They must have STOLEN THE SEEDS FROM THE PEOPLE!
You're literally not even trying now. Are you trolling us?So every time someone breaks the no-murder law, it's not the human's fault. Just the system's. Awesome.
So you're anti abortion. Who would've thought
The evil capitalist part made me laugh.
Did you miss the 100 posts where I said you'd get basic needs for free?
I don't know what part of what post(s) you're talking about, because you've just smooshed everything up. The rainfall/gulag part? That'll be a demonstration of how one of your resources can be distributed unequally because the weather is like that and how an individual through sheer fortune alone can acquire more of a social resource than his neighbours - while being less of a burden on your own system.
The fact that "murder" (the offence) exists explains how it's not a flaw in the system. It'd be a flaw in the system if you could kill people freely.
The problem with First Class is that it puts the needs of the few above the needs of the many. It's more profitable for Virgin to run several first class carriages and cram a load of people into standing in a few less than necessary 2nd class carriages. It's a company putting profit before people and I don't believe that that is right. If you want to go for additional comfort then there needs to be a way of doing so that doesn't hurt other people.
Nope. The reason for the law is to provide a disincentive to kill by means of making the act criminally punishable if no adequate defence can be provided - and to give society, through the state - a just punishment. You can't protect people from any immoral act unless you literally imprison them all - which is itself immoral.
Nice idea. Impossible to achieve because we're not all equal. I get more opportunities than someone physically disabled to the point of being confined to a wheelchair and unable to positively communicate with the outside world because I can walk and speak.
Nice idea. Impossible as rights violations exist (causing suffering) and they must be dealt with through just means (which sometimes means war).
Except you can't own a car or guitar or collect records because there is anarchy - no-one can own property (actually you already said that "what we need is an abolition of private property") and even if they could, anyone could take it from them by force because there is no protection from the use of force against them.
1. I know we are not all equal. The idea is that a disabled person has the same rules and chances applied to them as a person who is not disabled, they shouldn't be discriminated against.
Why? Morality tells us that people are entitled to the fruits of their labour - whether that labour is all they can give or nothing. Who are you to say someone can't do nothing if that's what they want to do?
Which is fundamentally impossible. There are things that each of us cannot do due to our physical limitations - I'm too big and fat to be a chimney sweep, for example - and we should not be considered equally for those roles with people who are able to do them due to their physical limitations.
Who knows? I've seen (on CCTV!) a guy shove a sharpened biro into another guy's back 40 times just... because.
Okay, you're using hinky definitions. "Property" is considered "things that can be owned" and "private" is considered "the individual".
I doubt it was 'just because'. The guy will have had issues of some sort connected to either his home life or mental health problems. To go back to your point, most wars aren't just and are fought because of money and in the interests of very small number of people. In order to stop one person oppressing another then give no-one any power.
This is what Berkman said on the matter, "The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title-not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, cooperatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit."
Huxley would be so proud.
So no intellectual property. Our minds are yours to take from. Gotcha.
What stops me from using current materials that I already have? Say, I decide my bedside table is unused and take it apart and repurpose the materials, or save up my aluminum cans?
Not where I live. I can't tell you how many people I know who cut down their own Christmas trees.
Unless your objective is wealth, we have that now - more than at any point of human history.
He was, in court, found sound of mind and sentenced for the murder.
Quite so. It doesn't make war wrong - it just makes unjust wars wrong. A war should be fought to preserve the rights of your citizens.
What would happen if you used the house as a base for your business? Say, with all these watches that are being made (without regard for raw materials), you decide to mend watches from your garage. Do you forfeit your home to the collective property because your business must be cooperatively managed in the interests of the community?
Let's try this another way.
And for that? I'd be interested in how they quantified trust if nothing else
What's amusing there is that in the present quasi-socialised enviroment, it's the contributions of the haves that give rise to government services available to the have nots.
By "more equal" you're referring to wealth distribution, right? Again, I'd love to see the citation for that.
What if the criminals self-organise?
Ideally you'd need an organised body of force - as you say, self-organisation is key as it multiplies the force available - to which citizens contribute equally in order to provide protection and from which criminals are barred entry. You could call it something like "citizen force" or "men of the city" and, if my classic lessons were anything to go by, that would require something derived from the word "polis" (city/citizen).
Some people are, some people aren't - though for the largest part people believe they are special cases and will (and we see this a lot in the development of children) behave exactly as badly as they think they can get away with at any given time. Ever driven over the speed limit? Yep, that.
No doubt - but then you have a situation where rules are different in every community. The rules in Attercliffe will be different from the rules in Wadsley Bridge - how do you move between them without becoming a criminal and hanged by a lynch mob (which, incidentally, is how we used to do direct democracy and collective enforcement)?
Neither do us any good? "Capitalism with a crushing income inequality" as you put it has led to the wealthiest, most productive civilization in the history of the world, where most of the so called "poor" people are still better off than the majority of the planet. Communism on the other hand has never even come close to the wealth creation and standard of living that communism was capable of achieving. Personally, I could care less about an artificial, meaningless construct like the "wealth gap". Here's a good example.
I can't get over how terrible this sounds. If anyone makes progress, or has good fortune, they need to give it up because someone somewhere else that has nothing to do with them might also want their advantage.
There's two absolutely superb flaws in that particular piece - or at least using in some manner that supports "wealth inequality" as a bad thing.
The high income family pays nearly as much in federal income taxation alone as the average family actually earns in total. The average family pays nearly no income taxation - the top half of all wage earners pay 97.7% of all income tax in the USA - and the low income family is a net beneficiary from income tax - up to 40% more income from tax benefits and breaks alone!
There's two absolutely superb flaws in that particular piece - or at least using in some manner that supports "wealth inequality" as a bad thing.
The first is that high income families may spend a smaller percentage of their income, but they're spending nearly five times as many actual dollars... Dollars get economies moving, not percentages of income.
The second is... that's pre-tax incomes
Including tax the sum becomes:
Low income family: $24,588 income, $24,806 spent. (100.8%), -$7,025 in federal taxation
Average income family: $63,685 income, $49,705 spent (78%), $0 in federal taxation
High income family: $187,473 income, $123,056 spent (65.6%), $59,787 in federal taxation
And every high income family provides not only 5 times as much money to the economy as a poor one, but provides enough funding at a federal level to support 8 low income families.
Boo hiss, wealth inequality!
Uhhh, no it won't. Each poor family spends $25k a year. Each average family spends $50k a year. Each "rich" one* spends $125k a year - that's as much as the average and poor households added together twice, despite also paying the average household's entire income as federal income tax.
I didn't say they were - in fact I did say that the numbers accounted for federal income tax alone. The point was that the article entirely left off the concept of taxation to generate skewed figures in addition to confusing percentage of income spent with amount spent.
