Repeating the same thing over and over again
All of the points you are saying that we haven't addressed have actually been addressed many times, so I doubt there's any point in us trying to address them again. :|
See, I was right! ;D
the feelings mutual. ok i'll address them right now. if you feel i've disregarded anything you said it's probably because i thought they were purely opinion based (Karl Marx too idealistic, Karl Marx claims he knows everything, general disapproval of Marx, democracy looks better than communism, your story about firefighters), inaccurate (idea = execution [thomas edison took 1000 tries to build the lightbulb, guess the lightbulb was a dumb idea then], Zimbabwe not being a democracy, Mugabe being a socialist), argument ad hominem (calling me ignorant, calling me stubborn, dyed-in-the-wool), lack of seriousness (trollface, your story), and what i felt to be lack of content (too much opinion, analogies that could work either way). if you are to convince me that socialism is a bad idea, i don't need analogies to ancient civilizations, personal attacks, stories, or your opinion on Karl Marx. Just name flaws like not being able to possess private property. The reason you are finding it hard to get your point across, is because trying to prove a whole system is a bad idea is because you have to prove it true in every single situation, every variation and incarnation of socialism that can exist. because if even one succeeds or doesn't suck then there is a form of acceptable socialism. you have to find traits that all socialist societies would have not specific ones like communism. it's even harder since we are talking about the idea of socialism and not the execution meaning that all you have to talk about is really the rights/equality/freedom aspect of it. Of human rights you mentioned relatively little. You mentioned slavery which is not necessary in socialism.
"The idea behind me killing her was that it would improve my life. Free of all the ways she inconvenienced me, I would have greater personal opportunities. I could be happier."
Clearly there is nothing wrong with the idea of killing her.
Scatt, the king of Reducto Ad Absurdum, out.
i'm sorry but sacrificing some rights for a general higher quality of life is wrong? Not absurd at all. there are many schools of thought to socialism (i'm guessing you have an image of socialism as evil slavemasters ingrained into your brain); you can't exactly say how much rights are taken away. You could have full-blown communism, or a democratic society where everyone has complete power over their fate and pulls in an equal amount of money. Like I said, a democratic socialist republic (yes i said republic), would hardly infringe on any rights. Perhaps just as much as the Patriot Act. Or anti-abortionism. Or not being allowed to commit suicide. It depends what form socialism takes. Is it Absurd? No. Imagine every single poor or homeless person without a job given an opportunity (whether they take it is another story) to suddenly start making $80k a year. Imagine those wealthy investors who contribute nothing to the world like Warren Buffet (third richest man) making the same amount. The top .01% of (1/10000) makes 23% of the total income. That means that on average they control 2,300 times more money than the average man but do they do 2,300 times the work? do they contribute 2300 times as much? Corporate mega-moguls would also make the same amount of money, say $80k a year. The poor and underprivileged would gladly accept socialism (hence why communism is dominant in poorer nations). If you know anything about maslows hierarchy of needs, people look for employment, food, shelter, safety, sex, breathing, water etc etc. before they seek the higher ideals such as freedom.
Obviously, you and me, who have our physiological needs satisfied, who have health, property, safety, shelter, food, family, friends, a significant other, who have sex, love, self-esteem, self-confidence, companionship, and most of all opportunity, who have so much more than the bottom feeders, are free to pursue higher ideals at the top of the pyramid. That's why people such as you, such as me, would not accept socialism. We're at the top or near the top, free to pursue higher thought without worrying about the rent or a saber tooth tiger. I'd say we live a sheltered life. But people at the bottom seek to pay their rent, they seek food, they seek shelter, and socialism satisfies that. Safety takes priority over ideals for 95% of humanity. In this day and age, our safety comes from the economy.
Cliffs:
Many schools of thought to socialism. Amount of rights taken away varies. Can be very limited to totalitarianism. Socialism + Democracy for example could ensure rights.
Some rights given up for safety is not absurd
maslow hierarchy of need says ideals/rights do not matter until baser needs are satisfied (namely employment, food, shelter, survival)
Poor people would gladly sacrifice some of their ideals for safety.
You and Me are well off, hence we have a different mindset. You and me, do not worry about safety/shelter/employment because we have needs satisfied. Hence you see it as a bad trade, while less fortunate people are more likely to embrace socialism (China, Vietnam, etc)
ALSO ALSO SCOTTMCTONY, i think this should interest you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy
