds of isms that have nothing at all to do with the state. There is one ism that stands out screaming its disagreement with your ism-state nexus, Individualism.

Under your definition, whatever word you affix "ism" to somehow suddenly and magically becomes governmental and, therefore, related to the state. If we followed your view, individualism, which stresses the worth of the individual and the exercise of one's personal goals, desires and independence -- as opposed -- to external interference (by the state) upon one's interest, whether by society, family or any other group or institution (the state), -- is none extant.

We know, however, that individualism exist because it is the very force behind your own choice, as wrong-headed as I believe it is, to advocate the virtual return of man to the state of nature in some anarchistic state. In fact, we also know that individualism is at the very basis of classical liberalism, existentialism and classical libertanism. While the latter "isms" may (and I mean may) have a governmental connection, individualism, in its purest sense, is in fact the antithesis of the state.

Of course, you are free to define any term in any way you like (that, by the way is individualism as well -- and has shit to do with government), but we are likewise free to reject your definitions (that too an exercise of individualism) and search out or adopt diffrerent definitions or concepts.

In my exercise of individualism, I choose to adopt Meriam-Wesbster's definintion of "ism": a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory; an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief, i.e., "we all have got to come to grips with our isms" — Joycelyn Elders. None of these are of-the-state, but, when attached as suffixes to some words, may describe elements of the state -- but the word itself, vel non, is nothing more than the mere expression of whatever belief and individual may have.

Society is the answer to the absence of the State. That is the natural state of mankind and how man has existed since his beginning. There is no structure to society other than what society chooses to be most appropriate for that time. Since no one is coerced into doing anything they don't want to do, society can always find the fastest, most efficient, and practical way to accomplish any goal they find necessary at any given time.

Why is this so hard for you to accept. Are you so married to the State that you cannot consider any possibility outside of it?

I don't know if its hard for BC or anyone else to understand but the way I see it, if you will observe closely what you describe (society coming together to find the fastest, most efficient, and practical way to accomplish any goal they find necessary at any given time), you've done nothing more than describe Locke's version of the state arising from his notion of the social contract, i.e.,

Individuals agreeing to form a state which acts to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it, the legitimacy of which, comes from the citizens delegating to the government the individual right of self-preservation so that the same be exercised for their mutual protection and benefit. In other words, government derives it power from the consent of the governed (the people).​

As you well know, that is largely the concept of the so-called founding fathers of the American form of government. And, it is also essentially what you have laid out just above. Maybe you're not an anarchist after all -- as I never suspected you were. I believe a more accurate description is angry, (probably, with good reason), angry with our station in this country vis-a-vis the racial majority (in essence, the government/state). I think the chick at the beginning of this post shares a bit of that anger, as well. I think we all have varying degrees of that anger -- and we all tend to manage it differently. I'm simply of that school which believes that being angry and/or wanting to give up a struggle that is plainly winnable is untenable.

 

[QueEx]

You aint lying.... you cant even discuss wallyism here without being threatned with a ban...

What the hell is "wallyism" ???

And, who was threatened with a ban for discussing it ???

 

[QueEx]

You most certainly could be right. I was enjoying immensly the good back and forth, point/counter. If you would, give us more on the "better systems".

Thanks.

thats the problem right there, in order for me to really sit and think it out.. to perfection, I need time money and resources..

right now, bills got to be paid.....

capitalism got that matrix working to perfection....!!!

but it can be done!!

Damn, I thought you were on to something already

 

[Cruise]

Cruise, your self-definition of "ism" is just that, yours. There are all kinds of isms that have nothing at all to do with the state. There is one ism that stands out screaming its disagreement with your ism-state nexus, Individualism.

Under your definition, whatever word you affix "ism" to somehow suddenly and magically becomes governmental and, therefore, related to the state. If we followed your view, individualism, which stresses the worth of the individual and the exercise of one's personal goals, desires and independence -- as opposed -- to external interference (by the state) upon one's interest, whether by society, family or any other group or institution (the state), -- is none extant.

We know, however, that individualism exist because it is the very force behind your own choice, as wrong-headed as I believe it is, to advocate the virtual return of man to the state of nature in some anarchistic state. In fact, we also know that individualism is at the very basis of classical liberalism, existentialism and classical libertanism. While the latter "isms" may (and I mean may) have a governmental connection, individualism, in its purest sense, is in fact the antithesis of the state.

Of course, you are free to define any term in any way you like (that, by the way is individualism as well -- and has shit to do with government), but we are likewise free to reject your definitions (that too an exercise of individualism) and search out or adopt diffrerent definitions or concepts.

In my exercise of individualism, I choose to adopt Meriam-Wesbster's definintion of "ism": a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory; an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief, i.e., "we all have got to come to grips with our isms" — Joycelyn Elders. None of these are of-the-state, but, when attached as suffixes to some words, may describe elements of the state -- but the word itself, vel non, is nothing more than the mere expression of whatever belief and individual may have.

So, you agree I am free to define something the way I want and you are free to define it the way you want. That's good.

However, once you get a dictionary to decide what the "real" definition is, and that dictionary is approved by the State, distributed through State channels, subsidized by the State, and promoted by the State, then it ceases to be a free defintion and becomes yet another State brand.

When "individual-ism" or other -isms are discussed, I ask why does it need a name? Why can't we just discuss the ideas behind it instead of making it into some State brand. Your idea of commun-ism is going to be different from one person to the next. The same with any other -ism. So, why use the term? It just causes confusion and division. That is exactly what the State wants.

This way, the State dictates how the -ism is taught in State schools, shown in State media, written in State laws, and enforced in State punishment.

We can discuss ideas. But, the second you start with the -isms, we are speaking the language of the State.

That is not freedom. That is the State.

I don't know if its hard for BC or anyone else to understand but the way I see it, if you will observe closely what you describe (society coming together to find the fastest, most efficient, and practical way to accomplish any goal they find necessary at any given time), you've done nothing more than describe Locke's version of the state arising from his notion of the social contract, i.e.,

Individuals agreeing to form a state which acts to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it, the legitimacy of which, comes from the citizens delegating to the government the individual right of self-preservation so that the same be exercised for their mutual protection and benefit. In other words, government derives it power from the consent of the governed (the people).​

As you well know, that is largely the concept of the so-called founding fathers of the American form of government. And, it is also essentially what you have laid out just above. Maybe you're not an anarchist after all -- as I never suspected you were. I believe a more accurate description is angry, (probably, with good reason), angry with our station in this country vis-a-vis the racial majority (in essence, the government/state). I think the chick at the beginning of this post shares a bit of that anger, as well. I think we all have varying degrees of that anger -- and we all tend to manage it differently. I'm simply of that school which believes that being angry and/or wanting to give up a struggle that is plainly winnable is untenable.

I don't agree with that John Locke BS, and you should know that from my earlier posts.

It is a faulty premise.

States do not form this way. The John Locke explanation is used to 'legitimize" State control by creating the lie of the consent of the governed and the social contract.

Pure garbage. Thomas Paine did an excellent job of debunking this nonsense.

My problem is that so many who claim not to be State agents are really its most ardent supporters, yet act like they are really proponents of freedom and society.

I can tell a State agent simply by the langauge they use (took awhile to develop this skill). Personally, you use the language of the State well, so may I assume you are a State agent?

 

[QueEx]

So, you agree I am free to define something the way I want and you are free to define it the way you want. That's good.

And neither of our mere "opinions" matter.

However, once you get a dictionary to decide what the "real" definition is, and that dictionary is approved by the State, distributed through State channels, subsidized by the State, and promoted by the State, then it ceases to be a free defintion and becomes yet another State brand.

There you go again, torturing statements to pretend they're facts. Stop talking out the side of your neck and show the proof where Merriam-Webster's definition of "ism" was approved by the state.

No more talking; no more bullshit. Just the proof, please.

When "individual-ism" or other -isms are discussed, I ask why does it need a name? Why can't we just discuss the ideas behind it instead of making it into some State brand.

Man GTFOH with these simpleton ass ideas that make no sense. Why did you use words to ask these silly-ass questions??? Because it is through language that we communicate. Hence, things, concepts, ideas and so forth all get names (collectively amounting to a language) so that people can convey, receive and exchange ideas = communicate.

Your idea of commun-ism is going to be different from one person to the next. The same with any other -ism. So, why use the term? It just causes confusion and division. That is exactly what the State wants.

This way, the State dictates how the -ism is taught in State schools, shown in State media, written in State laws, and enforced in State punishment.

We can discuss ideas. But, the second you start with the -isms, we are speaking the language of the State.

That is not freedom. That is the State.

Bruh, if you really believe this stuff, I would respectfully suggest that you stop looking over your shoulder, around corners, under beds, on top of tall buildings and down the drain -- before you piss. This whole notion of the pervasive state that you are creating is abnormal and paraniod.

I don't agree with that John Locke BS, and you should know that from my earlier posts.

It is a faulty premise.

States do not form this way. The John Locke explanation is used to 'legitimize" State control by creating the lie of the consent of the governed and the social contract.

Pure garbage. Thomas Paine did an excellent job of debunking this nonsense.

My problem is that so many who claim not to be State agents are really its most ardent supporters, yet act like they are really proponents of freedom and society.

I can tell a State agent simply by the langauge they use (took awhile to develop this skill). Personally, you use the language of the State well, so may I assume you are a State agent?

I agree, John Locke's theory is just theory -- which is a bit more than I can say about this stuff you're saying. Seriously man, this everybody-who-says-something-different-than-you-is-a-state-agent -- shit is over-the-top !!!

 

[BrainChild09]

Cruise, your self-definition of "ism" is just that, yours. There are all kinds of isms that have nothing at all to do with the state. There is one ism that stands out screaming its disagreement with your ism-state nexus, Individualism.

Under your definition, whatever word you affix "ism" to somehow suddenly and magically becomes governmental and, therefore, related to the state. If we followed your view, individualism, which stresses the worth of the individual and the exercise of one's personal goals, desires and independence -- as opposed -- to external interference (by the state) upon one's interest, whether by society, family or any other group or institution (the state), -- is none extant.

We know, however, that individualism exist because it is the very force behind your own choice, as wrong-headed as I believe it is, to advocate the virtual return of man to the state of nature in some anarchistic state. In fact, we also know that individualism is at the very basis of classical liberalism, existentialism and classical libertanism. While the latter "isms" may (and I mean may) have a governmental connection, individualism, in its purest sense, is in fact the antithesis of the state.

Of course, you are free to define any term in any way you like (that, by the way is individualism as well -- and has shit to do with government), but we are likewise free to reject your definitions (that too an exercise of individualism) and search out or adopt diffrerent definitions or concepts.

In my exercise of individualism, I choose to adopt Meriam-Wesbster's definintion of "ism": a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory; an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief, i.e., "we all have got to come to grips with our isms" — Joycelyn Elders. None of these are of-the-state, but, when attached as suffixes to some words, may describe elements of the state -- but the word itself, vel non, is nothing more than the mere expression of whatever belief and individual may have.




I don't know if its hard for BC or anyone else to understand but the way I see it, if you will observe closely what you describe (society coming together to find the fastest, most efficient, and practical way to accomplish any goal they find necessary at any given time), you've done nothing more than describe Locke's version of the state arising from his notion of the social contract, i.e.,

Individuals agreeing to form a state which acts to protect the lives, liberty, and property of those who lived within it, the legitimacy of which, comes from the citizens delegating to the government the individual right of self-preservation so that the same be exercised for their mutual protection and benefit. In other words, government derives it power from the consent of the governed (the people).​

As you well know, that is largely the concept of the so-called founding fathers of the American form of government. And, it is also essentially what you have laid out just above. Maybe you're not an anarchist after all -- as I never suspected you were. I believe a more accurate description is angry, (probably, with good reason), angry with our station in this country vis-a-vis the racial majority (in essence, the government/state). I think the chick at the beginning of this post shares a bit of that anger, as well. I think we all have varying degrees of that anger -- and we all tend to manage it differently. I'm simply of that school which believes that being angry and/or wanting to give up a struggle that is plainly winnable is untenable.

Well said. But of course it makes no difference, logic & reasoning are tools of the State as far as Cruise is concerned & he won't have any part in being logical. I mean, you can't even use words in accordance with their definition found in a dictionary without advocating for State control, corruption, & violence according to him. As you see, he just hit you with the "State agent" label after this post of yours.

Like you said, he's just angry at white people.

 

[BrainChild09]

And neither of our mere "opinions" matter.



There you go again, torturing statements to pretend they're facts. Stop talking out the side of your neck and show the proof where Merriam-Webster's definition of "ism" was approved by the state.

No more talking; no more bullshit. Just the proof, please.




Man GTFOH with these simpleton ass ideas that make no sense. Why did you use words to ask these silly-ass questions??? Because it is through language that we communicate. Hence, things, concepts, ideas and so forth all get names (collectively amounting to a language) so that people can convey, receive and exchange ideas = communicate.




Bruh, if you really believe this stuff, I would respectfully suggest that you stop looking over your shoulder, around corners, under beds, on top of tall buildings and down the drain -- before you piss. This whole notion of the pervasive state that you are creating is abnormal and paraniod.





I agree, John Locke's theory is just theory -- which is a bit more than I can say about this stuff you're saying. Seriously man, this everybody-who-says-something-different-than-you-is-a-state-agent -- shit is over-the-top !!!

Lol I was wondering if anyone else was going to point out how idiotic this fool has been sounding for the past few days.

 

[nittie]

It's the ism's that make capitalism oppressive. Cronyism, nepotism, racism, the list goes on and on take away the ism's and this system would work for more people.

 

[Lamarr]

It's the ism's that make capitalism oppressive. Cronyism, nepotism, racism, the list goes on and on take away the ism's and this system would work for more people.

So do you advocate less govt intervention or more?

It's not a trick question

 

[nittie]

So do you advocate less govt intervention or more?

It's not a trick question

It might not be a trick question but it's a tricky question. We need more govt intervention but more govt would be the worst thing. Special interest owns the govt there is no way it could intervene without doing more harm to working people. Our only hope is probably to do what the Arabs are doing and take this to the streets but even if we did that special interest would find a way to co-opt the movement. Like I said earlier there is no viable alternative to the status quo at this moment.

 

[BrainChild09]

It's the ism's that make capitalism oppressive. Cronyism, nepotism, racism, the list goes on and on take away the ism's and this system would work for more people.

What does that mean?

 

[nittie]

What does that mean?

It means if we were give equal access to education and environment more people would prosper in this system. As it is people who got lucky at birth are the ones winning while those born into bad families or communities don't do as well. Success in a capitalistic society is about nurturing and access to wealth.

 

[BrainChild09]

It means if we were give equal access to education and environment more people would prosper in this system. As it is people who got lucky at birth are the ones winning while those born into bad families or communities don't do as well. Success in a capitalistic society is about nurturing and access to wealth.

None of this addresses what the original point of contention was, you all's assertion that food, water, shelter, and education can and should be "free" in the form we consume these things today, but fine. I know you won't answer the "how" we would get this stuff for free.

Any things you think should be done to give people equal access to education? Also, when you say equal access do you mean everyone getting the best teachers throughout the country? Everyone going to the best colleges in the country? If so, how can this be done? Should it be done within a mainly capitalist society or would it best be achieved in some other type society?

 

[nittie]

None of this addresses what the original point of contention was, you all's assertion that food, water, shelter, and education can and should be "free" in the form we consume these things today, but fine. I know you won't answer the "how" we would get this stuff for free.

Any things you think should be done to give people equal access to education? Also, when you say equal access do you mean everyone getting the best teachers throughout the country? Everyone going to the best colleges in the country? If so, how can this be done? Should it be done within a mainly capitalist society or would it best be achieved in some other type society?

Would you point out where I or anyone else said anything about getting something free. The woman in the video isn't talking about getting anything free. What she said and I agree with is why are we the only animals that pay for food, shelter and education, shouldn't those things be part of the inalienable rights we are entitled to. I don't believe anything in life is free or that it should be free but there can be a fairer way of distributing the work and profits. As it stands now Business privatizes profits but socializes loss and cost. Getting back to your other question why are there 'best' schools and teachers. We've gone thru Civil war's and Civil rights wars but yet there are still 'best' in this society and the gap between 'best' and 'worst' is widening.

 

[BrainChild09]

Would you point out where I or anyone else said anything about getting something free. The woman in the video isn't talking about getting anything free. Where did you get that impression and why are you the only one harping on it. I don't believe anything in life is free or that it should be free. Getting back to your other question why are there 'best' schools and teachers. We've gone thru Civil war's and Civil rights wars but yet there are still 'best' in this society and the gap between 'best' and 'worst' is widening.

MrFreddyGoodBud (or something like that) said that "everything should/would be free" in the system he supports.

You & Cruise both asked me why should food, water, shelter, and education cost? You also asked "why are we the only species who pays for education" and the other things. The implication of the question is clearly that we shouldn't have to pay for these things. Therefore, the implication is that they should be free. I harp on it because it is how the debate of this thread began & you accused my explanation of why these things have a "cost" to sound like it's straight out of a "Nazi think tank." But you never were able to explain why explanation was actually incorrect nor were you able to present an alternative system where people get these things at "no cost."

There's a number of reasons some schools & teachers are better than others. Some of them are from negative causes that can & should be corrected. Regardless though there is an iron law in human life that there will always be some people better than others in one thing or another. So there will always be some teachers that are better than others. What we want is for there to only be good & hopefully outstanding teachers teaching in schools. That we can achieve.

There are definitely people in this country & throughout the world that are really suffering. We definitely agree on that and are upset by it. I don't think that a system of free market exchange causes suffering. Particularly when contracts are enforced & fraud is prosecuted against, something even most truly small-government advocates consider legitimate roles for government. I do agree with your assessment that special interests (corporations, unions, military contractors, etc.) have hijacked our government. But what do you expect from a government has extend its influence into every corner of the economy & society (as the people have demanded)? Interest groups have been incentivized to lobby the government to interfere with the market on for their benefit, thereby making it no longer a free market.

 

[Lamarr]

We need more govt intervention but more govt would be the worst thing.

Nittie-esque!

Wow............................just, Wow!

 

[QueEx]

Lol !

 

[nittie]

Nittie-esque!

Wow............................just, Wow!

The Unemployment rate for Blacks is about 16%, the Black Middle Class has almost been eliminated you don't think some type of intervention is needed.

 

[MASTERBAKER]

PJTV's ZoNation: Zo Smacks Down Anti-Capitalist, 'YouTube' Liberal


Zo brings you footage of a woman who is upset that she has to work in order to pay her bills. Zo reminds this anti-capitalist liberal that there is no such thing as a free car, or house, or health care.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/c96_1315943217"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/c96_1315943217" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="always" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

SEE MY ORIGINAL THREAD-Americans are mindless robots under capitalism
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=612217