Why is Communism So Opposed?

@Night Ripper,

So why complain if you intend to use the health service, you only want to pay for it if you use it and if you can afford it, dont we all but life ain't like that ?

So you think bottled water is a good alternative, is that the best you can do?

If you can find a fool to invest in docking facilities in France, point me to him. Its not the ability or inability for Joe Normal to become a ferry service operator that we are debating,is it? Its the damage unregulated monopolies exert in a capitalist economy. Your argument that it can be overcome has failed. Your only answer is lump it or leave it. Not exactly answering my question is it?

2 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

So why complain if you intend to use the health service, you only want to pay for it if you use it and if you can afford it, dont we all but life ain't like that ?

My complaints are about how much I'm paying. Obviously I have no problem paying for my own health care since I'm already doing that on top of everything else but why should I be forced to pay for everyone else's health care as well? Do you have any response to that or do you just think forced charity aka stealing money from people is fine and dandy?

1 Reply

@xris,

A blast from the past:
jeez, its been over 50 years since I 've heard that.
"If u don't like it, u can lump it."

I never knew what that meant,
but it sounded good.

David

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

You pay for insurance. Does it matter if its compulsory or not? the reality is you will need it. If its going to be so much cheaper than what you have now, is that so bad? Its not politics, its pragmatic reality. At the moment American health insurance is extremely expensive and you are paying for those who cant afford it. If it could be a third cheaper and still pay for those who cant afford it, whats the problem? You never know in life, if you will need the security of your fellow citizens to help you through troubled waters..That's just social responsibility not communist dogmas.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

If its going to be so much cheaper than what you have now, is that so bad?

How many times do I have to repeat myself? It's not cheaper for me since I'm paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes while others pay nothing and get the same benefits. I'm paying for other people's health care as well as my own. That's not cheaper. Why the hell would I want that?

You're basically saying I can get cheaper health care but only if I also pay for dozens of other people as well. That's not exactly cheaper overall for me, is it?

As for why monopolies are bad, it's well established. A monopoly has no incentive to improve upon its service. Don't like the service? Too bad, go somewhere else. Oh wait, you can't! Hah, sucker.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

You just lost your right to a reasoned response...your self interested self centred stupid replies are representative of modern Americans . You think silly humour classifies as logic when in fact they point to your inbuilt inability to rationalise. Capitalism is self destructing and all its warriors can only do is count the loose change in their purses.

1 Reply

@xris,

Does it serve your cause to call people stupid ?

Capitalism is the application of the natural law of supply n demand
in the presence of freedom of contract.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Sucker to me sounds like a extreme abusive retort. Or did you think it would sail past me unnoticed?

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Capitalism is the unbridled ability to capitalise on others inability or weakness. I know, my family in living history suffered its excesses. I know you love the view of the strong survive and the weak perish but dont complain when the weak seek revenge.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

The average patient may save more but I won't. I'll be paying for someone else's health care which is why others will be saving. Of course the poor save money when they steal from the rich.

It's only stealing if it's your property to begin with. But what you're calling your property is really just a legal convention created by the state---the very same state you seek to abolish. In an anarchic society, there would be no legal obligation on Robin Hood not to steal from the rich to feed the poor. Therefore, either your moral problem or your anarchistic solution doesn't make sense. Something has to give.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Sucker to me sounds like a extreme abusive retort. Or did you think it would sail past me unnoticed?

It wasn't aimed at you directly. I love how quickly you are ready to abandon reason over one minor perceived infraction though. Clearly you are in a hurry to get off your sinking ship.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

It's only stealing if it's your property to begin with.

I own myself and the fruits of my labor. My property, unless stolen, is my own for that very reason. When I plow a field and harvest a crop, that crop is mine. It's got nothing to do with your imaginary laws.

Thomas wrote:

In an anarchic society, there would be no legal obligation on Robin Hood not to steal from the rich to feed the poor.

Right, but in an anarchistic society I would be spending my money on a private police force rather than giving it away. Take it if you will but you'll not have the power of the state to back up your theivery.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

It twos you that had reason to complain about my language, not I..wot ship do you refer to?

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

I own myself and the fruits of my labor. My property, unless stolen, is my own for that very reason. When I plow a field and harvest a crop, that crop is mine. It's got nothing to do with your imaginary laws.

Says who?

Night Ripper wrote:

Right, but in an anarchistic society I would be spending my money on a private police force rather than giving it away. Take it if you will but you'll not have the power of the state to back up your theivery.

No, but I'll have the power of my own police force. And if Socialists like Robin Hood outnumber individualists like you, Robin's police force will be stronger than yours.

PS: Apparently you have read David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom. Good for you! David Friedman is one of my personal heroes, even though I frequently disagree with him.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Show me an example of this anarchistic society that gives you this security.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Show me an example of this anarchistic society that gives you this security.

Show me an example of a society that uses only renewable energy. It's never been done but it's clearly possible. Are you trying to tell me that just because something has never been done that it can't happen? That's a very weak argument.

It's funny how socialists keep saying "it can work, it can work" when example after example shows it doesn't work yet the very same arguments are pulled out in favor of socialism. At least socialism has been tried and failed. When was anarchy given a serious trial?

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

but I can show examples of democratic socialist economies...you show me yours and I will show you mine..deal?

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

but I can show examples of democratic socialist economies...you show me yours and I will show you mine..deal?

Can you show me examples of modern societies that use only renewable resources? No? Well then according to your flawed logic it's impossible.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

It's funny how socialists keep saying "it can work, it can work"

I am not a socialist, and I'm not saying anarcho-capitalism can't work. Indeed I think David Friedman makes a reasonably plausible case that it might be reasonably stable, reasonably productive, and not-bad-enough in its market failure to offset the absence of government failure too much. But Friedman doesn't make a good-enough case (in my opinion) that anarcho-capitalism works better---in the Utilitarian sense of "better"---than the conventional mixed economies that we find in modern democracies.

Night Ripper wrote:

when example after example shows it doesn't work yet the very same arguments are pulled out in favor of socialism. At least socialism has been tried and failed. When was anarchy given a serious trial?

That depends on your usage of the term "Socialism". If it covers the Social Democratic welfare states in continental Western Europe, you are wrong to say that it doesn't work. If it only covers Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, and the East Block before 1989, you're not saying anything controversial.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris wrote:

Capitalism is the unbridled ability to capitalise on others inability or weakness.

So long as it is voluntary on both sides, that is no problem for the rich or strong.
The inadequacies of the unable or weak r not the faults of the able n strong,
who have the right to mind their own business n to disregard the misfortunes of others.

xris wrote:

I know, my family in living history suffered its excesses.

I do not impugn your knowledge.

xris wrote:

I know you love the view of the strong survive and the weak perish

I love personal liberty and Individualism = laissez faire capitalism and hedonism.

xris wrote:

but dont complain when the weak seek revenge.

Revenge for WHAT ??

David

1 Reply

Why is Communism So Opposed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know