Mike  Wrote:

Ka$hKilla  Wrote:

I think it would be hard for one person to get rid of 100+ people, especially if they had guns

If you put it in a very remote area, like northern Canada, i dont think they'd find you. But i dont know how many people want to live up there where its so cold

So now you are advocating use of violence if you setup on someones private land and they wanted you off? You really are a worthless shit, you know that? The positive news is lazy people like you end up getting weeded out of the gene pool over time, or so I hope.

Why, oh why do people think that their GUNS are going to stop the GOV'T or military group if they want to remove you from your hidey-hole?

It is the most false hope in which to trust.

Did Waco or Ruby Ridge teach you people nothing? And that was with conventional weaponry. Just one missile from one helicopter and *POOF*, you're gone...and that's not even considering any modern electromagnetic/energy weaponry they may want to toy around with.

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Elizabeth  Wrote:

Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism.

what i said was that there are benefits to certain aspects of what is called socialism and that we should not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because of how we've allowed things to be defined.

food, shelter and power, things everyone needs, could easily be part of a common collective expense. but because peeps are programmed to believe that anything along those lines is socialism/communism it's dismissed without any imaginative consideration.

taking certain goods, the "basic needs items", out of the capitalist market and making them part of a collective social empowerment system would not make us communists. it would work to un-enslave us from certain families who run the planet by locking up the food and oil until we pay them for it.

And how would such things be paid for? Who would provide them?

If you automatically require payment through taxes and such. What about those that do not work or contribute?

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Elizabeth  Wrote:

Marxist theory contends that socialism is just a transitional stage on the road to communism.

what i said was that there are benefits to certain aspects of what is called socialism and that we should not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because of how we've allowed things to be defined.

food, shelter and power, things everyone needs, could easily be part of a common collective expense. but because peeps are programmed to believe that anything along those lines is socialism/communism it's dismissed without any imaginative consideration.

taking certain goods, the "basic needs items", out of the capitalist market and making them part of a collective social empowerment system would not make us communists. it would work to un-enslave us from certain families who run the planet by locking up the food and oil until we pay them for it.

And how would such things be paid for? Who would provide them?

If you automatically require payment through taxes and such. What about those that do not work or contribute?

Elizabeth  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

what i said was that there are benefits to certain aspects of what is called socialism and that we should not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because of how we've allowed things to be defined.

food, shelter and power, things everyone needs, could easily be part of a common collective expense. but because peeps are programmed to believe that anything along those lines is socialism/communism it's dismissed without any imaginative consideration.

taking certain goods, the "basic needs items", out of the capitalist market and making them part of a collective social empowerment system would not make us communists. it would work to un-enslave us from certain families who run the planet by locking up the food and oil until we pay them for it.

And how would such things be paid for? Who would provide them?

If you automatically require payment through taxes and such. What about those that do not work or contribute?

well, that's where the conversation begins. and the answers depend upon the size of the community you are talking about and the resources on hand.

if we are still talking about a cashless collective, then everyone would have to agree to work in some way to meet these needs. that would have to be a condition for them being a member of the community. you have to contribute. so the goods would be paid for by the labor it takes to create the resources and it would be provided by the individuals in the community.


if we are talking about the current system of any particular country then that's a real conundrum...because so many don't want to work for anything, including the uber wealthy. but you could have government controlled refineries and gas stations and supermarkets that start up through tax money. then they sustain themselves on selling the goods they provide but they don't make massive profits. just enough to pay employees and replenish supply, maybe build more outlets. they could sell goods at a much much lower price than the corporate entities do. it wouldn't be free....just affordable. right now food and shelter is not affordable for everyone.

you wouldn't have to become a communist society or ditch capitalism to do it. there would be more options. you could spend your money at a co-op or go to walmart.

Elizabeth  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

what i said was that there are benefits to certain aspects of what is called socialism and that we should not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because of how we've allowed things to be defined.

food, shelter and power, things everyone needs, could easily be part of a common collective expense. but because peeps are programmed to believe that anything along those lines is socialism/communism it's dismissed without any imaginative consideration.

taking certain goods, the "basic needs items", out of the capitalist market and making them part of a collective social empowerment system would not make us communists. it would work to un-enslave us from certain families who run the planet by locking up the food and oil until we pay them for it.

And how would such things be paid for? Who would provide them?

If you automatically require payment through taxes and such. What about those that do not work or contribute?

I would really like some answers to these things.

I cannot seem to grasp these concepts that you people have, so please explain them to me.

If those things are free to people. What would keep many from never turning off lights or conserving energy?

If food was free... What would prevent people from eating like it was an all you can eat buffet?

Just curious?

Not to mention... Who would grow this food? Who will work at the refineries? To provide a free product, wouldnt the production of it also have to be cost free? Who would do the work to provide such things for nothing?

Elizabeth  Wrote:

Elizabeth  Wrote:

And how would such things be paid for? Who would provide them?

If you automatically require payment through taxes and such. What about those that do not work or contribute?

I would really like some answers to these things.

I cannot seem to grasp these concepts that you people have, so please explain them to me.

If those things are free to people. What would keep many from never turning off lights or conserving energy?

If food was free... What would prevent people from eating like it was an all you can eat buffet?

Just curious?

Not to mention... Who would grow this food? Who will work at the refineries? To provide a free product, wouldnt the production of it also have to be cost free? Who would do the work to provide such things for nothing?

i don't believe that anything in life is free. but nor do i believe the greatest expense we should bear to be the cost of food shelter and power. if the world system runs on a specific power, then that power should be made as easily affordable as possible. not monopolized and charged to the hilt so that the utility owners have a completely unfair advantage. they are the ones getting everything for free.

in the end i don't claim to have the ultimate answers...i'm saying that avoiding the expolratory conversation, or failing to try another way because of the fears conjured by the words socialism/communism plays right into the hands of the "bums on the plush"...our corporate ceo overlords.

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Elizabeth  Wrote:

And how would such things be paid for? Who would provide them?

If you automatically require payment through taxes and such. What about those that do not work or contribute?

well, that's where the conversation begins. and the answers depend upon the size of the community you are talking about and the resources on hand.

if we are still talking about a cashless collective, then everyone would have to agree to work in some way to meet these needs. that would have to be a condition for them being a member of the community. you have to contribute. so the goods would be paid for by the labor it takes to create the resources and it would be provided by the individuals in the community.


if we are talking about the current system of any particular country then that's a real conundrum...because so many don't want to work for anything, including the uber wealthy. but you could have government controlled refineries and gas stations and supermarkets that start up through tax money. then they sustain themselves on selling the goods they provide but they don't make massive profits. just enough to pay employees and replenish supply, maybe build more outlets. they could sell goods at a much much lower price than the corporate entities do. it wouldn't be free....just affordable. right now food and shelter is not affordable for everyone.

you wouldn't have to become a communist society or ditch capitalism to do it. there would be more options. you could spend your money at a co-op or go to walmart.

And what if I go to work to pay for my share, and have to work next to someone that showed up late, and spent half the day in the shade on a smoke break?

And what is the difference in that, and someone working for a wage for what they earn personally? Where hard work is rewarded?

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Elizabeth  Wrote:

I would really like some answers to these things.

I cannot seem to grasp these concepts that you people have, so please explain them to me.

If those things are free to people. What would keep many from never turning off lights or conserving energy?

If food was free... What would prevent people from eating like it was an all you can eat buffet?

Just curious?

Not to mention... Who would grow this food? Who will work at the refineries? To provide a free product, wouldnt the production of it also have to be cost free? Who would do the work to provide such things for nothing?

i don't believe that anything in life is free. but nor do i believe the greatest expense we should bear to be the cost of food shelter and power. if the world system runs on a specific power, then that power should be made as easily affordable as possible. not monopolized and charged to the hilt so that the utility owners have a completely unfair advantage. they are the ones getting everything for free.

in the end i don't claim to have the ultimate answers...i'm saying that avoiding the expolratory conversation, or failing to try another way because of the fears conjured by the words socialism/communism plays right into the hands of the "bums on the plush"...our corporate ceo overlords.

And I agree.

But see, these issues are too important to just put all of society through some type of experiment to find the right answers.

And much of this HAS been tried in one way or another in history through Communist/Socialist societies. And I have yet to see it ACTUALLY work, without personal freedoms being completely trampled upon.

Do I have a fear of it... YES

Especially when it has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people in just the past 100 years, and the enslavement of 1/5 of the worlds population.

Add to that, the fact that the propaganda machine behind it has been successful enough to actually be turning the tide of reactions to the ideas of it.

I'm sorry. But the minute you start trying to take away my personal freedoms, or forcing me take part in something either physically or through my wallet. Ive got a problem with it. If I had a little more confidence that everyone would do the right thing. I might have different views. But through my 40 yrs on this earth, Ive come to the realization, that very FEW actually do.

Elizabeth  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

well, that's where the conversation begins. and the answers depend upon the size of the community you are talking about and the resources on hand.

if we are still talking about a cashless collective, then everyone would have to agree to work in some way to meet these needs. that would have to be a condition for them being a member of the community. you have to contribute. so the goods would be paid for by the labor it takes to create the resources and it would be provided by the individuals in the community.


if we are talking about the current system of any particular country then that's a real conundrum...because so many don't want to work for anything, including the uber wealthy. but you could have government controlled refineries and gas stations and supermarkets that start up through tax money. then they sustain themselves on selling the goods they provide but they don't make massive profits. just enough to pay employees and replenish supply, maybe build more outlets. they could sell goods at a much much lower price than the corporate entities do. it wouldn't be free....just affordable. right now food and shelter is not affordable for everyone.

you wouldn't have to become a communist society or ditch capitalism to do it. there would be more options. you could spend your money at a co-op or go to walmart.

And what if I go to work to pay for my share, and have to work next to someone that showed up late, and spent half the day in the shade on a smoke break?

And what is the difference in that, and someone working for a wage for what they earn personally? Where hard work is rewarded?

what if what? are you talking about working in a garden along side other people? do you not think that in small communities there is communication and problem solving techniques. those kinds of issues come up in co-op communities and they get resolved within the community.

in a large society with public utility and food/housing options there are millions of opportunities to be rewarded for the work one does and the wages they earn. just a matter of what one chooses to invest time and money in.

there would be no free lunch as you seem intent on implying. the cashless society would only work in small manageable groups IMO. in a large economy the point isn't about making shit free for slackers....we already have that. it's about making the basic human needs affordable.

Elizabeth  Wrote:

LoP Guest  Wrote:

i don't believe that anything in life is free. but nor do i believe the greatest expense we should bear to be the cost of food shelter and power. if the world system runs on a specific power, then that power should be made as easily affordable as possible. not monopolized and charged to the hilt so that the utility owners have a completely unfair advantage. they are the ones getting everything for free.

in the end i don't claim to have the ultimate answers...i'm saying that avoiding the expolratory conversation, or failing to try another way because of the fears conjured by the words socialism/communism plays right into the hands of the "bums on the plush"...our corporate ceo overlords.

And I agree.

But see, these issues are too important to just put all of society through some type of experiment to find the right answers.

And much of this HAS been tried in one way or another in history through Communist/Socialist societies. And I have yet to see it ACTUALLY work, without personal freedoms being completely trampled upon.

Do I have a fear of it... YES

Especially when it has resulted in the deaths of over 100 million people in just the past 100 years, and the enslavement of 1/5 of the worlds population.

Add to that, the fact that the propaganda machine behind it has been successful enough to actually be turning the tide of reactions to the ideas of it.

I'm sorry. But the minute you start trying to take away my personal freedoms, or forcing me take part in something either physically or through my wallet. Ive got a problem with it. If I had a little more confidence that everyone would do the right thing. I might have different views. But through my 40 yrs on this earth, Ive come to the realization, that very FEW actually do.

where have i implied that anyone would be forced to do anything? i've just suggested that in addition to having the current corporations running their business we could have national co-ops in the fields of food shelter and power. it would be a choice if you participated or not.

it has nothing to do with your personal freedoms being taken....which is why i commented on you r initial comment about socialism and communism. there is an ingrained fear there that prevents advantageous solutions from ever being coherently considered.

personally i'm remain unconvinced that a national size co-op would be a rational place to start. where i live live they hwe food co-ops and bio-fuel co-ops. many people are looking to make their own power. small communities have sprung up to assist one another in making this happen. lifeboat communities. nothing is free and people are not losing freedom. they are taking accountability for procuring the goods they require.

anyhow it's an endless conversation....but don't worry. i'm not suggesting a totalitarian dictatorship where resources are doled out by the king.

LoP Guest  Wrote:

Elizabeth  Wrote:

And what if I go to work to pay for my share, and have to work next to someone that showed up late, and spent half the day in the shade on a smoke break?

And what is the difference in that, and someone working for a wage for what they earn personally? Where hard work is rewarded?

what if what? are you talking about working in a garden along side other people? do you not think that in small communities there is communication and problem solving techniques. those kinds of issues come up in co-op communities and they get resolved within the community.

in a large society with public utility and food/housing options there are millions of opportunities to be rewarded for the work one does and the wages they earn. just a matter of what one chooses to invest time and money in.

there would be no free lunch as you seem intent on implying. the cashless society would only work in small manageable groups IMO. in a large economy the point isn't about making shit free for slackers....we already have that. it's about making the basic human needs affordable.

But see, once you begin talking about free public utilities/food/housing... This is something that is on a national level... Is it not?

And my question is. Who would work for the production of these things? What would be done to prevent abuses, as far as wastefulness? How will the production cost be paid for? And how if on a national level, could abuses be stemmed with out regulations and rationing, that would affect those that may work harder for their share?

And see I agree that those types of situations are a positive thing. And would be happy to take part in something such as that.

But once they are considered to be required on some type of national level. That is where my concerns lie.


I guess due to the fact that this conversation came about on the OP's thread, and I am quite familiar with his views. It automatically sent up red flags for me

they tried this back in the 60s. they were call communes. do you see how many of them are still around?