#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is a resource based economy feasible?
Jacque Fresco(yes)
Side Score: 36
|
 |
Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
Side Score: 33
|
|
1
point
A resource based economy is the only system which can actually function for a type one civilization. There is absolutely no way you could justify thinking that the idiotic horse bull pulled by our our current systems would be acceptable in the future. How humans manage there societies has always undergone change and if you think any currently established system will last forever you've got another thing coming. A resource based economy is the only system which is entirely based in reality rather than social constructs or the interests of an elite. And to anyone who associates RBE with communism, number one there is no government in an RBE and number two there is no violent revolution, forced collectivism or regimented rationing. A resource based economy is not a technocracy either, in a technocracy, an intellectual elite make decisions, and everyone else must conform to those decisions. Unlike any other system, a resource based economy arrives at decisions rather than leaving them to be made based on anyones opinion or agenda. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
It is post governmental but that's about it. As Jacque fresco has stated numerous times the RBE is not "utopian" because it's not supposed to be stagnant or leave no room for improvement. A utopia implies perfection, in a true RBE people will be allowed and encouraged to find better ways of doing things and Fresco says there is always room for improvement and that change will always occur. People always confuse RBE with communism or associate it with that kind of ideology, there are some similarities but also there are distinct differences. Communism always leads to tyranny because it claims the only way to reach true communism is to first set up a totalitarian regime which is brought about through violent revolution. An RBE doesn't require a government, it doesn't expect anyone to conform to any regime, and is based on using methodology to solve problems. There is no actual authority, an RBE simply relies on a mutual understanding, people working together and using the scientific method to make improvements and to make the maximum amount of resources and knowledge available to the maximum amount of people. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
RBE is not "utopian" because it's not supposed to be stagnant or leave no room for improvement Utopia is not meant to be static. RBE is Utopian. Any notion of a society that will function without government, money, or incentive is Utopian. people will be allowed and encouraged to find better ways of doing things Allowed and encouraged by whom? Communism always leads to tyranny because it claims the only way to reach true communism is to first set up a totalitarian regime which is brought about through violent revolution Violent revolution and tyrany are the methods countries have used, but this is not necessary for communist philosophy. Plenty of small communes have been communist without violence. If violent revolution is the difference between RBE and communism, then there isn't really a difference. An RBE doesn't require a government, it doesn't expect anyone to conform to any regime, and is based on using methodology to solve problems What methodology is that? How does RBE deal with me if I decide to assault you? There is no actual authority, an RBE simply relies on a mutual understanding, people working together and using the scientific method to make improvements and to make the maximum amount of resources and knowledge available to the maximum amount of people. Yeah, it's post-governmental communist utopianism. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
Not according to Marx tough guy. “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.” -Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto) “There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”-Karl Marx (Neue Rheinische Zeitung Nov. 1848) The fact that literally every communist country is a violent tyranny suggests that it is not contrary to communist philosophy. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
Any notion of a society that will function without government, money, or incentive is Utopian. Any society that functions with a government or money is unscientific and uncivilized. And in a RBE their is an incentive, which is scientific progress and making the world a better place. Allowed and encouraged by whom? Everyone. If violent revolution is the difference between RBE and communism, then there isn't really a difference. You seem to know a lot more about communism than RBE, maybe you would know the difference if you actually knew what an RBE was. What methodology is that? How does RBE deal with me if I decide to assault you? The methodology is scientific methodology, or any one which does the job best, in an RBE decisions aren't made but arrived at. If you where to assault me in an RBE the same thing would happen as with anywhere else, I would assault you right back, then you would end up in a corrective facility. The difference is that instead of just locking you in a cell and forcing you to press license plates they would actually be trying to minimize socially aberrant behaviour by reasoning with you and explaining that if people don't co exist it makes civilization and thus everything that makes life convenient and provides you with what you need impossible. If that doesn't work you may be advised to distance yourself from other people and live more independently or adjustments might be made to help you cope with whatever your issue is, or at worst you may have to be subjected to more invasive methods such as the direct alteration of your brain, but this is only if you refuse to stop harming others and will only serve to augment your ability to think and reason so that you become a more reasonable and functional person. Yeah, it's post-governmental communist utopianism. Then post-governmental communist utopianism is the best system there is. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
Any society that functions with a government or money is unscientific and uncivilized Civilization itself relies on the existence of government and money making your claim absurd. in a RBE their is an incentive, which is scientific progress and making the world a better place That is not a motivator for most people. What makes an individual want to function according to the standards of RBE? In what way does "everyone" allow or encourage others to act? How do you get anyone to pick up trash or clean office buildings? Tell them it will benefit the world? You seem to know a lot more about communism than RBE, maybe you would know the difference if you actually knew what an RBE was I'm operating off what I read about RBE, and you are saying nothing to indicate I am wrong. you would end up in a corrective facility You have a correctional facility and no government? No deal. If you assault me back, me and my friends would lock you in our own correctional facility, because I would never agree to go to yours. Also, who works in your correctional facility? Why would anyone do that kind of work if there wasn't an actual incentive, such as monetary? they would actually be trying to minimize socially aberrant behaviour by reasoning with you Many people engage in socially aberrant behavior because they are unreasonable. If that doesn't work you may be advised to distance yourself from other people And being the criminal I am I would agree, right before breaking into your house. Not because I need what you have, but because it's fun and I am unreasonable. That's how criminals are. Then post-governmental communist utopianism is the best system there is. Except that it is not a system that there is. It doesn't exist and cannot exist. It cannot exist because people are not robots or machines. They do not operate the way they would have to for an RBE to exist. Lacking the incentives provided by money, those who fill the role of government (running the correctional facility and declaring the necessity for an invasive alteration to a criminals brain) must make people engage economically by force. This is why communism gets so bloody. You have not distinguished RBE from communism in any substantive way. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
0
points
I like Fresco and was taking your post seriously until I read this:- Communism always leads to tyranny because it claims the only way to reach true communism is to first set up a totalitarian regime At which point I realised you're a total idiot who knows precisely nothing about Communism. Karl Marx specifically warned that Communism needs to emerge as a product of education and not force, because if it is the latter it will produce another form of dictatorship. Lenin ignored him and launched a violent revolution against the Tsar in 1917. I find that in this life there is little worse than people who comment with authority about things they know little to nothing about. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
Karl Marx was a fat bitter little man covered in boils and pustules. Marx, in his own writings, advocated for violent revolution. Marx claimed that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" needed to use "revolutionary terror" to end the "death throes" of the old regime Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
Karl Marx was a fat bitter little man covered in boils and pustules Karl Marx invented Communism you retard. I think he knows a little bit more about it than you do, you fucking idiot. Marx, in his own writings, advocated for violent revolution Show me these writings, you ignorant lying asshat. You have never read anything by Karl Marx in your entire stupid life. Democracy is the road to socialism. (Karl Marx) Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
Knowing communism is like being familiar with all the contours and creases of a rats butt hole. And I have read a few chapters of the communist manifesto and I found some of his ideas to be relevant but mostly his vision seemed vague and unrealistic. "The very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror." “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung', 07 November 1848 We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable. The final issue of Neue Rheinische Zeitung (18 May 1849)''Marx-Engels Gesamt-Ausgabe, Vol. VI, p. 503, Society is undergoing a silent revolution, which must be submitted to, and which takes no more notice of the human existences it breaks down than an earthquake regards the houses it subverts. The classes and the races, too weak to master the new conditions of life, must give way. “Forced Emigration,” New York Daily Tribune, 22 March 1853. So there you have it, Marx was a racist and believed a violent revolution was an inevitable step towards communism. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
Karl Marx specifically warned that Communism needs to emerge as a product of education and not force “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.” -Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto) “There is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”-Karl Marx (Neue Rheinische Zeitung Nov. 1848) there is little worse than people who comment with authority about things they know little to nothing about If you weren't such a hypocrite, this statement would be your permanent exit speech. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
2
points
“The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.” -Karl Marx This is pathetic if this is your best effort at deceiving people into believing that Marx advocated violence. Marx was an intellectual scholar, not a paramilitary leader. Marx also said this:- The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press – those are our weapons. You are cherry picking quotes and attempting to use them out of context, which is predictable for such a deceitful Zionist liar. Your Mein Kampf tactics are old and stupid. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
You are so dishonest it is laughable. I haven't cherry picked his call to arms at the end of his manifesto, it’s simply the most relevant quote as it is his call to arms. It is preceded immediately by Marx’s discussion of the communist fight stating “they never cease, for a single instant, to instill into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat… in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.” You failed to address my other quote wherein he calls for “revolutionary terror”. Not surprised. If you would like to clarify the context wherein Marx did not mean to call for violent revolution when he called for violent revolution, be my guest. For my part, I will be happy to clarify the context of your own quote wherein Marx appears to contradict himself. “The political freedoms, the right of assembly and association, and the freedom of the press – those are our weapons.” This is taken from an article (you predictably didn’t link to, so I will) wherein Marx is arguing against those who promote political abstention for communists. He is saying that political abstention from the bourgeois political systems merely robs the working class of some important weapons leading up to the revolution. He is not saying that bourgeois tools such as freedom of press will win the day, but that they will have to do for now. To illustrate the point, he states “Living experience, the political oppression of the existing governments compels the workers to occupy themselves with politics whether they like it or not” Amusingly, in your same article, Marx still alludes to communist goals of oppression when he says “We want the abolition of classes. What is the means of achieving it? The only means is political domination of the proletariat.” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ The fact is that all the Marxist movements have been bloody and violent, not because the Marxists aren’t following Marx, but precisely because they are. To be a peaceful Marxist is to leave out important aspects of what that bloated ignorant pig preached. You may find lying easier if you pick lies that aren’t so obvious. For more on why Marx was a bloated ignorant pig, the following is useful. http://www.stephenhicks.org/2013/02/18/ Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
2
points
You are so dishonest it is laughable You calling me dishonest is the most stupid and ironic thing I could possibly imagine considering you are using the exact same lies and false rhetoric that Hitler used about Marx. I haven't cherry picked his call to arms at the end of his manifesto LOL. You purposefully ignored everything in his ENTIRE manifesto except the concluding two lines which you are STILL trying to falsely pass off as an instruction of violence, and that isn't cherry picking? Are you mad? Marx was an academic and the pioneer of modern social science. Your attempts to pass him off as a violent dictator based on two sentences you cherry picked from his entire career of work are fucking laughable. Piss off you lying Nazi sewer rat. Literally the only thing you know how to do is smear attack other people. You've got some nerve to be calling anyone else dishonest when you are shamelessly sitting there trying to turn slaves into villains for wanting to overthrow the very people enslaving them!! And peacefully!! The fact is that all the Marxist movements have been bloody and violent The fact is we are talking about what Marx himself advocated, and you are once again trying to change the conversation to anything you can which will cast Marxism in a negative light. You are an evil, pathologically dishonest scumbag whose solitary goal in posting complete bullshit is the persuasion (i.e. indoctrination) of others. You are mimicking the precise ambitions of the Nazis to publicly ruin Marx's reputation through the exact same process of distortion and fallacy. Did Karl Marx advocate for the kind of force that was used in his name? No, although he did think that violence might be necessary he never advocated violence, infact in later years he spoke out against the use of violence. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
I made claims about Marxism based on direct quotes from Marx and on the history of his followers. Your response? Baseless character attacks, misrepresentations, and no substantive reply. This is why I think you may actually be a troll for the Right, you make the Left appear completely inept. I don't have to do anything for Marxism to be cast in a negative light. Every Marxist throughout history has done that for me. I don't have to try to ruin Marx's reputation, almost every aspect of his philosophy has been factually debunked. In those small pockets of the world where people are still uneducated enough to buy the Marx brand snake oil, his terrible legacy lives on. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
I made claims about Marxism based on direct quotes from Marx No. You paraphrased Hitler's poisonous anti-Communist rhetoric, based it on the precise same cherry-picked few sentences as he did, and you extracted these from an academic career spanning several decades and consisting of several hundred thousand such sentences. Even Mahatma Gandhi said things during the course of his life which, if taken out of context or in isolation from the rest of his beliefs, could enable one to argue that he was a violent man. In fact, in Doctrine of the Sword, Gandhi wrote, ""I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence". So was Gandhi a violent man too, Herr Amarel? I mean, I've quoted him right? So he must have been a psycho, yes? Lol. You're not even worth the time you worthless, lying Nazi scumbag. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
If it is so obvious that I am taking Marx out of context (as apparently all of his followers have), then correct the context. What did Marx mean when he said that communists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions"? Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
If it is so obvious that I am taking Marx out of context (as apparently all of his followers have), then correct the context. What did Marx mean when he said that communists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions"? Your sudden absence from a debate is the way you always choose to loose. At least there is always grammar and spelling for you to correct. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
If it is so obvious that I am taking Marx out of context (as apparently all of his followers have) You are again attempting to distort the reality of the situation. People who have power do not give it away freely to others who come knocking on their door asking that they give it back to the public. Wars have always had to be fought to change the direction of history. Capitalism is no exception. It is the great conundrum that nobody in history, including Marx, has ever been able to solve: how does one remove a dictatorship without creating a new one in the process? This problem is not unique to Communism as you appear to be trying to imply that it is. Ideological conflicts have been going on since the dawn of the species. then correct the context The context does not need correction. You simply need to include it so that people are aware you are picking out sentences on the solitary basis that they contain scare words. Marx has been translated into English, and he was doing his writing a century and a half ago. You have purposefully picked out sentences containing words like "terror" because you know that the word is used much differently today and hence you can exploit people's modern fear of it, without making clear Marx actually meant something quite different. Your sudden absence from a debate Conversation with you is not debate, Amarel. You are delusional if you believe this. A debate requires that you at least try to establish the truth. Your posts are all about trying to persuade and coerce others into believing things which you know full well are lies. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
Your a funny guy. The manifesto is not long. I provide links to my sources so that people can see that the context is not altered by the fact that I quoted someone. This is why you can claim I take Marx out of context but you cannot show this to be the case. You never have any substance. The rest of your argument amounts to claiming that Marx didn’t mean what his words say. Fine, what did Marx really mean when he called for violence? Peace? I don’t think so, and neither does any honest account of history. Nor do honest Marxists. You’re smarter to just refuse to post. Every time you do, you help your opponents. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
Your a funny guy. * You're. Your is a possessive pronoun. The manifesto is not long. And yet you only quoted the last two sentences. Out of 18,000 words. I provide links to my sources so that people can see that the context is not altered For the second time, how can you "alter" the context if you fail to include the context? You are just absolutely full of shit. That's the bottom line. Everything you say is false. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
Everything you say is false You say this all the time. Not only is it not an argument, but no one believes you. So who are you trying to convince? I expect it is just your lazy way of keeping your mostly false worldview in tact without the cognitive dissonance that would necessarily come with exposure to truth. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
1
point
no one believes you. Cool. You don't have a problem if I just double check this full population census you have conducted into the opinions of everyone on Earth, do you? Or wait... Are you.. Heaven forbid... Lying again? Here's a challenge for you Amarel. Try to join up three sentences without distorting any facts, inventing any straw man arguments, or outright lying your tits off. Go!! Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
1
point
What does Marx mean when he says communists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions"? He means that the tools of production cannot be seized by society and then used back against the elitist class as weapons. Capitalism itself must be overthrown before socialism can flourish. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
Your spelling is top notch. Your reading comprehension is pitifully weak. This explains your crooked outlook. When Marx declares the ends of the communists can be attained only by forcible overthrow, he says nothing of what should not happen to the means of production once the communists steal them. Sorry, to clarify, he states that one of those communists ends is theft of property when he say “you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so: that is just what we intend“. His statement that this end (theft) among others can only be achieved by forcible overthrow of the status quo does not imply that the proletariat cannot be later robbed by the same mechanism. The fact that he says capitalism must be overthrown forcibly to make way for socialism is one of the reasons I claim he was in favor of forcible overthrow. The other reasons are his other quotes that I have previously provided. In reading the rest of his clap trap to acquire context, one will find his violence is alluded to throughout his writings, though made explicit on less occasions. If I were truly avoiding the context of Marx, I would not be so happy to invite others to read him. Tell us another way in which Marx says what he doesn’t say and doesn’t say what he says. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
Here’s Marx in an 1848 newspaper article: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
Here’s Marx in an 1848 newspaper article: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.” Oh fuck off you ignorant, cherry-picking idiot. Marx, except for a brief period in 1848 and within the Tsarist milieu, did not advocate revolutionary terror,[19] feeling it would be counterproductive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ In the very passage that you quoted, you purposefully cut out the beginning. Marx was speaking out against atrocities being committed by the Croatian and Austrian states:- The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/ So he was talking about terror being applied to people who were committing massacres. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
Nonsense , no doubt fellow cretins in your local ale house listen to your gibberish as you ply them with booze in an attempt to get them to listen to your inane bleatings ; you're a bar room philospher Q and a piss poor one at that . So Marx only agreed with revolutionary terror in certain cases ? So peaceful revolution was Marxs aim as the ruling classes would readily change the existing system because of his ' persuasive ' arguments?😂😂 The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Marx again in his own words when asked about violence and socialism ........ Journalist asked ..... “Well, then, to carry out the principles of socialism do its believers advocate assassination and bloodshed?” Marx replied ..... “No great movement,” Karl answered, “has ever been inaugurated Without Bloodshed. “The independence of America was won by bloodshed, Napoleon captured France through a bloody process, and he was overthrown by the same means. Italy, England, Germany, and every other country gives proof of this, and as for assassination,” he went on to say, “it is not a new thing, I need scarcely say. Orsini tried to kill Napoleon; kings have killed more than anybody else; the Jesuits have killed; the Puritans killed at the time of Cromwell. These deeds were all done or attempted before socialism was born. Every attempt, however, now made upon a royal or state individual is attributed to socialism. The socialists would regret very much the death of the German Emperor at the present time. He is very useful where he is; and Bismarck has done more for the cause than any other statesman, by driving things to extremes.” Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
Myself and others have claimed that Marx explicitly called for violent revolution and we quoted Marx doing just that. You have claimed that “Karl Marx specifically warned that Communism needs to emerge as a product of education and not force, because if it is the latter it will produce another form of dictatorship“ but so far the only quote of this “specific warning” is a quote from a guy who states that Marx did call for revolution, but he didn’t do this all the time. If there is a “specific warning” I’m sure there is a specific quote to support your assertion. Or did you just read his calls for revolution and assume he meant the opposite again... Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
The context does not need correction...Marx has been translated into English, and he was doing his writing a century and a half ago I want to make this point singularly clear. When no context correction is needed, and the quote is direct, it cannot be claimed that the direct quote is a direct misquote due to time and language. If you wish to say Marx does not mean what he is quoted as saying, you will have to ignore Marx to be your kind of Marxist. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
1
point
I want to make this point singularly clear. When no context correction is needed Since you clearly do not comprehend small caps English, let me write this for you in big letters. STOP PRETENDING I ACCUSED YOU OF ALTERING THE CONTEXT. YOU DID NOT INCLUDE ANY CONTEXT. YOU CHERRY PICKED THE BEST SHOCK QUOTES YOU COULD FIND, IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER THAT I PICKED THE BEST SHOCK QUOTE FROM GANDHI I COULD FIND. You are relentless in your efforts to twist the truth into fiction and it is a simply disgusting aspect of your personality, pal. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
For more on why Marx was a bloated ignorant pig The pioneer of modern social science was ignorant? Lol. There is something extremely wrong with your psychology. Your seething hatred for Marx drips from every word you write, yet you have never met him and doubtless have never read a single word he has written outside of desperately Googling for things he has said which might be construed as advocating violence. How much more disturbed can you be than trying to insult a guy who has been dead for over a century by calling him fat? Do you think Marx cares that you think he's fat? I'm sure, were he alive, he would think you are a lying hook-nosed Nazi prick. Big deal. Are we in the playground or something? Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
1
point
2
points
Resources are made of money. No. Money is something we invented ourselves to give an abstract representation of the distribution of resources. The resources themselves were not invented by us. Capitalism is so ingrained into people's heads thanks to generations of conmen like the guy above you, that people find it difficult to separate one from the other. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
2
points
Capitalism is ingrained in human nature. Yeah see, it's precisely sentences like this which expose you as a conman in the first place. Forgetting momentarily that humanity's economic system has arguably been socialist for 98,000 of its 100,000 years on Earth, nobody has ever produced any verifiable evidence that there is even such a thing as human nature in the first place. World class scholars like Hegel outright rejected the notion of human nature. You are a deceiver and the tools of your trade are myths, prejudice and smear. Side: Ocserf Euqcaj(no)
Humanity itself has been under the rule of tyrants for most of it's history. If it is the case that socialism accompanied that sad state of affairs, then it is as outdated as the cavemen who practiced it. nobody has ever produced any verifiable evidence that there is even such a thing as human nature That is so easily demonstrably false, that you must be an intellectual masochist. I'll prove the existence of human nature now, ready? Babies breastfeed, breath, and mimic other humans all on their own. It's in their nature. They are humans. As for the actual point of this side topic; humans are necessarily individuals before they are individuals in a team. The collective is thus necessarily secondary to the individual. The fact that humans respond to incentives is the reason capitalism naturally arises when humanity is free of tyranny. Side: Jacque Fresco(yes)
2
points
1
point
|
No arguments found. Add one!
|
