Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 14:42, said:
First of all, who are YOU to say animals have no free will. You're not a god, nor an animal.... so.....?
And as for labor. Simply put, it would be MUCH more fair. A world of Communism would be, in essence, a world without money and that would mean that ALL people are able to enjoy the fruits of life. Although this shortens the gap of equality by a lot, it still leaves a LOT of space for people to compete: status, fame, and recognition, as well as that except monitarily, NO ONE would be equal and there will still be people better than you at at LEAST ONE thing than you.
I think animals don't have free will because they cannot knowingly commit suicide like humans can.
The Aristocracy of Pull does not work on any of the principles that apply to The Aristocracy of Wealth.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
In all honesty. Communism has never been applied rationally.
Because communism is inherently irrational.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
They were mostly corrupt command economies with a more dictatorship than a parliament.
It's still the same mob rule.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
Also, paper IS hugely different than real life.
That's a problem, because paper is intended to reflect real life.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
Its the whole "if-then" statement. If human nature was a little different then perfect communism wouldn't work. Now we can all say what government types are moral/immoral because its a matter of opinion.
Morality is objective.
EX-P.F.C. Wintergreen, on 7 Dec 2008, 15:00, said:
The guy who says dictatorships are moral is going to hate democracies. But IMO Communism isn't an immoral system because it supplies every single person a means to an end. Produce what you can, take what you need is the theory that people will ultimately try to better the community as whole (i.e. COMMUNism) and that they will not be greedy and only take what they need. Its arguable that communism is much better for third-world nations because it rallies the entire population rather than a select few, creating the rich/poor gap from the start. It can also be argued that this is how man began civilization due to this and that in order for our species to survive, competing (capitalsim) would have driven us to extinction.
What is the 'community'?
Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:02, said:
Okay, first I will regard to Dauth: I understand that. However, that was the same point I was trying to point out, that the ONLY times when everything will ALWAYS be factored in is in real life. On paper, we can crunch numbers and we might get close or even hit the spot, but that rarely happens. My example was the Bumblebee, which, on paper which didn't include the vortex properties of its flight, should have not been able to fly. You can argue the same for Communism; on paper it seems like a good system, however, in real life it has never worked (and I also doubt it ever will) because Marx seemingly forgot to factor in: human greed, lust for power, and ambition, three out of the MANY things that limit this form of government.
The power of the producer and the 'power' of the looter are two completely different things.
Zero, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:55, said:
However, those people who give up such power (such as George Washington in the US), usually are relatively selfless people, either that or they don't want to get involved in politics and get corrupted. That takes a lot of courage to do, and most people are not that courageous nor are they that self-less. Sure, some people CAN do it, but I sure know I can't, I would go mad with power, I need someone to keep me in check. Capitalism's system works, but I also like Communism's evolved system (the point in time in which people rule themselves). Although, again, this probably will never happen and if it does, it'll be a few million years from now when we are MUCH more selfless. So although sometimes people DO turn down absolute power, it happens VERY rarely compared to those who become dictators and tyrants.
A truly selfish person would leave office because they do not to rely on other people's efforts to get what they want to get done done. A selfless person, however, would need to be in office because they can't do things on their own accord and thus have to extort the means out of other people.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:57, said:
Again, unfalsifiable with current methods as we can't look into the minds of others. Not yet, at least. So this argument is void. However on the basis of belief alone I strongly disagree with you.
You never, ever see an animal knowingly do something detrimental to it's survival, whereas in humans it occurs all of the time.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:57, said:
Ad hominem attack, yet another fallacy. But in any case, the source of my morals is irrelevant as they are my morals alone, they have no business in other people's lives. The same applies to yours.
1: It is only ad hominem in world where no objective, reason centric morality exists.
2: Whether you choose to accept it or not, my morality applies to everybody.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 16:57, said:
No, because in the first case, I would live in poverty knowing that the means exist to make my life better, while in the second case I would not know.
You're still in poverty either way.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:07, said:
Mr. Mylo, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:26, said:
No.
And yet you seek to take from the rich and give to the poor.
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:
I don't see communism as something that can be achieved, in that there's a point where you say 'this is communism'. Rather it's a struggle that we must always strive to work towards.
So you are admitting that your ideals are fundamentally impossible?
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:
The point is that rather than becoming complacent when there is no competition, we should realise that the greatest thing to compete against is our own desire to be selfish, and the damage we do to others when we give in to it.
How much damage do I do to you if I invent something brilliant and make a billion dollars?
CodeCat, on 7 Dec 2008, 18:33, said:
'we are who we are because of who we all are'
Where does the identity of the 'all' come from?