 Originally Posted by blind2d
1) I've heard of it, yeah. Wasn't it mostly cops? What's wrong with that? I'm imagining it... What would be their incentive for doing the crimes?
No, it was gangsters masquerading as cops. Once they had their intended victims lined up against the wall, as if it was a legit police raid, they mowed them down in cold blood with machine guns. Al Capone wasn't a nice guy by any means. You crossed this dude, you were dead. Plain and simple. Gangsters obey no other "law" but that of The Jungle.
2) Now I'm no tankie, and Castro did some bad stuff, but overall he could've been worse. Hell, he could've been a US President.
LOL! Comparing a mass murdering thug like Castro with any US President (even Donald Fart, err, "Trump", by far the worst and most ridiculous US president ever), only reinforces how out of touch with reality you are. I'll take living under the government of any US President over Castro's communist regime any day of the week.
Just as an example. But yeah, he's hardly Mussolini.
How much you want to bet that 1920s-30s Italians lived much better under Mussolini (who was a ruthless dictator responsible for thousands of deaths, no question about this) than 2000s Venezuelans do under Castro's The Two Stooges (Chavez & Maduro), who are also responsible for thousands of deaths but on top of that have totally fucked the whole infrastructure of the nation? (want to hear an amusing "joke": current Venezuela can't even produce enough sugar for its population, it has to import sugar! A nation well-known for its long tradition of sugar cane plantations! That's how fucked up the whole country has become. They barely can even produce oil anymore, and this is the nation with the largest oil reserves in the world! Yes, that's how incompetent these communist clowns you seem to admire so much are. On top of that, they are a bunch of thieves too (they have millions -stolen from Venezuela's coffers- stashed in foreign bank accounts.) They have turned the richest nation in South America into an impoverished hell-hole, where droves of people die of hunger and disease every day. "Long live the ROBBERlution!")
Also, yeah, there hasn't yet been a truly communist nation, since y'know, communism's ultimate goal is to abolish nations, among other things. But as an ideal worth fighting for? Freedom, equality, love? Yeah, I believe in these things, so sue me.
Again, Utopian dreams.
3) Unsure how instituting violence diminishes violence.
Because just like Romero's zombies, many people do not "respond to such emotions" (as Dr. Rausch would put it) like "compassion", "love", "fairness", "respect", etc. You know, the things that you keep quite incorrectly assuming will somehow magically stop people from committing crimes. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to put laws into place to keep such people in check and make sure they know that they cannot go around doing such things to others without being punished for it. "You break the dishes, you pay for them!"
I guess your line of reasoning is "well since we're already oppressed by the State, we can't also be oppressed by other entities!" which is absurd.
Oppressed by the state? Methinks that you really have no idea of what actual oppression is. You should really spend some time in Cuba, North Korea or Venezuela to get a good nice taste of what actual oppression is. Get a taste of what being shot, or tortured, or imprisoned for life for your dissenting views, a la Cuba & North Korea, or dying of starvation and disease a la current Venezuela disaster (take a look at Venezuelan morgues and "hospitals" under the current bogus "revolution", with even decomposing corpses piling up: they would make even Dr. Menard from Zombie cringe in utter disgust!) In a week or less you would be begging to come back to a democracy. You have no idea how lucky you actually are for having been born and lived in a democracy all your life until it is taken away from you. Be thankful and don't take it for granted that you have plenty of rights and freedoms protected by a working constitution. BTW, have you noticed that the trend has always been people from communist countries struggling to get the fuck out of them and go to your much maligned "Capitalist Fascist Pigs!" run countries and NOT the other way around? I wonder why you think that is. I can't wait to hear what new and hilarious outlandish "explanation" you will try to come up with next. "It is those bastard Capitalist Fascist Pigs brainwashing people from the idyllic paradises of Communism and Anarchy, I tell you! They are not really escaping oppression, and persecution, and famine, and scarcity, and inefficiency, and incompetence at all levels of government, I tell you!"
There's only a hill to roll things on if a hierarchy exists. Hmm, no, this is more like if I was proposing a more efficient safety device than seat belts, and you were all like "But seat belts have been around for ages! It's the best system!"
No, what you are proposing is not the equivalent of some "improvement" over seat belts but the removal of seat belts altogether. That won't make anything better. More people will die from car crashes with no such equipment in place. Similarly, without laws you are only making matters worse, not better. More people will be disposed to commit crimes.
Now why wouldn't the desire not to harm others be a sufficient deterrent from violent behavior? Compassion, in other words? Your thinking seems completely immature and self-centered.
LOL! You are calling what I am telling you "immature" when it is you who proposes such absurdly naive "solutions" as pampering criminals with "love and compassion"? Seriously, what universe are you currently living in? Do you seriously think that bombarding such wackos with "love and compassion" is going to stop them from doing what they enjoy? Look, this whole "love and compassion" thingy only works for reasonable, peaceful people, but they don't really need such "reinforcement" since they already respect other people's lives and rights, so it is like preaching to the choir. Just don't expect it to work for everyone, though. Plenty of people will simply laugh or not pay attention to such pacifist philosophy. Religion has in fact been preaching "love and compassion", and "turn the other cheek", and what have you for a very long time, and it has not stopped such violent or criminally minded people one bit. In fact, ironically, more people have died because of religion than for any other reason, despite all the "preaching".
So, a pound of flesh then? Forty lashes doesn't bring back the dead, or repair a family, or return stolen goods. Etc, etc. Humans will always cause trouble. Irrelevant.
Do you realize how absurd this "argument" is? So, just because we can't bring back the dead we should allow the murderer to get away with it? How fine & dandy... for the criminal, that is! Since the crime is irreversible, then he should be allowed to go scot-free! This reminds me of a great scene in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie (based on Romero's TV show, and written by Romero and McDowell):
Andy Smith: My sister and my best friend died because of this. **referring to the ancient Egyptian scroll that Bellingham used to command the mummy to kill the two mentioned people**
Bellingham: Killing me won't bring them back.
Andy Smith: If I let you live, that will bring them back?
That's the answer to this silly "argument" right there, and in an entertaining fictional package to boot! Not making the criminal pay for his crime just because the crime itself is irreversible is hardly much of any "argument", as not punishing him won't reverse his crime either. Doing nothing about it is therefore dumb and self-defeating, and only advantageous for the criminal, plain and simple. As another character (the Gypsy King, Tadzu Lempke, from Stephen King's Thinner) says in another horror movie: "Justice ain't about bringing back the dead, white man. Justice is about justice!" What you are advocating is in fact A PARADISE FOR CRIMINALS, where they would know for sure that as long as their crimes are irreversible they will get away with it. You know, for a person who seems to enjoy horror and action movies so much, you sure don't seem to learn anything from them. Beyond the purely fictional elements (which you seem to not be able to get past beyond, as can be seen from your weird dismissals that just because a movie features zombies or outrageous punks on weird vehicles everything else shown in them must be pure fiction as well), many of them in fact have interesting moral lessons and social commentaries written between the lines.
4) Again, no reduction at all? Where is your evidence for this? Friends and family, under a system that rewards conquest and violence. Hm. Yes, completely in a vacuum, them. Just human nature, nothing more. Hm.
Again, simple seat belt analogy: remove the seat belt and it is quite obvious that you will have more fatal accidents than with them in place. Same with laws. Remove them from the equation and it is pretty sure that you will get more crime, simply because people, specially those with criminal inclinations, will no longer have an organized deterrent working against them. It becomes easier to commit crimes. Again, not "rocket science". It shouldn't be this difficult to grasp, really.
5) When humans have other things to do, then they will do them. Why harm others, when you could simulate it through virtual reality games? Why do it when it won't result in any personal gain, or improve your personal position/situation? Especially if you have the knowledge that the other person would feel it the same as you would? Bad parenting?
You fail to comprehend the criminal mind. Plus anarchy will never achieve other goals, like free things for everyone, it is another of its Utopias. Nothing in life is "free". This reminds me of what happened in an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, when one of his guests seriously proposed to give a "fixed" salary of something like $2000 or $3000 a month for each and every citizen, independent of how much money they already make in their current jobs or if they are unemployed... Even a radical liberal like Maher laughed his ass off at such a proposition. All he had to do to show how faulty such a proposition is was to point out that such a plan would in fact motivate most people NOT to work but basically become leeches of the state. And he's 100% correct. Why bust your ass, specially by working a lower paying job, when you are guaranteed a good sum of money by doing nothing??? The ideas that you keep entertaining are on similar outlandish, unrealistic veins. As if money and goods just grew on trees!
Also... I already said that life doesn't work as 100% limit-free. Anarchy isn't about limitless freedom, but maximum freedom. Self-determination coupled with compassion, cooperation, solidarity and mutual aid.
You keep modifying the definition of "anarchy" as it suits you. One of anarchy's goals is "absolute freedom", a Utopian dream.
8) You're ignoring the fact that the West is much more aggressive about it, but yeah, again, I'm not a tankie.
More aggressive? Do you know why the Korean War started? That's right, communist troops invading the South. Do you know that every single ground battle between US troops and the VC and North Vietnamese troops in Vietnam happened in the South (the West-backed-up side), not the North (the communist supported side)? Yep, it was always the communists on the offensive and the US and South Vietnamese troops on the defensive. Did you know that the US could have nuked the shit out of the Soviet Union without any fear of atomic counter-attack up until 1950, since the Soviets could not develop their first atomic bomb until 1949, years behind the Americans? (in 1950 there were 304 atomic bombs in the world, 299 of them were in the US) But they never did it. So I ask you: who is the real aggressor? You seem to swallow communist propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Also... You know that socialism is a stepping-stone toward communism, right?
That depends on how you define "socialism", as it has more than one meaning:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Even the Nazis started as "National Socialists", and they evolved into something else pretty different than Marxism/Communism.
9) Every nation has propaganda. It's not exclusive to allegedly communist ones.
Communist nations are built on lies.
10) Oof, now I feel like you're trolling. "More complicated and difficult"? So being a CEO is more complicated and difficult by x1,000 than being a miner or farmer? In what universe? Being a fry cook is tough. I don't want to do it.
In what universe? In this one, Einstein! Do you think that being a CEO is such an easy job that anyone can do it? You have to understand and have loads of experience in management to be able to be a good CEO. Why do you think that an average fry cook earns about $20,000 while an average CEO some $150,000? Anyone can become a miner, or a farmer, or a fry cook. All that is required is a bit of experience in those subjects and a bit of patience to repeat the same basic tasks over and over again. Being a CEO, at least a good & efficient one, is not something that just about anyone can do. That's why companies pay big bucks for their services, whereas they pay miners and cooks much less. Miners and cooks are way easier to find than good CEOs. Again, not saying that those other lower paying jobs are not important, just not as complicated and difficult. And don't confuse words like "tough" or "difficult" or "complicated" with "tedious". Being a fry cook is hardly "difficult" or "complicated". Just be careful not to burn the food in the hot oil/fat. A bit of practice and you get it. It is rather TEDIOUS because you have to work many hours doing basically the same thing over and over. But hardly "tough" or "complicated". Being a CEO or a mechanical engineer (my actual example) is a more complicated and difficult task, requiring much more experience and training to become good at those tasks. Thus why they earn way more than miners or cooks. Since as it is pretty clear by now that you have quite a bit of difficulty grasping such things, I will give you a closer example: it is more difficult to be a chef than to be a fry cook. Thus why chefs earn quite more than fry cooks. Capisce? That's how society works, remains functional, stimulates competition and betterment, it provides an incentive for many people to strive for different, more complex and better paying jobs, while others are content with simpler but lower paying ones (which are necessary as well, nothing wrong with lower skill labor.) Good luck coming up with a better system than this. My money says you will not succeed, specially not with such bizarre propositions as you seem to think somehow will "work".
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. If everyone gets paid the same, then people will be more likely to pursue their passions, have more fulfilling careers, happiness would increase, etc.
The contradictions are all yours. You are the one who strangely expects that rewarding two very different jobs requiring very different levels of skill and preparation somehow will result in people just being motivated to take on the harder jobs. It just ain't gonna happen. Why make more effort for the exact same "reward"??? What you will end up with is a society mostly composed of people who take on the easier and least demanding jobs, as long as they have everything given to them and have no reason to try to improve their lives. You know, like that hare-brained "give everyone $2000-$3000 a month!" plan that Bill Maher laughed at on his show. No incentive whatsoever for people to actually work.
So anarchy in practice will look a bit different than on paper, what's your point? It would still be an improvement.
The point is that it will NOT translate well into reality, and it most definitely will not be any sort of "improvement".
11) People kill, steal, harm, destroy, and lie, all for money. How is it not evil when it can be easily tied to every single vice? Would people have owned slaves if there was no money in doing so?
People have been doing all that long before money existed. Slavery itself is also prehistoric. It existed long before money did. You keep trying to use "money" as some sort of scapegoat for all of society's problems. You simply don't understand the complexities of HUMAN NATURE. That has become very obvious throughout all these "discussions". No wonder you keep entertaining such unrealistic ideas like "anarchy", no matter how much it is explained to you that they simply will not work in the real world, but only in the idealized world of "on paper". Paper-humans are these magical two-dimensional creatures who all think alike, all cooperate, all behave, all agree, all respect others, all work, all do their best, etc. Real-humans are a very different thing. Some steal, some don't, some kill, some don't, some hate, some love, some misbehave, some behave, some lie, some tell the truth, some leech-off of others, some work & produce, some are unmotivated, some are highly motivated, etc.
12) ...Everyone, because they need it. What do you mean, nothing in return? You keep enough of your production for your own sustainability. The excess is given away freely to those who need it more.
Again, good luck trying to convince any sane, logical, rational person of such a hare-brained scheme. The answer that you will invariably get from almost everyone you propose it to will be: "OK, practice what you preach, smartass: go ahead and till the fields all day and keep only what's necessary for you to survive and then give away for free the product of your hard labor to others who have not and do not want to lift a finger to do that job!" You can almost hear it in the background: "Earth to blind2d! Earth to blind2d!"
How is this difficult to grasp? Also, yes, we can plant fruit trees and harvest from them as we wish, since no one person or family would claim ownership to them.
Have you ever heard of crops failing? Natural disasters? Droughts? Diseases? Or just plain old PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO WORK FOR FREE??? (who do you seriously think is going to plant all those trees, water them, fertilize them, keep them healthy, and harvest them only to share much of their labor with others who haven't lifted a finger to deserve so, all for free?) How are these inconvenient facts so difficult to grasp?
It may be telling that mere progress appears to you as utopian. Are you in fact a conservative? There is no such thing as working for free. Many things can inspire labor, not just money or the acquisition of wealth. You really don't seem to get it, and that's kinda sad.
What is really kind of sad is someone who evidently is quite out of touch with reality and seeking obvious Utopias about "no laws" and people all magically thinking, feeling and behaving the same way, and fully agreeing with one another all the time, and working for nothing, and a world without accidents, catastrophes, crime, etc. claiming that others "really don't seem to get it". You have much to learn about life and reality yet.
|
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks