Okay, first of all, as Alphanubilus already said a while ago, Karl Marx's idea of communism was never meant to serve as the building blueprints for a system of government. It wasn't even his idea of a utopian society really -- it was his idea of how to prevent worker exploitation in the factory. Lenin, Mao Tse-Tung and Fidel Castro were just dictators who used the title "communism" to cover up the fact that they were such.FoxKnight wrote:That was all very well worded and well thought out, though I was only talking specifically about communism in that paragraph.
Communism is the idea that everyone should be equal in all aspect to sustain an equal community, right? (Well, the general idea anyways) Well, people aren't all equal and aren't all willing to work to help those they don't even know or dislike. The only way to make everyone equal is to either build androids or to own everything so no one can be different/better off than others. The government has to force everyone to be equal here. I don't see how Marx could have spent so much effort into making his manefesto and not factor in that people will not all have the exact same ideals and ambitions to help their society. People commit all kinds of sins for all reasons but he doesn't include that in his manefesto. And if he does, what is it he planned to do with the free thinkers?
And if communism can be done properly, how do you plan to make it work this time?
Second, and more importantly, I never said I had a "plan to make it work this time." I was talking about applying a minimal amount of socialism to our already existing democracy for the sake of long-term sustainability, and the argument I got back was against full top-to-bottom communism. You effectively just did exactly what I'd previously lectured conservatives for doing: deliberately confusing the issue by turning it into a debate of all or nothing.
That couldn't be further from the truth. I don't want the government to cater to everything for everyone. I just want it to do enough to ensure that those who want to contribute are able to contribute.
It should be, but in reality, not so much. The way I see it, a government has two options:Though I believe unemployment benefits are meant for food, water, clothing, and medicine already.
1) Provide the necessary goods / services directly to the welfare recipients.
2) Throw money at the recipients and pray that they don't waste it, lose it or get screwed out of it.
Right now, the government is doing #2, which is so much easier (FYI: easy = lazy), but doesn't fix anything for anyone. Half the people on welfare exploit the system, and the other half continue to be exploited.
No! For the love of God no, stop right there! I am so bloody sick of that phrase -- "people who only want to freeload off of the taxpayers" has lost all bloody meaning thanks to dumb conservative pricks like you!These should be given to the people who want to contribute to society by getting a job; not to the people who want to only free load off of-
I'm unemployed you little puke. Ask me how I like it! Ask me if I enjoy being in pain every day from the minute I wake up in the morning to the minute I finally manage to fall asleep in spite of it! Ask me if I enjoy knowing tomorrow will be no different because I can't even get a doctor to bloody look at me or any insurance company to cover me! Ask me if I enjoy getting turned down for job after job after job because nobody wants an employee who grits his teeth and seethes all the time while he's working! Ask me if I like having to roll coins together to see if I can buy groceries this week!
Ask me if I like listening to tea-bagger pay-per-protest douchebags piss and moan that I "just want the taxpayers to take care of me" all the time. Ask ME you prick!!
Yes, that's right, I'm not being civil anymore. Go ahead and whine about that instead if you can't think of any other tea-bagger catch phrases you haven't already thrown out at random yet. You betrayed your colors, so I see no reason to keep hiding mine either.