Total posts: 12,563
-->
@Lemming
Please dont use studies which mostly include cases of childs consent being violated either by society either by individuals, where decisions about childs life and body were made not by a child but by adults, and where false education was present.
This does not prove anything in your favor.
In fact, every time you interfere in child-adult consensual relationship, you are violating childs consent. This makes every study dependent on your interference as a factor.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
"You are not defending to rights of a child, you are trying to defend the right to coerce and manipulate a child into performing acts that the child doesn’t fully understand"
Child doesnt understand sex, but if child is willing to perform it, then it makes no difference.
Its still child consenting.
If child wants it and feels comfortable and it doesnt endanger childs life, no one can impose the opposite decision on a child without violating childs decision making.
The opposite is true when you force a child to follow your commands against their will. This is what your society constantly does.
You force children, you beat them, you lie to them about religion, you endanger their health with unsafe traffic, you force them to eat meat, you trick them with candies... many more examples, so its really your society that does the violation.
These violations vary from country to country, but these are the most common ones.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Such prevention saved childs life, hence allowed the child to have control over own body for greater amount of time than if child would have if child choked.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Such saving of childs life would upheld childs control over own body.
That has nothing to do with sex.
In case of sexual activities, childs life is not in danger. Neither is childs decision making.
In fact, forbidding child to have sex is the thing that harms childs decision making.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
"I think I have already made this point ... children can be easily manipulated therefore they lack the capacity to consent. But you don’t want to hear that."
Your point was already refuted. Child is the only one who can make decisions about own body.
You cant decide about childs own body. You cannot decide instead of a child.
Even if a child doesnt know everything, you are still not allowed to decide for them against their will.
Child is the only one who can decide.
"Children are naive and need to be protected"
Children need to be educated.
"would telling a child not to eat poisonous berries take away control about what happens to their bodies"
This is you confusing education with force.
First, the force is only allowed if it uphelds personal control over own body.
Forbidding child to have sex does not do this. In such case, you are using force to forbid child to decide about own body.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
"I 'don't think children have the 'ability to consent to sex with an adult though"
Children are the only ones who can make decisions about their own bodies.
If a child wants sex but you forbid it, you are violating childs decision in favor of your decision. Since the childs decision is related to childs own body, it follows that you are seizing control over their body as if it was your own.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Most of those "rights" are not rights but a violation of individuals decisions related to own body.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
"We 'have 'legal rights, 'due to force"
Force needed to allow personal choice has nothing to do with force used to violate rights and take away the persons control about what happens to her own body.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
"A child who can be manipulated and easily persuaded to do what an adult requires lacks the capacity to consent to such a relationship, coercion is not consent"
You cant decide instead of a child about what happens to childs body.
If child wants sex, it is childs decision.
You cannot decide about what will happen to childs body unless child agrees with it.
If child isnt allowed to decide about own body, then the child has no rights.
Since you take for your right to violate childs consent, it is funny that you attack pedophiles for upholding childs consent.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
Please dont confuse rights with force.
If I am forced to do something, it is not my right. Its not even my decision.
Since others make decisions about childs body against childs will, the rights of a child are reduced to nothing.
Created:
-->
@Elliott
Children dont have rights in your society.
Rights would consist in children being able to control what happens to their bodies.
Since they dont have such control, they dont have rights.
If child must do something against her will, then its not a right.
Just because a child can believe in lies, this doesnt mean you are allowed to decide what happens to her body against her will.
The opposite case means that her body doesnt belong to her, but to you.
This is why pedophiles are hated. They believe children have rights.
Hence the question: what if the child consents to be in a relationship with a pedophile?
Created:
-->
@Elliott
Actually, pedophiles need to be completely separated from other prisoners.
Pedophiles are not like other people. Pedophiles believe children have rights.
Pedophile's mere presence bothers non-pedophiles.
Its almost impossible for a pedophile and non-pedophile to be in the same room without great problems.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Do you justify it?
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They actually like it a lot when they hear pedophiles are being tortured or killed.
Created:
The prison is a very bad place if you are a pedophile.
If other prisoners have it bad, pedophiles have it 1000000 times worse.
I was in prison for pedophilia.
As soon as I arrived, it was immediatelly made clear to me that I will be bullied much more than anyone else there.
Even tho I didnt do anything bad, I was still subjected to beatings, humiliations, daily provocations, and my stuff was often stolen.
When you are forced to be in the same room with a bunch of people who hate you, you know its not gonna be fine.
I heard many stories of pedophiles being raped with a stake, burned...many who were found hanged...
I was forced to take medications, which in my opinion have not helped me much.
Its impossible to hide that you are in there for pedophilia. Somehow, they found out in the first few hours.
They first start questioning me why and how.
Then they said that if it was up to them, they would kill me.
My advice for everyone is:
Never go to prison. People there are not people like in the normal world.
I am not saying that people in the normal world are better.
I am simply saying that in a normal world, you have a choice not to be with them in the same room.
And of course, in my opinion, the prison system is a mess.
Its more of a torture camp.
This does not surprise me.
Considering that most people justify torturing of children and animals, its logical that they will also justify torturing prisoners.
I have heard most people say that pedophiles need to be tortured and killed.
I am assuming this is because most people are psychopaths.
Sadly, I know the world will never change. In fact, the entire human history is just wars, rape and torture.
So it would be silly to expect that our psychopathic ancestors would give birth to anything different.
Some people will say: But there is evolution!
Yes, the evolution consists of child being different from parent.
However, historically, this difference only occured in small amount of cases. This is insufficient to change society.
So I wouldnt rely on evolution to solve the problem.
I will admit that I dont know the magic solution for violence.
The world will probably be ruled by violence until the world perishes.
Created:
Posted in:
I first watched the movies.
I thought the movies were fine, but very confusing.
I got a copy of a book. Started reading. I immediatelly noticed that the book is more fun, but also offers more explanation on Harrys thinking.
It offers more explanation on everyones thinking.
In fact, I managed to get 3 books. I noticed that the books are full of little debates and have plenty of explanations lacking in movies.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The ones in the USA are richer. Plus, the China has like 3 times the population of USA.
China seems to have every type of economy applied. They have worker coops, they have Maos ideology, they have capitalist buisnesses, they have state run buisnesses, they have tax law with sometimes high sometimes low taxes...
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"Equal proportional theft may have a disproportionate effect on quality of life."
Here, you basically admitted that inflation harms the poor more.
"However you have to look at where the stolen wealth is going, and in many cases the printed money is loaned to the government, to poverty alleviation credit programs, and sometimes to state proxy corporations."
"In many cases"
Since printed money causes inflation that harms the poor, printed money would have to be fully given to the poor if it is to actually help them.
But here is the flaw of printed money.
Giving printed money to people means people will spend it, hence not have it anymore. Its a short term help, however, every such "short term help" causes permanent inflation.
"Printing money and loaning that money to some poor person to buy a house"
"is no different from a proportional tax on every dollar holder and giving the money to the poor person."
Proportional tax increases prices just once. Printing money increases prices permanently. Printing it again increases prices even more. Continued printing increases prices constantly, hence causing constant inflation. Same is not true with tax.
"The reason it harms the poor (and everyone else) is because somebody actually had to build and maintain that house"
The poor would be better off if an ordinary house was built for them.
Economy is about production and distribution. If more products are distributed to the rich, less will be distributed to the workers.
"and now they did it for someone who didn't provide an equal or greater value in trade."
The rich provide no value to society. So building houses for the rich just means that houses for the ordinary people will be more expensive.
"Less production = less production / person"
The production of society is limited. The more it is focused to produce for the rich, the less there will be for the ordinary people.
"Of course it does, the economy is trading. "
The economy is production and distribution.
" A society that taxes the rich until the poor aren't poor any more"
Will secure existence, jobs and better life for the poor?
"is sending the artificial signal to the market "Don't produce more than others","
Actually, not even remotely true. When your wealth is taxed, you literally have to produce more of it. Or else you wont have it anymore.
I am not saying that we should take 90% of the wealth of the rich.
However, unless you want constant inflation, you need 1 trillion more in your budget every year.
"then production slows down, then when the poor run out of the redistributed pieces of paper they're still poor but now there are no jobs and even if they find a job it doesn't pay enough to live."
That has nothing to do with paying off the debt.
And its not true. For example, giving 200$ to the poor person per month is not gonna slow down production in any way. Otherwise, every time the rich donate to charity, the production would drop. If the poor dont have a job, giving them 200$ cant possibly change that to negative. If they do have a job, it will help them and wont cause them to quit their jobs.
"This is true in theory (sound economic theory unpolluted by Keynes) and true in practice (dozens of major examples over the past 120 years and beyond)."
If by major examples, you mean some isolated cases you found and taken out of context and misunderstood, then yes.
However, so far I havent seen any example of wealth being redistributed to help the poor actually having the opposite effect of helping.
"the rich are rich because they helped someone already; and statistically speaking they probably helped a lot of poor people already."
No, the rich are rich because they use ownership of a capital to produce more capital.
Workers make everything in society. So the workers help everyone. But the workers are not rich.
Statistically speaking, the rich are more likely to use their money to buy expensive things. This focuses the production in society to produce expensive things, hence decreasing the production of things distributed to ordinary people.
"They don't need to give back, they need to be given back; that's what the accumulation of currency means."
So the rich have produced everything and workers did nothing? In that case, why are workers necessary for production more than the rich people are?
Created:
-->
@Athias
"What does an equal vote matter to a dissenter who either is compelled or alienated by the vote of a majority?"
He is not compelled. If he doesnt want to work for the coop for the wage decided by its workers, he can go to another coop. He can work alone, if he wants. But if he does decide to work for any coop, he gets an equal vote on setting prices and wages.
Equal vote matters to workers, since it allows them to run a buisness and not get exploited. So it matters to a dissenter too.
"And if others sell her their land?"
Selling the land is banned in Communism. After the owner dies, the land is usually distributed to his children. I dont see why would he be allowed to sell it and deprive his children of it.
"Absolutely not. This is the hallmark distinction in Communism, especially in juxtaposition to Capitalism. There are no free-flowing prices. Prices are determined arbitrarily by the the State or "worker collectives" and not the commerce each laborer generates."
Actually, the only difference between Communism and Capitalism is that in Capitalism the rich own the means of production. In Communism, the workers own the means of production.
Workers coops set prices according to supply and demand. If the product isnt selling, they have to either lower the price either change buisness.
"Illustrate how this makes sense using an example."
If a single worker works on a farm, he sets price to his products. If the product doesnt sell, he lowers the price according to the market demand. This same thing happens when there are more workers.
"What do you presume happens when one worker generates a substantially larger revenue, let's say for the sake of argument, because his or her product is better?"
He earns more money. This means other coops have to compete to also produce a good product.
This is market Communism, or workers coops.
"The fact that you have to qualify it by stating, "in many forms" suggests that it's not "free.""
Its not free to Capitalists, since they cant exploit the workers anymore.
"How would they earn more money. You just stated that workers would be able to determine their own price, right? If she meets that price by paying them to work for her, how are they earning "less"?"
In Communism, the workers mostly trade with other workers because workers own all buisnesses.
Capitalism allows Capitalists to own buisnesses and earn money based on that.
When Capitalists have more, the workers have less.
This is simply because money is a way of distributing products. If Capitalists have more money, more products are being distributed to them and the production focuses on producing for the rich.
"But she's not doing basically nothing. She's using her appeal to create commerce."
Yes, she is "working". But the main distinction is that in Communism, she wont get as rich as she would in Capitalism. Hence more products for those who actually produce them.
"You still have yet to substantiate how her behavior would be unfair to them. All you've done is tacitly condemn that she makes more money"
Is it fair to have others work for you while you consume most of what they produce leaving them with only little bits of their work?
"That's not what I asked. I asked why does the amount of work directly and necessarily relate to the amount one should earn?"
Who should be the owner of the things I produce?
In Communism, workers have freedom to sell their products to anyone, but they mostly sell to other workers.
In Capitalism, in most cases, workers can only sell to the Capitalists.
This allows Capitalists to get richer.
Since in Communism, workers earn more, they have better life standards.
"There's more to a product that just the input. Example: difference between a Volvo and a Bugatti."
Yes, but both are produced by workers. And sure, not all workers produce products of equal quality. This is why in Communism, the worker will earn more if he produces product more desired by the market.
"And yet there are Capitalists..."
Yes, there are Capitalists. And how long will it take for society to decrease their influence is unknown.
"How are they "exploited"?"
Workers product, which is most valuable to the society, serves to sustain the Capitalists. The Capitalists dont work to sustain the worker.
"And how does North Korea get workers to pay taxes?"
Like most other countries. If you dont pay taxes, you cant work.
"I agree. And that is the reason the State must be eliminated in service to individual sovereignty. This can only be sustained by a people who espouse a moral framework which condemns and rejects all institutions and social mechanisms which undermines their individual sovereignty. And the system which best reflects individual sovereignty is not Communism, but Anarchy."
Individual sovereignty can be implemented in Communism too. It just takes majority of the people to support it.
"Individual sovereigns are controlled by individual sovereigns. That's the whole point."
Yes, but if that sovereignty is to exist, someone has to defend it.
Someone with power has to defend it.
If individuals are left alone to defend themselves, their sovereignty wont last long.
If they unite by majority of them making decisions, you have democracy.
Since in democracy, the majority has the power, it goes to say that majority has to defend individual sovereignty for it to actually exist.
So if it wont be by democratic choice, who will defend the individual sovereignty? Individuals?
"All the more reason a State would be useless."
Communism can exist without the state. But whether that would be good or not, I am not sure.
"No, this assumes that all who participate in group goals are doing so willfully, and dissenters can withdraws themselves and their resources. That is individual sovereignty."
Yes, I agree that participation should not be forced.
"There's some truth to this in that monarchy and democracy is "simpler." But the luxury we enjoy in our discussions here is that we can go past the simple, and delve into the complicated."
"If everyone is defending individual sovereignty, why would one need to defend him or herself? But in the case that you do require defending, you can either defend yourself or seek the assistance of others."
The assistance of others means all such cases would be decided by individuals who are around, or should I say majority of the people who are around. It will still be the majority deciding what is and what isnt a violation of sovereignty
So how is that different from democracy or commune democracy? If it depends on majority to be upheld?
"You have yet to substantiate how workers produce wealth."
Products are wealth, since the wealth(money) is only good if it can buy products. No workers = No products = No wealth
"A good illustration of my counterargument would be a supermodel and the clothes they wear. One could argue that a Supermodel doesn't do any "actual work." Is the Supermodel exploiting the Capitalist, who in turn, is exploiting the underpaid seamstresses"
Having money without work is an exploitation, since you are making a living thanks to someone elses work.
If you are not doing any work but you are consuming food, someone has to work to produce that food.
Same with all other products.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"lol, inflation is taxing the rich.. and everyone else too"
Inflation taxes poor the most. This is basic knowledge. If price of bread goes from 2$ to 6$ I really dont care if I have 100000000000$. I will still have everything I need. Will the poor?
"and taxing the rich taxes everyone else too"
The money taken from the rich and given to the poor doesnt tax the poor in any way.
Same with taxing the rich to pay off the debt.
You assume that the rich, if left untaxed, will use all that money to help the poor. However, history shows that instead they use their money to buy themselves cars, private jets...ect. Hence, investing in production of expensive things that dont distribute to the poor.
Created:
About 15 years ago, when talking about the debt, Americans were bragging how the debt is actually fine and how their GDP is still higher than their debt.
What they didnt know is that their debt grows faster than their GDP.
Today, GDP of USA is 24 trillion dollars while debt is 30 trillions.
U.S. government budget deficit is 1 trillion.
This means that every year, at least 1 trillion dollars have to be printed or borrowed just to cover the budget deficit.
Printing that amount of dollars every year causes inflation.
The uncontrolled debt and deficit will cause more and more inflation, which will mostly hurt the poor.
The only way to solve this problem is to raise taxes and lower the budget spending.
Current US budget with 6 trillion dollars of spending and 1 trillion dollars of deficit is unsustainable.
If you dont solve this, you will be struggling with inflation for the rest of your life.
At the same time, the wealth of the top 1% of people in USA has increased to over 40 trillions.
Will you finally tax the rich and solve the problem?
You have only 2 options:
1) Let the debt rise even more
2) Tax the rich and decrease budget spending
The option "1)" is a sure path to inflation.
By 2040, the debt will probably be over 50 trillions.
So what are you waiting for?
Created:
When you buy a smartphone, you are buying Communism.
Half of all smartphones are made by Communist China and Communist Vietnam.
Created:
"What if she disagrees, could she still not act as I described? Can she not merely claim that her business is private?"
Buisness in Communism is owned by the workers. Private buisness is limited in a sense that in most cases you cant own means of production and at the same time not use them for work.
A lot of the territory, objects, and means of production are owned collectively and not privately. Hence those are then being distributed to the workers for use.
One could still have private buisness on his territory. However, not on the territory owned collectively.
This is designed to help reduce exploitation.
In your example, the woman could have a private buisness only on her own territory.
On the territory of a collective, she has to follow certain rules. These rules are what makes capitalist private buisness impossible on collective territory. Number one being that all workers have equal vote.
"Piece of land? Is there a limit other than their financial capacity to acquire land?"
Yes, there is a limit. You cant own too much land while others own none. In my opinion, everyone should own a piece of land, which represents their territory.
"No, they can't. Because Capitalists determine "desires" by using a free-flowing price system."
So do Communists.
"Communism eliminates this by at best incorporating the labor theory of value, at worst, the State implements an arbitrary price."
Or allow workers to set price for the product they create, and then engage in free trade with other workers.
The entire point of workers owning a buisness is to let workers decide and trade between each other.
The labor theory of value:
This is a very old theory. It consists of "time value", by which a price of a product is determined by the usual time needed to make it.
The problem with this in practice is the difficulty of control. It cant be left to be managed by the workers, because then some workers might lie about the price. There would need to be mass control and inspection just to make sure prices are right.
Also, it gets complicated because some jobs have more intensive labor. Some others, like agriculture, would have to be calculated with a total sum of seconds or minutes of work in every day worked in a year.
Seems like a lot of work.
Arbitrary prices determined by the state:
This was a practice in USSR during Stalin. Similar problems as in previous case.
Also, the problem is that some workers might hide the products and sell them privately.
These two ways to calculate prices create many complications.
Its much simpler to just let workers decide the price of their products and engage in free trade.
Many people think that Communism abolishes free market.
No.
Communism lets workers own buisnesses. Free market can still remain in many forms.
"It's difficult for the State to "fail" in accordance to its own standards."
Workers owned buisness can fail if no one wants to buy their products. They earn no money, and have to change buisness.
"How are they earning "less" money, if she's paying them that which they agreed?"
If they lived in Communism, workers would earn more. Since they are in capitalism, they earn less.
The distribution of products in capitalism is according to the amount of money. Since rich have more money, more products are distributed to them. In case of absence of the rich, those products are instead distributed to the workers.
"She may not be putting the labor into making the burgers, or manning the stands, but her beauty is the primary factor in generating the commerce."
I agree that in capitalism, she would make a lot of money doing basically nothing. In Communism, she would earn less money. So this is more fair towards those who actually work.
"So let me ask you this: what is the basis of your belief that the amount you work is directly and necessarily related to the amount you (should) earn?"
Simple.
No workers = No products
I am pretty sure that the class who actually works to produce products should be the one to also consume them. The opposite case is exploitation.
While exploitation is hard to be eliminated entirely, it should at least be minimized.
"Yes, Capitalists provide capital, which was created by workers, who were provided capital by Capitalists, so forth and so on."
Workers can create products without capitalists.
Capitalists cannot create capital without workers.
"My argument was that in any given employment relationship, workers produce consumer goods and the capitalists/owners provide the capital."
Since workers produce all capital, capitalists are not necessary.
"Your suggestion is that they acquire the capital from workers, who are not necessarily under their employ."
This happens all the time. One capitalist exploits the workers and acquires capital from them. Then trades that capital to the capital of other capitalists.
Assume you are my worker, and you made a chair.
I sell your chair to some other capitalist. In this scenario, you made the chair of that capitalist even tho you are not his employee but mine.
"Are you proposing that purchasing raw material, machines, and the like, is also "exploitation"?"
Thats just trade of the exploited goods. Thats how one capitalist ends up with materials not produced by his own workers.
"Yes, but you are claiming that workers are "exploited" in Capitalism which connotes an unfair or inequitable arrangement, correct?"
Yes, unfair.
"If consent is not the issue, then I presume the "share" of the revenue is, despite the fact that, as we've already established, the worker consented to the wage."
The consent is given, yes. However, what options are present if consent is not given?
"If a worker believes that he or she deserves a larger share of the revenue, and is unsuccessful in renegotiating in his or her..."
He can go seek other jobs, yes. And in every job, he will find a new capitalist exploiting him.
"Right? How is the arrangement in Capitalism any more "exploitative" than the arrangement you described in communism?"
There would be no capitalists to exploit workers. Workers would have more wealth. Those who produce would be those who consume. The rich, who produce nothing while consuming the products of workers, wouldnt exist.
"And which demographic pays the most for art?"
In North Korea, its the citizens. Through taxes.
"Not just History, Art History."
Anyone thinking art history is important is welcome to give his money to support it.
"The State is willing to pay for it."
The state only pays for it if workers pay taxes for it.
"No they are not. The state is an institution which implements regulations that violate individual sovereignty"
Who exactly has the incentive to defend individual sovereignty? Do the rich defend individual sovereignty?
Because sovereignty has to be defended if its going to exist.
Sovereignty is an ideal that cannot be realized unless most people support it and defend it.
"It's being democratic makes it worse since it conscripts dissenting individuals into submitting their resources to the majority."
If it shouldnt be democratic society, what should it be and who would control it?
"Unless the vote is always unanimous, there's going to some infraction of individual discretion."
What if the masses accept the idea of individual sovereignty and decide to defend it?
"And a unanimous vote would make a State unnecessary since people could just as easily act in service to the goals their unanimity suggests."
Yes, this is assuming there will be unanimous vote on all decisions.
"Now if government subjects itself to the free market, where it operates in accordance to consumers' preferences, as opposed to its self-imposed prerogative, then you have a Stateless society."
Same way, if all people defend individual sovereignty, we will have sovereignty.
Who appoints this "government"? The rich? The majority?
The reason why so many countries are either democracy either monarchy is because most other ways to ellect government get complicated.
"Government would cease to be government, given that individual consumers would be de-facto governors, and instead become service providers--namely mediators over private disputes."
Ideally, yes. However, you need military to defend yourself. Who controls the military and why he wont misuse that power? And who controls him?
"In this arrangement both capitalists and workers have the "power" that they are owed--and that is, to enter and leave arrangements as they please"
In Communism, you can have that same power. Its just that in Communism, its not the rich that own buisnesses. Buisnesses are owned by workers. And the wealth is enjoyed more by those who produce it.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"What would prevent her from enlisting workers to work instead of her? Penalty?"
Not penalty. If she uses her beauty to sell burgers, she needs to be there selling them. Hence, working.
If she hires another beautiful woman as a worker to work instead of her, she risks that the other woman might take over her buisness. Also, its not privately owned buisness, so the workers included in it have an equal vote.
"individual sovereignty"
In my view, people have sovereignty over their body and their territory. What is considered their territory? Their house, and a piece of land.
"How does the State determine products which are desired by society?"
Same way capitalists determine it.
If buisness produces things that arent desired, it will fail. Hence, move to another buisness.
About the woman earning more with less work
"And this is bad?"
It is bad considering that later in Capitalism she will not work at all, but have others do all the work for her. Others will earn less money doing more work, because she is taking most of it for herself.
"Not the same workers. And presumably, the capital was acquired by a willfully-entered agreement, correct? What is the basis of your objection?"
Your argument was that capitalists provide the capital to the workers.
Workers create all wealth and all capital in the society. Capitalists are not needed.
Capitalist existence means that workers work more to sustain themselves and the capitalists.
"Willfully entered agreement"
Yes, the workers consent to work for the capitalist. They consent to the wage. My argument was never about their lack of consent in capitalism.
"So the workers who dissent will work for wages which they deem is incommensurate with the labor they provide?"
They dont have to. They can quit and search for other job somewhere else.
"What happens in the case where there isn't a production line?"
This is in cases where one worker owns buisness by himself. He decides his wage according to income he earns from buisness. The examples of this are small shops, small farms... basically any buisness owned by just 1 worker.
Production line happens when workers dont separate their work.
"What is the penalty for non-compliance?"
Penalty? Well, if you dont wanna work, you wont earn money. You are free to leave your job. You are free to change jobs.
"What if these children get degrees in Art History or gender studies?"
If people are ready to pay for such education, it would exist. For example, the art in North Korea is literally everywhere.
"How does that increase "production"?"
Art is a product, in that case. So the production would increase in a sense that products desired by people would be produced.
People would buy art.
Same with history, in cases where those who know history can work on educational shows or politics.
Now about gender studies... maybe... if people are ready to pay for that....doubt it.
"Will these subjects be prohibited, allowing only for trades which produce a significant financial return (especially if you're going to tax them)?"
They are not gonna be prohibited, I dont see the need for that. Maybe they simply wont be financed. If people dont want to pay money to finance gender study, it goes to say that gender study would have to rely on unpaid volunteers.
Benefits for all
"Except the rich"
Yeah, except the rich.
The basic economical classes in Communism are:
1) The state
2) The workers
The state must be democratic, so controlled by the workers. State is funded by taxes. It return, it protects the workers and their property and their freedom to own buisnesses.
The basic economical classes in Capitalism are:
1) The capitalists
2) The workers
The capitalists own the capital and most of the means of production. Workers agree to work for the capitalists in trade for the wage. Capitalists allow workers to use means of production to produce products. From this, the capitalists usually gain profit.
The protection of property is regulated without the state. So it is privately regulated.
The economical structures look similar. Both societies are, in theory, based on consensual participation of every individual.
However, in one of them, the workers have more power.
In the other, the rich have more power.
About stateless societies:
I dont know for any examples of societies that have no state or government.
Even tribes have "government" that forces individuals to participate in rituals.
About force:
Its hard to remove the element of the force from society. People just find it easier to use force rather than respect consent and individual sovereignty.
Created:
"Who pays for this?"
Who pays the taxes? The workers. But workers only pay the taxes that they have benefits from. For example, worker pays tax that allows education. In return, children are able to have an education. That increases production and quality of life in society. So its for the benefit of a worker too and the society as a whole.
Created:
"Who pays operation costs? Inventory costs? Costs of maintaining capital? Rent? Delivery expenses, etc.? The taxes which "benefit" them?"
The cost of production, to sum it up, is payed by the workers themselves. Either directly with their money, either helped by the state.
Created:
"If one or more of the workers dissent, how is their input evaluated?"
Probably by a vote of majority.
Basically, if there are 20 people owning the buisness, they set wages by a vote. Every worker gets to vote. If most of them agree on a wage, thats what the wage becomes.
But this is only in the case where there is a production line.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"The rich provide capital which workers then use to produce products later distributed to the workers."
The capital of the rich was created by workers. The rich are not necessary in this situation.
Created:
-->
@Athias
The example which you provided is the example of free trade with later some hints of exploitation.
Free trade can exist in Communism in a way that you are free to sell your products at the price you set. And others are allowed to resell them.
Whether someone will get rich from that is not so important.
If your example was happening in Communism, the beautiful woman would still have to work spending her time selling burgers. She wouldnt be able to hire workers to work instead of her.
She would never have an empire.
There would be very little exploitation in that example. Some, yes. But still much lower than in capitalism.
If my buisness fails because of her, it means the products I produce are no longer wanted by society. So the state provides me with different job to produce products desired by society.
Notice that the same example in capitalism would maybe allow her to start an empire, earn much more money with much less work.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"Provide an example--according to Juche--how property is earned in accordance to work, and how property is earned freely."
In accordance to work:
1) Workers are paid equal to their work. If worker produces 5 phones, he has 5 phones in money value. The only tax allowed is the one which benefits the worker.
Free:
2) There are things guaranteed to all. They are free in a sense that they are given even if no previous work is done by the individual. This includes house, piece of land, education, healthcare.
Created:
-->
@Athias
"What is your preferred description of communism?"
In simplest way, it is society without exploitation.
But one shouldnt stop at just that, but work for sovereignty of all people.
Now, what is exploitation?
In our society, nothing can be produced without workers. But workers earn very little money(wealth). The rich earn a lot of money. The rich didnt work to earn most of the money they have.
Workers must work to produce money for themselves and the rich.
Money(wealth) is used to buy products.
The economy is about production and distribution of products.
1) Workers spend time to produce products later distributed to the workers.
2) Workers spend time to produce products later distributed to the rich.
Workers working to increase the wealth of the rich, when rich dont work to equally increase the wealth of the workers, is exploitation.
This is especially felt when production is focused on luxury things most people cant afford.
Workers coops are one way to throw rich out of the equation.
Workers coops are owned by workers. Workers make the decisions by voting. I guess thats how the wages are decided. I dont know exactly how it works, but apparently its getting popular.
About state:
I do agree that the state meddling is not pure capitalism. However, state is not really something that just goes away. It sticks to capitalism just as it sticks to all systems. It is very hard to destroy it or minimize its influence.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Well, people have different ideas about what Communism is.
Abolishment of private property is just a goal set by Karl Marx in Communist Manifesto.
It was used as a definition of Communism and that has confused many.
However, in most of his works, Marx talks about exploitation being the greatest problem.
Today, some countries such as China, Japan and Vietnam have workers coops. Workers coop is buisness owned by workers, and it is considered as a form of Socialism.
In modern times, Kim Jong Il wrote a lot about a new ideology called Juche. He disagreed with Marx on some things, but accepted that the main goal of Communists is to end exploitation while adding self determination as a main principle.
In his words, all people and all countries have sovereignty, and no one should tolerate the violation of his sovereignty.
This ideology of Juche is like the advanced form of Communism.
If we assume that every individual has sovereignty over his body and his property, what makes a difference is how one earns property.
In Juche, some of it is earned according to work while some of it is free(such as a house, piece of land...).
In Capitalism, rich people multiply their money with very little work. The masses are forced to work much more for much less money.
In capitalist countries, you dont have sovereignty over your body.
While the capitalist countries have made some small progress on the field of sovereignty, they still seem to prefer to violate sovereignty whenever they like.
Created:
Individual should be able to do anything he wants to his body.
However, incorrect education can result in change of decisions and harm to the decision making.
When people are being lied to about the outcome, their decision is negatively affected by someone else.
Thus, the only proper education is the one that is true and has the highest historical rate of success.
Created:
I always hated psychologists and psychiatrists. They seem to be used by US government to justify harmful decisions.
Even today, they give drugs to toddlers.
Also, they are meddlers.
Most people dont understand the dangers of meddling into other peoples private lives.
I wouldnt call psychology or psychiatry a science.
Its just a modern form of whichcraft.
Created:
Posted in:
"By Allah, if Fatimah the daughter of Muhammad were to steal, I would cut off her hand" - Prophet muhammad
The punishment for stealing in islam is cutting off the hand.
It says so in the Quran too, and Quran cannot be changed to fit modern times because muslims dont allow any change.
Muslims often say that countries like Saudi Arabia are very advanced and rich, and therefore, a proof that islam works.
However, when it comes to human rights, Saudi Arabia is not far from Afganistan.
Cutting off hands, imprisoning gays, forced marriages, honor killings, killing atheists... just some of many questionable things practiced in Saudi Arabia.
Muslims say they hate pedophiles, but only in some cases.
For example, most muslims will say they are against pedophilia.
However, if you bring up muhammads marriage to Aisha when she was 6 years old and he was 40, they will start to justify it and say its not pedophilia. They will say she married him for financial reasons.
So its not just pedophilia, but its also prostitution.
Prostitution is legal in Saudi Arabia, in a sense that parents are allowed to sell their daughters into marriage. Daughters are forced to obey their parents and marry whoever their parents decide is right for them.
What happens if daughters disobey parents? Well, thats where the honor killing comes in handy.
Most of the people in the modern world dont know what honor killing is.
In Saudi Arabia, if a daughter gets labeled as slut, her father has a right to kill her. That is honor killing.
But please take notice that the word "slut" there is actually used to describe sex outside marriage.
But in order for her to marry, her family must approve marriage and agree with it.
So the only way not to be labeled as a slut is to marry the one your family wants.
You will often hear the line: "islam is a religion of peace".
As long as muslims are a minority in any country, they pretend to be peaceful and the line seems to be true.
However, what happens when muslims are a majority?
Imagine that you were born in a muslim family in Saudi Arabia.
In your childhood starting from age 4, you would be "educated" about islam.
It would be made clear to you that you would be punished by burning alive in a fire if you ever decide to leave islam.
You would also hear many examples of people being tortured for leaving islam.
You would also be taught that every other religion is wrong, and that only islam is right.
This is being taught in every country where muslims are a majority.
Now, lets say that at the age of 14, you start studying the Quran. In every chapter, you find different torture methods Allah uses on atheists.
At this point, if you have any human sense, you will start doubting islam.
However, then you are faced with the new problem.
While muslims often claim that there is no force in their religion, opposite is true in all countries where muslims are a majority.
In Saudi Arabia, if you declare yourself an atheist, your father has a right to kill you for bringing shame to family.
This is justified in Quran 18:80 :
Muslim in Quran 18:80 explains why he killed a boy:
"And as for the boy, his parents were true believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief."
So in Quran, the disbelief is used as a reason for murder.
Muslims will often lie and say that killing non-believers is justified only as a response to an attack.
However, muslims themselves disagree about what is considered "an attack".
For example, in Saudi Arabia, they believe that the mere talking against islam is an attack on islam.
In many muslim countries, its illegal to talk against islam.
So yeah, that is the beauty of islam.
The worlds fastest growing cult islam has many other beauties too:
1) praying every day for Allah not to punish you
2) getting circumcised
3) living in fear
4) living life thinking you are an insignificant dust
5) being told to sacrifice animals to Allah
6) being told that all non muslims are evil
So basically, if you like this kind of stuff, join islam. I am not gonna stop you because my belief in self-determination doesnt allow me to decide about your life for you.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"100 newborn baby boys die"
To this, most people will say its only a small percentage, so it doesnt matter.
Now lets change that to:
"10 newborn baby girls die"
To this, most people will say its horrible and that we should do everything we can to stop it.
Notice that circumcisers ignore cases of deaths, pain, brain damage, deformations of a penis, bending of a penis, losing functionality of a penis... all this is ignored. Why? Because it happens to a boy.
Boys dont matter. I think there would need to be at least 10000 baby boy deaths every year, and then it would maybe matter. But even then its not the boys that would be important, but their poor mothers who lost their children. So even then, it would really be about women.
Conclusion: Girls matter much more than boys.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Proper ideals are necessary to establish proper society and proper education. Ideals are basically goals that we set to achieve. For example, USA talked about freedom as an ideal, then took steps to achieve partial freedom.
But USA didnt really work much to actually realize this ideal completely. There is not much freedom in the USA right now. Is this the fault of the ideal itself, or the US citizens who do nothing to realize this ideal?
Created:
Since mharman said goodbye(using hit and run tactic) and blocked me, I might as well do similar tactic and say that all his points about North Korea were refuted here:
Created:
"There have been good and bad presidents and politicians throughout US history."
Such as?
"You can also vote in a good one."
If by "good" you mean the one approved by over 55% population, then no.
"Right now, however, I will admit we have a terrible president. The thing is, he's still better than lil' kimmy."
According to approval rates, its not just right now.
The last 4 presidents were considered terrible, 2 of them being war criminals.
Created:
You blocked me? Expected.
"Circumcision is not a sexual stimuation, so the comparison to masturbation doesn't work."
If you say that personal choice should be violated to increase health, it follows that you support forced masturbation since it violates personal choice to increase health.
Created:
"Did I say anything about life exectancy? No. I was talking about STD and UTI rates, which you failed to address. Probably because your programming is something like 'if disease.x = false, then health = true... if health = true, then lifeexpectancy = greater"
Didnt you say those were health benefits? So what exactly is the benefit? If circumcision doesnt increase life expectancy, but mutilates and damages the penis just to prevent a rare infection/disease that is not even deadly and in most cases wouldnt happen anyway, whats the point?
I would like to have my foreskin back now. I also expect a full refund.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
"What are these then? I'll tell you: they're sources"
So your sources are quora, newsfeed, and guardian? No wonder you are so "educated".
"Says the CDC"
Yeah, thats the real evidence. Just ignore the fact that health is better in countries without circumcision, and focus on... well, that.
"I'm talking about they reach adulthood dumbass. A human would know that"
A human would know that people can choose to be circumcised once they are adults if they think it will help them, hence beating the entire point of your argument of force-circumcising them when they are babies to prevent STDs.
The fact that most of them, when given the choice, choose not to be circumcised also speaks volumes. If they have actual chance of getting STDs only after age 12, try suggesting circumcision to children at that age. See how many 12 year olds will agree.
But baby is not even given such choice...
Created:
-->
@Mharman
You seem angry. Probably that "mother, sister" line got to you.
It seems that the site doesnt let me copy your entire argument, so its gonna be bit by bit.
"Wrong kind of servitude, bozo. Servitude, as in involuntary labor. You have your definitions mixed up. I'm starting to think you're a bot."
Apparently, the definition of servitude is the state of being a slave. The definition of a slave is being owned by someone.
When someone makes decisions about my body, without my consent, it fits in the definition of ownership.
The fact that you used a made up definition(involuntary labor) to make me sound wrong is actually very funny. But I expected that, so I quickly countered with real definitions.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Yeah, its different. Just like when you hit a man everyone calls it a fight, and when you hit a woman everyone calls it abuse. Whatever woman does is justified. When she cries, she is caring. When a man cries, he is weak and should stop it and man up. So yes, its vastly different in a sense that one is done to a girl and the other to a boy.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Muslims have used the exact same reasoning to justify female circumcision. They said it prevents women from becoming sluts, which in turn decreases STDs and uphelds families. Also told that most of circumcised women support having their daughters circumcised.
Such logic is to be expected from muslims and their religion having death threats, cutting off hands, and all kinds of torture as the fundamental part of their religion described in their torture manual book Quran.
But why did such logic find its place in the USA? Christianity has circumcision described in Bible. However, Jesus said that people should not be circumcised. With so many Christians in the USA, I wonder why those Christians chose to circumcise their children against the word of Jesus.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
"Losing a tiny flap of skin is far from being forced into involuntary servitude."
How does "someone else deciding what part of my body should be cut off against my will" makes it not involuntary servitude? What exactly is voluntary in me being forced to serve your tradition?
"He'll imprison your family in a labor camp for stealing his look."
I see your knowledge about North Korea comes from american cartoons.
"Circumcised males have a lower UTI and STD rate over the course of their lifetime."
Says who? Bunny the sniper?
First, the STD part is nonsense. Baby is not going to get STD, circumcised or not.
If circumcision is so healthy, surely then the people will live longer if circumcised? How is it then that top 10 countries in life expectancy have very low circumcision rates? While the bottom 10 countries with lowest life expectancy have circumcision rates of about 90%? There seems to be no correlation between mass circumcision and health.
If you have a right to violate babys body for something you consider "healthy" because you found a couple of "sniper studies", do you think that other people have a right to violate your body for those same reasons?
Masturbation helps to increase life expectancy. Do you agree that I should be able to come to your house every day and force you to masturbate, if I find that you are not doing it regularly? If I find that today you didnt masturbate or have sex, I should be able to come to your house and force you? And your sister too? And your mother? Masturbstion is healthy, so...why not? You think its justified to force people, so why shouldnt I be able to do the same to you? Also, I need to forbid you to eat meat and fast food because its unhealthy. From now on, you cant have anything that damages your health. Do you agree? Also, I might need to take away your car. Also, some of your income will be redirected to poor people to help their health.
"Still cleaner than North Korean water though."
More information from cartoons?
"Having both of your ears is helpful for hearing and balance."
Circumcision damages the penis. There have even been cases where people lost the function of their penis completely. Cutting off a bit of your ear wont damage your hearing. Can I cut it off now? And your hair too so you dont have to wash it anymore? You dont need it. Also, if you have a daughter, sister or mother, can I cut off all of their hair too? They dont need it and having hair can cause health problems.
"Speaking of balance, the North Korean diet is very balanced. No grains, no meat, no vegetables, no fruits, none of anything else! A nutritional value of 0 for every food group! Truly balanced!"
How is it then that North Korean population grew faster than US population who has huge immigrations? Awkward.
"Speaking of violating people's bodies, you should talk to the prison guards in your country. They seem to be up to no good."
I see you are not familliar with what happens in US prisons.
"North Korea: A country with so much nationalist support that leaving the country is banned!"
We have already seen that you like violating other peoples bodies. Plus, USA attacked like over 30 sovereign countries, killed millions of people, used chemical weapons on millions of civilians... Weird.
"Truly amazing! But defectors seem to say otherwise. I don't know why they escaped such a 'great' country. Maybe they just didn't like their daily prison camp torture."
Apparently, the South Korea is regularly sending the propaganda papers over the North Korean borders. Those papers usually promise great wealth to those who defect. After having looked at some defectors youtube channels, it seems that they only care about money and have a mental power of a 10 year old.
"Finally, we agree on something! Our government does suck! Good thing we can vote some of them out. Not a option in North Korea"
In theory, you can. However, there seems to be no historical evidence of that. You vote out one, another one comes who is equally bad.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
"Optional for parents to decide."
They cant decide about that. Not their body. Babys body doesnt belong to parents. It belongs only to baby. The opposite case would be slavery. In that case, I dont see why you oppose to dictatorship.
"Also, it's a medical procedure, not a sex act."
No. It has no observable medical benefits for a baby.
"As for mutilation, it's a small flap of skin. You're not losing anything significant."
Okay, can I cut off your ear? You will still have the other one, so no big deal.
Now, since you obviously like violating other peoples bodies, I dont think you have a right to speak against anyone on anything.
So far everything Kim family has done was supported by more than 90% of their population. You assume this is out of fear. No evidence for that. But when we look at history, its the US government who used fear to justify wars, bombarding, circumcisions, punishments, abuses of human rights, tortures...ect.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Optional? Sorry, could you explain to me how is it optional for a baby? Are you saying babies consent to have their penises cut and mutilated?
Also, you say its not rape. Lets see: 1) nonconsensual 2) touching, cutting and penetration of genitals... yeah its rape.
Also, you seem to believe that North Korea is dictatorship. However, Kim family has approval rating of over 90% by their citizens. Compared to that, most US presidents dont even have 55%. Awkward.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Actually, in capitalist USA, they rape you at birth. They call it "circumcision". But its only legal to rape males.
Created: