Fascism vs. Marxism (a side by side comparison)

[Optatron]

Again, WRONG. Define what a market is.

noun, group of people who engage in trade, a group of people who demand a certain product
verb, to trade, to create demand, sell.

Is the market more efficient than government? Will you care about protecting your property more, than a strangers?

No, the market is not always more efficient than the government, whoever has guns will be the most efficient. Will I care about protecting my property? YES, I wouldn't mind violating others if I could either.

I win, you lose. See if you can follow the implicit logic I am alluding to there. Go on..

Keep telling yourself that.

Fail. You didn't define, the market.
Come on, time to put up or shut up. Weasel.

Weasel? You're the one who's afraid to give me your name, Mike.

 

[Conza88]

saying you know what reality is doesn't make it so.

Saying I don't, doesn't make it. Argumentation ethics wise... thanks for 'arguing' with me. You just verified the action axiom. And self ownership.

Cheers!

You're about as credible as Theocrat saying he knows what evolution is.

You're about as credible as Obama saying he represents real change.

Funny thing about you, when I ask you for a short answer, you avoid it or post long articles.
When I ask you for details, sometimes phrased in my misunderstanding, all you do is yell FAIL, LIAR, STRAWMAN without bothering to correct yourself (almost as if you're unable to).

Funny thing is, all you do is strawman, lie and fail. And that's why I repeat it consistently.

I call you a lair, because that is exactly what you had just done... and you don't deny it, (because it's true), you just continue on with your head up your ass. Funny that.

You twist everything you possibly can to mean something else... just like actpulsa did above.

I define and elaborate as to what a state is. And ever so conveniently words are remitted and dropped off to make his point. So sad.

The previous statement still stands.... what you don't understand is that fallacies kill an argument.

And that is why I don't need to bother to re-address your bullshit.

 

[Optatron]

Saying I don't, doesn't make it. Argumentation ethics wise... thanks for 'arguing' with me. You just verified the action axiom. And self ownership.

I never denied action axiom.

Just because we agree on action axiom doesn't mean you know the rest of reality (in order for me to say so, I assume I know)

You're about as credible as Obama saying he represents real change.

Oh, I'm flattered to be compared to a man who fooled more than half of Americans to vote for him.

Funny thing is, all you do is strawman, lie and fail. And that's why I repeat it consistently.

Without correction, the accusations are baseless.

I call you a lair, because that is exactly what you had just done... and you don't deny it, (because it's true), you just continue on with your head up your ass. Funny that.

I do deny it, sometimes it's sarcasm, sometimes its devil's advocate, sometimes it's to get you to explain.

You twist everything you possibly can to mean something else... just like actpulsa did above.

I define and elaborate as to what a state is. And ever so conveniently words are remitted and dropped off to make his point. So sad.

You're no different, you define words in such a way only you can win or you can easily deny everybody else's opinions. Ever heard of "poisoning the well"?

The previous statement still stands.... what you don't understand is that fallacies kill an argument.

Some arguments don't need to be had, wouldn't you agree?

And that is why I don't need to bother to re-address your bullshit.

or because you can't!

 

[Conza88]

noun, group of people who engage in trade, a group of people who demand a certain product
verb, to trade, to create demand, sell.

What Is the Free Market? by Murray N. Rothbard

"The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents."

How can the voluntary action between two consenting individuals who both benefit from the exchange - fail?

Keep in mind, your no doubt retarded and flawed objections are contained within the article. (i.e they are pre-empted) more than likely.

No, the market is not always more efficient than the government, whoever has guns will be the most efficient. Will I care about protecting my property? YES, I wouldn't mind violating others if I could either.

Yes, the voluntary exchange between two consenting individuals who trade and both benefit IS more efficient than government (YOU ARE SAYING THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT!?)

Even socialists concede the market is more efficient. You're a fcken idiot.

Sorry, giving a group of people a MONOPOLY on guns doesn't make you justice more efficient. Market wins again.

Keep trying ass clown. Free market in defense > government defense.

Keep telling yourself that.

I don't need to.

Weasel? You're the one who's afraid to give me your name, Mike.

Yeah, weasel. And you don't have a right to privacy. I won that one 'debate' as well. Not just my opinion by the way... everyone elses too.

 

[Conza88]

Ok then, so the market isn't full proof, and is prone to failure to meet certain demands and abuse. GOOD.

"Ok then, so ["voluntary actions between consenting individuals who trade because they think they will both benefit"] isn't fool proof, and is prone to failure to meet certain demands and abuse. GOOD."​

thinking that every person will play by the rules and the market can sustain itself from corruption, abuse, violence and fraud.

to think that every person is capable of making the market work for him and participate in a division of labor that benefits every other....beyond naive.

"thinking that every person will play by the rules and the ["voluntary actions between consenting individuals who trade because they think they will both benefit"] can sustain itself from corruption, abuse, violence and fraud.

to think that every person is capable of making the ["voluntary actions between consenting individuals who trade because they think they will both benefit"] work for him and participate in a division of labor that benefits every other....beyond naive."​

 

[Optatron]

What Is the Free Market? by Murray N. Rothbard

"The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents."

How can the voluntary action between two consenting individuals who both benefit from the exchange - fail?

Because even what the best 2 people can get isn't the best that's out there. Plus some people always have a natural advantage over others (I guess that's not a bad thing)

Keep in mind, your no doubt retarded and flawed objections are contained within the article. (i.e they are pre-empted) more than likely.

Yes, the voluntary exchange between two consenting individuals who trade and both benefit IS more efficient than government (YOU ARE SAYING THE GOVERNMENT IS MORE EFFICIENT!?)

if the goal was to exchange yes. if the goal was from A to gain from B, a gun is more effective.

Even socialists concede the market is more efficient. You're a fcken idiot.

Oh, because retards agree with you, you're right?

Sorry, giving a group of people a MONOPOLY on guns doesn't make you justice more efficient. Market wins again.

How does the market win? Win what?
Who cares about justice being efficient when what you want gets done?

Keep trying ass clown. Free market in defense > government defense.

Whoever has the gun.

I don't need to.

then dont!

Yeah, weasel. And you don't have a right to privacy.

You don't have a right to property either, just because I value it doesn't mean I have a right to it, Mike.

I won that one 'debate' as well. Not just my opinion by the way... everyone elses too.

what debate? The thread that was locked?
everyone else? Including idiom?

 

[Conza88]

I never denied action axiom.

Good. Because you'd then be in a performative contradiction.

Just because we agree on action axiom doesn't mean you know the rest of reality (in order for me to say so, I assume I know)

"know the rest of reality" lulz, elaborate chipmunk.

Oh, I'm flattered to be compared to a man who fooled more than half of Americans to vote for him.

He couldn't have done it without an ideology, without the cloak of the state, without the parasitic intellectual whores, without the political and global elite.

Compared to him and the state, you're nothing but an anti-social occurrence... a meaningless pathetic wannabe criminal.

Hahaha

Without correction, the accusations are baseless.

Without an actual valid argument, your words are worthless.

I do deny it, sometimes it's sarcasm, sometimes its devil's advocate, sometimes it's to get you to explain.

Negative. It's always a lie and you know what you're doing. Troll and a liar.

You're no different, you define words in such a way only you can win or you can easily deny everybody else's opinions. Ever heard of "poisoning the well"?

Wrong. I define words, the way they are used in liberty circles, by liberty scholars, but intellectuals, by those who use reason, and are not fundamentally retarded.

Some arguments don't need to be had, wouldn't you agree?

There is no worth in entertaining an argument, when a guy (you) has a gun to your head.

or because you can't!

Because I have previously.

 

[Optatron]

"Ok then, so ["voluntary actions between consenting individuals who trade because they think they will both benefit"] isn't fool proof, and is prone to failure to meet certain demands and abuse. GOOD."​

See? All we had to do was that!

Exactly, voluntary actions isn't full proof because people don't always play nice.

"thinking that every person will play by the rules and the ["voluntary actions between consenting individuals who trade because they think they will both benefit"] can sustain itself from corruption, abuse, violence and fraud.

to think that every person is capable of making the ["voluntary actions between consenting individuals who trade because they think they will both benefit"] work for him and participate in a division of labor that benefits every other....beyond naive."​

yep, repeated.

USELESS AND MEANINGLESS UNTIL PEOPLE PLAY NICE, BY THE RULES.

what are you gonna do? Enforce it with guns?

 

[Conza88]

Because even what the best 2 people can get isn't the best that's out there. Plus some people always have a natural advantage over others (I guess that's not a bad thing)

Division of labor. They still both benefit. (You're not doing a very good job or defending your retarded view that the market is flawed)

Thanks for outlining more so why I am correct.

if the goal was to exchange yes. if the goal was from A to gain from B, a gun is more effective.

That's not voluntary. Moving the goal posts fallacy.

Oh, because retards agree with you, you're right?

No, because it's so obvious... even socialists agree the sun rises in the morning... You deny it.

How does the market win? Win what?
Who cares about justice being efficient when what you want gets done?

The individuals who were robbed care. The market is > than government.

Whoever has the gun.

Wrong. Whoever has the cloak of ideology (the state - tyranny), or cloak of truth (market - liberty)

then dont!

It's self evident.

You don't have a right to property either, just because I value it doesn't mean I have a right to it, Mike.

I do have a right to property, which I have homestead / exchanged for etc. Fail.

what debate? The thread that was locked?
everyone else? Including idiom?

I requested it be unlocked. The mods felt sorry for you apparently.

 

[Optatron]

Good. Because you'd then be in a performative contradiction.

yet you brought it up as if I did.

"know the rest of reality" lulz, elaborate chipmunk.

the fact you need me to explain says it all, YOU DON'T KNOW THE REST OF IT.
the same way you ask me to elaborate why communism isn't completely wrong.
the same way you say the state "violates all, protects none".

Keep making those simple short claims.

He couldn't have done it without an ideology, without the cloak of the state, without the parasitic intellectual whores, without the political and global elite.

You don't need ideology when you have idiocy. Thanks for showing me that over and over. You can do it with guns too.

Compared to him and the state, you're nothing but an anti-social occurrence... a meaningless pathetic wannabe criminal.

Glad you're not afraid of me, now give me your address Mike.

Hahaha

Without an actual valid argument, your words are worthless.

agreed, what do you think I've been thinking of you this whole time?

Negative. It's always a lie and you know what you're doing. Troll and a liar.

blanket statement Mike.

Wrong. I define words, the way they are used in liberty circles, by liberty scholars, but intellectuals, by those who use reason, and are not fundamentally retarded.

to your standards, you only quote and use people you agree with already.

There is no worth in entertaining an argument, when a guy (you) has a gun to your head.

YOU ARE INDEED A WINNER, THANKS FOR PLAYING.

Was that so hard? Did I have to tell you "please say this and I'll shut up"?

Because I have previously.

 

[Optatron]

Division of labor. They still both benefit. (You're not doing a very good job or defending your retarded view that the market is flawed)

So if I put a gun to your head and asked you to give up your land (very nicely), I benefit by having new land, you benefit by not being shot. How's that for an exchange? I didn't force you to decide anything did I? It's not my fault you chose to live rather than die, is it?

 

[Conza88]

See? All we had to do was that!

Exactly, voluntary actions isn't full proof because people don't always play nice.

That isn't the market failing. Thanks for conceding it.

The initation of violence, i.e violation of natural law, the natural order - i.e peoples self ownership, their property and their FREE WILL which is INALIENABLE... they will naturally defend it.

There is a market for private defense. You're going to have a harder time robbing people in a libertarian society, than in one with a tragedy of the commons.. public property etc.

I suggest you READ MACHIAVELLI on those points.

yep, repeated.

USELESS AND MEANINGLESS UNTIL PEOPLE PLAY NICE, BY THE RULES.

what are you gonna do? Enforce it with guns?

The rules are natural law. The people, individuals will naturally protect their property. Sorry mate, your anarcho-socialist friends are delusional, as are you in your all vs all dream.

You're a psychopath and you'll be one of the first to be ostracized if you go steal from people and their property etc. Suck'd in.

 

[Optatron]

That's not voluntary. Moving the goal posts fallacy.

I never put VOLUNTARY in the definition of market.

Which is why we have a conflict.

But still though, how is A shooting B involuntary?

 

[Optatron]

You're a psychopath and you'll be one of the first to be ostracized if you go steal from people and their property etc. Suck'd in.

if you're so confident, give me your address. you have awesome security, right?

or are you blaming the State from allowing you to protect yourself again now?

 

[Objectivist]

Can't agree with that at all.

The USSR was constantly trying to stem the tide from the "decadent West" of pop music, clothes, customs, movies and so on.

They funded hundreds of classical music, opera and ballet events.

And IIRC both divorce and the possession of pron was illegal in the old USSR.

And Hitler and crew promoted promiscuity during the war. Many married German women had sexual relations with other than her husband.

 

[Optatron]

That isn't the market failing. Thanks for conceding it.

The market is useless if people don't play by it.
This is semantics.

The initation of violence, i.e violation of natural law, the natural order - i.e peoples self ownership, their property and their FREE WILL which is INALIENABLE... they will naturally defend it.

they will naturally defend it? If they can, sure. They'll naturally rob if they can too.

There is a market for private defense. You're going to have a harder time robbing people in a libertarian society, than in one with a tragedy of the commons.. public property etc.

I suggest you READ MACHIAVELLI on those points.

I'm surprised you'd recommend me Machiavelli of all people.

The rules are natural law. The people, individuals will naturally protect their property.

Naturally protect their own interests and violate others if they can get away with it, how is that news?

Sorry mate, your anarcho-socialist friends are delusional, as are you in your all vs all dream.

I have no anarcho-socialist friends.
Any socialist is delusional.
All vs all ain't exactly accurate.
Guns vs. pacifists would be better.

You're a psychopath and you'll be one of the first to be ostracized if you go steal from people and their property etc. Suck'd in.

I'll say it again.

IF YOU'RE SO SURE ABOUT THAT, GIVE ME YOUR ADDRESS.

 

[Conza88]

So if I put a gun to your head and asked you to give up your land (very nicely), I benefit by having new land, you benefit by not being shot. How's that for an exchange?

It's called the initiation of violence. It's called coercion. It's called theft and robbery.

It's not a voluntary exchange, again - you fail.

I didn't force you to decide anything did I? It's not my fault you chose to live rather than die, is it?

You did. You said to me "you're land or your life". You have initiated violence against me, you are the aggressor. I am justified in defending myself.

 

[Conza88]

I never put VOLUNTARY in the definition of market.

It's implicit.

noun, group of people who engage in trade, a group of people who demand a certain product
verb, to trade, to create demand, sell.

Which is why we have a conflict.

But still though, how is A shooting B involuntary?

It's why you do, not me. A doesn't want to be shot. You've destroyed his property and initated violence against him. Jackass.

 

[Conza88]

yet you brought it up as if I did.

You've denied it before. Glad you've seen the light.

the fact you need me to explain says it all, YOU DON'T KNOW THE REST OF IT.
the same way you ask me to elaborate why communism isn't completely wrong.
the same way you say the state "violates all, protects none".

Keep making those simple short claims.

Ah, wrong. Taxation is theft. All these "soundbites" sum up a vast understanding. I can point you to the sources that logically proof them, but why bother - you wouldn't read them.

You don't need ideology when you have idiocy. Thanks for showing me that over and over. You can do it with guns too.

Wrong. You conceded this point previously. You're now going back on it?

You're a sophist... a snake... you only argue for the sake of arguing... you're a troll and a bad one at that.

Glad you're not afraid of me, now give me your address Mike.

I'm not, give me yours. I'll come say hi when I get over there. I hope to drop in on all the RPF folks.

agreed, what do you think I've been thinking of you this whole time?

That if you actually present an argument, you'll lose. Which is why you always avoid doing so.

blanket statement Mike.

And it remains true.

to your standards, you only quote and use people you agree with already.

Why would I quote someone I disagree with? Their arguments are wrong. I used to quote people I now think were wrong...

YOU ARE INDEED A WINNER, THANKS FOR PLAYING.

Was that so hard? Did I have to tell you "please say this and I'll shut up"?

How is living in a basement? lol. No real job.. do you have any friends? Or is this why you post 50 times a day?

Ttyl, I've got a party to go to.

 

[teacherone]

the same way you ask me to elaborate why communism isn't completely wrong.

Did you seriously just say that?

I'll elaborate for you since you really don't have a clue---


Under a socialist society individuals are meaningless, their rights can be trampled upon, their property confiscated, their lives destroyed all for the "Common Good" of the collective.

Under Socialism individuals possess nothing, because it is the State which determines the minimum standard of living good enough for the Collective and forceably removes and redistributes individual wealth so that all achieve this arbitrary minimum standard.

Under socialism no one is allowed to profit, because profit is evil; it produces inequality and is only the motive that drives "greedy capitalists." An artist who creates a masterpiece or an inventor who toils to create something new and innovative, does not profit from his effort; he cannot profit, for in the name of "Equality" his work belongs to the collective group. His profits are therefore forcibly removed and handed over to the lesser competent in the name of Equality.

Under socialism you cannot better your standard of living; you cannot rise up the social ranks when there are none. The station you were born in is the station you will die in. You will not leave behind an inheritance for your children, you will not imagine a better future for them or hope that their lives will be better than yours-- there is no better, there is no worse, there is only equality.

Freedom and socialism are antithetical and cannot exist within the same sphere. Socialism means that your life is planned and organized by the supreme elites who control the machine of the State. They decide how much you are allowed to earn, which jobs you are worthy of, under which standard of living you will suffer through your days.

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, it makes no difference. They are all forms of Totalitarianism where individuals are no longer recognized as such, only insignificant cogs in the Collective Machine. It should come as no surprise that Socialism leads to Totalitarian Dictatorships-- Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Kim Jong Il.