5 ms·

Sarcasm? Or do you seriously believe that the government should have the right to violate people's privacy based on their political leanings?

lionhearted 17y ago
> Or do you seriously believe that the government should have the right to violate people's privacy based on their political leanings? I'm not the original poster, but something to think about - communism isn't a political leaning the way debating about state/federal powers is a political leaning. Mainstream communist literature - Communist Manifesto for instance - directly advocates violence and rioting, to the end of placing the state under control of the workers. Marx said that condition - control by the workers - would be socialism. Socialism could then slowly dissolve until it's a classless, peaceful society, but Marx said you'd need to make a lot of violence on the bourgeois first. I don't know, if there was a group that advocated, for instance, that they should confiscate and destroy all the property of non-Caucasians, make sure whites control everything, but that's only a necessary step to a perfectly peaceful and equal society - well, would you want the FBI to keep tabs on those people? How about if someone believed that they should kill all infidels to place society under the control of Muslims, which would then lead to a peaceful society? No, Communism isn't a political leaning, it's a very bad thing that's done very bad things. I'm visiting Cambodia in two weeks by the way, I'm going to see the relic of one of the most literal applications of Marxist communist doctrines: > People were often encouraged to confess to Angkar their "pre-revolutionary lifestyles and crimes" (which usually included some kind of free-market activity, or having had contact with a foreign source, such as a US missionary, or international relief or government agency, or contact with any foreigner or with the outside world at all), being told that Angkar would forgive them and "wipe the slate clean". This meant being taken away to a place such as Tuol Sleng or Choeung Ek for torture and/or execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields#Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields#Process Communism is a bad thing. The legality/criminality of advocating it should be equivalent to the legality/criminality of other forms of advocating violence and destruction.
- JohnnyBrown 17y ago
  The declaration of independence also calls for violent revolution as a means to obtain a more ideal society
  - defen 17y ago
    Absolutely false. The United States Declaration of Independence does not declare war on Britain or advocate violence.
    - joeyo 17y ago
      But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Seems pretty clear to me.
      - defen 17y ago
        "new Guards for their future security" refers to forming their own government, the purpose of which is to safeguard the aforementioned inalienable rights. If "throw off such Government" is really the strongest call to revolutionary violence you can point out, I stand by my point.
        aswanson 17y ago
        It is absurd to assume that "throw off such government " means anything other than by forceful (violent ) means, especially considering the authors subsequent actions.
- drunkpotato 17y ago
  This is the most egregious strawman I've seen in quite a while. The FBI already keeps watch on groups prone to violence. What you have done is simply redefined communists to be communists who advocate violent overthrow and declaring that is the only type of communist there is. Your comment is a piece of trite propaganda.

lionhearted 17y ago

> Or do you seriously believe that the government should have the right to violate people's privacy based on their political leanings? I'm not the original poster, but something to think about - communism isn't a political leaning the way debating about state/federal powers is a political leaning. Mainstream communist literature - Communist Manifesto for instance - directly advocates violence and rioting, to the end of placing the state under control of the workers. Marx said that condition - control by the workers - would be socialism. Socialism could then slowly dissolve until it's a classless, peaceful society, but Marx said you'd need to make a lot of violence on the bourgeois first. I don't know, if there was a group that advocated, for instance, that they should confiscate and destroy all the property of non-Caucasians, make sure whites control everything, but that's only a necessary step to a perfectly peaceful and equal society - well, would you want the FBI to keep tabs on those people? How about if someone believed that they should kill all infidels to place society under the control of Muslims, which would then lead to a peaceful society? No, Communism isn't a political leaning, it's a very bad thing that's done very bad things. I'm visiting Cambodia in two weeks by the way, I'm going to see the relic of one of the most literal applications of Marxist communist doctrines: > People were often encouraged to confess to Angkar their "pre-revolutionary lifestyles and crimes" (which usually included some kind of free-market activity, or having had contact with a foreign source, such as a US missionary, or international relief or government agency, or contact with any foreigner or with the outside world at all), being told that Angkar would forgive them and "wipe the slate clean". This meant being taken away to a place such as Tuol Sleng or Choeung Ek for torture and/or execution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields#Process http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killing_Fields#Process Communism is a bad thing. The legality/criminality of advocating it should be equivalent to the legality/criminality of other forms of advocating violence and destruction.

JohnnyBrown 17y ago
The declaration of independence also calls for violent revolution as a means to obtain a more ideal society
- defen 17y ago
  Absolutely false. The United States Declaration of Independence does not declare war on Britain or advocate violence.
  - joeyo 17y ago
    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Seems pretty clear to me.
    - defen 17y ago
      "new Guards for their future security" refers to forming their own government, the purpose of which is to safeguard the aforementioned inalienable rights. If "throw off such Government" is really the strongest call to revolutionary violence you can point out, I stand by my point.
      - aswanson 17y ago
        It is absurd to assume that "throw off such government " means anything other than by forceful (violent ) means, especially considering the authors subsequent actions.
drunkpotato 17y ago
This is the most egregious strawman I've seen in quite a while. The FBI already keeps watch on groups prone to violence. What you have done is simply redefined communists to be communists who advocate violent overthrow and declaring that is the only type of communist there is. Your comment is a piece of trite propaganda.