: : Goodness. The truth is made plain. My arguments against the wholesale theft of property by a presumably beneficent ‘other’ are elitist,
: Erm, no, we are not talking about theiving property, it is about returning control of property to *YOU*
No, I bloody well have the property now, and won't anymore if you have your way.
: :and show me as someone who does not co-operate with or trust my fellow man. Well. I am glad to have someone as authoritative as Mr. Red, to
: Deathy, please, Red's just an adjective.
Deathy it is.
: :point out my personal flaw, and in his most humble way, deign to dictate to the world how we are to run our lives. My assumption that this smacks of a patronizing attitude only accentuates my irascibility.
: I have no intention of telling anyone how to run their lives, I want everyone to be able to run their own lives, unlike now, where only them as have money can effectively run their own lives.
For someone without an intention, you're "intending" pretty darn thick.
: : It really doesn’t matter whether you support Mr. Hitler or Mr. Stalin, now, does it? Once these fellows fill the vacuum left by an ‘anarchized’ state, it tends to become difficult to have any sort of opinion at all. Again, I remind Mr. Red of Mr. Makhno, and his amusing affair with one Mr. Lenin, et. al.
: But there would be no vaccuum, instead we would have the 'authority' (i William Morris' terms) of the democratic self activity of teh people, no Leaders.
I guess he has been forgotten. "Those who do not study history ..."
: : No, my dear fellow. And do you, kind sir, trust me so little as to not be able to dispose properly of my own property? Or must that, as in all other things, be put up to a vote?
: No, you could dispose of the property you use yourself, but where your property concerns other people, i'd think it only polite to consult them.
We do. It's called the government. And it has limits, so that those "polite concerns" don't get out of hand, as they frequently do in socialist states.
: : I have always found it difficult to be a ‘mob’, yet find that others, in significant quantities, seem to achieve this feat with ease. Perhaps this peculiar paradox might shed illumination on your vexing quandary.
: So you have never done anything collectively, thought of yourself as a member of a group, said 'we'?
Of course. But always, I think of myself as an individual. It is the Other that "mobs"; perhaps this is a legacy of the leftist term "the masses".
: : People are sensible. We are all adults, and all of us are governed by reason. Why, then, do the police seem to have so much to do? Capitalist perfidy, perhaps?
: 1:Some people are very poor, and are not allowed to be involved in society, they must be kept poor- thats the job of the police. if those peopel were included in society, and its wealth, they would not commit crimes, and there would be no need for police.
Why, then, do the rich steal? A man does not steal to alleviate poverty, he does it to get something he wants, and because he lacks the ethical restraint necessary to work for it.
I think the police would be quite encumbered in your 'paradise', in any case, given the past reputation of this system.
: : Really? Everything? Are you really sure about that. Think that one through a minute.
: Yes, you'd own everything, co-owner with everyone else. Of course, you'd have some things you sue, and that are recognised as 'yours'.
Oh, of course. I own everything, and may use it, subject to public approval. I own what others "recognize" I own. Certainly.
Why does this sound so similar to state capitalism? Hmm. Or as you would say, erm.
: : What if my fellows do not think I deserve a reward? What if they think of me as a kulak, a dirty rotten speculator, a show-off who doesn’t deserve the gruel the collective grudgingly allows me? What if they think it should all go to Trixie, because she is so darned cute?
: Erm, well, you take what you want- its free access to teh goods of society, self-defined needs.
But I thought I needed permission first, from the "others" ... This is sounding more and more fishy.
: : What if, like in the real world, my fellows respect and recognize me only so long as it happens to be in their immediate best interests to do so? What if, the rest of the time, they respect and recognize their family and friends? Do you know nothing about any of the communist failures during the last century? Have you no knowledge of nepotism?
: Ah, but recognition does not involve giving material rewards, its simply appreciating and liking a fellow, your fellows would not be able to behave nepotistically, because tehre would be no mechanisim controlling consumtion, other than everyone's 'conscience'.
In the practical application of this system, that 'conscience' frequently takes the form of the People's Revolutionary Tribunal. Are you ready for that Great Leap Forward?
: : I think I am becoming sick and tired of having my objections to wholesale theft called ‘rubbish’. The Left has come up with numerous ‘get rich quick’ schemes, and have imposed them on me at my expense.
: Ah, but I am not a leftist.
I meow. I purr. I am furry. I have claws on my paws. I am feline. I birth kittens. But ... I am not a cat. Really. I am actually something rather different. (Probably a tiger. Grrowl.)
: :Strangely, in my own elitist and callous fashion, I think your ideas are not only rubbish, but actively hostile. Do not be surprised if, as your kind has on numerous occasions, found your persistent attempts to destroy industrial society and civil society met by increasingly hostile levels of ‘elitist reactionary’ resistance.
: But, as I said, I have no intention of destroying industrial society.
Again with that "intention". Then, of course, no one "intends" to actively resist you. You have nothing to fear. D'Abbuisson is your friend.
: : I am beginning to understand the profound nature of the ‘suxx’ remark.
: Yes, it was at your level, wasn't it.
Careful there. You are "at my level" ...