RIP School Survival Forums
August 2001 - June 2017

The School Survival Forums are permanently retired. If you need help with quitting school, unsupportive parents or anything else, there is a list of resources on the Help Page.

If you want to write about your experiences in school, you can write on our blog.

To everyone who joined these forums at some point, and got discouraged by the negativity and left after a while (or even got literally scared off): I'm sorry.

I wasn't good enough at encouraging people to be kinder, and removing people who refuse to be kind. Encouraging people is hard, and removing people creates conflict, and I hate conflict... so that's why I wasn't better at it.

I was a very, very sensitive teen. The atmosphere of this forum as it is now, if it had existed in 1996, would probably have upset me far more than it would have helped.

I can handle quite a lot of negativity and even abuse now, but that isn't the point. I want to help people. I want to help the people who need it the most, and I want to help people like the 1996 version of me.

I'm still figuring out the best way to do that, but as it is now, these forums are doing more harm than good, and I can't keep running them.

Thank you to the few people who have tried to understand my point of view so far. I really, really appreciate you guys. You are beautiful people.

Everyone else: If after everything I've said so far, you still don't understand my motivations, I think it's unlikely that you will. We're just too different. Maybe someday in the future it might make sense, but until then, there's no point in arguing about it. I don't have the time or the energy for arguing anymore. I will focus my time and energy on people who support me, and those who need help.

-SoulRiser

The forums are mostly read-only and are in a maintenance/testing phase, before being permanently archived. Please use this time to get the contact details of people you'd like to keep in touch with. My contact details are here.

Please do not make a mirror copy of the forums in their current state - things will still change, and some people have requested to be able to edit or delete some of their personal info.


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
America in my eyes...
Author Message
Vatman Offline
Foreplay in Ink

Posts: 2,701
Joined: Feb 2007
Thanks: 2
Given 98 thank(s) in 67 post(s)
Post: #1
America in my eyes...

Our country was founded on capitalistic and democratic ideals. And I support government as it should ideally be run. I just simply cannot stand what government has become and its future in the hands of the mob.

Before I continue explaining my point of view, let me first define a few words I intend to use consistently throughout this rant.

Capitalism is an economic and ideological system that promotes a survival of the fittest mentality. A mentality in which you are rewarded and equally in contrast, punished, for your actions. You reap what you sow.

Democracy is the pooling of all members of society on deciding issue's concerning all.

Idealism/ideology/ideal = An ideal is the unbiased idea of something. For example, if I were to flip a coin a hundred times, my ideal result would be that it would land 50 times as head and 50 times as tails. Naturally the odds of it actually doing so is next to impossible. But it illustrates my point beautifully. It is the unbiased logical point of view of something, without the handicaps of human error or very plainly, the random nature of this universe.

Now to the good stuff. My beef with the country.

We don't have a democracy. First off, we have a Representative government. Does anyone else see a paradox? We have a government where the senate, congress and the judicial branches make our decisions for us. The decisions are not being made by us but by these men that we "elect"

Anyone here ever have a discussion with a congressmen over lunch? Does anyone even know what their congressmen stands for? Yes, some do. On average only 19% of eligible voters actually participate in Representative elections. Do you honestly think 19% of your population represents your district entirely?

...I am becoming to frustrated to write about this little tidbit of my argument any longer, so I am moving on.

Presidential elections. What the fuck? I went to McCain's website, searched for two hours, I have no idea what he represents. Obama isn't any better either. But it isn't their fault, picking a clear stance is stupid for a presidential candidate, if you say you hate stem cell research, then all the people who do support it, will simply not vote for you. Enough people talk about corporate interference...I won't get into that.

Capitalism is a contradiction to the nature of democracy in that, if a few people work hard and use their intelligence and their business savvy to get to a point financially where they honestly don't know what to do with all their money. Well then, by the nature of capitalism, they deserve it. The problem with this is, less than one percent of the population consists of these people. And the other 99% don't do quite as well. A good portion do so poorly that they constantly struggle to survive. What do we do with them? An idealistic capitalistic society would let those people starve to death. But that contradicts what a democracy would do, because those people have a say in government, those people can take money without working.

Do you see a problem? We base our government, no, our lives, on two ideals that directly contradict one another.

to be continued......

Some cupid kills with arrows, some with traps.
10-26-2008 04:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
John Tuttle Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,665
Joined: May 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 5 thank(s) in 5 post(s)
Post: #2
Re: America in my eyes...

This is kind of random, but I think that the electoral peoples per state should be winner-take all, like how if you win Ohio by 51% then you get all the votes for Ohio.

[Image: funny-gifs-wax-on-wax-owl.gif]
10-26-2008 04:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Darthmat Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 10,661
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 41 thank(s) in 35 post(s)
Post: #3
Re: America in my eyes...

John Tuttle: That's retarded. People should be elected by popular vote, anything else is dumb.

And I agree with Vatman in the sense that true capitalism can not exist with a government, as they will (and do) put rules on the market.

I highly suggest Mobb Deep's albums The Infamous and Hell on Earth, if you have not listened to it yet.
10-26-2008 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Anti-Freedom Offline
Rebel

Posts: 17
Joined: Oct 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #4
Re: America in my eyes...

Honestly, I have never seen anything as evil as our Government. The endless wars in the name of peace, the forced poverty in the name of economic stability, the supension of liberties in order to preserve them....

Anyone else notice a contradiction?

And why would anyone want Pure Capitalism?
10-26-2008 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #5
Re: America in my eyes...

Vatman Wrote:What do we do with them? An idealistic capitalistic society would let those people starve to death.
An idealistic capitalist society would have enough volutnary charity to support them.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
10-26-2008 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
John Tuttle Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 2,665
Joined: May 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 5 thank(s) in 5 post(s)
Post: #6
Re: America in my eyes...

W-Dog32 Wrote:
Batman Wrote:What do we do with them? An idealistic capitalistic society would let those people starve to death.
An idealistic capitalist society would have enough volutnary charity to support them.
qft

[Image: funny-gifs-wax-on-wax-owl.gif]
10-26-2008 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lucie Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 175
Joined: Aug 2008
Thanks: 0
Given 1 thank(s) in 1 post(s)
Post: #7
Re: America in my eyes...

America in my eyes is facist.

Fuck McCain
10-27-2008 05:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #8
Re: America in my eyes...

Lucie Wrote:America in my eyes is facist.
Actually it's a representative democracy.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
10-28-2008 08:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebelnerd Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,781
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 0
Given 113 thank(s) in 97 post(s)
Post: #9
Re: America in my eyes...

W-Dog32 Wrote:An idealistic capitalist society would have enough volutnary charity to support them.
any society that has to rely on the kindness of billionaires is inherently flawed. the thing is, the kind of people who can fight their way to the top of the corporate ladder generally aren't the kind who would just give away their wealth for the good of others. sure there are exceptions, but even the most altruistic CEOs, who give away up to half their wealth, keep enough for themselves (much of which they never even use) that society is still stacked in their favor.

I think Buenaventura Durruti is a pretty cool guy. eh kills fascists and doesnt afraid of ruins.
The quickest way to kill a revolution is to wait for it.
10-28-2008 08:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheDelinquent Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #10
Re: America in my eyes...

I'm reminded of Shakespeare's "a rose by any other name" line when you define capitalism. Thank you for defining it, however, if you hadn't we'd have spent who knows how long misunderstanding everybody's personal definitions of connotatively abused anti-concepts.

Question: If in capitalism, "you reap what you sow", why reward or punish anyone?
Question: If in capitalism, there is a survival of the fittest mentality, why does this necessarily ENTAIL the extinction of the not-quite-as-fit?
Question: If in capitalism, the hard-working intelligent adventurist is the one who secures property and profit, why are property rights transferable through lineage like we're living in the economic equivalent of a clan society? Maybe it's some sort of a gene gamble. "Well, if his Dad was an entrepreneurial sort of guy, who are we bet otherwise?"

Democracy as an ideal of "all having a say in what affects all" is very noble sounding, but at the same time quite rare. What affects all of us? Climate change, agriculture, and supervolcanoes, that's about it.
What about the things that affect some of us, some of the time? Rape, abortion, taxes, marriage, money, murder, verbal abuse, school, work, drug laws. Can it really be said that murder affects us, other than tangentially? It's almost safe to say that if you're reading this, you can't have been affected, because you're still alive. Perhaps we should extend our concept of democracy to include "some having a say in what affects some", or even more radically "an individual having a say in what affects that individual".
But then again, we'd cheapen the word by applying it loosely.

We'd have to invent a new word for "X and only X having a say in what affects X". To me, that word is liberty. When the subject and object in a statement on applying authority are the same entity.

Gang rape is democratic. So was Socrates' execution. So if we can all agree that this conception of democracy ("A-Z having a say in what affects X") is undesirable, we can put it behind us as Plato's "mad beast" democracy, and search for whatever dignity might exist within or beside the word besides that.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/why_become.html
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
10-28-2008 12:53 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Puchiko Offline
Pariah

Posts: 704
Joined: Dec 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 15 thank(s) in 11 post(s)
Post: #11
Re: America in my eyes...

john tuttle Wrote:This is kind of random, but I think that the electoral peoples per state should be winner-take all, like how if you win Ohio by 51% then you get all the votes for Ohio.
And ignore the wishes of the 49% who voted for the other dude? Cuckoo

TheDelinquent Wrote:We'd have to invent a new word for "X and only X having a say in what affects X". To me, that word is liberty. When the subject and object in a statement on applying authority are the same entity.

Gang rape is democratic. So was Socrates' execution. So if we can all agree that this conception of democracy ("A-Z having a say in what affects X") is undesirable, we can put it behind us as Plato's "mad beast" democracy, and search for whatever dignity might exist within or beside the word besides that.
This reminds me of the quote:
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner." - James Bovard
Your idea isn't bullet proof though. Yes, in the case of gang rape, the victim is affected by it the most. But you can't deny the rapists are also going to be affected, they will receive pleasure/thrill/feeling of power from it, if the act takes place, and not if it doesn't. So, since it concerns them, according to you they should have a say (and I'm fairly confident as to what their decision will be). That brings us back to the wolf and sheep problem really. You can't say the wolves won't be affected by eating or not eating the sheep, albeit less than the sheep itself.

Don't take life so seriously, it isn't permanent.
10-29-2008 04:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #12
Re: America in my eyes...

Rebelnerd Wrote:
W-Dog32 Wrote:An idealistic capitalist society would have enough volutnary charity to support them.
any society that has to rely on the kindness of billionaires is inherently flawed. the thing is, the kind of people who can fight their way to the top of the corporate ladder generally aren't the kind who would just give away their wealth for the good of others. sure there are exceptions, but even the most altruistic CEOs, who give away up to half their wealth, keep enough for themselves (much of which they never even use) that society is still stacked in their favor.
I don't care. You can't make people give their wealth, that is inherently anti-freedom. That is against all that I believe, all that I've known. If I was a CEO making 50 million a year I hopefully give 49 million of it away, and if Bob McBillionaire over there doesn't give his away I may not like it but I won't make him do what I do.

You don't make people do things, you just don't. Have you not seen what doing this has got us into?

Delinquent Wrote:Question: If in capitalism, "you reap what you sow", why reward or punish anyone?
You don't have to since the system, the natural capitalist order that falls into place, usually does that for you. If you invest all your money in Al'Queda Tacos and All-American Burritos runs it out of business you lose your money. Thus you reap what you sow. Of course, that saying is a piece of general advice and doesn't just apply to capitalism.
Quote:Question: If in capitalism, there is a survival of the fittest mentality, why does this necessarily ENTAIL the extinction of the not-quite-as-fit?
It doesn't. It just means that Johnny won't get to be CEO of Money Corp, while his friend Joe will. That is because Johnny just isn't quite good enough for the job, but Joe is. That doesn't mean Johnny doesn't have a nice job, it just means Joe has a nicer one.
Quote:Question: If in capitalism, the hard-working intelligent adventurist is the one who secures property and profit, why are property rights transferable through lineage like we're living in the economic equivalent of a clan society? Maybe it's some sort of a gene gamble. "Well, if his Dad was an entrepreneurial sort of guy, who are we bet otherwise?"
Here's how it works: The person who has the money writes a will before he dies, and his money is given to whoever he wants it to be given to. That's totally fair. Just because usually the person chooses to give it to his children(I would if I had kids) doesn't mean everyone does. I have no moral quarrel with this, and even if I did I have right to force another to conform to my outlook on life.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
10-29-2008 07:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebelnerd Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,781
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 0
Given 113 thank(s) in 97 post(s)
Post: #13
Re: America in my eyes...

W-Dog32 Wrote:I don't care. You can't make people give their wealth, that is inherently anti-freedom. That is against all that I believe, all that I've known. If I was a CEO making 50 million a year I hopefully give 49 million of it away, and if Bob McBillionaire over there doesn't give his away I may not like it but I won't make him do what I do.
Wealth is power. People who have enormous wealth therefore have enourmous power. This power can be used to restrict the rights of others. Making them give some of it away ensures that they can't do this.
How can you say that it's anti-freedom to take power from people who have to much? It makes no sense whatsoever. How is taking money from a multi-billionaire and giving it to poor people any different from overthrowing a dictator and replacing him with democracy? Extreme wealth is a loophole that allows people to ascend to a position of power without dealing with those pesky elections and political process. For freedom's sake, it needs to be closed. It's pure hypocrisy to call yourself pro-freedom and then say that a tiny minority of rich people should be given free reign to do what they want with the people of this country just so that their economic rights aren't infringed.

I think Buenaventura Durruti is a pretty cool guy. eh kills fascists and doesnt afraid of ruins.
The quickest way to kill a revolution is to wait for it.
10-29-2008 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheDelinquent Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #14
Re: America in my eyes...

W-Dog32 Wrote:
Delinquent Wrote:Question: If in capitalism, "you reap what you sow", why reward or punish anyone?
You don't have to since the system, the natural capitalist order that falls into place, usually does that for you. If you invest all your money in Al'Queda Tacos and All-American Burritos runs it out of business you lose your money. Thus you reap what you sow. Of course, that saying is a piece of general advice and doesn't just apply to capitalism.
Well since capitalism involves the extraction of usury, it can't be true. If I develop an organic vegetable garden and quite literally "reap what I sow", then there's no third party between me and the product of my labor. If I'm working for an organic vegetable company, however, I've got to give it up to someone else in return for "credit" to buy my own food elsewhere. ie, money.
W-Dog32 Wrote:
Delinquent Wrote:Question: If in capitalism, there is a survival of the fittest mentality, why does this necessarily ENTAIL the extinction of the not-quite-as-fit?
It doesn't. It just means that Johnny won't get to be CEO of Money Corp, while his friend Joe will. That is because Johnny just isn't quite good enough for the job, but Joe is. That doesn't mean Johnny doesn't have a nice job, it just means Joe has a nicer one.
Life sure sucks for Al'Queda tacos, though.
W-Dog32 Wrote:
Delinquent Wrote:Question: If in capitalism, the hard-working intelligent adventurist is the one who secures property and profit, why are property rights transferable through lineage like we're living in the economic equivalent of a clan society? Maybe it's some sort of a gene gamble. "Well, if his Dad was an entrepreneurial sort of guy, who are we bet otherwise?"
Here's how it works: The person who has the money writes a will before he dies, and his money is given to whoever he wants it to be given to. That's totally fair. Just because usually the person chooses to give it to his children(I would if I had kids) doesn't mean everyone does. I have no moral quarrel with this, and even if I did I have right to force another to conform to my outlook on life.
Okay, fair enough. How's that any better? How's that any less of a "get-out-of-work-free card" for whoever winds up with the economic credit for some other dead dude's work? And more than just legal value is transferred like this. Property, actual value, is transferred. Whole empires of ownership are inherited. That's not free trade, that's a free pass.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/why_become.html
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
10-30-2008 08:49 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheDelinquent Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #15
Re: America in my eyes...

Puchiko Wrote:Yes, in the case of gang rape, the victim is affected by it the most. But you can't deny the rapists are also going to be affected, they will receive pleasure/thrill/feeling of power from it, if the act takes place, and not if it doesn't. So, since it concerns them, according to you they should have a say (and I'm fairly confident as to what their decision will be). That brings us back to the wolf and sheep problem really. You can't say the wolves won't be affected by eating or not eating the sheep, albeit less than the sheep itself.

I don't deny that the rapists are going to be affected by the process of deciding whether to act, but they won't be affected by the action on the condition that action does not occur. By "have a say", what I really mean is "loneliness upon request". Emma Goldman's "freedom from", or negative freedom, as it's variously been called.
An action is no longer an action when it's not happening, so it's inaccurate to say that the action of NOT raping someone would affect anyone. The action of rape involves at least two people, if after consulting all those hypothetically affected people, any do not want to participate, it would be bad, injust, illiberal, and authoritarian for any other participating or nonparticipating person to force them to.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/why_become.html
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
10-30-2008 09:06 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #16
Re: America in my eyes...

Rebelnerd Wrote:*walloftext*
They can't do what they want with the people because they can't own the people. They can only own things, and as I've said before those things cannot be used to harm people. Sure they can buy a bunch of crap? How does that equate to real governmental power? It doesn't. Never will.
Oh,and it isn't just their rights. It is our rights. It is the struggle of all humans to break these chains that have binded us for so damn long, and too deny a man his just desserts just because he's too "powerful"(when that power only exists to large degrees in the current system) is totally against it.


TheDelinquent Wrote:Well since capitalism involves the extraction of usury, it can't be true. If I develop an organic vegetable garden and quite literally "reap what I sow", then there's no third party between me and the product of my labor. If I'm working for an organic vegetable company, however, I've got to give it up to someone else in return for "credit" to buy my own food elsewhere. ie, money.
Most likely you used the company's land, so they get part of it.
Delinquent Wrote:Life sure sucks for Al'Queda tacos, though.
That's their fault. I'm not against giving the employees some private charity to get them back on their feet though.
Delinquent Wrote:Okay, fair enough. How's that any better? How's that any less of a "get-out-of-work-free card" for whoever winds up with the economic credit for some other dead dude's work? And more than just legal value is transferred like this. Property, actual value, is transferred. Whole empires of ownership are inherited. That's not free trade, that's a free pass.
I'm not nat against free passes if the giving of that pass was voluntary.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
10-30-2008 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheDelinquent Offline
Revolutionary

Posts: 169
Joined: Sep 2007
Thanks: 0
Given 0 thank(s) in 0 post(s)
Post: #17
Re: America in my eyes...

"Most likely you used the company's land, so they get part of it."

How is it their land? What claim have they to land? If all the most commonly given justifications for original property hold true, it is through the 'mixing of labor with natural resource', or some such juice.
Well how is it THEIR land when it's my labor and my product being the only things entering into the question?

"That's their fault. I'm not against giving the employees some private charity to get them back on their feet though."

What I was trying to do here was point out that you cannot argue simultaneously that capitalism does not make inferior competition extinct in one example, while in another, reference one business putting another out of business.

"I'm not against free passes if the giving of that pass was voluntary."

The question is not whether the giving of the pass was voluntary, but whether the pass itself undermines the integrity of voluntarism as a whole. Inheritance as it exists in this example is twofold - monetary credit toward the luxuries/necessities of life for the inheritor, and actual property able to afford those luxuries directly. If 20% of the people control 80% of the wealth, those 20%'s children and friends will be less pressed to produce things as there is less incentive to produce when they can use inherited credit to receive things without contributing something of equal value to society. That would be a good thing but for the fact that production is a zero-sum game. What others don't contribute, someone else will have to, or there will be less and less of it to go around. And when the 20% control the 80% in actual property - land and capital - it makes it pretty unfair to the lower classes of society. Not just from an equality of outcome perspective (which is warped and I oppose it), but from an equality of oppurtunity perspective.

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/why_become.html
http://www.seesharppress.com/anarchismwhatis.html
10-30-2008 12:16 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebelnerd Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,781
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 0
Given 113 thank(s) in 97 post(s)
Post: #18
Re: America in my eyes...

W-Dog32 Wrote:They can't do what they want with the people because they can't own the people. They can only own things, and as I've said before those things cannot be used to harm people. Sure they can buy a bunch of crap? How does that equate to real governmental power? It doesn't. Never will.
Oh,and it isn't just their rights. It is our rights. It is the struggle of all humans to break these chains that have binded us for so damn long, and too deny a man his just desserts just because he's too "powerful"(when that power only exists to large degrees in the current system) is totally against it.

well, yes, actually they can own the people. if the people are dirt-poor and you're super rich, and you're the only one who'll hire them, then they're completely dependent on you and you essentially do control what happens to them. look what happened in the late 1800s, workers were treated like garbage by the rich (robber barons/captains of industry depending on which side you're on). they did dangerous, grueling labor for ridiculously low pay simply because the trusts and monopolies (which are inevitable in unregulated capitalism) gave them no alternative. companies sent kids into the cotton mills as cleaners where they'd be dismembered by flying machinary, coal miners were given no protection against what they breathed in, mercenaries were hired to massacre anyone who dared protest what the corporations were doing. how in the fuck do you call that freedom?

we can argue all day over how what constitutes "governmental" power vs. "economic" power, and which is preferable, but this really comes down to one simple question: does freedom include the freedom to rule others? i say absolutely not. for some reason you seem to see it the other way. how can you blast the corrupt government and defend a corrupt CEO, when both are after the same thing?

I think Buenaventura Durruti is a pretty cool guy. eh kills fascists and doesnt afraid of ruins.
The quickest way to kill a revolution is to wait for it.
10-31-2008 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thewake Offline
Unconstructive

Posts: 5,917
Joined: Jun 2007
Thanks: 78
Given 296 thank(s) in 201 post(s)
Post: #19
Re: America in my eyes...

Rebelnerd: I'll blast both of them, but I'll only take action against one.
That is because the corrupt government came about their power through force, while others voluntarily gave the CEO power. And the Industrial Revolution was created because of government interference. If an entire country(namely England) has been under the thumb of mercantilism for many hundreds of years and is suddely let go what do you expect to happen? Yes the industrialists did bad things, but does that call for government intervention? No, it calls for unionization of workers. Wil lthe workers get fired? In the infancy of the movement they would?
Oh, and mercenaries are a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom. Look it up sometime.

The failures of the Industrial Revolution were not a result of capitalism, which is merely freedom at its finest, but rather tha failures of the people in capitalism and the blind eye the government turned to the breaking of the Non-Aggression Axiom.

Delinquent:
I have no qualms with 20% of the people owning 80% of the wealth. I also have no qualms with people owning land.
You cannot make an argument for many of the people who own land that they should own it, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Should we redistribute the land? No. You kind of have to let things sort themselves out sometimes.

[Image: nAOqYk7.png]

[Image: USVWSwj.png]
10-31-2008 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebelnerd Offline
Fanatic

Posts: 8,781
Joined: Aug 2005
Thanks: 0
Given 113 thank(s) in 97 post(s)
Post: #20
Re: America in my eyes...

W-Dog32 Wrote:Rebelnerd: I'll blast both of them, but I'll only take action against one.
That is because the corrupt government came about their power through force, while others voluntarily gave the CEO power.
not really. the problems is that corporate execs can rise to power without any political safeguards at all, at least politicions have to pretend to care about the people so they can get elected. someone who owns a company can leave it to a family member when they die and the employees really can't do anything. how is this any different from a monarch passing his empire down to his son? capitalism was founded on good ideas but, like communism ironically, it was eventually perverted by people's endless quest for power.

Quote: Yes the industrialists did bad things, but does that call for government intervention? No, it calls for unionization of workers. Wil lthe workers get fired? In the infancy of the movement they would?
this i agree with you on. I'd much rather have the limits on business come from the workers rather than the government. the problem is that the largest companies which make the most money (wal-mart, for example) go to great lengths to suppress any attempts at unionization, even going to far as to install surveillance cameras and watchmen to identify potential troublemakers and fire them. in the future i'd love to see corporations become completely democratic, in which case i'd agree with you 100% that the government should stay out. but in the meantime, someone needs to step in and even the odds a little just to give the workers a chance. and right now the government seems like the only faction with the influence to do that. i don't like it, but in the short run it's the lesser of two evils.

Quote:The failures of the Industrial Revolution were not a result of capitalism, which is merely freedom at its finest, but rather tha failures of the people in capitalism and the blind eye the government turned to the breaking of the Non-Aggression Axiom.

that same argument could be used to defend communism, saying that the ideology was sound, it was just a few bad apples like Stalin and Mao who twisted it for their own gain. you can't just lay all the blame on the individuals and ignore the system that allowed them to do it. if a political or economic plan can do nothing to stop these kinds of people, then it's not a good one.

I think Buenaventura Durruti is a pretty cool guy. eh kills fascists and doesnt afraid of ruins.
The quickest way to kill a revolution is to wait for it.
11-01-2008 05:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Anarchists rage your eyes out. HeartofShadows 32 4,243 10-23-2010 05:11 AM
Last Post: The Desert Fox

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | School Survival | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication