commies

[Captain Red Eye]

"if communism so good why does it never work?"

Your example is a proof that governments are rival gangs, not a proof that "Communism doesn't work because another consent violating gang won't let Communism be successful".

Communism doesn't work for the same reason all of the other political isms don't work.

They all begin with a heinous consent violation and the braindead authority worshipping enforcers of all of them feel justified killing you if you resist. That's criminal behavior if you or I do it. Magically normalized to be "not criminal" when political systems do it. That should get you thinking.

What could work for those of you who want it, is Voluntary Communism. That's where you stop using your consent violating political rapist tactics to gain members and form your Commie associations only with willing and consenting members. Go be a peaceful Commie, with willing people. Why haven't you done that?

The present paradigm political structures, the various "isms", NONE of them are ever going to work since they're all winner take all. That's a guarantee of failure since most people will be dissatisfied having their choices violated. You resist that, I resist that, your political opponents resist that and they should.

The one thing most people agree on is their idea is what they want for themselves.
Right now, the only way to get that is to drag unwilling people into your ideas and hope your idea becomes dominant.

What if that shit stopped? You get more of what you want, and others get more of what they want?

Voluntary Panarchy is a way to do that. It's the most peaceful way for humans to organize.

Co-exist can't be delivered by politics as usual. Literally impossible. Time to evolve!

 

[buzzmobile]

Right now, the only way to get that is to drag unwilling people into your ideas and hope your idea becomes dominant.

What if that shit stopped? You get more of what you want, and others get more of what they want?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

 

[Captain Red Eye]

 

[nepalnt21]

with definitions simplified to the point of uselessness, we can make just about any comparison.

if i had a little bit more weed in my system, i might care to make a clever example.

 

[nepalnt21]

View attachment 19173812

as a fascinating aside, we actually went back into the water at some point in our evolution, and came back out once again (and then whales went back in again)...

also lol @ the meme, it's kinda silly

 

[Captain Red Eye]

with definitions simplified to the point of uselessness, we can make just about any comparison.

if i had a little bit more weed in my system, i might care to make a clever example.

Except, Commies and Fascists both DO think it's okay to force you to embrace their ideas.

Which definitions did the meme abuse?

 

[Cannavore]

 

[buzzmobile]

View attachment 19175024

Gotta start 'em young.

 

[nepalnt21]

Except, Commies and Fascists both DO think it's okay to force you to embrace their ideas.

Which definitions did the meme abuse?

View attachment 19174095

again, when you simplify it so much it ceases to be a definition

 

[Captain Red Eye]

again, when you simplify it so much it ceases to be a definition

Maybe the proper divide is individuals "able to choose" versus individuals "unable to choose"?

My point was, from an operational means used point of view both Communists and Fascists include other people in their ideas and use force to prevent individuals from escaping their ideas.

Both are "systems" that remove individual choice. Any distinctions from a dissenter's point of view might be akin to a slave forced to pick cotton versus a slave forced to harvest tobacco. In either situation there are captives when there shouldn't be.

Since I am an abolitionist and you are not, I can see why you may be confused on the point I made.
Non-abolitionists often overlook violent means in their zeal to force their ideas on people.
Even so-called "libertarian socialists", a clusterfuck of a term, are fine with politically enslaving other people.

At the root of things, people either ARE or ARE NOT forced into other's ideas. In that perspective, it gives crystal clear definition of what really occurs.

 

[nepalnt21]

Since I am an abolitionist and you are not,

why do you have to talk shit? can we keep it civil?

just because your strange idea of simplifying definitions to the point of usefulness didn't land doesn't mean you have to say mean things.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

why do you have to talk shit? can we keep it civil?

just because your strange idea of simplifying definitions to the point of usefulness didn't land doesn't mean you have to say mean things.

If you're voting. you are not an abolitionist. Voting and the present system it reinforces necessarily captures some people and that is not refutable.

You accept that the people you elect will gain the power to remove choices from millions of people.
I was not talking shit, I was being accurate. A Voluntaryist Panarchist by defintion is an Abolitionist.

What did I say that was mean or inaccurate? Did you change your political philosophy overnight and now you eschew forcing your ideas on other people? If so, welcome to the Evolution!

 

[nepalnt21]

If you're voting. you are not an abolitionist.

OHHHH i see, you're doing an equivocation fallacy.

well, i suggest not doing fallacies and that might help.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

OHHHH i see, you're doing an equivocation fallacy.

well, i suggest not doing fallacies and that might help.

Placing a master over people is not the same thing as being an abolitionist. You are not an abolitionist and might be disappointed that I've pointed that out.

By voting you are engaged in selecting a "leader" (master or set of masters) that will be placed over other people.

Which part of the above is inaccurate and why are you having a hard time accepting that you are not an abolitionist? You may want to abolish some things, but if you just replace what others would like to do to you with what you would like to do to them, you are not an abolitionist, you are practicing politics as usual.

I'm sorry, but to be an abolitionist, you would be freeing the slaves, not assigning them your choice of a master.

I suggest you like to think of yourself as an abolitionist. Sometimes I imagine what it would be like to be a Bigfoot, we all have our kinks.

 

[nepalnt21]

You are not an abolitionist and might be disappointed that I've pointed that out.

once again with the lie, you never pointed it out... as i pointed out, you're hinging your argument on a fallacy.

I'm sorry, but to be an abolitionist, you would be freeing the slaves, not assigning them your choice of a master.

here's the main problem, we're not using the same definitions here.

you're making up your own definition for "slave", and i'm using the real definition.

i hope this helps.

 

[nepalnt21]

i'm actually pretty confident that your ideas will lead us to a worse form of what you call "slavery"...

so i'm actually an abolitionist saving ppl from YOUR brand of slavery.

if you don't vote, you're one of the overseers.