motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 161 baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 Wasting time arguing over partisan minutiae but won't take any time to watch a few vids... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodtick Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 15 hours ago, motonoggin said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Moto doesn't realize if he can't get guys like slinger and MC on his side his movement is going fucking nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Highmark said: Moto doesn't realize if he can't get guys like slinger and MC on his side his movement is going fucking nowhere. Liberals are wedded to the mistaken idea that we can change things through the ballot box and peaceful protest. Especially the baby boomers. Power has never willingly relinquished that power and never will. Their misguided peace policing and tone policing are counter productive. Edited February 2, 2017 by motonoggin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, Woodtick said: The only people here smoking crack are those that think the study of which constituency Congress represents is inaccurate. We are not represented by Congress. It's time we actually did something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, motonoggin said: No question the govt should have let the banks fail. We would have recovered. In fact they let one of the largest one fail. First and foremost some simple regulations and oversight could have prevented the "subprime mortgage crisis." There were plenty of contributing factors that caused the SMC. Edited February 2, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, motonoggin said: What about the violent revolution you speak of to achieve those means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Highmark said: No question the govt should have let the banks fail. We would have recovered. In fact they let one of the largest one fail. First and foremost some simple regulations and oversight could have prevented the "subprime mortgage crisis." There were plenty of contributing factors that caused the SMC. Capitalists will always seek to gain enough power to dismantle the safeguards that prevent them from ruining the economy. This is why capitalism has to be replaced Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, Highmark said: What about the violent revolution you speak of to achieve those means? Power has never given anything up without a demand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) Just now, motonoggin said: Power has never given anything up without a demand Power is never gained without an authority in control that stays in control. Edited February 2, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 minute ago, Highmark said: Power is never gained without an authority in control that stays in control. Wut? understand that Anarchists would like to dismantle all unjustified hierarchies, and Communists want a stateless, classless society where are the power to govern ourselves is left up to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, motonoggin said: Wut? understand that Anarchists would like to dismantle all unjustified hierarchies, and Communists want a stateless, classless society where are the power to govern ourselves is left up to us. I get that. Problem is it can't be done or controlled without people in authority. Whether or not you want that to be described as a hierarchy is debatable. How can you organize a revolution without people in charge? Then when its set up those people will automatically just hand over authority? Never has happened in human history the way you want it, especially in communist revolutions. Those have proven time and time again to be the most susceptible to authoritarian hierarchy's. The closest thing that historically happened that you desire is probably America in its infancy. I would never argue that we've let govt become too large and burdensome on freedom. I would like to see much of it go away. Humans have proved over and over throughout history there must be laws to be followed to some extent. Human nature is vile enough to require it. Your system of govt or economy would leave us in the stone age. People acting on their own cannot accomplish what man has thru history. People acting on their own without a system in place could not design and build jets for example. Or large construction equipment. Your Utopian ideals while commendable are not realistic if mankind is to advance. Its as simple as that. Edited February 2, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Highmark said: I get that. Problem is it can't be done or controlled without people in authority. Whether or not you want that to be described as a hierarchy is debatable. How can you organize a revolution without people in charge? Then when its set up those people will automatically just hand over authority? Never has happened in human history the way you want it, especially in communist revolutions. Those have proven time and time again to be the most susceptible to authoritarian hierarchy's. The closest thing that historically happened that you desire is probably America in its infancy. I would never argue that we've let govt become too large and burdensome on freedom. I would like to see much of it go away. Humans have proved over and over throughout history there must be laws to be followed to some extent. Human nature is vile enough to require it. Your system of govt or economy would leave us in the stone age. People acting on their own cannot accomplish what man has thru history. People acting on their own without a system in place could not design and build jets for example. Or large construction equipment. Your Utopian ideals while commendable are not realistic if mankind is to advance. Its as simple as that. 1. You clearly don't understand the difference between a justified and an unjustified hierarchy/authority. 2. Anarchism doesn't advocate lawlessness, in fact, quite the opposite. Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers. 3. The only utopian idea here is that capitalism can meet the needs of the people. Clearly that is not the case. 4. You assume innovation and creativity require a profit motive. I have provided scientific evidence that it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted February 2, 2017 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, motonoggin said: 1. You clearly don't understand the difference between a justified and an unjustified hierarchy/authority. 2. Anarchism doesn't advocate lawlessness, in fact, quite the opposite. Anarchy does not mean no rules, it means no rulers. 3. The only utopian idea here is that capitalism can meet the needs of the people. Clearly that is not the case. 4. You assume innovation and creativity require a profit motive. I have provided scientific evidence that it doesn't. HOLY SHIT DUDE! I get what it is and what you claim it to be. My point is and always has been its not possible. If you want to say we need some base MW/compensation thats tied to productivity and or inflation its one thing, that might be feasible but what you are advocating is simply not HUMANLY possible. Innovation and creativity might not always require a profit motive to some extent but it doesn't hurt. Also there needs to be organizational structure to accomplish what man has regarding things like i've mentioned. People just out of the blue create Jets and large tractors and bridges and nuclear power plants and whatever. The lists of things that need large corporations to create is endless. I'm curious. You seem to spend a lot of time on your employer's dime on the internet talking politics. Is this part of your compensation? Edited February 2, 2017 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motonoggin Posted February 2, 2017 Author Share Posted February 2, 2017 You don't need large corporations for any of that. You just need organized workers with a common purpose. Humans did all this with capitalism, that doesn't mean they can't do it without it. And you are 100% wrong that the profit motive is essential to innovation. I have posted videos that scientifically prove that the human ability to accomplish complex tasks and solve complex problems is harmed by monetary incentive, not helped. People are motivated by a lot more than money, and the notion that they aren't reveals not only a poor opinion of your fellow humans, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity in general. This misunderstanding will likely be fatal for capitalism. Too bad, shoulda thought of that before you removed all the policies that protect workers and the people from the predators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.