Billionaires and big corps are running out of places to hide.

[Highmark]

11 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Sure, let's take more communist theory out of context. 

Lmao. 

How is that out of context?  Do some of Marx teachings not condemn family hierarchy like every other type?  Want some more quotes from his writings or followers?

 

Don't feel bad Marx was a hypocrite too.

"Marx was also a hypocrite. While he wrote with such sympathy for the men who worked in factories, calling them slaves, the money he lived on, the charity he received from his friend Friedrich Engels, came from the Engels family interest in a factory. So the ’slaves’ were supporting the Marx family, while Marx sat and thought.

Watching his children go hungry, seeing them live in filth, is neglect. It is abuse. There was no need for it. He had an education and could have earned an income, and he knew where he had come from, a comfortable life with his parents. He could have provided for his family as his father had provided for him, but obviously that was not important to him."

https://redice.tv/news/karl-marx-lived-in-filth-and-neglected-his-children     

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by Highmark

[motonoggin]

11 minutes ago, Highmark said:

How is that out of context?  Do some of Marx teachings not condemn family hierarchy like every other type?  Want some more quotes from his writings or followers?

 

Don't feel bad Marx was a hypocrite too.

"Marx was also a hypocrite. While he wrote with such sympathy for the men who worked in factories, calling them slaves, the money he lived on, the charity he received from his friend Friedrich Engels, came from the Engels family interest in a factory. So the ’slaves’ were supporting the Marx family, while Marx sat and thought.

Watching his children go hungry, seeing them live in filth, is neglect. It is abuse. There was no need for it. He had an education and could have earned an income, and he knew where he had come from, a comfortable life with his parents. He could have provided for his family as his father had provided for him, but obviously that was not important to him."

https://redice.tv/news/karl-marx-lived-in-filth-and-neglected-his-children     

 

Marx isn't the only communist theorist

[Highmark]

Just now, motonoggin said:

Marx isn't the only communist theorist

Oh....   So you come on here and preach about Marxist ideals but stop short when it comes to ones that might negatively impact yourself.     

I'm sure you know this but from the Marx Communist Manifesto.  How do you inherit a family farm when communist don't believe in private property or inheritance?  

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

 

 

[motonoggin]

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Oh....   So you come on here and preach about Marxist ideals but stop short when it comes to ones that might negatively impact yourself.     

I'm sure you know this but from the Marx Communist Manifesto.  How do you inherit a family farm when communist don't believe in private property or inheritance?  

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

 

 

Communists make a distinction between personal property and private property. 

[Highmark]

18 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Communists make a distinction between personal property and private property. 

Which communist? 

Don't the families with significant "personal property" have a distinct hierarchical advantage over those that don't pass this property down from generation to generation?  Farmland would sure be an advantage not everyone would share.

Seems to me you are picking and choosing communist beliefs based on your own life.

 

This article is spot on for you. 

https://www.actualanarchy.com/2017/02/06/personal-vs-private-property-dont-get-tripped-up-by-this-marxist-fallacy/

 

Personal vs. Private Property: Don’t Get Tripped Up By This Fallacy

By Steven Clyde

The modern day Marxist is quite the odd figure. Depending on the day you talk to them, they are adhering to another random school of thought within the socialist/communist movement whether it be anarcho-communism[1], anarcho-syndicalism[2], Maoism[3], Leninism[4], Trotskyism[5], etc. Yet no matter how you try and debate with them, they always want to try and trip you up on one thing: property.

The idea that revolves around pretty much all these ideologies is that there is first to be made a distinction between types of property: that is personal property (consumer goods) and private property (producer goods). Second, there is an everlasting principle ingrained that private property, as a “capitalistic norm” they will say, is theft. Often times, they will go on to say that private property is “violence and murder” as well, really putting on the pedestal with your beliefs.

There are several attempts to justify this argument, one being that capitalists exploit the people they hire because they extract the surplus value[6] (the full value of their productivity in any given setting minus their contracted wage) and thus are guilty of theft on that account. When you bring up the point of “well didn’t they agree to the wages determined in the contract?” their response is often something along the lines of “people are forced to go out and get jobs or starve so none of it is voluntary.”

Arguments like this are trying to persuade you on the notion that its okay to receive whats available from others sacrifices, and that you should resent anyone who feels like you as a person should have to go out and make sacrifices just because other people do. This all tends to cultivate into a self-satisfying diatribe towards the idea that being free to make your own contracts in a free society, would be worse than if society came together to own all the means of production.

“Society”, is but of whom? Are all the people in the building I’m in a small society if we claim? What about all the people on my block? So is it really to say, that if there is a printer that adds productive value to someone in the world, that the printer is now owned by the lot of the 7.28 billion of us? But if everybody owned the printer, what would be the incentive to create a new printer? Would society then be viewed as just continents? But what about mere states? Towns? Society is subjective, and thus we must focus on the individual themselves in any situation to make rational observations.

The individual will take a broom and get productive value out of it, yet no one goes around claiming everyone has the right to other people’s brooms.

Once something is personal property as they claim, namely it’s acquired through self-sacrifice, it cannot then be transformed into another term (called private property) without changing physical form. If it’s simply something that helps another man acquire an end, whether that end is to gain more than they put at risk or to accomplish something like a small task, then what right does “society” have to deprive the individual who simply used their mind and the resources around them to make a change.

But therein lies the true problem: incentives. This is one of the most fundamental differences in how the anarcho-capitalist and the anarcho-communist view how people act; one believes that people act purposefully and use our minds to transform resources to attain certain ends and do so only with knowing that they can attain those ends[7], while the other believes that people would have these same incentives so long as they weren’t simply bound by another capitalist and exploited.[8]

There are lots of problems with the idea that all value comes from labor, as they try to presume. Carl Menger was the first to point out in his 1871 book “Principles of Economics” that a diamond is worth no more to consumers whether it was found on the ground or mined for years and then found: value is subjective. [9] Therefore, it’s a fallacy to assume that employers “exploit” their employees by stealing their labor, because the product produced might end up fetching no value on the marketplace, yet the employer has agreed to pay you in the present in hopes of making a profit in the future. “Surplus value”, if we must agree to as the term of your revenue minus your costs, is simply the result of market forces telling you that you’re allocating resources the correct way. If there was no “surplus value”, surely the worker wouldn’t have a job and would be worse off.

So what’s this have to do with the definition of property? Well, they are essentially arguing that “private property” as they say is illegitimate property because it enslaves the backs of the “working class” and doesn’t provide for societies basic needs. This is the opposite from the truth. The natural state of humanity IS absolute poverty; yet to paraphrase Thomas Sowell humans thousands of years ago must have been the richest people in the history of civilizations because they had access to all the natural resources that had never been used. You can see Sowell’s point though: wealth is something that had to be created in the first place, and the property each of us owns individually right now has been through the coordination of market forces in allocating resources. It’s only in the past few hundred years that the average person has the means of productivity at their disposal to provide not only just their basic needs, but beyond that to invest and transform different resources in other ways. That’s the only way wealth is created and an economy grows. Their big conniption is that right now nearly half the world lives in poverty, yet empirical evidence shows otherwise: even in the last 30 years we’ve cut extreme poverty (defined as living off less than $1 a day) in nearly half through technological advances and the rise in the capability of the average person to create wealth for themselves and their families. [10]

   

Edited October 12, 2021 by Highmark

[motonoggin]

Lmao thanks for the shit take from a non anarchist.

 

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

Lmao thanks for the shit take from a non anarchist.

 

Nice try....just accept you got your ass handed to you today on this.  

[motonoggin]

10 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Nice try....just accept you got your ass handed to you today on this.  

Ancaps aren't anarchists and they're notorious for their shit takes. 

Massive, massive fail.

[Sleepr2]

8 hours ago, motonoggin said:

 

“ I’m such a self absorbed hypocrite I’m incapable of admitting or seeing my hypocrisy and ignorance”. 
 

[ActionfigureJoe]

The GOP'ers will never stop their fight for billionaires to pay no taxes. 

[motonoggin]

22 minutes ago, ActionfigureJoe said:

The GOP'ers will never stop their fight for billionaires to pay no taxes. 

But both parties agree that they should exist.

And that's the fucking problem.

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

But both parties agree that they should exist.

And that's the fucking problem.

I don’t think it’s so much that they “should exist” so much as they can.

It comes down to overall tax burden extrapolated (extorted).

[ActionfigureJoe]

3 minutes ago, motonoggin said:

But both parties agree that they should exist.

And that's the fucking problem.

There's not many DFL'ers here. The captive audience are the GOP'ers. You are correct. 

[p51mstg]

All your base are belong to us.  Make your time.