Socialism does work

[Marblehead]

Yes, I've gained some incites into you. Absolutely I regard defence as entirely necessary. I just don't see any reason why it needs a government to do it. Mostly these days it doesn't seem to be doing much defending ( and actually has it ever done so in its entire history)-they failed to prevent 9/11 and a whole host of other attacks. It appears to me it has ignored the entire constitution and gone off into the foreign entanglements it swore it would never do. There is another good book which I read but can't quite remember it's name something like 'why the Wild West wasn't so wild'.

We keep flirting with getting back to talking about socialism but never quite get there.

 

I don't disagree with anything you have said in this post.  It's just that defending the entire nation requires organized effort and being able to move defenses to areas where they are needed at any given point in time.

 

Small communities like the ones in some parts of Africa and South America could handle this but larger countries would have a hard time doing it.

 

The first line of Chapter 80 of the Tao Te Ching reads:

 

Let the country be small and people few -

 

Life hasn't worked out that way though.

[Marblehead]

I haven't read all 21 pages but it seems that the conversation has left its original territory?

 

Re: defence

 

Anyone or anything that wants to survive should be able to defend itself.

 

There is a difference, of course, between

having a gun or a baseball bat hidden away in case of attack, and

stockpiling bombs, and sending tanks and warplanes and hired guns around the area, killing anyone who doesn't behave the way you like, and stealing other people's shit, ”just in case“.

 

In the latter case, one is always going to end up with many enemies...

Yes Dear, we have gone off topic.  Isn't the first time.

 

I agree with what you said.

 

I do not support what my government is doing to many other countries around the world.

[ralis]

How many mushrooms have you had so far?

 

I have demanded nothing.  I am simply expressing my opinions

 

Of course it is "MY" government.  And yours and every other citizen.

 

I have never asked my government to defend my property.  I can do that very well myself, thank you.

 

Yes, that is the way it is.  It is not the way it is supposed to be.  But then, sometimes I don't answer their questions if I feel they do not have the right to the information.

 

I have not been innocent since I was three years old.

 

Oh!  Wow!  Now I am ignorant.  I have lived very well for 74 years and relied only on my own efforts and have never asked anyone for anything I have not earned.  I think you need a little self-questioning.

BULLSHIT!!!  The state has granted me nothing.  I have my free will and that is all I need.  I don't even need government to kiss my ass.

Where the fuck did you come up with all these privileges?

A few people would die, myself included, before that ever happened.

You obviously have me confused with someone else.  I have never given up my power or free will.  And yes, the government MUST give me an explanation before they can do anything with or to me or my property.

 

Why too many mushrooms you have eaten.  Please remember that you are talking with the TaoBum Anarchist.  Holy Shit!!!!

 

I have earned and maintain my own security.  And I would expect everyone else to do the same.

 

No, I haven't read it and likely won't.  He would be writing at a totally different level than the life I lived.  I have read Sun Tzu though and understand that even my military leaders either haven't read it or if they did they have forgotten everything they read.  The USA has not won a war since WWII.

 

I think this guy is cutting/pasting at times. I have noticed that his grammar/syntax will change as if there are two different persons writing. I wonder if this guy is someone that was banned from here in the past.

[Karl]

Yeah, that one is a little difficult to explain.  Kinda' like "I know what I'm doing but noone else does."

 

Because I know myself I know I don't need anyone telling me how to live my life.  Because I have known other people I know that there are many who need to be told how to live their life.

 

Now, there is that possibility that everyone else thinks just as I do and therefore none of us feel we need anyone esle telling us how to live our life.

 

 

You are alluding to Social Anarchy and, yes, it could work.  But I have not seen it work anywhere except, as I pointed out before, in small tribal societies.  Perhaps it is that the larger the population of a society the more controls are needed.

 

Police are almost always an "after the fact" function.  You report a crime, they investigate, sometimes catch to doer.  But still, the crime is already done.  But then, just their presence is a deterant for many would-be crimes.  And they do oftentimes provide guidance and protection for public safety.

 

 

Yeah.  Choices.  I made my choices.  I live with them.

 

My profession in the Army was providing communications so that leaders could talk with each other.  It wasn't my job to seek out people and kill them.  Merc's get paid good money to do that.

 

So you don't need Government for you, but only to keep others in line, which they aren't doing, but they are racking up immense amounts of debt on your behalf and I wonder how you would feel-if like Greece-they decided not to pay you that pension anymore.

 

Government not for me but for them. Hmmm. Doesn't that deny the antecedent ? Government is, by its nature for all. You cannot exclude yourself from it and in at least one way you are dependent upon it.

 

I would say you have rationalised two conflicting concepts, but they certainly aren't resolved. If they were then you would not care if the state took away your pension and quadrupled its current debt. My guess is you wouldn't like that. It looks to me as if you tolerate Government because that's what is there and it provides you an income ( I know you paid in and will answer that it is your due, but it still can be taken away if the state chooses to excercise it's powers ).

 

I've found that when I deny reality or in other words, hold conflicting concepts, then I become angry when things don't go the way I want them to. I only hold one concept and that is one which does not include Government as it currently is. That does not mean the I deny governance or law, they are uniquely different operators. So then I accept all those things that government/state supposedly does well, will vanish. I do not hold the concept that my life will be improved by its demise, only that it is not logical for me to support it in any sense or form. Like you I can take care of myself and if I can't then it is insignificant. I'm more than capable of defending myself if needed, but unlike the U.S. we are denied that option. The state has pulled our teeth and claws and left us at the mercy of whatever wolves it has created.

[Marblehead]

I think this guy is cutting/pasting at times. I have noticed that his grammar/syntax will change as if there are two different persons writing. I wonder if this guy is someone that was banned from here in the past.

Oh, it's been a nice discussion. It has allowed me to express some of my Anarchist philosophy.  Yeah, here in the Socialism thread.

 

I will always consider Karl to be someone I can easily disagree with.  Hehehe.

[Karl]

We keep flirting with getting back to talking about socialism but never quite get there.

 

I don't disagree with anything you have said in this post.  It's just that defending the entire nation requires organized effort and being able to move defenses to areas where they are needed at any given point in time.

 

Small communities like the ones in some parts of Africa and South America could handle this but larger countries would have a hard time doing it.

 

The first line of Chapter 80 of the Tao Te Ching reads:

 

Let the country be small and people few -

 

Life hasn't worked out that way though.

 

Your government can't even handle a flood. When France fell during the Second World War you might guess who had made haste and left the country.

 

It's also noteworthy that the German army skirted neutral Switzerland. Not because it was neutral, but because every one of its citizens are armed and trained to use arms. A German army wandering into a country full of armed citizens would suffer substantial losses. House to house, street to street, field to field.

 

Once it becomes clear that a country has lost a war you can guarantee they are bunkered up somewhere and tough luck on the citizens the swore to defend. The politicians and their court will bolt like terrified sheep. What's left but an army composed of men, who without pay will continue to fight without the state being present. They are just you and me standing shoulder to shoulder to protect what is ours by right, not by privilidge.

[Marblehead]

So you don't need Government for you, but only to keep others in line, which they aren't doing, but they are racking up immense amounts of debt on your behalf

What can I say?  Many don't use their resources wisely.  Nothing new.

 

and I wonder how you would feel-if like Greece-they decided not to pay you that pension anymore.

I have already anticipated that and have made plans for it.

 

Government not for me but for them. Hmmm. Doesn't that deny the antecedent ? Government is, by its nature for all. You cannot exclude yourself from it and in at least one way you are dependent upon it.

I have no good response to that.  True, government is supposed to treat all people equal.  We know that doesn't happen.

 

I would say you have rationalised two conflicting concepts, but they certainly aren't resolved. If they were then you would not care if the state took away your pension and quadrupled its current debt. My guess is you wouldn't like that. It looks to me as if you tolerate Government because that's what is there and it provides you an income ( I know you paid in and will answer that it is your due, but it still can be taken away if the state chooses to excercise it's powers ).

Many of the benefits promised me by my government upon retirement have already been taken away.  My government lies.  Did you know that?  But then, people operate governments and we all know that many people lie.

 

I change those things I am capable of changing and try to work around or ignore those things I cannot change.

 

 

I've found that when I deny reality or in other words, hold conflicting concepts, then I become angry when things don't go the way I want them to.

Ha!  Placing your expectation on the universe, are you?  And then too, things that appear to be in conflict to you may not be a conflict in my mind.  Isn't it great that we all are capable of having our own thoughts?

 

I only hold one concept and that is one which does not include Government as it currently is. That does not mean the I deny governance or law, they are uniquely different operators. So then I accept all those things that government/state supposedly does well, will vanish. I do not hold the concept that my life will be improved by its demise, only that it is not logical for me to support it in any sense or form. Like you I can take care of myself and if I can't then it is insignificant. I'm more than capable of defending myself if needed, but unlike the U.S. we are denied that option. The state has pulled our teeth and claws and left us at the mercy of whatever wolves it has created.

Yeah, in you country the only ones allowed to have guns are the cops and the crooks.  Sometimes I thing they both are the same.

 

I haven't been involved much in the Social Anarchy thread because I don't believe it can function.  There will always be government.  We just try to avoid it as best we can.

[Karl]

I think this guy is cutting/pasting at times. I have noticed that his grammar/syntax will change as if there are two different persons writing. I wonder if this guy is someone that was banned from here in the past.

 

LOL I'm sure the mods can check the IP's and all that good stuff. I'm afraid I'm not devious and never been on this forum before.

That will probably be a huge disappointment to you, but I'm sure it won't stop your paranoia. :-)

 

And no I'm not cutting and pasting, in fact I can't even work the damned multi quote system.

 

[Karl]

Oh, it's been a nice discussion. It has allowed me to express some of my Anarchist philosophy.  Yeah, here in the Socialism thread.

 

I will always consider Karl to be someone I can easily disagree with.  Hehehe.

 

Very nicely said.

[ralis]

Your government can't even handle a flood. When France fell during the Second World War you might guess who had made haste and left the country. It's also noteworthy that the German army skirted neutral Switzerland. Not because it was neutral, but because every one of its citizens are armed and trained to use arms. A German army wandering into a country full of armed citizens would suffer substantial losses. House to house, street to street, field to field. Once it becomes clear that a country has lost a war you can guarantee they are bunkered up somewhere and tough luck on the citizens the swore to defend. The politicians and their court will bolt like terrified sheep. What's left but an army composed of men, who without pay will continue to fight without the state being present. They are just you and me standing shoulder to shoulder to protect what is ours by right, not by privilidge.

 

 

Your comment regarding the German army not invading Switzerland is partly true, but is simplistic and leaves out important facts. In your world view, facts are opinions and opinions are facts.

[Marblehead]

Your government can't even handle a flood. When France fell during the Second World War you might guess who had made haste and left the country.

But we weren't even supposed to be involved in that war yet.  We were in Russia for a while too.  But we weren't at war - just helping.  How does one help someone get defeated?

 

It's also noteworthy that the German army skirted neutral Switzerland. Not because it was neutral, but because every one of its citizens are armed and trained to use arms. A German army wandering into a country full of armed citizens would suffer substantial losses. House to house, street to street, field to field.

Yes, And I think it is still policy that when a soldier finishes his term he takes his rifle home with him.

 

Swiss military used to be a very well-trained unit.  I have no idea what it's about now.

 

Once it becomes clear that a country has lost a war you can guarantee they are bunkered up somewhere and tough luck on the citizens the swore to defend. The politicians and their court will bolt like terrified sheep. What's left but an army composed of men, who without pay will continue to fight without the state being present. They are just you and me standing shoulder to shoulder to protect what is ours by right, not by privilidge.

Yeah, leaders don't go to war any more.  They remain in the most secure location they can find.  Put them and the politicians out with the troops and there would be a lot fewer wars.

[Karl]

Your comment regarding the German army not invading Switzerland is partly true, but is simplistic and leaves out important facts. In your world view, facts are opinions and opinions are facts.

It's a fact that all their citizens were armed and trained. It's my opinion and many other historians, that this was one of the reasons that the Germans did not use it as a beach head or corridor.

 

Does that suit master ?

 

I copied and pasted that from my head. Bleeding brilliant these mind to iPad devices.

 

Now, if I throw you a biscuit will you stop following me about like a love lorn spectre :-)

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

But we weren't even supposed to be involved in that war yet.  We were in Russia for a while too.  But we weren't at war - just helping.  How does one help someone get defeated?

 

 

Yes, And I think it is still policy that when a soldier finishes his term he takes his rifle home with him.

 

Swiss military used to be a very well-trained unit.  I have no idea what it's about now.

 

 

Yeah, leaders don't go to war any more.  They remain in the most secure location they can find.  Put them and the politicians out with the troops and there would be a lot fewer wars.

 

I meant the French Government not your guys. :-)

 

 

[Apech]

It's a fact that all their citizens were armed and trained. It's my opinion and many other historians, that this was one of the reasons that the Germans did not use it as a beach head or corridor.

 

Does that suit master ?

 

I copied and pasted that from my head. Bleeding brilliant these mind to iPad devices.

 

Now, if I throw you a biscuit will you stop following me about like a love lorn spectre :-)

 

Nothing to do with the Nazi gold in Swiss banks then?  Just the fact that some leather trousered gents with feathers in their caps had hunting rifles which scared the Wehrmacht?  

[ralis]

It's a fact that all their citizens were armed and trained. It's my opinion and many other historians, that this was one of the reasons that the Germans did not use it as a beach head or corridor.

 

Does that suit master ?

 

I copied and pasted that from my head. Bleeding brilliant these mind to iPad devices.

 

Now, if I throw you a biscuit will you stop following me about like a love lorn spectre :-)

 

This is a public thread and I have every right to participate. If you don't like it you can leave and go to another forum. BTW, I didn't say you were wrong regarding an armed Swiss population. There are other reasons that Germany didn't invade.

[Marblehead]

There are other reasons that Germany didn't invade.

Like back then there were no good passes over the mountains from Germany to Italy except by pack animal and by foot.

[Karl]

Nothing to do with the Nazi gold in Swiss banks then?  Just the fact that some leather trousered gents with feathers in their caps had hunting rifles which scared the Wehrmacht?  

 

Because it meant house to house fighting. Swiss fighters had a hard reputation and still do. The German army needed speed and to be bogged down fighting house to house didn't afford them that. It was easier to give it a wide birth.

 

If they had wanted to go through Switzerland the gold would not have been a barrier.

[Apech]

Like back then there were no good passes over the mountains from Germany to Italy except by pack animal and by foot.

 

 

Political reasons.  There were neutral countries in WWII for good reasons ... I live in one of them.

[Apech]

Because it meant house to house fighting. Swiss fighters had a hard reputation and still do. The German army needed speed and to be bogged down fighting house to house didn't afford them that. It was easier to give it a wide birth. If they had wanted to go through Switzerland the gold would not have been a barrier.

 

 

You're a bit naive for a Brit.

[Chang]

Moderation Message

It is the nature of such a thread as this that views will differ.

It is entirely possible for those with opposing views to discuss their differences without retort to the trading of insults.

Please conduct yourselves so that moderator action will not prove necessary

[Marblehead]

Yeah, my country was neutral too until we allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor.

[Karl]

This is a public thread and I have every right to participate. If you don't like it you can leave and go to another forum. BTW, I didn't say you were wrong regarding an armed Swiss population. There are other reasons that Germany didn't invade.

LOL

 

Yes there are other reasons, but I didn't say invade, I said pass through. A heavily armed population is far more problematic than say the UK where we aren't even allowed pen knives these days. It won't be long until we can only have plastic cutlery and tool ownership will require safes and licenses.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Karl

[ralis]

Article on Alternet regarding the influence of Thatcher on the Greek crisis. Relates to this thread on socialism.

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/ghost-thatcherism-stalks-greeks

[Marblehead]

 

Moderation Message

It is the nature of such a thread as this that views will differ.

It is entirely possible for those with opposing views to discuss their differences without retort to the trading of insults.

Please conduct yourselves so that moderator action will not prove necessary

All we have is sarcasm so far.  No serious insults yet.  With good fortune there won't be.

[Marblehead]

Article on Alternet regarding the influence of Thatcher on the Greek crisis. Relates to this thread on socialism.

 

http://www.alternet.org/economy/ghost-thatcherism-stalks-greeks

I wasn't aware of that but it didn't surprise me.