The Rich Benefit the Most from Socialism

[Something completely different]

If market freedom gives us economic growth, why not ditch parasitical violence so we can have maximum economic growth?

There is nothing that guarantees that the participants within a free market will not partialy try to gain their goals through messures of violence, as such the goverment has a monopoly in violence and will have until the opposite of what is mentioned above is proven.

You see this is what I do not get, how can you recognise that fascism is morally wrong and grossly inefficient, but be okay with half fascism?

There is no such thing as "half fascism". Fascism is defined as:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5] Hostile to liberal democracy, socialism, and communism, fascist movements share certain common features, including the veneration of the state, a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation[3][6][7][8] and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker nations.[9]

There is no:

half radical authoritarian
half nationalist
half totalitarian state
half mobilisation of a community
half national community
half vanguard party
half revolution
half principles
half veneration of the state
half strong leader
half militarism
half violence
half war
half imperialism

And a fascist is hardly a fascist let alone a half fascist if he only takes half of those things serious and has opposing views towards all others.

Basicaly, you are just ejaculating bullshit originating from your mental erection.

It is not logically consistent, either using violence to achieve your means is right or wrong, you can't just make up circumstances you want. Like, I can't say that "Rape is wrong, except under circumstance x, y, z" it would be insane. Either rape is wrong or it is not.

The irony of you using the word "consistent" in your inconsistent ramble.
No one is making up circumstances under which violence is permitted, a society sets up rules and standerds for such, which are not random circumstances but possibilities based on facts on the society.

The non aggression principle, has to be applied to everyone. Genuinely, I do not understand how you do not see this.

A law cannot be applied without an authority inforcing it. Otherwise the Law becomes insignificant.

You discredit every single form of law applied on a society, yet demand that certain laws are applied?????

Why dont you just grab that cock that is sticking in your eye and prevent your brainfuck ideology from further skullfucking you into being a hypocrite and utter moron.

So people voluntarily trading goods and services with each other is a 'rampage' but, a small group of people holding the monopoly on violence forcing everyone to submit money to them is not?

Because they abide to standerds and laws that prevent them from abusing their monopoly of violence against the good of society.









bitch!

Well listen, if you can not understand that 2+2=4, then you are getting something fundamentally wrong about math. If you can not realise that principles, especially moral principles need to be universalised, then me discussing the details is ignoring the problem.

To "universalise" a moral value by methods of speech and thought will not provide a legal framework that guarantees that a society will abide to those values.

Me skipping universally preferable behaviour, and explaining economic behaviour would be like teaching someone math, finding out that they think 2+2=5, then going to algebra. It's just glazing over the misunderstanding, ultimately it would be a waste of both of our time. So, I wont discuss economics with you, only philosophy. If your end conclusion is just going to be use violence to achieve ends, then there is no point in me trying to convince you to accept otherwise. If you point guns at me, I am just going to submit. I won't pretend someone who wants to initiate violence has any interest in a rational discussion.

ideology =/= economics

And to simply state "Your just an idiot who does not understand what a genius I am." Is something so utterly pathetic that I would have never expected it to be seen here on this forum. It ill serve no other purose than your own further isolation from other members of this forum.

You`d better get use to it bitch.



Now I am done jerking you off. Usualy when no one answeres my replies, my first thought is, it is because I wrote something very stupid. But in your case, I think, no matter how hard you jerk your idology off, nothing comes forward that fits.