"There has never been true communism."

[henry quirk]

Sure, and about the actual point that you have an equally unworkable plan to match those of the commies?

I disagree with you, obviously

however, you offered no reasoning why a natural rights libertarian minarchy is unworkable (nor did you counter any in-thread assessment of why communism doesn't work): I can't counter what ain't there

so: I made with the nasty snark

[FlashDangerpants]

Sure, and about the actual point that you have an equally unworkable plan to match those of the commies?

I disagree with you, obviously

however, you offered no reasoning why a natural rights libertarian minarchy is unworkable (nor did you counter any in-thread assessment of why communism doesn't work): I can't counter what ain't there

so: I made with the nasty snark

Well if there ever actually has been one, then any argument I make about there being no possiblity is going to be empirically untrue. So, has there ever
been one?

None of the stuff about why communism doesn't work has actually been to the point anyway, Marx argued that capitalism is what comes next after feudalism reaches its natural conclusion, and communism is what comes next after capitalism reaches some postulated natural conclusion, and after communism "history" ends (in this reading history being nothing but the register of man's inumanity to man in the form of class conflict and supression). You can't test that until capitalism fails - it is a classic untestable hypothesis for which the only option is to wait and see. You can say various communist inspired revolutions didn't work, but Marx would have told you himself that they wouldn't, becasue peasant revolutions aren't the point of his prediction at all.

[henry quirk]

...because no natural rights libertarian minarchy exists, it's impossible to consider why such a thing may or may not work...

...and...

...because no true communism exists, it's impossible to consider why such a thing may or may not work

well, okay then...a pleasure sparrin' with you, as always, flash

[FlashDangerpants]

...because no natural rights libertarian minarchy exists, it's impossible to consider why such a thing may or may not work...

...and...

...because no true communism exists, it's impossible to consider why such a thing may or may not work

well, okay then...a pleasure sparrin' with you, as always, flash

No. On the one hand, I am saying that your opening question there against communism probably applies to your own fantasy political system to sell that that has never existed in reality too. It is perfectly valid to look at why we would suppose such things are an are not possible in some hypothetical sense.

On the other hand, what I am seeing in this thread doesn't actually apply to Marx's communism, for the reasons I gave you, which are not a lie, and I am not bullshitting you. I'm not complimenting Marx on his work, let alone siding with him, nor with the tankies who do. I am simply telling you what form his predictions actually took, and why it is always true that his predictions - which are in an untestable format - cannot be tested. By extension... and I am hoping you can keep up with me here ... things which cannot be tested, can be faulted for that weakness, but they cannot, of necessity, be said to have failed a test. Thus, because capitalism has not run its course (if it ever will), by necessity it is true that there has never been true communism. Again, that is not to say that there ever will be. And of course this assumes a Marxist perspective, after all, Leninism and Maoism both assume that the end of capitalism can be brought about by peasant revolution, so those have been tested, and haven't performed all that well.

So, your minarchist night watchman state, that's also never been tested, right? The commies have a watertight answer to their thing never being tested, I don't think you do. If we instead move onto the hypotheticals becasue neither your thing nor the commie thing seem testable for some reason though ... If we are looking at human nature and saying it is incomaptible with the one fantasy system of political organisation, why not have quick look to see if it is incompatible with the other fantasy system of political organisation?

[henry quirk]

So, your minarchist night watchman state, that's also never been tested, right?

as a natural rights libertarian minarchy is just folks bein' free, I think, as I say up-thread, every time you witness someone self-directin', bein' self-responsible, or see folks interactin' freely respectin' each other's ownness, you're seein' my natural rights libertarian minarchy playin' out

but, that's not very satisfyin' to you, is it?

that's okay: I'm not particularly satisfied with your explanations of how the commies have a watertight answer to their thing never being tested (I don't think it holds water), and -- honestly -- I don't much care to discuss why the folks with a bad idea think the bad idea has never succeeded

so: if you wanna get dirty and go toe to toe on why communism can or can't work, why a natural right libertarian minarchy can or can't work, I'm all in...but if you're just gonna be academic, I ain't wastin' my time

[FlashDangerpants]

So, your minarchist night watchman state, that's also never been tested, right?

as a natural rights libertarian minarchy is just folks bein' free, I think, as I say up-thread, every time you witness someone self-directin', bein' self-responsible, or see folks interactin' freely respectin' each other's ownness, you're seein' my natural rights libertarian minarchy playin' out

but, that's not very satisfyin' to you, is it?

Well not really, it doesn't cover much of the whole getting things done aspect of having a nation and all that. You know, having ports and airports and roads, having schools and all that stuff. If you leave out all the actual things that need to get done either by a state, or under the umbrella of one, then commies can just say "every time I see a child share his sandwich with another kid I am seeing communism at work and it's perfect".

that's okay: I'm not particularly satisfied with your explanations of how the commies have a watertight answer to their thing never being tested (I don't think it holds water), and -- honestly -- I don't much care to discuss why the folks with a bad idea think the bad idea has never succeeded

You don't have to like it. If you want to be in a meaningful conversation about such things that amounts to more than "I don't like commies, boo to commies" then you would need to understand it though.

so: if you wanna get dirty and go toe to toe on why communism can or can't work, why a natural right libertarian minarchy can or can't work, I'm all in...but if you're just gonna be academic, I ain't wastin' my time

Neither can work, not if there is any form of competition to them anyway. Neither project could adequately organise their economies and neither can compete long term with the modern liberal democracy which can do a much better job of that sort of thing.

If you took your state of Louisiana for instance and seceeded from the USA to form a new and more righteous state where [insert communist OR minarchist account of justice here] you would have to seal the borders to keep everyone in somehow, because otherwise within a generation they would all have left. Irrespective of whether the new La constitution was marxist or minarchist, you would destroy their incomes so they would leave.

[Age]

no, there never was, and there never will be

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, to you.

And, if this MUST BE true, to you, then you are OBVIOUSLY NOT open at all in order to be able to learn and understand what thee actual Truth IS.

thee actual Truth IS man, while sometimes cooperative, is not communal: he's built to be an individual, not a cog

If this was even somewhat remotely true, then prove it by either living ALONE, and see how long you truly last, or, by leaving a young one ALONE and see how long that one actually last for. (Also, this is NOT gender specific, as you may believe it is.)

If human beings were Truly built to be an individual, then OBVIOUSLY the species human being would NOT exist. Human beings NEED to be a, so called, "cog" in order to keep living, to keep surviving, and to keep existing.

true communism -- an insect society -- is alien to man,

Of course this is true, to a very short sighted person with a very narrowed and/or closed view of things.

You have ALREADY PROVEN that you are NOT OPEN to ANY thing else, so really there is NO need to continuing on with this discussion.

What you BELIEVE is true IS TRUE, and REALLY; that is all that matters, to YOU, correct?

which is why any implementin' of communism is always some kind of state communism (an attempt to fit self-interested square pegs into a selfless round hole)

But human beings existed, commonly, in communion with each other within communal groups, in naturally formed communities, WAY BEFORE there was any words or ideas such as 'communism', and WAY BEFORE any ideas of how to 'implement' such ideas came into existence.

Human beings NATURALLY lived, and do live, within a community group.

and: state communism never works cuz it forces individuals to do what true communism would have them do voluntarily (which they won't)

What is the difference between 'state communism' and 'true communism' within that head?

And, what would, so called, "true communism", allegedly, have human beings do 'voluntarily', which you will NOT do?

no: what works is freedom...freedom to choose, free to pursue, freedom to go one's own way, freedom to transact, freedom to innovate

Yes, which is ALL part of the NATURAL way of living, COMMUNALLY.

free enterprise works (state capitalism, what we have now, is free enterprise's retarded lil brother)

If you are 'trying to' suggest that what is happening, in the days of when this is being written, is 'working', in the sense that this is the best way, then I feel very sad and sorry for 'you'. If you are so CLOSED and can NOT see ANY thing working better than, so called, "state capitalism", then so be it.

If, however, you are suggesting that this "free enterprise", or "state capitalism", works, in the sense that it just works, then to be Honest so did and does EVERY other way works. That is; until the ridiculousness and absurdity of it is recognized and fully realized.

What is the BEST society is a Self-governing society. But, because this has NEVER been tried YET, how this works and how GOOD is REALLY IS, is YET to be SEEN, experienced, and thus determined.

[Age]

Has there ever been a "true" version of that minarchism you are flogging?

the natural rights libertarian minarchy I crave is simply an extension of what is fact: a man belongs to himself; a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

And, under your little 'world' EVERY one has the right to shoot dead absolutely ANY one if they touch a television, computer, spatula, or tooth pick of "another", without getting permission first, correct?

To me, this 'world' would suffice and last for about a week or two.

in that sense: any time you witness a person self-directing, bein' self-responsible, you're witnessin' my minarchy

And EVERY time we witness a human being blowing the head off of "another" human being, because they took some thing without asking first, then we are also witnessing "henry's" quirking little 'minarchy world', in all of its glory, or gory detail, depending on how one actually views things.

[Age]

Sure, and about the actual point that you have an equally unworkable plan to match those of the commies?

I disagree with you, obviously

however, you offered no reasoning why a natural rights libertarian minarchy is unworkable (nor did you counter any in-thread assessment of why communism doesn't work): I can't counter what ain't there

so: I made with the nasty snark

Well if there ever actually has been one, then any argument I make about there being no possiblity is going to be empirically untrue. So, has there ever
been one?

None of the stuff about why communism doesn't work has actually been to the point anyway, Marx argued that capitalism is what comes next after feudalism reaches its natural conclusion, and communism is what comes next after capitalism reaches some postulated natural conclusion, and after communism "history" ends (in this reading history being nothing but the register of man's inumanity to man in the form of class conflict and supression). You can't test that until capitalism fails - it is a classic untestable hypothesis for which the only option is to wait and see. You can say various communist inspired revolutions didn't work, but Marx would have told you himself that they wouldn't, becasue peasant revolutions aren't the point of his prediction at all.

This is quite interesting, in what was argued. As this fits in just about PERFECTLY with what I have observed, and have envisioned also.

And, as you also said; the only option is to WAIT, and SEE.

[henry quirk]

Well not really, it doesn't cover much of the whole getting things done aspect of having a nation and all that. You know, having ports and airports and roads, having schools and all that stuff. If you leave out all the actual things that need to get done either by a state, or under the umbrella of one, then commies can just say "every time I see a child share his sandwich with another kid I am seeing communism at work and it's perfect".

okay, it not satisfyin' to you

wanna have a real discussion on why a natural rights libertarian minarchy can or can't work?

wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?


You don't have to like it. If you want to be in a meaningful conversation about such things that amounts to more than "I don't like commies, boo to commies" then you would need to understand it though.

surrep and me both sketched out, up-thread, why communism doesn't work, and it ain't got nuthin' to do with not likin' commies (even though I don't)...and, no, I really don't need to know why a bad idea holder thinks his bad idea hasn't been implemented to argue against the bad idea (cuz I have my own notions on that)

so: you wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?


Neither can work, not if there is any form of competition to them anyway. Neither project could adequately organise their economies and neither can compete long term with the modern liberal democracy which can do a much better job of that sort of thing.

I disagree when it comes to a natural rights libertarian minarchy; agree when it comes to the bad idea (for reasons embedded in surrep's and my assessments)


If you took your state of Louisiana for instance and seceeded from the USA to form a new and more righteous state where [insert communist OR minarchist account of justice here] you would have to seal the borders to keep everyone in somehow, because otherwise within a generation they would all have left. Irrespective of whether the new La constitution was marxist or minarchist, you would destroy their incomes so they would leave.

you're absolutely right about a commie louisuana, but you parade your ignorance if you think keepin' folks in or out is any part of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, or that it would have a constitution (though, I guess three measly articles could be a constitution, if you wanna streeeetch it)

anyway: I'm gettin' tired of pre-debate discussion

if you wanna take either, or both, for a good tussle, let's do it

first define communism (and/or natural rights libertarian minarchy), then I'll do the same...can't have a debate unless we can both agree what it is we're debatin', yeah?

you first

[Age]

So, your minarchist night watchman state, that's also never been tested, right?

as a natural rights libertarian minarchy is just folks bein' free, I think, as I say up-thread, every time you witness someone self-directin', bein' self-responsible, or see folks interactin' freely respectin' each other's ownness, you're seein' my natural rights libertarian minarchy playin' out

You are so absolutely contradictory I find this completely amusing.

Your little, so called, "natural right libertarian minarchy world" is no more less of a 'dictorialship world' than the worst one is.

Encouraging "others" to shoot dead each other, just because they take some 'thing' of theirs, or yours, is just you wanting to have control and ownership over "others", which completely contradicts the very things you are saying here.

Do you really believe, or are you under some sort of illusion, that you informing "others" that it is perfectly okay for you to shoot dead "another" just because they took your television set from you, is actually a Truly self-directing, being self-responsible, respecting "another", 'person'?

but, that's not very satisfyin' to you, is it?

that's okay: I'm not particularly satisfied with your explanations of how the commies have a watertight answer to their thing never being tested (I don't think it holds water), and -- honestly -- I don't much care to discuss why the folks with a bad idea think the bad idea has never succeeded

You are NOT REALLY 'trying to' suggest here that you actually have a good idea here, are you?

so: if you wanna get dirty and go toe to toe on why communism can or can't work, why a natural right libertarian minarchy can or can't work, I'm all in...but if you're just gonna be academic, I ain't wastin' my time

How could ANY one seriously go, so called, "toe to toe", with you on 'why communism can or can not work', when you appear to have two completely opposing and contradicting definitions for the word?

Also, 'why a natural right libertarian minarchy' idea could NOT possibly work has already been alluded to.

[Age]

Well not really, it doesn't cover much of the whole getting things done aspect of having a nation and all that. You know, having ports and airports and roads, having schools and all that stuff. If you leave out all the actual things that need to get done either by a state, or under the umbrella of one, then commies can just say "every time I see a child share his sandwich with another kid I am seeing communism at work and it's perfect".

okay, it not satisfyin' to you

wanna have a real discussion on why a natural rights libertarian minarchy can or can't work?

wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Yes to both.

I know how you define 'natural rights libertarian minarchy' and have ALREADY PROVEN how that will NOT work.

Now, how do you define 'communism'?

You don't have to like it. If you want to be in a meaningful conversation about such things that amounts to more than "I don't like commies, boo to commies" then you would need to understand it though.

surrep and me both sketched out, up-thread, why communism doesn't work, and it ain't got nuthin' to do with not likin' commies (even though I don't)...and, no, I really don't need to know why a bad idea holder thinks his bad idea hasn't been implemented to argue against the bad idea (cuz I have my own notions on that)

From what surreptituous57 wrote, up-thread, this has NEVER come to fruition, which is what is being pointed out to you, by another poster here. So, the statement 'communism' does NOT work can NOT be true and accurate. You, obviously, at least have to SEE some thing in action BEFORE you can assess if it works or does not work.

so: you wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Again, YES.

And, again, what is your definition of 'communism'?

Neither can work, not if there is any form of competition to them anyway. Neither project could adequately organise their economies and neither can compete long term with the modern liberal democracy which can do a much better job of that sort of thing.

I disagree when it comes to a natural rights libertarian minarchy; agree when it comes to the bad idea (for reasons embedded in surrep's and my assessments)


If you took your state of Louisiana for instance and seceeded from the USA to form a new and more righteous state where [insert communist OR minarchist account of justice here] you would have to seal the borders to keep everyone in somehow, because otherwise within a generation they would all have left. Irrespective of whether the new La constitution was marxist or minarchist, you would destroy their incomes so they would leave.

you're absolutely right about a commie louisuana, but you parade your ignorance if you think keepin' folks in or out is any part of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, or that it would have a constitution (though, I guess three measly articles could be a constitution, if you wanna streeeetch it)

I do NOT think "keeping folks in" 'your little world state' was what was being implied. I think what was being said, and meant, was that IF you wanted ANY one to reside within 'your little world state', in other words, if you would like your little idea to be accepted and agreed with, then it would NOT be, as EVERY one would have bailed out and left you there alone, 'in your state'.

anyway: I'm gettin' tired of pre-debate discussion

if you wanna take either, or both, for a good tussle, let's do it

I provided my views for one of these, which you have YET to respond to.

I AWAIT your definition of 'communism' BEFORE we could have a, so called, "good tussle" on that one.

first define communism (and/or natural rights libertarian minarchy), then I'll do the same...can't have a debate unless we can both agree what it is we're debatin', yeah?

WOW. A human being has actually come to this REALIZATION.

you first

WHY do you want "flashdangerpants" to go first?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well not really, it doesn't cover much of the whole getting things done aspect of having a nation and all that. You know, having ports and airports and roads, having schools and all that stuff. If you leave out all the actual things that need to get done either by a state, or under the umbrella of one, then commies can just say "every time I see a child share his sandwich with another kid I am seeing communism at work and it's perfect".

okay, it not satisfyin' to you

wanna have a real discussion on why a natural rights libertarian minarchy can or can't work?

wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?


You don't have to like it. If you want to be in a meaningful conversation about such things that amounts to more than "I don't like commies, boo to commies" then you would need to understand it though.

surrep and me both sketched out, up-thread, why communism doesn't work, and it ain't got nuthin' to do with not likin' commies (even though I don't)...and, no, I really don't need to know why a bad idea holder thinks his bad idea hasn't been implemented to argue against the bad idea (cuz I have my own notions on that)

so: you wanna have a real discussion on why a communism can or can't work?

Neither you nor surrep addressed the issue of there never being true communism, so I gave you the details. Neither of you is addressing Marxism in any meaningful way, you're tilting at a strawman.

Neither can work, not if there is any form of competition to them anyway. Neither project could adequately organise their economies and neither can compete long term with the modern liberal democracy which can do a much better job of that sort of thing.

I disagree when it comes to a natural rights libertarian minarchy; agree when it comes to the bad idea (for reasons embedded in surrep's and my assessments)


If you took your state of Louisiana for instance and seceeded from the USA to form a new and more righteous state where [insert communist OR minarchist account of justice here] you would have to seal the borders to keep everyone in somehow, because otherwise within a generation they would all have left. Irrespective of whether the new La constitution was marxist or minarchist, you would destroy their incomes so they would leave.

you're absolutely right about a commie louisuana, but you parade your ignorance if you think keepin' folks in or out is any part of a natural rights libertarian minarchy, or that it would have a constitution (though, I guess three measly articles could be a constitution, if you wanna streeeetch it)

I'm quite aware that your minarchism comes with open borders. My point is that when you are unable to maintain a stable currency, and your state becomes unable to deal with bribery, corruption and special interests, everyone will either give up on minarchism and vote to repeal it, or they will leave. Just as they gave up on communism and left whenever the opportunity arose (voting not being a useful option until the very end), irrespective of whether that was the true communism or not.

And then, someone else will come along and say "that wasn't true minarchism, I have a better version"
As for the constitution bit, I'm

anyway: I'm gettin' tired of pre-debate discussion

if you wanna take either, or both, for a good tussle, let's do it

first define communism (and/or natural rights libertarian minarchy), then I'll do the same...can't have a debate unless we can both agree what it is we're debatin', yeah?

you first

True natural rights minarchism is basically the same thing as the wild west, or Britain when Constantine III removed the legions in 409 AD. A place and time where the nominal authority of any government is so weak that people are left more or less to their own devices until everything falls apart and gangsters or warlords swoop in to fill the power vacuum and people are often actually pleased to see them.

[henry quirk]

prove it by either living ALONE

I have, for a year (and I ain't talkin' about hunkerin' down in an apartment or house with ready access to the hot & cold and the cable and the a/c)...communality or communism was not required


leaving a young one ALONE and see how long that one actually last for

you're equatin' love, what one does as loving, with communism?


If human beings were Truly built to be an individual, then OBVIOUSLY the species human being would NOT exist.

so: cuz a man and woman are needed to make a baby, man is communist?


really there is NO need to continuing on with this discussion.

and yet here you are, bendin' my ear


But human beings existed, commonly, in communion with each other within communal groups, in naturally formed communities, WAY BEFORE there was any words or ideas such as 'communism', and WAY BEFORE any ideas of how to 'implement' such ideas came into existence.

individuals lived, live, together, cuz they like or love one another, and cuz it's advantageous sometimes to work together, hunt together, to defend (or, offend) together...cooperation can be a grand thing


What is the difference between 'state communism' and 'true communism'(?)

the latter is what folks like yourself thinks comes naturally; the former is what folks like yourself foist up on others when they fail to do the latter


And, what would, so called, "true communism", allegedly, have human beings do 'voluntarily', which you will NOT do?

true expects, state demands, I serve (which I won't)


If you are so CLOSED and can NOT see ANY thing working better than, so called, "state capitalism", then so be it.

state capitalism bites, but it's still better than any communism


What is the BEST society is a Self-governing society.

the best arrangement is individuals livin' within the rather broad confines of three measly articles, which I've posted several times in-forum...hunt 'em down or wait and see if flash and me tussle (if we do, I'll repost 'em here)

[henry quirk]

Has there ever been a "true" version of that minarchism you are flogging?

the natural rights libertarian minarchy I crave is simply an extension of what is fact: a man belongs to himself; a man has a right to his life, liberty, and property

And, under your little 'world' EVERY one has the right to shoot dead absolutely ANY one if they touch a television, computer, spatula, or tooth pick of "another", without getting permission first, correct?

To me, this 'world' would suffice and last for about a week or two.

in that sense: any time you witness a person self-directing, bein' self-responsible, you're witnessin' my minarchy

And EVERY time we witness a human being blowing the head off of "another" human being, because they took some thing without asking first, then we are also witnessing "henry's" quirking little 'minarchy world', in all of its glory, or gory detail, depending on how one actually views things.

yeah, like flash, I don't think you have a clue about what a natural rights libertarian minarchy is

mebbe you'll find out through flash and me tusslin'