Chimpy Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 So more Social Democracy than anything else. If I paid someone else to build my house would I own it? :S Link to post Share on other sites
Gor Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Good question. Simple answer would be yes I suppose 0,o I have come to the conclusion that Pr0n is no longer the subject here. Down with silly laws! Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Indeed, I don't think anyone actually disagrees that it's a pointless law otherwise we might still be debating it. It's nice to see in the end that Airsofters are a freedom loving bunch. Link to post Share on other sites
TheKurodaVagrant Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Damn straight we are! We're a good crowd. People could learn a lot from us. Link to post Share on other sites
Gor Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 What is the price of freedom? Eternal vigilance. Link to post Share on other sites
pjones Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 You can have life and liberty without property. (why is it required?) Communism and the far left isn't the huge bugbear the west *coughUSAcough* believes. It doesn't make everybody property of the state, it liberates them from the manicles of capitalist imperialism. It doesn't make everything belong to the state because under the Council Soviet Model there is no state, so therefore nothing can belong to it. It belongs to the Community. Because property is the primary guarantor of independence and security. Not having property rights makes it easy to deprive the individual of their means for sustenance, therefore making them dependent on others. This dependency can be, and has been, used as leverage to deprive individuals of their freedom. It can be summed up in this quotation from the movie Lumumba: "The hand that feeds rules." And the idea of there not being a state and everything belonging to a community is a false difference. The Soviet acts as a de facto state, enforcing the will of others on the individual and depriving them of rights as the community sees fit. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 What is the price of freedom? Eternal vigilance. Cake or death! Link to post Share on other sites
pjones Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Don't get me wrong, there are definate economic issues with Communism. The notion of abolishing all private property is farcicle at best! People have to own things, it's that simple. You wouldn't tell a man who built his own home that he doesn't own it would you? I think there should be limits on excessive property ownership..EG, people owning like 4 houses and 8 cars etc. that sort of unecessary levels of ownership. Incomes capped etc And who decides what is unnecessary? Will there be different levels of "appropriateness" for officials of the Soviet and the common man, as was the case in the Soviet Union? Who are you, and who is anybody, to tell me what is "appropriate?" If I want to blow my money on ten identical Maybachs, who are you to stop me? It's my money, and I worked for it. How does it hurt anybody, other than myself, if I use what I earned the way I want to? Link to post Share on other sites
Gor Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 But surely if you have community property (something that everyone owns) then you don't need personal property on a level that would allow people to endanger your life and use that as leverage. Yes the Soviet acts as a defacto state, however given it's size its more like a village than a nation. Any effects within that Soviet to the detriment of its members would have to be voted by its members. And there you have democratic rule. Cake or death! Yarr! Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Any effects within that Soviet to the detriment of its members would have to be voted by its members. And there you have democratic rule. Tyranny of the majority. Corruption. Actually getting anything done. Some of the issues with the above. Philosophically if you are under the rule of the community you are no more free than the community agrees you can be. Plus you'd have people like me organising popular cross-Soviet movements. So unless you intend to kill me to prevent me spreading my ideals which doesn't seem to be very freedom loving its not going to work so well. Link to post Share on other sites
Gor Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 And who decides what is unnecessary? Will there be different levels of "appropriateness" for officials of the Soviet and the common man, as was the case in the Soviet Union? Who are you, and who is anybody, to tell me what is "appropriate?" If I want to blow my money on ten identical Maybachs, who are you to stop me? It's my money, and I worked for it. How does it hurt anybody, other than myself, if I use what I earned the way I want to? The whole point is that representatives of Soviets (purposfully kept small for this reason) are ordinary citizens. There is no party as such ,it isn't neccessary. This makeup is similar in name only to the USSR. Yes they had Soviets but they were all under control of the Grand Central Soviet (or something with a similar name) which in turn was under control of the Party. Thats power from the top down, the Council Soviet system is from the bottom up. You can spend your money however you like, but buying 4 houses for yourself denies another family a house, and is therefore missappropriation of resources and I would vote against it if it was brought up in my local Soviet. If it was ruled that yes you could do that then fine, but I want a chance to voice my dissatisfaction at the wastefulness. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 So what if your Soviet voted to ban porn? Link to post Share on other sites
Gor Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Tyranny of the majority. Corruption. Actually getting anything done. Some of the issues with the above. Philosophically if you are under the rule of the community you are no more free than the community agrees you can be. Plus you'd have people like me organising popular cross-Soviet movements. So unless you intend to kill me to prevent me spreading my ideals which doesn't seem to be very freedom loving its not going to work so well. There's nothing wrong with Cross-Soviet movements they'd be required in some form or another anyway so you're death would probably hinder rather than help the Soviets. Majority tyranny is perfectly acceptable as the majority must be catered for over the minority. My issue is with Minorty tyranny which is what we live with at the moment. But alas I must sod off to work, back in 5 hours Link to post Share on other sites
Cyber Soldier Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 I look at socialism on the small scale like the Viking and Saxon kingdoms of post roman England. Free men working their own land in a village of 100-250 people. Decisions were discussed in the long hall with a "noble" or "king" acting more as chairman with deciding vote rather than be all and end all dictator. Link to post Share on other sites
Gor Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 So what if your Soviet voted to ban porn? That would be acceptable so long as it was at leasted voted over and there was a sensible reason behind it! Link to post Share on other sites
TheKurodaVagrant Posted May 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Maybe there should be a provision to make sure laws are still popular and acceptable, especially new laws. Maybe votes should be cast in periods of exponential numbers of days (2 days, 4 days, 16 days, etc.) up until the first year of a law's existence, and then a yearly vote afterwards. It would be involved, but definitely worth it. It would make the process of making new laws have a potentially futile end, thus frivolous lawmakers would be discouraged from putting forth the effort in introducing a new law. It's also been my belief that there should be no more laws than the average citizen could remember off the top of his head. Link to post Share on other sites
Desolation mkII Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 I think 90 years of comunism taught us one key lesson. It doesn't work. Now stop being so silly. Link to post Share on other sites
GuzziHero Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Been there, done that. All I learnt from my time as a member of the CPGB(M-L) was how boring Marx was, how hypocritical most members were, and how pursuing my own studies into the System led to isolation and abuse. Communism is like Quantum Physics...if you think you understand it, you do not understand it. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 That would be acceptable so long as it was at leasted voted over and there was a sensible reason behind it! How does that equate to freedom and fit into this that you said earlier? What is the price of freedom? Eternal vigilance. Link to post Share on other sites
pjones Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 One of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes: "How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." Link to post Share on other sites
redneck Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 my old dad defined a communist as "someone who has nothing and wants to share it with someone who does" Link to post Share on other sites
GuzziHero Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 One of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes: "How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." HAHAHAHA, that should go in the quotes thread. It is SO right-on! I got into CPGB thinking "Ooh, equality, I like that idea". No, the basis suggests a stringent class system, and effectively breeding proles as cattle. What I realised was (thanks to some online info, some of it on this very forum) is that what I was actually looking for was a form of anarchism. It makes me laugh though... "Communism has no religion". Communism requires a total belief in the System by all involved...what is that if it not a religion? Link to post Share on other sites
Crazy_Harry Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 what's baffling me is how this thread has gone from being about individual liberties to "lets bash communism"- its almost like people have got it into their brains that New Labour represent some marxist threat to freedom. As I think it was said on the first page, this is knee jerk reactionism to a knee-jerk reaction. Lets face it, the right-wing have always been just as fond, if not more so, of limiting individual liberties, particularly when it comes to sexual behaviour, as any left-wing group. Of course, the tendency of the most ardent opponent to consenting adults being able to do what they like with their own genitalia to be found in their secretary's wardrobe, trousers round ankles and covered in warm yoghurt is something that BOTH sides of the political divide tend to exhibit on a regular basis, its just that, frankly, when it comes to a group of politicians who think its their god-given right to stick their noses into other people's bedroom affairs (and who frequently run for high office under the ticket of "family values" and "decency", you'd have to go a long way before you'd find any group more prone to it than the Republicans or Tories. Link to post Share on other sites
Chimpy Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 No one is accusing New Lab of being communist in any way. I think it got bought up with Gor's suggestion that some kind of revolution is needed. Link to post Share on other sites
Finius Posted May 7, 2008 Report Share Posted May 7, 2008 If you enjoy watching violent pornography that involves imprisonment and submissives and such... And it makes you horny... And you go to prison for watching it when you get caught and it's illegal... Won't you just get even more horny because you'll get the chance to have big burly men beating you with their truncheons? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.