ADVERTISEMENT

Socialism As A Hate Crime

Interesting point of view! I'm curious how you come by it. Both philosophies, when put into practice,
This is where I stop you and say that Nazism isn't even good in theory, and that is the chief difference.

cannot function properly without unquestioned compliance from the masses. Disobedience cannot be tolerated. It is a requirement for either philosophy to work.
You are think about revolutionary socialism. Revolutionary almost anything has this problem. Socialism put in place by democratic means and politics doesn't require all the counter-counter-revolutionary purges and killings.

In your mind how would a socialist society escape the evolution into tyranny as long as there are people like me who would not want to live under such a system? How would a socialist society handle a person such as me? In what way would it be different from what a fascist society would do with me?
Ponca Dan, you don't want to live in any system where you pay taxes, and yet here we are. So under socialism you would be handled the exact same way you are handled today.
 
Interesting point of view! I'm curious how you come by it. Both philosophies, when put into practice, cannot function properly without unquestioned compliance from the masses. Disobedience cannot be tolerated. It is a requirement for either philosophy to work. In your mind how would a socialist society escape the evolution into tyranny as long as there are people like me who would not want to live under such a system? How would a socialist society handle a person such as me? In what way would it be different from what a fascist society would do with me?
Maybe the socialists like a Star Trek type society would help you leave and find a home where you could be truly “free”? Fascists like maybe a Nazi type society might force you to leave or maybe help you find an early grave.?
 
Interesting point of view! I'm curious how you come by it. Both philosophies, when put into practice, cannot function properly without unquestioned compliance from the masses. Disobedience cannot be tolerated. It is a requirement for either philosophy to work. In your mind how would a socialist society escape the evolution into tyranny as long as there are people like me who would not want to live under such a system? How would a socialist society handle a person such as me? In what way would it be different from what a fascist society would do with me?
As an aside there are some very unobtrusive very unrevolutionary ways to become socialist. You can repeal the corporate tax rate and replace it with a share tax on all public equity and debt issues.
 
In the U.K.? I’m gonna need more

Obviously before your time. I wouldn’t bother worrying or caring about it honestly.

I think ignoring other posters is a chickenshit move, but I’m just me and won’t dictate what others do. If there’s ever been a more ignored poster than me on this board, I want names lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
Obviously before your time. I wouldn’t bother worrying or caring about it honestly.

I think ignoring other posters is a chickenshit move, but I’m just me and won’t dictate what others do. If there’s ever been a more ignored poster than me on this board, I want names lol
I just want the stories, JD used to lay the smack down over on OP, figured it be the same here lol.
 
This is where I stop you and say that Nazism isn't even good in theory, and that is the chief difference.


You are think about revolutionary socialism. Revolutionary almost anything has this problem. Socialism put in place by democratic means and politics doesn't require all the counter-counter-revolutionary purges and killings.

Ponca Dan, you don't want to live in any system where you pay taxes, and yet here we are. So under socialism you would be handled the exact same way you are handled today.
One of these days someone needs to teach me how you box out individual paragraphs and reply. I don’t know how to do that, so I’ll resort to trying to respond in one fell swoop.

1). Please explain to me how fascism (we’re talking fascism here, not Nazism) is bad in theory. What theoretical differences are there between fascism and socialism? What make socialist theory good, while fascist theory (which is virtually a Siamese twin of socialist theory) bad.

2) I am not thinking about revolutionary socialism. I’m thinking about all the socialist countries and societies and communes that have been established throughout history. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Venezuela democratically voted in socialism. It hasn’t worked out for them.

3). You mischaracterize my attitude about where I want to live and what kind of society I find acceptable. Yes, philosophically I prefer a free, stateless society. That’s a philosophical, utopian vision of what could be. But that’s all that it is, a utopian vision. A goal that I prefer humanity strive toward. Not once in my life have I demanded society follow my dictates.

Back to the topic: in a socialist society there is no private property. That’s the fundamental tenet of the philosophy. I own a business. I have owned it for 50 years. I have dedicated my existence to its growth and prosperity. I am not willing to give it to society. Society can only have it over my dead body. Is that my fate in a socialist society? What is my fate? Keep in mind there are millions of people like me. We’re not relinquishing our hard earned property. Society can’t have it. How does a socialist government resolve the issue without force, violence, tyranny? These are serious questions. Have you thought about them? What’s your answer, beyond pap like “just like it is now?” Like it is now I keep my property. Like you want it I don’t. What’s the peaceful resolution?
 
One of these days someone needs to teach me how you box out individual paragraphs and reply. I don’t know how to do that, so I’ll resort to trying to respond in one fell swoop.

1). Please explain to me how fascism (we’re talking fascism here, not Nazism) is bad in theory. What theoretical differences are there between fascism and socialism? What make socialist theory good, while fascist theory (which is virtually a Siamese twin of socialist theory) bad.

2) I am not thinking about revolutionary socialism. I’m thinking about all the socialist countries and societies and communes that have been established throughout history. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Venezuela democratically voted in socialism. It hasn’t worked out for them.

3). You mischaracterize my attitude about where I want to live and what kind of society I find acceptable. Yes, philosophically I prefer a free, stateless society. That’s a philosophical, utopian vision of what could be. But that’s all that it is, a utopian vision. A goal that I prefer humanity strive toward. Not once in my life have I demanded society follow my dictates.

Back to the topic: in a socialist society there is no private property. That’s the fundamental tenet of the philosophy. I own a business. I have owned it for 50 years. I have dedicated my existence to its growth and prosperity. I am not willing to give it to society. Society can only have it over my dead body. Is that my fate in a socialist society? What is my fate? Keep in mind there are millions of people like me. We’re not relinquishing our hard earned property. Society can’t have it. How does a socialist government resolve the issue without force, violence, tyranny? These are serious questions. Have you thought about them? What’s your answer, beyond pap like “just like it is now?” Like it is now I keep my property. Like you want it I don’t. What’s the peaceful resolution?
Let me add one more thing then I’ll let it go (for now) and let you have the last word.

There is a difference between the socialist society you advocate and the free society I prefer. Your society is sprung from violence or the threat thereof. Your society requires every individual to obey or face serious consequences. Defiance is met with violence. There are no options. It’s like the Star Trek Borg, where individualism is abolished. It is impossible for a true socialist society to exis otherwise.

In the free society I advocate individuals may live and act any way they want, so long as their actions do not interfere with the equal free action of anyone else. In a free society those that want to live a socialist lifestyle are perfectly free to do so. Encouraged to do so! They can create their own communities, develop their own businesses, healthcare, housing, schools, you name it. And there would be no reason for anyone else to stop them, because everyone else would remain exempt from the socialist lifestyle. Socialists could form communes or cities, or live among non-socialists as neighbors. Non-socialists could do the same: live their lives free. Do what they want. Have their own businesses, housing, schools, etc. And because the government’s only function would be to protect the individual’s freedom to pursue his own goals, there would not be the need for “teams” to form in order to force one lifestyle over another. We could all be friends!

Your society is built on coercion. Mine is built on individual freedom.

I’m done for the night! You can have the last word.
 
One of these days someone needs to teach me how you box out individual paragraphs and reply. I don’t know how to do that, so I’ll resort to trying to respond in one fell swoop.

1). Please explain to me how fascism (we’re talking fascism here, not Nazism) is bad in theory. What theoretical differences are there between fascism and socialism? What make socialist theory good, while fascist theory (which is virtually a Siamese twin of socialist theory) bad.

2) I am not thinking about revolutionary socialism. I’m thinking about all the socialist countries and societies and communes that have been established throughout history. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Venezuela democratically voted in socialism. It hasn’t worked out for them.

3). You mischaracterize my attitude about where I want to live and what kind of society I find acceptable. Yes, philosophically I prefer a free, stateless society. That’s a philosophical, utopian vision of what could be. But that’s all that it is, a utopian vision. A goal that I prefer humanity strive toward. Not once in my life have I demanded society follow my dictates.

Back to the topic: in a socialist society there is no private property. That’s the fundamental tenet of the philosophy. I own a business. I have owned it for 50 years. I have dedicated my existence to its growth and prosperity. I am not willing to give it to society. Society can only have it over my dead body. Is that my fate in a socialist society? What is my fate? Keep in mind there are millions of people like me. We’re not relinquishing our hard earned property. Society can’t have it. How does a socialist government resolve the issue without force, violence, tyranny? These are serious questions. Have you thought about them? What’s your answer, beyond pap like “just like it is now?” Like it is now I keep my property. Like you want it I don’t. What’s the peaceful resolution?


Human nature is not utopian, fundamentally. Many humans in this world will do things at other humans’ expense for personal gain. You can’t envision this perfect world where harmony and happiness are ultimately possible, because it has never and will never exist. They say death and taxes are the only certain things in life. Crime and bad behavior are right there as a human inevitability.
 
Let me add one more thing then I’ll let it go (for now) and let you have the last word.

There is a difference between the socialist society you advocate and the free society I prefer. Your society is sprung from violence or the threat thereof. Your society requires every individual to obey or face serious consequences. Defiance is met with violence. There are no options. It’s like the Star Trek Borg, where individualism is abolished. It is impossible for a true socialist society to exis otherwise.

In the free society I advocate individuals may live and act any way they want, so long as their actions do not interfere with the equal free action of anyone else. In a free society those that want to live a socialist lifestyle are perfectly free to do so. Encouraged to do so! They can create their own communities, develop their own businesses, healthcare, housing, schools, you name it. And there would be no reason for anyone else to stop them, because everyone else would remain exempt from the socialist lifestyle. Socialists could form communes or cities, or live among non-socialists as neighbors. Non-socialists could do the same: live their lives free. Do what they want. Have their own businesses, housing, schools, etc. And because the government’s only function would be to protect the individual’s freedom to pursue his own goals, there would not be the need for “teams” to form in order to force one lifestyle over another. We could all be friends!

Your society is built on coercion. Mine is built on individual freedom.

I’m done for the night! You can have the last word.
I believe you are talking to yourself here Dan. But maybe that’s normal? It is where I come from.
 
Because he didn’t like me being very familiar with how to deal with a passive aggressive individual such as himself.

@CowboyJD story time me if you will, why does @Ponca Dan ignore you so?

I put JD on ignore quite some time ago. Why don’t you tell me in your own words what I am being challenged about?

I put JD on ignore because I don’t like him.

Your pointed question was what, list all abuses made by capitalists and then defend those abuses? I’ll pass.

Let’s keep JD out of the discussion. Several weeks ago I told him I’d give him the last word, and I meant it. I don’t like him and he doesn’t like me. Enough said.

Capitalism is in the eye of the beholder. Give your definition and then we can discuss based on a common understanding of what we are discussing. Without a proper definition we would probably continue to talk past each other just like we are doing now.

Or, if you prefer, I’ll define it and then we can discuss. In either case once the definition is agreed upon there can be no turning back, attempting to score points on a definition that has not been mutually agreed upon. If you want to go there I’m more than happy to go with you.

No, sys, I see no need to ignore you. I ignore JD for one simple reason. He once happily described himself as an arrogant asshole, a description with which I fully agree. I have never had much tolerance for assholery, and when arrogance is thrown in the mix I find it best to ignore it. If I bothered to read anything he wrote I would be tempted to turn into another of the many posters who simply insult one another. I do not find that to be a trait I want to cultivate in myself. I do not find you to be either arrogant or an asshole, just a person misguided in some of his thinking. So, no, I don’t see a need to ignore you.

You asked what is stopping companies from donating to schools now. Nothing is stopping them and they donate quite a bit. I am of the understanding you are an attorney in a small town in Oklahoma. Do you not support your local schools in any way? Surely the company that is the main industry in your town donates to your schools. Probably more than you can imagine. It's been 20 years since my kids have been in Ponca City's schools. But when they were in school the major industry (CONOCO) donated thousands and thousands of dollars and equipment to our school system every year. In addition smaller corporations pitched in. Local lawyers, doctors, insurance agencies, real estate companies, contractors - the list is very long - of companies and people that donated time, money and equipment to Ponca's school system. I would bet that is true in your town as well.

I remember watching a show a few years back about a super rich man in New York that visited a school filled with poor kids. Junior high age as I recall. He told them that any for kid that graduated from high school he would pay for their college. Years later he ponied up for several students that had taken him at his word. Things like that go on all the time. I suppose I have greater confidence in the generosity of our fellow man than you.

As regards the young aspiring entrepreneurs: you have honed in on the cost of all the certifications, registrations, regulations, and have decided they are snowflakes because they didn't want to pay the money, which you decided would be about $100. I don't know how much money they would have had to pay, but I'm quite sure it far exceeds $100. They both consulted with lawyers. I don't know how much you would have charged them, but I do know the lawyer I use in my business is $200/hour, or any portion of an hour, and many of my fellow businessmen tell me he is cheap compared to the ones they use. But to focus on the money is to miss the point entirely. The point is the government has insinuated itself into a situation it has no business being involved in. Those kids spent months dealing the local, county, state and federal bureaucrats, paid lawyers and other consultants, and finally threw in the towel. As the link in question pointed out, their inability to pursue their passion because of government interference is something that "is not seen."

I'll talk about JD one more time, and then I'm done talking about him. I know that JD fancies himself to be the smartest man on this board, and he works very hard to persuade the rest of you that is so. Frankly, I rarely see any overwhelmingly intellectual insight in his comments. JD likes to make arguments against other people by belittling and insulting. He calls someone a name and expects the rest of us to believe that because he said it, it must be true. I learned a great lesson about JD thanks to NZ. Some time back JD decided to call out NZ for being anti-Semitic. He threw that language at NZ in response to everything NZ posted. What I noticed is that NZ almost never responded to JD's blather. It actually became quite funny as JD became increasingly hysterical toward NZ, trying so hard to get NZ to respond, becoming increasingly frustrated until he finally announced he was putting him on ignore! I never knew whether NZ had put JD on ignore, and that's why he almost never responded to the insults, but it occurred to me that l could ignore him and still enjoy this board. I'm not asking anybody else to do what I did. I don't care what JD has to say, or what other people think of him. I'm content to go my way and let him go his. Now, I'm done with talking about JD. You think what you want. If you think I shrink away from his "undeniable intellectual power" you're wrong. But please feel free to think what you want.

The typical passive aggressive reasons....silent treatment...yada, yada, yada.

You should check out those threads. At one point I had Sys cutting and pasting my arguments and questions and asking them for me. Pretty funny stuff.

The real reason is because I pin him down rhetorically and point out his passive aggressive techniques until he just gives up and tells me he’s “giving me the last word”.

Good stuff.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
Let me add one more thing then I’ll let it go (for now) and let you have the last word.

There is a difference between the socialist society you advocate and the free society I prefer. Your society is sprung from violence or the threat thereof. Your society requires every individual to obey or face serious consequences. Defiance is met with violence. There are no options. It’s like the Star Trek Borg, where individualism is abolished. It is impossible for a true socialist society to exis otherwise.

In the free society I advocate individuals may live and act any way they want, so long as their actions do not interfere with the equal free action of anyone else. In a free society those that want to live a socialist lifestyle are perfectly free to do so. Encouraged to do so! They can create their own communities, develop their own businesses, healthcare, housing, schools, you name it. And there would be no reason for anyone else to stop them, because everyone else would remain exempt from the socialist lifestyle. Socialists could form communes or cities, or live among non-socialists as neighbors. Non-socialists could do the same: live their lives free. Do what they want. Have their own businesses, housing, schools, etc. And because the government’s only function would be to protect the individual’s freedom to pursue his own goals, there would not be the need for “teams” to form in order to force one lifestyle over another. We could all be friends!

Your society is built on coercion. Mine is built on individual freedom.

I’m done for the night! You can have the last word.

He’s big on beneficently “letting” people have the last word.

Which really means “you’re dismissed” to someone like him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
Because he didn’t like me being very familiar with how to deal with a passive aggressive individual such as himself.













The typical passive aggressive reasons....silent treatment...yada, yada, yada.

You should check out those threads. At one point I had Sys cutting and pasting my arguments and questions and asking them for me. Pretty funny stuff.

The real reason is because I pin him down rhetorically and point out his passive aggressive techniques until he just gives up and tells me he’s “giving me the last word”.

Good stuff.
Also, as I have said previously here...I like @Ponca Dan just fine.

He amuses me....but he still amuses me while I’m on ignore by him, so it’s all good.
He’s big on beneficently “letting” people have the last word.

Which really means “you’re dismissed” to someone like him.
Ah I too have dabbled in the dark arts of Passive aggressive boardplay, I try to use it sparingly and with a purpose however, mostly to piss off whomever has drawn my attention that day. It’s one of many cards I can play, but It’s no fun if you play the same card all the time Dan!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
Ah I too have dabbled in the dark arts of Passive aggressive boardplay, I try to use it sparingly and with a purpose however, mostly to piss off whomever has drawn my attention that day. It’s one of many cards I can play, but It’s no fun if you play the same card all the time Dan!
Ah, I see you have been talking to JD. I consider my style to be courteous and non-confrontational, an attempt at politeness. JD considers it to be passive aggressive. I suppose he thinks so because I try not to get into insulting pissing matches with others on this board, a style he prefers.
 
Ah, I see you have been talking to JD. I consider my style to be courteous and non-confrontational, an attempt at politeness. JD considers it to be passive aggressive. I suppose he thinks so because I try not to get into insulting pissing matches with others on this board, a style he prefers.
He would disagree, you guys should talk. I’ll referee. Well I’ll at least wear my referee speedo.
 
Could use some socialism here, this is disgusting behavior from a corporation.

The association of "throttling" in this case to net neutrality is wrong. Net neutrality didn't prohibit cellphone providers from having limits on data plans. Verizon is upfront about what happens if you use your monthly 4G data allocation per your plan's agreement. They limit the device to 3G speeds. This was done in lieu of automatically charging for additional 4G data for obvious reasons. People get real pissed when their cellphone bill ends up $300 more than what you normally pay. You can buy additional 4G data if you want, but they'll always encourage you to get an unlimited plan.

Was it shitty customer service? Probably. Is fire leadership/local government guilty of extreme cheapassness? Yes they are. Maybe poor planning too? Probably.

The typical municipal government rate is around $38 per month per device for unlimited 4G data on Verizon. I've got more than 40 Verizon 4G hotspots deployed. They were likely still on an old 5 GB limit type plan. Very few applications in public safety these days will keep you under 5 GB when you have to use them, so plan to use them all of the time and pay for the unexpected up front. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
Could use some socialism here, this is disgusting behavior from a corporation.

I forgot to add that no matter what data plan you have, the spectating civilian asshats and their facebook livestreams and twitters and facetimes and snapchats will consume all of the bandwidth in the immediate vicinity of any large incident no matter where you try to stash it. If there's a speck of unused bandwidth, Megan Sally Jo will use it up to stream her "OMG!!! This fire is totally huge!!! My eyebrows are totally on fleek though!" bullshit to all 3 of her followers.
 
I forgot to add that no matter what data plan you have, the spectating civilian asshats and their facebook livestreams and twitters and facetimes and snapchats will consume all of the bandwidth in the immediate vicinity of any large incident no matter where you try to stash it. If there's a speck of unused bandwidth, Megan Sally Jo will use it up to stream her "OMG!!! This fire is totally huge!!! My eyebrows are totally on fleek though!" bullshit to all 3 of her followers.
Yeah that’s gotta stop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
That’s an internal vision I may never get rid of! But, no, thank you. I’m off JD.

I am proud to have received the eternal silent treatment from PD.

Someone might consider asking him if his wife has ever called him passive aggressive.

It’d be fun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokeabear
He would disagree, you guys should talk. I’ll referee. Well I’ll at least wear my referee speedo.

I would disagree.

He consistently gets into insulting pissing matches...just when he is called on his insults he follows the classic passive aggressive technique of claiming to have not intended his statements as an insult which turns the discussion from the topic at hand to his victimhood.

Then he “gives” you the last word.
 
I would disagree.

He consistently gets into insulting pissing matches...just when he is called on his insults he follows the classic passive aggressive technique of claiming to have not intended his statements as an insult which turns the discussion from the topic at hand to his victimhood.

Then he “gives” you the last word.
That’s mighty neighborly of him.
 
One of these days someone needs to teach me how you box out individual paragraphs and reply. I don’t know how to do that, so I’ll resort to trying to respond in one fell swoop.

You just have to copy past the (QUOTE="Ponca Dan, post: 1278637, member: 1410"][/QUOTE) around each block

1). Please explain to me how fascism (we’re talking fascism here, not Nazism) is bad in theory. What theoretical differences are there between fascism and socialism? What make socialist theory good, while fascist theory (which is virtually a Siamese twin of socialist theory) bad.
One is internationalist and emphasizes solidarity across races and nationality, the other is nationalist and places the well being of members of that nation (almost alway ethnonationalist) above all including the lives of others.

2) I am not thinking about revolutionary socialism. I’m thinking about all the socialist countries and societies and communes that have been established throughout history. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Venezuela democratically voted in socialism. It hasn’t worked out for them.
Say what you will about the mismanagement of the Venezuelan economy, it isn't exactly Stalin's Russia or China's Mao when it comes to authoritarianism. They also claim the mantle of the "Bolivarian Revolution" so it probably isn't the best example. I think Norway would be a better example.

3). You mischaracterize my attitude about where I want to live and what kind of society I find acceptable. Yes, philosophically I prefer a free, stateless society. That’s a philosophical, utopian vision of what could be. But that’s all that it is, a utopian vision. A goal that I prefer humanity strive toward. Not once in my life have I demanded society follow my dictates.
I guess my point still stands, Ponca Dan, a socialist regime would handle the your dissent the same way this mixed economy regime handles your dissent.

Back to the topic: in a socialist society there is no private property.
No private property? Correct me if I am wrong, but your example of socialism above, Venezuela, still has private property, no?


That’s the fundamental tenet of the philosophy. I own a business. I have owned it for 50 years. I have dedicated my existence to its growth and prosperity. I am not willing to give it to society. Society can only have it over my dead body. Is that my fate in a socialist society? What is my fate? Keep in mind there are millions of people like me. We’re not relinquishing our hard earned property. Society can’t have it. How does a socialist government resolve the issue without force, violence, tyranny? These are serious questions. Have you thought about them? What’s your answer, beyond pap like “just like it is now?” Like it is now I keep my property. Like you want it I don’t. What’s the peaceful resolution?
Dan the money you pay in taxes is property that you willingly and dutifully give up every year (probably every quarter) under penalty of jail time and asset seizure. If your business taxes went away and you just had to give the government a 1% stake in your company every year, would that be socialism? Would it be over your dead body?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
There is a difference between the socialist society you advocate and the free society I prefer. Your society is sprung from violence or the threat thereof. Your society requires every individual to obey or face serious consequences. Defiance is met with violence. There are no options. It’s like the Star Trek Borg, where individualism is abolished. It is impossible for a true socialist society to exis otherwise.
Here in lies the trouble with the Libertarian "taxation is theft," it really means the difference between extremely business friendly minimalist government and full blown Maoism is just a matter of degree. Any society with a tax man is the Borg now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CowboyJD
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT