Marxist Exploiters

[downbeatplumb]

ATTENTION KOOLAY

Since I last replied in this thread, I have committed four separate and distinct crimes:

1. I drove 45kph in a speed zone clearly marked for 35.

2. I did maliciously and with malice aforethought, ride my motorcycle without wearing my helmet.

3. With a callous, nay, almost a brutal disregard for the safety and welfare of my fellow citizens, I began the construction of a small, ornamental pond in my front garden BEFORE getting planning permission.

4. Like the flagrant scoff-law that I am, I skirted the tax laws of my country by buying an item from a friend, and NOT reporting the sale.

On none of the above occasions was I murdered.

Boru

Yet.

[Kayenneh]

Some might point out that the study of business is peripheral to the study of economics, which is true as we deal with reality and practical application instead of the highly abstract universe of hypotheticals that economists live in. They were the butt of our jokes in business school.

Reminds me of a joke I read once:

At an interwiev a matematician, an engineer and an economist were asked what 2+2 was. The matematician answered: "Four. It's always four." The engineer responded: "Four. More or less. +/- 2%.". When the question was asked by the economist, he looked around the room, shut the blinds and whispered: "What do you want it to be?".

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Btw, no actual succusful business man would ever talk about owning a degree. I think you are just another state worshipping academic.

Evidence for this?

I believe DP's account of his academic/work life background above and beyond anything you say, seeing as you've lied on this forum about your background before.

[Koolay]

Why all the Marxist hate? I thought this forum wouldn't be blinded by ideology.

1. You cannot lump totalitarianism/communism with Marxism or Karl Marx.

2. Totalitarianism/communism is not any more "evil" than Capitalism/Democracy. They are simply forms of human government and some are just more appealing than others. In fact the U.S. government forced religious ideology in order to get people to blindly fight against communism without them even knowing anything about it. That is when "one nation under God" was added to the pledge of allegiance.

3. Marx wrote Das Kapital and got most of his ideas because he saw the brutal working conditions that children had to go through in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Children literally were eaten up by machines in the name of productivity.

4. Marx, Althusser, and others were simply saying that societies are made up of ideologies in order for their systems to work. Thus they opened up the conversations of things like religion, schools, media etc as being "social ideology apparatus" so that people wouldn't just accept those things as a fact of life.

All forms of government fail the non aggression principle. They create a separate moral law for a group of people. It is unequal and flat out wrong for certain people to legally initiate force. We are all equal and subject to the same moral laws. It is always wrong to initiate force, take someone's property and so on. Governments are just a nice word for a violent monopoly. Karl Marx, was a worshipper of the state and part of the propagandist class to manipulate people into surrendering their life to the violent monopoly of the state.

The opposite of this is peace, not solving social problems with violence. Anarcho Capitalism is the best possible reality to live in, since it treats everyone equally, and nobody can initiate force upon others like governments or religions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The opposite of this is peace, not solving social problems with violence. Anarcho Capitalism is the best possible reality to live in, since it treats everyone equally, and nobody can initiate force upon others like governments or religions.

If you deeply and sincerely believe that in ANY system under which human beings live that no one will initiate force upon others, then I respect your right to hold that belief.

I also respect and recognize that you are tee-total bugnuts crazy and have as great a talent for guessing wrong about human nature as Marx had for guessing wrong about historical forces.

Human beings cannot be depended upon to be the sort of peaceful, co-operative animals you envision. While I grant you that most people are mostly nice most of the time, the probability that someone under your system (or any system that puts human beings in contact with one another) who happens to be a little bigger or stronger or smarter or greedier than his fellows is going to visit violence upon them approaches unity.

Platonic and Marxist utopias depended upon the State withering away, which isn't going to happen. Koolayvian utopia depends upon human beings behaving like something other than human beings.

Best of luck with that.

Boru

[bennyboy]

Anarcho Capitalism is the best possible reality to live in, since it treats everyone equally, and nobody can initiate force upon others like governments or religions.

No. Heaven is the best possible reality to live in, since it allows everyone to live forever in a state of perfect joy and harmony, and since the buildings are made of gumdrops.

[DeistPaladin]

No. Heaven is the best possible reality to live in, since it allows everyone to live forever in a state of perfect joy and harmony, and since the buildings are made of gumdrops.

...and it's every bit as real as the fantasy world which anarcho-capitalists envision.

[gilbertc06]

If everyone looked like Brad Pitt and had everything they could ever want, people would still find the nuances to create a division between each other.

[Koolay]

The opposite of this is peace, not solving social problems with violence. Anarcho Capitalism is the best possible reality to live in, since it treats everyone equally, and nobody can initiate force upon others like governments or religions.

If you deeply and sincerely believe that in ANY system under which human beings live that no one will initiate force upon others, then I respect your right to hold that belief.

I also respect and recognize that you are tee-total bugnuts crazy and have as great a talent for guessing wrong about human nature as Marx had for guessing wrong about historical forces.

Human beings cannot be depended upon to be the sort of peaceful, co-operative animals you envision. While I grant you that most people are mostly nice most of the time, the probability that someone under your system (or any system that puts human beings in contact with one another) who happens to be a little bigger or stronger or smarter or greedier than his fellows is going to visit violence upon them approaches unity.

Platonic and Marxist utopias depended upon the State withering away, which isn't going to happen. Koolayvian utopia depends upon human beings behaving like something other than human beings.

Best of luck with that.

Boru

Well you don't need to be a perfect human, you can be as greedy and depraved as you want, as long as you do not harm others or violate their property. Free market capitalism is the ultimate co-operation, both parties trade and benefit from the transaction, and no violence is initiated. Violence/Governments are win/lose transactions, ultimately parasitical in nature. Capitalism benefits everyone peacefully.

I am very sceptical to anyone who would try to define human nature, defining human nature is like trying to define the shape of water. Human's by nature, are widely adaptable and constantly changing. Whenever someone says humans are naturally evil, violent, and aggressive - then I just think they are projecting their neurosis.

And even if we say that all humans are naturally aggressive, greedy, evil, whatever then we absolutely MUST NOT have a government, since it is far too dangerous to give aggressive, evil people the legal right and monopoly to violence.

[bennyboy]

Well you don't need to be a perfect human, you can be as greedy and depraved as you want, as long as you do not harm others or violate their property.

Well, what if he does? Then what?