3 ms·

You were doing great until "free". It's not free. It's hard work, using resources of value. There is compulsion, whereby others must sacrifice (under threat) th

You were doing great until "free". It's not free. It's hard work, using resources of value. There is compulsion, whereby others must sacrifice (under threat) their own wealth & resources to facilitate what is falsely advertised as "free". You have a right to live, insofar as nobody else may unduly take your life from you. That you live, comes the responsibility to provide for yourself - and suffer the consequences of your choices. We've seen communism tried time and again. The death tolls & misery are staggering. Many of us will make sure it's not "tried", aka imposed by threat & violence, here; this is not up for debate, and you'd do well to understand why.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
> You were doing great until "free". It's not free. It's hard work, using resources of value. There is compulsion, whereby others must sacrifice (under threat) their own wealth & resources to facilitate what is falsely advertised as "free". Initially yes, it is an expenditure. It would cost tax dollars, which I'm guessing by your tone, is "theft by a gun from state entity". Yes, ive heard the normal libertarian trappings. But this provides guaranteed food. And for those preppers, it's also local production. And it's provided to all. > You have a right to live, insofar as nobody else may unduly take your life from you. That you live, comes the responsibility to provide for yourself - and suffer the consequences of your choices. Yes, and the law is equal, in that it bans both the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges. The rich can afford whatever food they want. The poor cannot. This would provide a buffer for every living person in this country to get healthy food. Where you talk of "Self Actualization" ideals, there's people in this country starving. That itself should be abhorrent and disgusting. But I'm sure you'll have excuses why they should deserve to starve. > We've seen communism tried time and again. The death tolls & misery are staggering. Many of us will make sure it's not "tried", aka imposed by threat & violence, here; this is not up for debate, and you'd do well to understand why. Communism has useful tools and ideas. So does capitalism. Communism's been tried and gets stuck at military dictatorship on its way to stateless egalitarianism, every time. Capitalism goes the other way with large monied interests turning into their own dictatorships. It's not like many of the robber barons enacted company farms and company stores, and kept strikes from happening by violence... Oh, they did. Quite a few were killed by companies and National Guard. And the big difference that you fail to cede to, is that with computing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, we can start changing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" --TO-- "To each according to his needs". And that would entail nobody "by threat & violence". Try looking past 1850's political theory. I know I try.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  Communism's been tried and gets stuck at military dictatorship Of course it does. It has to. You're compelling people to engage in behavior they don't want to. That "to each" unavoidably requires "from each", decided by people no better than others, denying producers the full fruits of their labors, and blessing the idle with those fruits. Superior productivity becomes intolerable (as "inequal") and thus suppressed. The only way to enforce this unnatural state of affairs on people is thru threat of force leading precisely to military dictatorship. It's unavoidable. Capitalism, however, lets people work out what is mutually beneficial without being bossed around by uninvolved strangers. Yes, some become powerful and persuade trade, but people always have the option to not - nobody's going to get fined, jailed, exiled, or killed not buying Brand Mega products. I've seen many massive corporations collapse - nobody died in the process, everyone had the choice to not associate with them. (And yes, you always have the option to buy some cheap seeds, buy some cheap land, and go live off the land yourself. That's basically how I grew up.) "Large monied interests" do NOT turn into "dictatorships". Any worker who doesn't like the work/pay exchange can walk away. Any customer who doesn't like the product doesn't have to buy it. (The strikes you reference involved wanton physical disruption & destruction; obstructionism, vandalism, and violence gets met with likewise.) However, in communism: mutually beneficial contracting without state sanction gets one jailed; walking away from communism gets one shot. And yes, there will always be a need for "from each". Food doesn't grow & harvest itself in, no matter how automated. Buildings don't construct themselves. Work will need doing by humans. There will always be something for someone to do, so long as the state doesn't interfere. And ONLY capitalism will bring the price of food/shelter/etc down to the point that one need work very little to earn those basics.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

> You were doing great until "free". It's not free. It's hard work, using resources of value. There is compulsion, whereby others must sacrifice (under threat) their own wealth & resources to facilitate what is falsely advertised as "free". Initially yes, it is an expenditure. It would cost tax dollars, which I'm guessing by your tone, is "theft by a gun from state entity". Yes, ive heard the normal libertarian trappings. But this provides guaranteed food. And for those preppers, it's also local production. And it's provided to all. > You have a right to live, insofar as nobody else may unduly take your life from you. That you live, comes the responsibility to provide for yourself - and suffer the consequences of your choices. Yes, and the law is equal, in that it bans both the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges. The rich can afford whatever food they want. The poor cannot. This would provide a buffer for every living person in this country to get healthy food. Where you talk of "Self Actualization" ideals, there's people in this country starving. That itself should be abhorrent and disgusting. But I'm sure you'll have excuses why they should deserve to starve. > We've seen communism tried time and again. The death tolls & misery are staggering. Many of us will make sure it's not "tried", aka imposed by threat & violence, here; this is not up for debate, and you'd do well to understand why. Communism has useful tools and ideas. So does capitalism. Communism's been tried and gets stuck at military dictatorship on its way to stateless egalitarianism, every time. Capitalism goes the other way with large monied interests turning into their own dictatorships. It's not like many of the robber barons enacted company farms and company stores, and kept strikes from happening by violence... Oh, they did. Quite a few were killed by companies and National Guard. And the big difference that you fail to cede to, is that with computing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence, we can start changing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" --TO-- "To each according to his needs". And that would entail nobody "by threat & violence". Try looking past 1850's political theory. I know I try.

ctdonath 9y ago
Communism's been tried and gets stuck at military dictatorship Of course it does. It has to. You're compelling people to engage in behavior they don't want to. That "to each" unavoidably requires "from each", decided by people no better than others, denying producers the full fruits of their labors, and blessing the idle with those fruits. Superior productivity becomes intolerable (as "inequal") and thus suppressed. The only way to enforce this unnatural state of affairs on people is thru threat of force leading precisely to military dictatorship. It's unavoidable. Capitalism, however, lets people work out what is mutually beneficial without being bossed around by uninvolved strangers. Yes, some become powerful and persuade trade, but people always have the option to not - nobody's going to get fined, jailed, exiled, or killed not buying Brand Mega products. I've seen many massive corporations collapse - nobody died in the process, everyone had the choice to not associate with them. (And yes, you always have the option to buy some cheap seeds, buy some cheap land, and go live off the land yourself. That's basically how I grew up.) "Large monied interests" do NOT turn into "dictatorships". Any worker who doesn't like the work/pay exchange can walk away. Any customer who doesn't like the product doesn't have to buy it. (The strikes you reference involved wanton physical disruption & destruction; obstructionism, vandalism, and violence gets met with likewise.) However, in communism: mutually beneficial contracting without state sanction gets one jailed; walking away from communism gets one shot. And yes, there will always be a need for "from each". Food doesn't grow & harvest itself in, no matter how automated. Buildings don't construct themselves. Work will need doing by humans. There will always be something for someone to do, so long as the state doesn't interfere. And ONLY capitalism will bring the price of food/shelter/etc down to the point that one need work very little to earn those basics.