[Abood]

Can you refute the point?

Are you fucking serious? Look back at what you're saying before claiming that it's a "point" that needs to be "refuted".

You didn't even back shit up about your "argument" for anyone to even give a fuck about it--nevermind refute it!

[HoniSoit: Please be respectful toward fellow members]

[NYYS]

You didn't even back shit up about your "argument" for anyone to even give a fuck about it

Yes, but how many people are going to want to spend 8-12 additional years of schooling (which is extremely stressful) to do it? Not many.

No shit. Which means that people will base their career choices not on what produces the most value for society (And therefore more reward) but on what is easiest and most entertaining. You're going to have a lot of movie critics, that's for sure.

My argument is fairly clear, Abood. Even you should be able to follow it. With no reward, who is going to take on the additional stress, difficulty, and risk in becoming a doctor or any other skilled profession? People who really want to be a doctor, and even they will have a hard time making that decision when they understand the stress and long hours involved in the profession.

What you would have to do to ensure that you have an appropriate supply of doctors and lawyers is force people into careers, but without a state (in anarchy) you will have a difficult time with that, unless we adopt Iceberg Slim's thuggish "we'll beat you up" approach.

You would also likely suffer from "Brain Drain," the "brains" of your society leaving to more economically stable countries - you'd have to close your borders to avoid that, but again, going to be tough with no borders and no state.

[Abood]

You need to back up your argument that it is natural not to work unless it benefits oneself, and that it is a static, inherent feature of human nature that cannot be changed.

[Iceberg Slim]

What makes you think I don't want them to? It'd be great if all humans were naturally altruistic.

Actually according to evolutionary psychologists altruism is one of our basic instincts.

No, but certain chemicals are released which reinforce us positively or negatively based on decisions we make. Self-interest is a natural reaction to those chemicals.

Not only is this statement bordering on nonsensical it's no where near biologically accurate.

Unless of course you're still in nappies - in that case I'm sure it would be considered the best crap since the "Tao of Pooh".

Show me the web sites, then, that will inform me of how communism allows everyone to live as if they were extremely wealthy. Seriously, I really would love to see someone proving that we all can have the nicest stuff.

Since you're unfamiliar with what they are allow me to explain it to you:

There's something called a "search engine" that allows you to look for "information" on this big thing called the "internet" by using a "web browser".

Historically we have seen that any implementation of Marxist theory leads to poverty for everyone, not wealth.

I agree.

Orthodox Marxism will never lead to Communism.

Look, I predicted something, it can still obviously be wrong, like much of what you have said here.

I predict that your prediction of my prediction being wrong to be wrong.

Still want to play this game sonny?

Uh, nope. But I can make a far more educated and likely hypothesis as to what would happen if communism were implemented on a large scale, based on historical evidence, knowledge of human nature, and understanding of basic economic concepts. If you are going to predict something you have to give reasons as to why it would work. So far I have not seen any sound reasoning as to why communism would work, just the assumption that it will.

A more accurate statement would be: "I can make a uninformed hypothesis based on historical evidence of everything but Communism in practise, an ignorant understanding of "human nature" and a rudimentary understanding of economics that don't apply to the topic."

At that point you would win the blue ribbon.

No shit.

"No shit" is a way of metaphorically saying that you "already knew" the information I corrected you on.

If that's the case then why did you bother to provide the false material in the first place?

Because you're lying of course.

At least you have some semblance of how difficult it would be to totally change human nature.

The greatest minds today still can't agree on precisely what "human nature" actually yet you seem to be "in the know".

I suppose this time you "saw it in the stars".

Even you should be able to follow it. With no reward, who is going to take on the additional stress, difficulty, and risk in becoming a doctor or any other skilled profession?

People that are the exact opposite of you.

And I can't wait.

[NYYS]

Actually according to evolutionary psychologists altruism is one of our basic instincts.

Yes, but it doesn't override self-interest. Simply look at the percentages of money people give to charity vs. the percentage they keep for themselves, that should give you a good idea - people are willing to help others, but not at the expense of their own lives.

There's something called a "search engine" that allows you to look for "information" on this big thing called the "internet" by using a "web browser".

Searched, came up with a bunch of garbage about liberating the workers... nothing anywhere says that everyone gets to live as if they were extremely wealthy. Enlighten me.

"No shit" is a way of metaphorically saying that you "already knew" the information I corrected you on.

Do you know what that information was? Let me remind you:

Therefore subsequently there can be no tangible "reward".

No reward. Which is the problem with your entire society.

People that are the exact opposite of you.

Of which there aren't many. Hell, look at some voting data - the number one thing people vote by is how much money they get if a certain party wins. Self-interest, surprise.

And I can't wait.

Don't hold your breath. Your communist/anarchist revolution is a futile exercise. It will never happen outside of small communes.

You need to back up your argument that it is natural not to work unless it benefits oneself, and that it is a static, inherent feature of human nature that cannot be changed.

Oh, Abood I have all of history to draw on. I can point out that every case of socialism has reverted to capitalism. I can point out voting data, I can point out giving to charity. I can point to basic economics, supply and demand of the labor market. What do you have? Simply the assertion that people will act differently than they have for a long, long time so that you don't have to have a boss.

[Iceberg Slim]

Yes, but it doesn't override self-interest. Simply look at the percentages of money people give to charity vs. the percentage they keep for themselves, that should give you a good idea - people are willing to help others, but not at the expense of their own lives.

You're confused again.

There is no such thing as a "self interest" instinct.

It's simple make believe

Searched, came up with a bunch of garbage about liberating the workers... nothing anywhere says that everyone gets to live as if they were extremely wealthy. Enlighten me.

Keep trying bubby - maybe one day you will figure it out.

Remember when I said this:

You don't understand "my" kind of Communism or any kind of Communism for that matter.

And it's not my job to teach you about it. This ain't a university and I'm not your professor.

I meant it homes.

No reward. Which is the problem with your entire society.

Says you.

So what?

Of which there aren't many.

Since I can't read the minds (the genie of the lamp hard at work for you I suppose) of the billions of people on the planet as you obviously can so I wouldn't even poke at a guess of the exact numbers.

I'm fairly certain you're way off base though - as usual.

Hell, look at some voting data - the number one thing people vote by is how much money they get if a certain party wins. Self-interest, surprise.

A thin correlation to what you think your "point" is - actually let me correct myself; no correlation.

It will never happen outside of small communes.

Here's that damn genie again.

Oh, Abood Roll eyes I have all of history to draw on. I can point out that every case of socialism has reverted to capitalism.

Agreed, all of socialism does indeed revert back to Capitalism.

That's why Communists are beginning to scrap that crapola and get right to the good stuff.

If you any clue at all about what you're talking about you would already know that.

[NYYS]

You're confused again.

There is no such thing as a "self interest" instinct.

It's simple make believe

Source this claim. Give me examples where people on a wide scale have given up their wealth so that everyone can live at the same level as them, and it hasn't reverted back to capitalism.

And it's not my job to teach you about it. This ain't a university and I'm not your professor.

But it is your job to source your claims with examples, studies, heck, at this point I'd even take anecdotal evidence from you. Better than nothing, as they say.

You expect everyone to just take your claim that everyone gets all the nicest stuff with no questions at all? Of course not. You're going to have to explain, in terms of economics, how everyone gets the plasma tv, everyone gets the porsche, everyone gets the swimming pool, and everyone gets the mansion. You have claimed you know the way to do this (and the rest of society doesn't, somehow), now you need to back it up with evidence.

Says you.

So what?

Do you really think that this makes a compelling argument?

Since I can't read the minds (the genie of the lamp hard at work for you I suppose) of the billions of people on the planet as you obviously can so I wouldn't even poke at a guess of the exact numbers.

No, but I can look at past and current evidence - none of which shows people gladly giving up all their wealth and asking nothing in return.

A thin correlation to what you think your "point" is - actually let me correct myself; no correlation.

You really can't see the correlation there? Uh, ok. Think about it this way: If people were naturally inclined to give up all their wealth so that everyone might be equal to them people (in the US, at least) would vote consistently Democrat (regardless of income) until the nation got farther and farther left. But, since people are not naturally inclined to do that, we see everyone voting for the party that advocates them having more money; the poor vote Democrat, since they favor taking the money away from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. The rich vote Republican, since they favor letting the wealthy keep their money. People vote based on what lets them keep the most money - not based on altruism. Do you really think that these same people are going to decide that they suddenly want none of their own money.


Let's just go over your argument briefly:
Communism is great

> No, it isn't, and this is why

Yes it is

> Explain why it is then

I'm not going to explain it to you

> Why not, evidence X here shows that communism is not great and will not work

How do you know it won't work? Do you have a genie?

> How do you know it will work? You don't have evidence, give us some to explain why it will work

I'm not going to explain it to you

etc.

Bravo, sir, you have discovered the worst debate tactic in history. Might I also suggest adding "that's just your opinion," "i am rubber you are glue," and "nuh-uh" to your repertoire of cunning counter-points.

[Iceberg Slim]

Source this claim. Give me examples where people on a wide scale have given up their wealth so that everyone can live at the same level as them, and it hasn't reverted back to capitalism.

Sorry jack, the burden of proof lies with the cat making the initial claim - especially when it's a claim that is both unconventional unsupported by current science.

The truth is you simply made it up in a vain attempt to prove your "point".

But it is your job to source your claims with examples, studies, heck, at this point I'd even take anecdotal evidence from you. Better than nothing, as they say

Says who?

The Internet police?

u're going to have to explain, in terms of economics,

Why would I bother using Capitalist economics to explain something that won't be using it?

Get it yet?

how everyone gets the plasma tv, everyone gets the porsche, everyone gets the swimming pool, and everyone gets the mansion. You have claimed you know the way to do this (and the rest of society doesn't, somehow), now you need to back it up with evidence.

These of course are your words, not mine.

What else are you going to conjure up?

Everyone gets their own Boeing 747?

You really can't see the correlation there?

The only thing I see is your extreme confusion and I see it all the time.

[NYYS]

Sorry jack, the burden of proof lies with the cat making the initial claim - especially when it's a claim that is both unconventional unsupported by current science.

You made the initial claim! You said that people will change from what they are doing now and have always been doing. The burden of proof lies with you.

Says who?

The Internet police?

More prize-winning debate tactics I see.

Why would I bother using Capitalist economics to explain something that won't be using it?

Get it yet?

Ah, so economics is "capitalist." Right.

Fine, explain how you will eliminate scarcity.

These of course are your words, not mine.

What else are you going to conjure up?

Everyone gets their own Boeing 747?

Nope. Need I remind you how we got to this part of the conversation:

Yeah, sounds great except for the part that I'll have no money and no way to get more. I like 42" Plasma TV's. I like nice cars. I like a big house. I like a swimming pool. How do I get those things?

You do realise that money does not exist in a Communist society right?


Of course you don't.

I like these things too - and now we wouldn't have to "pay" for them.

You just can't comprehend that can you?

[quote=I"]If you have discovered a way to provide everyone in society with all of these things you need to write your local political representative right now and tell him, because you absolutely are one of the top five most important human beings in history.
[/quote]

You are now faced with two choices: Either admit communism ends up putting a ceiling on achievement or somehow explain how we get all of these things.

In capitalism I could buy a 747.

[Abood]

I have all of history to draw on. I can point out that every case of socialism has reverted to capitalism. I can point out voting data, I can point out giving to charity. I can point to basic economics, supply and demand of the labor market. What do you have? Simply the assertion that people will act differently than they have for a long, long time so that you don't have to have a boss.

That's all bullshit.

First, the only type of socialism I approve of is the anarchist communes in Spain, which were destroyed due to sectarianism. It had nothing to do with people being lazy.

Second, voting data doesn't mean shit. There are loads of factors that come into play. For example, propaganda, funding, etc.

Third, I assert nothing. I'm not like you; making assertions with nothing to back up but ridiculous statements that you don't even stop to think about. All I say is that there's hope. Further, I'm not saying the entire world is gonna transform into anarchy, nor do I know that. All I do is work with what I have and try to change what I can.

[ThereBeDragons]

You are now faced with two choices: Either admit communism ends up putting a ceiling on achievement or somehow explain how we get all of these things.

In capitalism I could buy a 747.

So does capitalism in a democracy. In an (unorganized) anarchy I could shoot my neighbor, under a dictatorship I could run a country, and under unregulated capitalist democracy I could vote a dozen times.

Shame capitalism doesn't let me do these things.

[NYYS]

Second, voting data doesn't mean shit.

If people were naturally in favor of giving up everything they have so others can be better off they would not vote for the party that advocates them having money, or advocates their social beliefs, or advocates their type of government. People vote based on self-interest.

For example, propaganda, funding, etc.

No, that's why ass-backwards parties like Socialist and American Communists or whatever garbage don't get votes. No one supports them, therefore they have no money, therefore they don't win. As far as Democrat vs. Republican it is pretty even.

You can argue whatever conspiracy "zomg propaganda is why we don't live under anarchy!1!1!" bullshit you want. It's stupid, but knock yourself out.

I'm not like you; making assertions with nothing to back up but ridiculous statements that you don't even stop to think about.

Nothing I have said is untrue. Would you like me to pull the voting data? Or percentage charitable giving (probably not, Americans give the most and I imagine that doesn't mesh with the world view you've developed for yourself)? You'll note I am the only one in this thread who has presented any evidence at all. I am the only one who has given historical examples or pointed out how things don't meet with economic reality.

All I do is work with what I have and try to change what I can.

Enjoy trying to convince the wealthy to give up their money.

[Abood]

That's fucking silly. You really can't be serious...

Voting data can change through time. No one party is in power forever. There are many reasons for that, and one of those is propaganda. If you're gonna argue that propaganda has no power whatsoever, you seriously gotta present some data.

One example of propaganda working really well is the prelude to the war in Iraq. Bush really convinced the American public that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Whether Bush knew he didn't or not is irrelevant, but the fact remains that he used that to convince the Americans that it is for their best security interests that the US invades Iraq. Had Bush not had the argument of WMD's, people would've rejected the whole war. No one gives a damn about spreading democracy in some place tens of thousands of miles away.

Or percentage charitable giving

Why are you talking about the entire issue as if it's a static thing? Charity reflects the sense of unity and obligation people have towards others. If people didn't give charity, it means that they're individualistic and just don't give a damn about other people. But that doesn't mean people are inherently individualistic. If you wanna argue that, you gotta present data for a period of.. I dunno... thousands of years... and actually have scientific predictions that those are in no way going to change.

As I said, this is silly. I'm not even gonna argue with you because you seriously have no idea what you're talking about. The fields of sociology and media studies are so wide and diverse, and what you're doing is claiming that they're just useless... why do we need those fields if Mr. NYYS, who has never done anything relating to those fields, knows all about them?

Enjoy trying to convince the wealthy to give up their money.

People never convinced slave-owners to give up slavery. Nor did they convince tyrants to step down.

An enemy is fought against; not convinced.

[NYYS]

Why are you talking about the entire issue as if it's a static thing? Charity reflects the sense of unity and obligation people have towards others. If people didn't give charity, it means that they're individualistic and just don't give a damn about other people. But that doesn't mean people are inherently individualistic. If you wanna argue that, you gotta present data for a period of.. I dunno... thousands of years... and actually have scientific predictions that those are in no way going to change.

Of course these things aren't static. However, they have never fallen to the side that you're arguing. At no point in American history (or even world history, that I know of outside of small communes and enclaves) have people decided to give all of their wealth away.

One example of propaganda working really well is the prelude to the war in Iraq. Bush really convinced the American public that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Whether Bush knew he didn't or not is irrelevant, but the fact remains that he used that to convince the Americans that it is for their best security interests that the US invades Iraq. Had Bush not had the argument of WMD's, people would've rejected the whole war. No one gives a damn about spreading democracy in some place tens of thousands of miles away.

The hell are you talking about?

The fields of sociology and media studies are so wide and diverse, and what you're doing is claiming that they're just useless... why do we need those fields if Mr. NYYS, who has never done anything relating to those fields, knows all about them?

1) Where did I say they were useless?
2) Where did I say that I have never done anything in relation to those fields?
3) Where did I say I knew everything about these fields?

People never convinced slave-owners to give up slavery. Nor did they convince tyrants to step down.

An enemy is fought against; not convinced.

Of course, take others' property by force, the standard fall-back. "I want what you have, give it to me nooooow."

On that topic, I've always wondered how you people expect the great revolution to happen. Especially when you have the most capable elements of society opposing you.

[Iceberg Slim]

You made the initial claim! You said that people will change from what they are doing now and have always been doing. The burden of proof lies with you.

Are you being severely obtuse on purpose to me or are you truly this thick?

The "burden of proof" that we are talking about is your claim that a human beings have a "self interest instinct".

You said:

Yes, but it doesn't override self-interest

Then I said:

There is no such thing as a "self interest" instinct.

It's simple make believe

Then you said:

Source this claim

Then I said:

Sorry jack, the burden of proof lies with the cat making the initial claim - especially when it's a claim that is both unconventional unsupported by current science.

This is where you get confused (a normal trend) and say:

You made the initial claim![that there is a self interest instinct in humans]

If you're still confused after this then you should probably never leave the house without wearing a helmet.

Ah, so economics is "capitalist." Right.

No, economics as it applies to capitalism is capitalist.

Fine, explain how you will eliminate scarcity.

Scarcity is a capitalist economical theory to represent the claim that people will eventually "want" more than is produced.

It's not applicable in a Communist society.

You are now faced with two choices: Either admit communism ends up putting a ceiling on achievement or somehow explain how we get all of these things.

I'll take the third choice: refer you over to a remedial class in Communism and chuckle at your constant confusion.

Enjoy trying to convince the wealthy to give up their money.

We're not going to try to "convince" them son, we're just going to abolishthe concept all together.

After that their cash will be as useful to them as Thurston Howell's was to him on the island.

[NYYS]

Are you being severely obtuse on purpose to me or are you truly this thick?

The "burden of proof" that we are talking about is your claim that a human beings have a "self interest instinct".

Uh, no. Not at all. I sourced what I said. I pointed to various data that is widely available to show strong trends of self-interest in society.

Your response was basically "nuh-uh"

Scarcity is a capitalist economical theory to represent the claim that people will eventually "want" more than is produced.

No, scarcity means that there is a limited supply of goods and services to fulfill wants and needs. Your assertion implies that all people want is what they need, which obviously is not the case. It implies that no one would ever want scarce goods, like TVs, cars, houses, private jets, etc.

We're not going to try to "convince" them son, we're just going to abolishthe concept all together.

And if someone says, "nah, I'm going to hang on to all my stuff," then what? Then you'll take it from them by force, like the good little rebels you are.

[Iceberg Slim]

Uh, no. Not at all. I sourced what I said. I pointed to various data that is widely available to show strong trends of self-interest in society.

Your response was basically "nuh-uh"

Not exactly.

My response was that your assertion that there is a "self interest" instinct was complete make believe.

And it is precisely that.

Outside of your own mind there is simply no such thing.

No, scarcity means that there is a limited supply of goods and services to fulfill wants and needs. Your assertion implies that all people want is what they need, which obviously is not the case. It implies that no one would ever want scarce goods, like TVs, cars, houses, private jets, etc.

I know you're having trouble wrapping your little head around it but what you just said was:

People want more than what is being produced; which is exactly what I said in the first place.

And if someone says, "nah, I'm going to hang on to all my stuff," then what? Then you'll take it from them by force, like the good little rebels you are.

How can you possibly get this confused all the time?

We were not talking about people's "stuff" we were talking about people giving up their money.

Have you already forgotten that you just said this in you very last post:

Enjoy trying to convince the wealthy to give up their money.

Bold added.

I'm done correcting your constant confusion. Unless you begin rereading your own posts and at least try to keep yourself from getting confused I'm simply not going to reply to these confused remarks any longer.

Talking with you is as frustrating as trying to teach physics
to a toddler.

[NYYS]

My response was that your assertion that there is a "self interest" instinct was complete make believe.

And it is precisely that.

Outside of your own mind there is simply no such thing.

Source. You can't just say "that's not true" and leave it. Give me examples of when we have seen people on a large scale give up their quality of life for an extended period of time. I have given examples of when they haven't; when they have chosen to keep their property - those examples are numerous.

People want more than what is being produced; which is exactly what I said in the first place.

Yes...? And that is what scarcity is. If you agree to that then how come you are arguing that we all can fulfill our wants, when we clearly cannot? Scarcity exists, and is the reason why your pipe dream of letting everyone fulfill their wants is out of the realm of realistic expectations.

We were not talking about people's "stuff" we were talking about people giving up their money.

Money is a means to get stuff, I'm using the terms interchangeably because they are very closely related. If you make people give up their money they have no way to get that new TV, new car, etc. (stuff) and fulfill their wants.

Talking with you is as frustrating as trying to teach physics
to a toddler.

really? have you done it?

[Iceberg Slim]

Source. You can't just say "that's not true" and leave it. Give me examples of when we have seen people on a large scale give up their quality of life for an extended period of time.

But you can say "it's true" and leave it?

Right.

Look son, once you provide scientific evidence that's supported by the main body of scientists I will play along.

That means:

A) your word ain't gonna cut it.

B) The word of some quack that's scoffed by the majority of scientists ain't gonna cut it.

Once you can do that I will then produce real science that refutes your "unique" perspective.

To paraphrase Tommy Chong:

I hope your not busy for the rest of your life man!

I have given examples of when they haven't; when they have chosen to keep their property - those examples are numerous.

Call them what you want but the reality is that your "examples" are nothing more that your subjective interpretation of sociological phenomenon - a subjective interpretation that I not only reject but also laugh heartily at.

If you don't like it then tough titty!

Yes...? And that is what scarcity is. If you agree to that then how come you are arguing that we all can fulfill our wants, when we clearly cannot?

Because I'm arguing about a future society where scarcity is not relevant dipshit!

Scarcity exists

Only in Capitalism as I have told you over and over again.- I already warned you about this so that's it, kid:

We're done.

[NYYS]

To paraphrase Tommy Chong:

Really? You're going to prove your point with Tommy Chong? That's a new angle...

But you can say "it's true" and leave it?

No, but I can point out where it has held true - you cannot do the same.

Call them what you want but the reality is that your "examples" are nothing more that your subjective interpretation of sociological phenomenon

Not really subjective at all. People have never lowered their quality of life so that everyone else can have the same quality of life. Never happened for an extended period of time. Not once. Nada.

Because I'm arguing about a future society where scarcity is not relevant dipshit!

technocracy? Or magical communism?

Only in Capitalism as I have told you over and over again.

You can tell me as much as you like, it doesn't make you any less wrong. From wikipedia: scarcity is defined as the condition of human wants and needs exceeding production possibilities.

To eliminate scarcity you have to either decrease human wants and needs (once again magically changing human nature), probably starting with wants (ie you can't have that TV any more, of course that doesn't remove the want for the TV, just the ability to get the TV) or increase production possibilities, which is going to be tough given the well-documented limitations of communist production.

So forgive me for laughing when you say that scarcity will not exist in communism.