The hidden violence of the socialistic mindset

[DrDoug]

I think you are conflating actual free market business with forced redistribution of wealth and calling it capitalism. They are not the same thing. One is a voluntary contract among two people and the other is extortion.




Yep and that makes their reaction just. Stopping violence is good and threres not many who'd argue against that. Yet that's not the case when dealing with the above mindset. The socialist man initiates the violence for his pet project against non-violent people. If you are making the claim that police are a social program I'd agree to an extent. It has a monopoly on force and abuses that legal exception to commit acts of violence 'legally' even if the offense is of a non-violent variety. Yet again another socialistic mandate that starts with good intentions but ends in violence.




Nothing wrong with rules, its the involuntary socialistic enforcement of those rules that are detrimental to society. Not to sound like a broken record but this is repeated because I don't think you're following the distinction I'm trying to make. If a person is violent towards another, through force, fraud or theft, then they are subject to violence for their actions. On the other hand the ones who refuse to contribute to a social program should not be subject to violence simply because they do not go along with your socialized program. Violence is brought against the non-violent.



I feel like you are presuming that I'm an anarchist and that term means 'no rules'. That'd be incorrect. 'No rulers' would be closer but it would be more accurate to claim that I am a Voluntaryist. Rules are necessary but violence is not.

You use a lot of words to say: I LOVE ANARCHY! Ironwing has it right, grow up. You sound like some kid that read something stupid and learned some new words. At first it's kinda cute in a 5-year-old-says-something-stupid kind of way but listening to it gets old real fast.

Grow up.

 

[Murloc]

I reflect on the reality of the inherent, unrelenting violence and injustice of all states areas/times and I am not content with the state as a necessary evil. States are evil institutions and are vastly superior in robbing and killing than any alternative ever created.

no alternative was ever created except living as an hermit. Go do it.
And that means no internet either.

 

[NoStateofMind]

OP, you are an impotent anarchist who isn't decrying socialism, but rather you wish to be one of the decision makers on who gets to live and how.

I do? Where have I claimed to want such nonsense?

Most cry babies who wail, cry, bitch and moan over Gubnament on these forums just want to break shit and then take the helm.

Sorry, not going to happen. Because,...
#1 you suck

Not a good argument. Why do I suck? Because I disagree with you and we're on the internet? Classy guy here.....

#2 you are posting on a forum about how government should/shouldn't function,.. making you an armchair asshate (as per #1)

If you haven't noticed this is the politics and news forum and I am discussing politics am I not? This. Is. Where. This. Discussion. Goes. ...

#3 society is ever morphing, even as I post. You clearly do not like it (because the current government is trying to meet the needs of this ever changing creature - again, society).

What socialist minds want, and what is rightfully theirs are two different things. Robbing, beating, or caging your neighbor is something you'd never do but you'd sure as hell have an armed mercenary handy to delve out your punishment the moment he didn't comply with your desired social project.

#4 you and similar ilk are the true oppressors, not the government. Grown a pair and state what you mean and intend - you want to harm and oppress people, not free them

Please come back and explain this. You won't cause you know its bullshit.

The only one's here who advocate violence are the ones faithfully following their church/state.

What you are being shown is the violence behind your faith. That's a tough pill to swallow I'm sure.

 

[Greenman]

All government power comes from threat of force.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You use a lot of words to say: I LOVE ANARCHY! Ironwing has it right, grow up. You sound like some kid that read something stupid and learned some new words. At first it's kinda cute in a 5-year-old-says-something-stupid kind of way but listening to it gets old real fast.

Grow up.

If you wanna run around spraying insults, have at it. In my experience that's what kids do. On the contrary those who value intellect will examine their beliefs in a reasoned manner and they typically tend to be adults. Where does this leave you?

Not even on my level....

 

[MongGrel]

If you wanna run around spraying insults, have at it. In my experience that's what kids do. On the contrary those who value intellect will examine their beliefs in a reasoned manner and they typically tend to be adults. Where does this leave you?

Not even on my level....

I rarely do this these days...

 

[DrDoug]

If you wanna run around spraying insults, have at it. In my experience that's what kids do. On the contrary those who value intellect will examine their beliefs in a reasoned manner and they typically tend to be adults. Where does this leave you?

Not even on my level....

On your "level"? Who in the fuck wants to be on "your level"? You just go right ahead and enjoy your "level" and meanwhile I'll stick to reality, m'kay?

Kids...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Its time to put down the Ayn Rand objectivist crackpipe and join the rest of us in reality.

Just so you know, puling out Ayn Rand when no one but you have brought it up kind of poisons the well if you know what I mean. Which tells me your initial reaction to my thread was an emotional one.

This reality that you speak of is the same one I am commenting on. It is an involuntary socialist state which uses the threat of force to achieve its social and political agendas. That's the very definition of terrorism.

Taxation is neither theft nor extortion, particularly if it is done by a truly representative government.

Theft
noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Extort:
Law.
to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

Can't change the definition of the words. By definition it is theft and extortion. If you have not given of your own will but are instead contributing out of fear, then you are being extorted by definition. You can't escape that fact.

One cannot represent me if I have not chosen them to do so. The majority cannot speak for me and I cannot for them.

Having the government organize, standardize, or at the very least guide how the healthcare market works is not terrorism.

It is if it's forced. See definition

Terrorism
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Markets are entities created by man, and can thus be most effectively directed to curb their ill-effects by man through, you guessed it, government.

Actually this is the crux of the problem. The market elite who have the money and the government bureaucrats with the power in cahoots. If the politicians have power but not money, and the wealthy have money but not power, how long do you think it'll be before they are scratching each others backs? Corruption is inherent to hierarchical structures and there's no way to stop that.

The police, despite the worrying trends of increased militarization and us vs. them internal culture, are not terrorists.

Then take up your argument with the definition. They are enforcing laws with violence and threats for political goals. The war on drugs for example?

You know nothing of socialism, in any form, OP.

I don't? That's an opinion some may have and I'm fine with that. The socialist mindset starts with good intentions and ends with violence in all of its applications.

 

[OverVolt]

You see kids you can tell he doesn't have a job because he is crazy.

 

[Murloc]

All government power comes from threat of force.

I don't think people behave honestly with other people (e.g. paying for shit you get) only because they don't want to get their ass kicked by the other guy.

It's also the innate (evolutionarily-induced) values that led to those laws being created in the first place that make most of the people agree to them without the threat of force.
Of course, this works only with the majority of the population, not all of it. Hence the public-funded ass kicking.

 

[OverVolt]

You see its not under threat of violence its under threat of living on the street. You have it all wrong. :awe:

Unless you get up off your ass you won't have alot to show for yourself.

You'd be surprised how many people are perpetually stuck in the hippie phase. If you were busy with some kind of goal, job, or career you wouldn't have time for this shit. Nobody productive has time for this shit.

 

[nickqt]

Debating a libertarian with regard to reality versus their imaginary playland ala Ayn Rand, is akin to debating a toddler about the health benefits of candy.

You can continue pointing out how wrong they are about literally everything, but you're using facts and evidence when they're simply arguing with their feelings.

You lose. Every time.

 

[OverVolt]

Debating a libertarian with regard to reality versus their imaginary playland ala Ayn Rand, is akin to debating a toddler about the health benefits of candy.

You can continue pointing out how wrong they are about literally everything, but you're using facts and evidence when they're simply arguing with their feelings.

You lose. Every time.

You actually stop and take time out of your day to argue with the hippies? They get so excited someone took the bait.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Debating a libertarian with regard to reality versus their imaginary playland ala Ayn Rand, is akin to debating a toddler about the health benefits of candy.

You can continue pointing out how wrong they are about literally everything, but you're using facts and evidence when they're simply arguing with their feelings.

You lose. Every time.

You actually stop and take time out of your day to argue with the hippies? They get so excited someone took the bait.

 

[OverVolt]

If you are really that unhappy then move really really really far away where people have different values.

 

[nickqt]

So, are you in anacapistan, or is that just where your feelings tell you that you should live?

Moving to Somalia soon, since no state is forcing you to remain where you are? Oh, no?

Right. Because you can try to make an argument if you'd like, but it's still based on your feelings of how everything should work. And if it works in theory, screw practice. Because Libtertarianism!

Keep on keepin' on, dunce.

 

[DrDoug]

Responses like this show that you have nothing intellectual to back your positions, no depth. You have nothing of substance in your arguments, just words that you expect others to look at and exclaim "Brilliant!".

Grow up.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Responses like this show that you have nothing intellectual to back your positions, no depth. You have nothing of substance in your arguments, just words that you expect others to look at and exclaim "Brilliant!".

Grow up.

Hey I'm just communicating in language you can understand.

You see the thing about 'my level' means that you cannot communicate with reasoned discourse and therefore communication standards must be lowered so the likes of you can understand it.

 

[brycejones]

Posting in a NSoM thread.

I think most of think the OP is freaking nuts, but he is at least a logically consistent anarcho-capitalist.

 

[DrDoug]

Hey I'm just communicating in language you can understand.

You see the thing about 'my level' means that you cannot communicate with reasoned discourse and therefore communication standards must be lowered so the likes of you can understand it.



/insert stupid picture that makes me look brilliant!

No, it means you are incapable of expressing yourself in a way that the average person can understand. Stupid people like yourself believe that you are so brilliant that you are communicating at a level that nobody except another brilliant mind like yours can understand. Believe me, you're nothing exceptional and you come through loud and clear.

You're a moron. We get it.

 

[realibrad]

So, are you in anacapistan, or is that just where your feelings tell you that you should live?

Moving to Somalia soon, since no state is forcing you to remain where you are? Oh, no?

Right. Because you can try to make an argument if you'd like, but it's still based on your feelings of how everything should work. And if it works in theory, screw practice. Because Libtertarianism!

Keep on keepin' on, dunce.

Can you show me where Liberalism was expanded and the country did not improve?

Can you show me where Socialism was expanded before a country was coming out of poverty and it improved because of socialism?

I consider myself a Libertarian, but I can admit when markets have a difficult time capturing 3rd party costs. But, for you to claim that Liberalism is something that only works in theory and not in practice, then I could simply levy the same to you about socialism.

 

[Jhhnn]

Coercion is a necessary ingredient in human society, always has been. It's necessary to constrain the psychopaths among us.

That psychopathy takes many forms, from murderers to usurers to pollluters & monopolists.

Properly structured, the State compensates for power differentials among individuals to prevent abuse. Otherwise, Wealth reigns supreme.

Libertopian "thinkers" ignore history & human nature when they fantasize to the contrary.

 

[MongGrel]

Hey I'm just communicating in language you can understand.

You see the thing about 'my level' means that you cannot communicate with reasoned discourse and therefore communication standards must be lowered so the likes of you can understand it.

 

[ivwshane]

Can you show me where Liberalism was expanded and the country did not improve?

Can you show me where Socialism was expanded before a country was coming out of poverty and it improved because of socialism?

I consider myself a Libertarian, but I can admit when markets have a difficult time capturing 3rd party costs. But, for you to claim that Liberalism is something that only works in theory and not in practice, then I could simply levy the same to you about socialism.

I don't know if it was a type-o on your part but the word "liberalism" doesn't appear anywhere in his post.

 

[alcoholbob]

Just so you know, puling out Ayn Rand when no one but you have brought it up kind of poisons the well if you know what I mean. Which tells me your initial reaction to my thread was an emotional one.

It's pretty much like the same 3 liberals on this forum that screams Benghazi whenever there's a thread about Hilary even if no one else bringing it up, lmao. It's the same leftist playbook being used over and over, overreact and call everyone racists if they disagree with you.