EPTIt's funny how the two people i argued against are from Canada. If you to go to the utopia that is big government, then I encourage you to go to canada / europe and bask in their fortune. However, if you trust yourself more than to the government to run your lives then small government is right for you.
Occupy Wall Street - Page 197
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xavra41
United States220 Posts
It's funny how the two people i argued against are from Canada. If you to go to the utopia that is big government, then I encourage you to go to canada / europe and bask in their fortune. However, if you trust yourself more than to the government to run your lives then small government is right for you. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
http://anonops.blogspot.com/ | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
| ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:17 Ghostcom wrote: Wait, is OWS still ongoing? I thought the winter "killed" all the protests, and that nothing had really been accomplished. Am I wrong? You should already know the revolution will not be televised. | ||
|
Jusba
Finland189 Posts
Corruption caused by capitalism is to blame. There just can't be capitalism without corruption. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:32 Jusba wrote: Violent revolution is inevitable. Corruption caused by capitalism is to blame. There just can't be capitalism without corruption. are you suggesting we become communists? i hate people who have quippy remarks like this but offer no solution. | ||
|
alpinefpOPP
United States134 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:24 MethodSC wrote: You should already know the revolution will not be televised. I'm not from the states... In Denmark the media would be creating a massive shitstorm if a meaningful parallel was still ongoing... | ||
|
Corrosive
Canada3741 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:37 alpinefpOPP wrote: People who were at occupy wall street need to quit complaining and go occupy a job. It seems like most people who say this are unhappy with their jobs, and they're mad that other people aren't as unhappy as them. | ||
|
Cyx.
Canada806 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:41 Corrosive wrote: It seems like most people who say this are unhappy with their jobs, and they're mad that other people aren't as unhappy as them. What? Where did you get that idea? I say that on a pretty regular basis and I really like my job. Most people who say that are people who've put in a bit of effort to get a job and realized that it's not all that hard. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:32 Jusba wrote: Violent revolution is inevitable. Corruption caused by capitalism is to blame. There just can't be capitalism without corruption. It won't be violent at all. At least not in United States. (see Wisconsin) | ||
|
Jusba
Finland189 Posts
On March 19 2012 06:36 Terranist wrote: are you suggesting we become communists? i hate people who have quippy remarks like this but offer no solution. Anarchism. There shouldn't be any kind of control by government or money. Only our morals should control what we do. The dumb presumption in anarchism is that normal people would start killing/stealing from others all of a sudden. Most of us do have morals so its just stupid to think that would happen. Stealing and killing is mostly affected by lack of money. Anyone will steal from someone to feed theyr family. Some steal or kill for drugs they are addicted to. Some just kill and steal because they are mentally ill. All in all I think killing and stealing would be much rarer in a world of anarchism. But, its too late to go back to anarchism. Who would feed the 7 milliard people? You see, there is no solution. Things will start going worse and worse in the world until humankind is done in this world. Humankind has been doomed for a long time. Ofc there is the possibility that some huge natural thing is going to happen that kills most of us and sets us backwards again. Perhaps people would be smarter after it. I don't think theres nothing humans can do to save humankind. Our nature is just too fucked up. Was that better :p? Not really the most positive read. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
There shouldn't be any kind of control by government or money The world started out beeing anarchistic, People bounded together in clans and later citys, and they decided to create governing bodys like counils and such. Its much more efficient to organise things in groups then it is to do individually. There are still a few regions in the world wich could be described as anarchistic and they are not doing well, though there are multiple reasons for that. Our nature is just too fucked up. If you realy think this, then anarchism would be a terrible choise. since then our morals (wich you can also call nature) will decide what we do as you said. The world is not doomed, at least not by humanity. We are feeding more people everyday and standards of living are still rising globally, technological progress never stops. Nothing on earth can kill us , we still have a long way to go to utopia but we will get there. We are here to stay. Hmm this sounds overly optimistic.. Our nature (or rather the older parts of our brain, our instincts and emotional reactions as there is little wrong with out intellect) are a huge fundamental problem indeed and it seems difficult to overcome. Still i dont think we are doomed, we just have a long way to go but we are making progress and moving in the right direction, and i dont see this change fundamentally. On topic: also suprised to see that occupy is still going on We dont hear annything about it on the news ever and also thought that the winter killed it. Good to hear its still going. | ||
|
Red112
20 Posts
On March 19 2012 09:36 Rassy wrote: Anarchism. There shouldn't be any kind of control by government or money The world started out beeing anarchistic, People bounded together in clans and later citys, and they decided to create governing bodys like counils and such. Its much more efficient to organise things in groups then it is to do individually. There are still a few regions in the world wich could be described as anarchistic and they are not doing well, though there are multiple reasons for that. Our nature is just too fucked up. If you realy think this, then anarchism would be a terrible choise. since then our morals (wich you can also call nature) will decide what we do as you said. The world is not doomed, at least not by humanity. We are feeding more people everyday and standards of living are still rising globally, technological progress never stops. Nothing on earth can kill us , we still have a long way to go to utopia but we will get there. We are here to stay. Hmm this sounds overly optimistic.. Our nature (or rather the older parts of our brain, our instincts and emotional reactions as there is little wrong with out intellect) are a huge fundamental problem indeed and it seems difficult to overcome. Still i dont think we are doomed, we just have a long way to go but we are making progress and moving in the right direction, and i dont see this change fundamentally. Even back when we 'bound together in clans' there was still a heirarchical structure. There was still somebody at the head, telling everybody what to do. If there is ever going to be an alternative to capitalism, it's has to be through more government. Not less. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
If there is ever going to be an alternative to capitalism, it's has to be through more government. Not less. Yeah they've tried that. Both large-scale, the "Communist" countries of the last century everyone knows about, and small-scale too, various "socialist" utopia towns and "communes" and such, in America and various countries in Western Europe, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Didn't work out so well. None of them worked out in fact. | ||
|
Red112
20 Posts
On March 19 2012 09:52 DeepElemBlues wrote: Yeah they've tried that. Both large-scale, the "Communist" countries of the last century everyone knows about, and small-scale too, various "socialist" utopia towns and "communes" and such, in America and various countries in Western Europe, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Didn't work out so well. None of them worked out in fact. Pretty sure these 'various socialist utopia towns' you're referring to all happened in the 19th century. Totalitarianism with some communist charactaristics is still totalitarianism, not an attempt at communism. Also more recent attempts, such as Cuba. Which faced an embargo from its enemy, the most powerful country in the world, has managed to create a healthcare system that rivals your own and boasts literacy rates which put yours to shame. Sure, some of the politics there is pretty shitty at the moment, but it's not easy to have a gloriously functioning government when you've got the most powerful nation in the world looking to replace you as soon as possible with a puppet. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On March 19 2012 09:12 Jusba wrote: Anarchism. There shouldn't be any kind of control by government or money. Only our morals should control what we do. The dumb presumption in anarchism is that normal people would start killing/stealing from others all of a sudden. Most of us do have morals so its just stupid to think that would happen. Stealing and killing is mostly affected by lack of money. Anyone will steal from someone to feed theyr family. Some steal or kill for drugs they are addicted to. Some just kill and steal because they are mentally ill. All in all I think killing and stealing would be much rarer in a world of anarchism. But, its too late to go back to anarchism. Who would feed the 7 milliard people? You see, there is no solution. Things will start going worse and worse in the world until humankind is done in this world. Humankind has been doomed for a long time. Ofc there is the possibility that some huge natural thing is going to happen that kills most of us and sets us backwards again. Perhaps people would be smarter after it. I don't think theres nothing humans can do to save humankind. Our nature is just too fucked up. Was that better :p? Not really the most positive read. Structure is required for civil life. The question isn't if we should have structure or not (we should, and we can't escape it. Revert to anarchism and you'll soon have feudal kingdoms fighting eachother) but how we achieve the best structure with the least amounts of downsides. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Its not 100% fair to judge it based on one badly executed example. In theory i believe in communism but it seems verry difficult to make it work in reality. Because in general cooperation is better then competition and should lead to better results, well at least thats what i believe in. Though it seems we are not ready for it yet,maybe after a few more 100 years of social evolution. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On March 19 2012 09:52 DeepElemBlues wrote: Yeah they've tried that. Both large-scale, the "Communist" countries of the last century everyone knows about, and small-scale too, various "socialist" utopia towns and "communes" and such, in America and various countries in Western Europe, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Didn't work out so well. None of them worked out in fact. are you saying communist in quotes because you know they weren't even close to communism? at any rate, the main thing that needs to be changed is the ability of the wealthy and powerful to rule with more influence than an individual. right now the US is a complete failure in this regard. essentially you need checks and balances to make sure you're not too close to anarchy where people can do whatever they want regardless of the damage done. more government doesn't mean the government telling you what shoes to wear, it means that human beings have a chance to defend themselves against the might makes right types, those that say that since they have more money they must be worth more than another person. | ||
| ||
