View Poll Results: Do you think socialism could have succeeded if capitalism wasn't standing on the way?

Voters
104. You may not vote on this poll
  • Don't know

    3 2.88%
  • Don't care

    3 2.88%
  • Absolutely

    10 9.62%
  • I think it could

    16 15.38%
  • I think it couldn't

    17 16.35%
  • No way

    55 52.88%
Page 31 of 51 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 502

Thread: Socialism could have succeeded?

  1. #301
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Natural rights do not exist, the state is not founded upon natural right. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.
    Answered like a good Pinko! I expected nothing less. And thus, again we have come full-circle........back to the most basic of fundamental differences between those of us who favor a free-market, capitalistic ideology and those who truly believe that Marx stumbled upon some great world-shaping revelation. Those who truly believe in the universal concept of natural rights and those who believe that all of these concepts are state-driven.
    By the way, I never actually said that the state was founded upon natural rights, I simply suggested that the entire concept of "state formation" is flawed and illogical without believing that natural rights exist - if for no other reason than to try and control them and to "divvy them up" as they see fit.
    Last edited by FluffyNinja; 09-22-11 at 10:22 AM.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  2. #302
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    Natural rights do not exist, the state is not founded upon natural right. I don't know why you have so much trouble understanding this.
    Come on now, comrade, how about the right to live, the right to breathe, the right to think, etc.?

  3. #303
    Sage
    Khayembii Communique's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,897

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Come on now, comrade, how about the right to live, the right to breathe, the right to think, etc.?
    What does the "right to live" mean?

    By the way, I never actually said that the state was founded upon natural rights, I simply suggested that the entire concept of "state formation" is flawed and illogical without believing that natural rights exist - if for no other reason than to try and control them and to "divvy them up" as they see fit.
    Too many pronouns.
    Last edited by Khayembii Communique; 09-22-11 at 10:42 AM.
    "I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

  4. #304
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    I actually agree with KC. I do not believe in "natural rights" insofar as most people define them.

  5. #305
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Khayembii Communique View Post
    What does the "right to live" mean?



    Too many pronouns.
    Resorting to grammar policing = FAIL
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  6. #306
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    I actually agree with KC.
    Well you are from Bama, so the color Red does suit you, lol.


    I do not believe in "natural rights" insofar as most people define them.
    Which natural rights specifically, and to whom are you referring when you say "most people"? I don't do well with broad generalizations.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  7. #307
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Yeah but I'm born, raised, and graduated from Michigan. I'm as blue as you can get without legally being a smurf.

    I just don't agree with "natural rights" as many define them.

  8. #308
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Yeah but I'm born, raised, and graduated from Michigan. I'm as blue as you can get without legally being a smurf.

    I just don't agree with "natural rights" as many define them.
    Okay, so most people define them as the rights that ALL humans are born with, and the "experts" - we'll call them for lack of better terminology (notable philosophers, religious, and political leaders both past and present) seem to agree on a few, such as "the right to live", the "right to be free from forced servitude", the "right to own and defend your own property", and the "right to pursue what makes you happy."

    So which do you disagree with? Keep in mind, I NEVER once said that these rights could not be limited by government nor taken away completely. You obviously get to keep them as long as they are within agreed upon legal parameters and you don't violate someone else's natural rights while exercising yours. I'm simply saying that they DO NOT HAVE TO BE EARNED (like a privelege) ....... they are INHERENT in being human and should not (as communists seem to believe) be divveyd up by the state based on skills, working status, or party loyalty IMO.
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

  9. #309
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Well, I don't mean I don't view them as rights in a "right vs. privilege" contrast, but I disagree with how they are interpreted and enforced. Too many people use these "rights " to infringe upon another's. Take "right to live" - a lot of people will take this and abuse it by suggesting that someone's right to live depends upon others. This is highly prevalent in arguments for and against entitlements or that Robin Hood adventure some people call "redistribution". These people will argue that a billionaire not giving all he can is denying another's "right to live".

    Now, take the "right to be free from forced servitude". Ever hear the term "wage slavery"? This is some bullcrap that communists and their ilk like to use to justify their resistance to labor for another in exchange for means to survive. They say that "work or die is not a choice" and what-not.

    So I'll elaborate - for what I think is a right and what you probably think is a right, yeah - I would agree that we have those rights as you listed. However, as many others would define, no I don't believe in those "rights".

    That's the problem - interpretation.

  10. #310
    All Warm and Fuzzy
    FluffyNinja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Miss-uh-Sippie
    Last Seen
    10-21-17 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    4,831

    Re: Socialism could have succeeded?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    Well, I don't mean I don't view them as rights in a "right vs. privilege" contrast, but I disagree with how they are interpreted and enforced. Too many people use these "rights " to infringe upon another's. Take "right to live" - a lot of people will take this and abuse it by suggesting that someone's right to live depends upon others. This is highly prevalent in arguments for and against entitlements or that Robin Hood adventure some people call "redistribution". These people will argue that a billionaire not giving all he can is denying another's "right to live".


    Now, take the "right to be free from forced servitude". Ever hear the term "wage slavery"? This is some bullcrap that communists and their ilk like to use to justify their resistance to labor for another in exchange for means to survive. They say that "work or die is not a choice" and what-not.

    So I'll elaborate - for what I think is a right and what you probably think is a right, yeah - I would agree that we have those rights as you listed. However, as many others would define, no I don't believe in those "rights".

    That's the problem - interpretation.
    Okay, thanks Gip. Now I see where you're coming from. For a minute there, I thought you were stepping "way out there" but I see for the most part we do both accept at least the "spirit" of natural rights. And I do agee that modern-day interpretation is a real problem. Damn! What went wrong and when?
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." - Dr. Carl Sagan

Page 31 of 51 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •