Why Socialism (and Communism) Fails and why our society is being destroyed

People like change (when it appears to be fixing problems), they are just so misinformed they often go the wrong way.

And yet there will still be "hardcore socialists" and such that exist, would they be "forced" to conform with the Anarcho-Capitalist population?, because that would contradict the "agreement" of both parties agreeing.

 

But who would prevent them from forcing their beliefs onto others, as if everyone is entitled to freedom, there would be no need for policemen?

Would that mean euthanasia is legal if both parties agree or would basic laws still apply?

 

Does communism not work in your head though? I mean, it sounds like a perfect idea to me.



And if you read this sythe, please check emails for blocked ip's..thanks if you do.

 

Wouldn't all the big Corporations for example Coca Cola own ALL the market share and therefore remove all competition from Australia, leaving many out of work and With Coca Cola or some other company on a pedestool means that they have power, so therefore they govern us in some way or another.

Also, Voluntary Taxation would NOT work, if people had a choice they wouldn't pay taxes. There'd be one person in Northern Territory that pays his taxes because he didnt hear about the abolishment of Government.

PS do you mean Government in general, or just the State Government?

You would find unwilling, poor parents not being able to teach their children anything needed for later life, in conjunction to not being able to pay for private schooling. Potentially capable students would not have the opportunity to flourish the intellectual ability they deserve. For example, I wouldn't have been educated. My parents can't afford a private school and they certainly don't know enough to teach me themselves.

Certain points of Anarcho-Capitalism do make sense, for instance the abolishment of public transport, though a radial change in Australia's political stance would be disastrous. We can't even figure out whether we want to still be in the Commonwealth or not!

Humans don't agree. They aren't supposed to. What would happen If someone didn't agree with the court? or are they FORCED to obey. For example like Socialism, with their Free Market "Necessary evil" rubbish.

 

Why don't monopolies form in free market, after all they aren't constrained..

"We" as in the voting peoples of Australia who elected in a referendum in 1999 or thereabouts that they wanted to still be linked to the United Kingdoms monarchy.

What exactly is your perception of the "average Australian".. they would not pay voluntary taxes. What area exactly do you live in Australia, they must be a caring bunch. All Australians care about are themselves. any voluntary taxation would only occur towards certain "charities". Lots of important charities would miss out on all important funding and eventually close. To give you an idea of Australian funding, a Red cross spokesman came to our school to explain what the red cross door knock appeal involved. He explained it clearly and logically, and it really was for a good cause. 7 out of 1200 people committed [sp?] themselves to an hour or two of doorknocking to raise money for the needy. "WE i.e. the average human being" would not go out of our way to support charities, whether taxless or not.

In reference to your last point, There would be no gaols for the "criminals to inhabit" as it would detract from the freedom aspect?

 

Democracy, America

 

Do you even understand what we are talking about here?

 

Sythe your thoughts on Communism and Socialism seem to be misguided by the media.....

 

What the - he has cited no sources from the mainstream media. All he has done is use logic, pure logic.

 

But if you look at the facts, the socialist goverment would be perfect.....
Also, Money is evil....people will do anything if you have the right price... All you do in Captialism is work until you cant then you sit in a retirement home until you die.....

 

Unsubstantiated assertion. Please back that up.

Money exists as paper and information on a bank database. It is not evil in itself.

ALL people will do ANYTHING for the right price? Are you completely sure of that?

You have a terribly flawed idea of capitalism. Capitalism is individual freedom, and a free market. It in no way entails that you work as a wage slave.

 

Communism destroys personal incentive. If I'm getting paid the same as Gary and I'm making three teapots per day and he's making two, why should I keep working?

The government also disbands monopolies.

Three words. COMMUNISM ALWAYS FAILS. It cannot succeed because no one has civic virtue enough to work when they can get the same shoes as the man who doesn't work. Rather than raising everyone up it lowers everyone. If you had the choice you would pick capitalism every day. Communist peons are robots, not people. Communist countries always fall apart due to insubstantial national guard as well as insufficient trade materials.

Agreed. Many get along on only inheritance and/or the stock market.

 

Before i reply:
*i'm a fiscal conservative and social liberal (=moderate) living in middle class U.S.*
*i am NOT NOT NOT NOT supporting communism/socialism, it/they is/are retarded"

I went through my communist phase. yeah, so did every high schooler who reads books. but then, and here's the thing. i went through my libertarian ultracapitalist phase. then i left it also!


and theres the problem. its not the ideology, its the extremism. you say it yourself, "anarchic libertarianism".

so wait: its naive to believe in the human good and say, through communism, that everyone will help eachother.
...
but its not naive to believe in the human good in a governmentless society, in which one malefactor could do grave damage to a fragile state?

doesnt make sense to me.*


no offense, but you sound like every fiscal conservative ever. you would, as i like to put it, reduce capitol punishment and abortion arguments to supply and demand in an argument if people allowed you. the problem is the base of your flawed logic, that government is a product of economics.

read hobbes! social contract ring a bell? the formation of government is a product of safety and protection of property, not a product of the opposite!(your supposed evil taxes). taxation is necessary to the protection of a perpetually inperfect state. just like communism, you see utopia as a logical next step (marx is grinning in his grave), when in reality its a pipe dream. its the exact same thing with a different development stage. perfect society based on the accountability of humanity. it wont happen. as such, government is necessary.

<dramatic pause>

the problem is that government oversteps its original boundaries.**

</dramatic pause>

Goverment is bound by purpose and existence to care for its citizens. but not to force it upon them:

health care:
subsidize health care costs at differing depending on ecomonic standing.

Taxes:
our current (USA) economic makeup would lead to absolute disaster with the introduction of a flat tax. "soaking the rich" however, is just as bad.

on things like gun control, abortion, and other things, states rights come into play and on both i believe in moderate regulation if not illegality/legality.





in short, i simply want you to know that extremism is a bad idea no matter what way you look at it. also, too often your side's ideology is drawn off flawed basic principles. everytime you treat humanity and its individuals as businesses, you express a shocking ignorance of what is right in front of you. we are not put on this earth to make money.



*(forgive the frankness). the natural argument to the point i made(the one you made more than once in this thread already), that institutions like the police and courts would spring up as indepent businesses and achieve self regulation through competiton... is a crock of shit. because guess what would happen? one day a clerk would ask the judge in the business, if maybe they join with a police company to streamline productivity. and then they would begin to beat out and take over competitors. and join other businesses. and soon a board of directors would be elected. and a presiding(where have we seen that prefix before?) general officiator would be elected. and suddenly, government is born.




**personally i find it hilarious that the same people who want government out of our lives, are against abortion.

 

I have not agreed to any social contract other than to refrain from initiation of aggression against others.

Arguing from the Utilitarian standard is flawed, as it does not stress the logic of the theories, but rather, the end results. My aim is not the society that produces the most good for its members, but the most logical society.

 

well, sorry then:




(am i taking an extreme? yes. but saying you seek the most logical society over the one that does the best for its members is... unenlightened? stupid? elitist and cruel?)


oh, and regarding the rest of your post, the social contact doesn't actually exist. Hobbes may have believed it did, but the cavemen never got together and decided to protect themselves in exchange for a lack of rights. it serves, however, as a poignant example of the correct and factual origin of government, that of protection of property, over sythe's definition.