- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
The final system will be based on unlimited resources.
There will always be scarcity in some capacity, but the thing is the necessities of life can be made available to everyone if we approach it on a technical basis rather than within the framework of our current system which creates artificial scarcity because even when there are resources you can't have them unless you can pay for them. The way that we use resources in capitalist societies is retarded because we are giving yachts to people like Kim Kardashian (who's very existence is proof that capital has nothing to do with merit or hard work in many cases) while children starve in the streets because they where born into poverty and people can't afford decent healthcare. If you think the rich kids are entitled to their yachts just for being born then why aren't poor children entitled to food and health care? Because capitalism has it's priorities entirely backwards and is fundamentally flawed.
Socialism might be great if we had unlimited resources and an infallable leader.
The thing you don't realize is that socialism doesn't require unlimited resources as I've just demonstrated and it doesn't require a leader. My philosophy is that ideally people themselves wouldn't actually be making decisions (meaning people in positions of authority or people making decisions democratically, on a personal level people would still be free to do what they want) but rather decisions would be arrived at through methodology. There would be no leader in my way of doing things, there would only be the method of coming to fair and logical conclusions. In that way we would be governed by reason itself, not by an institution or the opinions of individuals.
I understand BUILDINGS,
Wrong, people who understand architecture understand buildings, not businessmen and investors. Trump has a lot of buildings, but he's not the one who built them, he just profited off their existence and the work that others put into them.
wanna know WHO paid for it, and HOW they paid for it..
None of that matters without people who actually know how to BUILD buildings you fucking IDIOT. Or, maybe there's no buildings in your magic land where social constructs are more real than actual things and investors are the ones who produce things rather than the people who produce them for the investors.
I dunno if capitalism is the best system or not..
You just said it was the best system by saying "yes" when I asked you if it was the final and ultimate system.
if we didn't have capitalists, where does the capital come from???
That is literally a retarded question. It's like asking "if we didn't have dogs, where would we get our dog food?". Only it's even worse, because at least dog food is a real physical thing, whereas capital is a social construct which exists to fuel another social construct called capitalism.
Without capital, how does the gold come out of the ground and become "capital"?
Gold is for electrical devices, space craft and medical implants. Those are it's real scientific uses, what you are talking about is using it to represent a social construct. On top of that America's monetary system is not based on gold, it is based on fiat currency backed by debt and oil.
If the government has the capital, where did they get it??
There is no government or capital, those things where made up by humans. They cannot exist in the real final ultimate system because that system would be based on objective reason and scientific methodology.
Now, fetch this stick..
Primitive fool. You think the ultimate system is something that was made up by people who derived it from a social context of tyranny and superstition. Why would a type one civilization use a system that was made up by dumb apes who believed in talking snakes and angels and where just barely starting to figure out that putting spoiled brats who where born into wealth and power merely due to being born into the right family into positions of dictatorial authority (monarchy) is not such a good idea? They wouldn't because it's unscientific and based in superstitious beliefs (social constructs).
Again, right on the money.
As in correct about the money when I say it's an anachronistic social construct that causes us to use our planet's resources in unwise ways which only benefit those who play the game of capitalism well (as opposed to those who play the game of actually producing things) or are given wealth by a lucky roll of the dice. We have a system that resembles a type of game that puts all the resources and decision making power in the hands of those who play the made up game well rather than those who actually understand the real world. Business men and politicians generally do not know anything real, everything they have been trained to deal with consists of the workings of a conceptual fabric of ideas which at it's core is designed to impress the values and interests of those who weaved them into society.
I don't believe that any economic system can be inherently evil in and of itself, but capitalism certainly incentivises and rewards the doing of evil by the very nature of its overemphasis on individual power and wealth.
Yes. Capitalism and the monetary system are not some kind of conspiracy or evil scheme, but a natural outgrowth of scarcity and the barter system. They are nonetheless inherently flawed both for the reason you stated and also because they are unscientific and there is often a conflict between what is best for the economy or business and what is best in the real physical world. Not to mention what Jacque Fresco said about his experience during the great depression. We still had all the resources, operational machines in the factory etc. but people where starving and production was halting all because of some conceptual point system that humans made up.
These people argue in defence of tyranny because the only definition they have ever been given of freedom was provided by tyrants.
Yes. I think that the whole idea that authority is necessary in the first place came about for similar reasons, but it is also somewhat of a self fulfilling prophesy because people are not conditioned to come to valid conclusions on their own in many instances. The problem arises from having a society where people make decisions rather than arriving at them through methodology and reason, thus we entrust certain people to make decisions rather than having a society where everyone is trained to be able to arrive at decisions that can be universally agreed on because they are objectively logical.
Anyone who supports capitalism doesn't understand capitalism, either that or they are a shortsighted sociopath who only cares about themselves. The only reason these ass holes say Marx didn't understand capitalism is because he pointed out how stupid and evil it is. Arguing against socialism and in favour of capitalism is no different than arguing against democracy in favour of monarchy, they are just retarded robots who want to keep things as they are allegedly "supposed to be" rather than improving society.
You cannot engineer a culture without a stronghold on media and influence on young schoolchildren via regulating public education.
I disagree, culture is emergent not something to be forced. People need to organically understand things in order to truly understand them, indoctrination and socially constructed codes of behaviour enforced by authority lead to a weak behavioural foundation which makes it easier for people to act destructively if they think they can get away with it. But when they understand based on objective reason why civility is rational, more productive and mutually beneficial they will have no desire to go against the fabric of society. Understanding is the fabric of society.
The Illuminati are necessary to achieve utopia
There is no utopia. Utopia implies stagnation and perfection, there is no such thing as perfection and stagnation will eventually lead to decline.
they are not the obstacle you think.
The Illuminati are a metaphor or an "umbrella term" for the people who take advantage of the masses ignorance instead of trying to mitigate it. They include extreme capitalists, hereditary nobility, intelligence agencies, and pretty much governments and large corporations and banks etc. in general. Anyone who claims to have power over others, to own industries or be inherently entitled to more than others by birthright is basically a manifestation of the Illuminati archetype.
You can't condition them without oligarchy.
Wrong. It all comes down to having a truly sane culture and the proper education techniques. When you use force you are not uplifting humanity so it knows what it should do, you are forcing it to do what you think it should do, and even if you are right the public will just be robots following your command. That is no way to have an adaptable civilization where people are able to make good decisions on their own.
Thank you for pointing out how an-com defeats itself as long as it's humans in the system.It mostly just depends on the conditioning of the humans and the level of scarcity but there is always a fundamental risk and tendency for humans to do something evil and/or retarded.
Capitalist tribes wiped out communist ones and never again ever has 'true communism' existed since the original 'share everything' tribes were demolished by the superior ones.
It's not quite that simple. Rather than it being a matter of natural selection it was more a result of the entropic principle. That is, it is simply easier and more likely for corruption and ignorance to take hold then for societies to remain "innocent" as it where. It has much more to do with the social fabric rotting from the inside out and succumbing to a concentration and consolidation of information, wealth, and power in the hands of the few.The so called "communists" of the prehistoric world where usually those who lived in relative abundance and scarcity is a big part of why capitalism emerged.
He is a sociopath, he doesn't process honesty or trust.
Maybe you're right, because it's clearly illogical for me to plagiarise him (when he in fact probably plagiarised the material in the first place) just to show it off to him like some kind of idiot. The real and obvious reason I showed him is because I wanted to find out if it was his or not because I was looking for his material.
Right. And you found all these copies of my article by typing "British socialist journalism 9/11 inside job" into a search engine.
That was my first search, where I found the initial article. After I told you that I then pasted the whole damn article into a search engine and found the same exact article on several different sites.
Then stop being a lying prick and tell me how you found the article, why you messaged me about it, and how you knew I wrote it despite it not having a byline.
Dude, I am literally being completely honest with you I have found several other sites with the same article after I put the whole thing in the search engine (which I didn't do the first time). I already told you why I messaged you about it, I was trying to get you to confirm if it was yours. I did this by PM because if in fact it was yours, I knew you probably wouldn't want it revealed to the whole site. But I am under the impression you didn't write it originally because it is on several different sites.