Topic: What to do about people who believe that stealing is ok (Read 1105 times)
In my opinion, stealing signifies a symbol of failure. If you are addicted to drugs, or any kind of alcohol, then it's easy to steal other's hard work. However, stealing something users work is a bad failure in your life.
We need to make them see the disadvantage of stealing and also make them understand that the people that are been robbed of their hard earned money and properties are deeply hurt, we need also make them see the purnishment for stealing in this country and encourage them to work hard if possible help with little things to start their life and to plan future cause he who failed to plan is definitely planning to fail.
Showing them the disadvantages of stealing is by performing a jungle justice but the is that the tradition permit stealing, stealing is not just am ordinary thing is some thing some one will go and survive, since is a culture of particular environment or country before they will be caught in stealing it will take period of times.but i don't believe their is culture or tradition that will encourage stealing, maybe the topic is to gather people opinion for university project research
We need to make them see the disadvantage of stealing and also make them understand that the people that are been robbed of their hard earned money and properties are deeply hurt, we need also make them see the purnishment for stealing in this country and encourage them to work hard if possible help with little things to start their life and to plan future cause he who failed to plan is definitely planning to fail.
Please Let me ask you something
Have you ever stolen anything?Most of us as small children or even as adults have done so.As adults ,we sometimes ,for example,cassually take the soap from a hotel room,and some might have stolen a towel or a bathrobe.There are cases in which the theft seem not that threatening or unpopular.
And of course lets not forget people faced by huge hardships are sometimes forced to steal when hungry..
STEALING is never ok ,but sometimes happens
Have you ever stolen anything?Most of us as small children or even as adults have done so.As adults ,we sometimes ,for example,cassually take the soap from a hotel room,and some might have stolen a towel or a bathrobe.There are cases in which the theft seem not that threatening or unpopular.
And of course lets not forget people faced by huge hardships are sometimes forced to steal when hungry..
STEALING is never ok ,but sometimes happens
In a life which is limited, my personal view on stealing is just a mere small deed rather a big sin. No one in the world is really entitled to anything unless because of pure "luck". Fundamentally, one is lucky to born in a rich family or situations where he can escape or prevent poverty and meet his needs. All because of pure luck, one is born in a healthy family with healthy bodies rather than being born in a very poor family with the bodily disorder. Did the former deserve to be born in such a good situation and the latter deserve to be born in such a bad situation? Obviously no. But due to mere luck, things are where they are. And then if a poor fella steals some pieces of bread from your table, you will condemn him to a filthy being without having to experience such a situation yourself by putting your legs in his shoes? Not a good idea!
Just because a herd of vengeful simpletons with pitchforks want something does not make it legal or moral to accommodate them.
Just because the majority (selfishly) thinks something is right, does not make it right.
My example with a collection of luxury items was to illustrate how ridiculous your demands are.
You fail miserably in identifying the root causes of the issues, despite that, you propose a kneejerk solution that is destined for a spectacular failure. Both your analysis and solutions are superficial.
I have tried to explain to you that the motivation for change has to come from the poor people. Education, desire to become capitalists has to come from them. They and you need to change. If you and your camerades will not change, you, your and their children and grandchildren will be poor and slaves to the system, it will not matter what the system it is, capitalist, socialist or communist. All systems revert to their natural steady-state i.e. capitalism.
To be a free man, you have to become a free man. Deal with it, or die a slave.
Just because the majority (selfishly) thinks something is right, does not make it right.
My example with a collection of luxury items was to illustrate how ridiculous your demands are.
You fail miserably in identifying the root causes of the issues, despite that, you propose a kneejerk solution that is destined for a spectacular failure. Both your analysis and solutions are superficial.
I have tried to explain to you that the motivation for change has to come from the poor people. Education, desire to become capitalists has to come from them. They and you need to change. If you and your camerades will not change, you, your and their children and grandchildren will be poor and slaves to the system, it will not matter what the system it is, capitalist, socialist or communist. All systems revert to their natural steady-state i.e. capitalism.
To be a free man, you have to become a free man. Deal with it, or die a slave.
People seldom realize freedom and responsibility are the same thing.
I did no such thing. I copied your post verbatim. You said that we need to give people rights to all these necessities.
I think what you wanted to say is that we need to give those things to people for free or for the price they will be able to afford.
and this massive subsidy would come from where? Who is going to pay for it?
Are you willing to ask the poor people to help me pay for my collection of Mercedeses and BMWs and my collection of Rolexes?
I feel it is my right to those things, and I feel that you personally should pay for some, or maybe even all of it.
You're either being intentionally dishonest or willfully ignorant. If you did any bit of research, you would know clearly how its going to be paid for and if you don't know, then it is you who needs to take classes or simply study almost any industrialized nation. The readings are in the syllabi. I cannot put the information in your head and don't even want you to just take my word for it because you don't know if I'm a credible source.
Your bolded part is completely dishonest. You do not feel that way and are just trying to derail the discussion with nonsense that you know is nonsense. Hypothetically speaking, if a majority of people agreed that you have a right to rolexes and luxury vehicles, then it would be done but that is a preposterous, disingenuous notion.
Just because a herd of vengeful simpletons with pitchforks want something does not make it legal or moral to accommodate them.
Just because the majority (selfishly) thinks something is right, does not make it right.
My example with a collection of luxury items was to illustrate how ridiculous your demands are.
You fail miserably in identifying the root causes of the issues, despite that, you propose a kneejerk solution that is destined for a spectacular failure. Both your analysis and solutions are superficial.
I have tried to explain to you that the motivation for change has to come from the poor people. Education, desire to become capitalists has to come from them. They and you need to change. If you and your camerades will not change, you, your and their children and grandchildren will be poor and slaves to the system, it will not matter what the system it is, capitalist, socialist or communist. All systems revert to their natural steady-state i.e. capitalism.
To be a free man, you have to become a free man. Deal with it, or die a slave.
Hypothetically speaking, if a majority of people agreed that you have a right to rolexes and luxury vehicles, then it would be done but that is a preposterous, disingenuous notion.
The problem being that there will be diminishing returns from increased effort (and wealth) under your support systems.You can keep everyone near baseline but the higher up you want that baseline to go, the tighter the grip it has on its people.
I did no such thing. I copied your post verbatim. You said that we need to give people rights to all these necessities.
I think what you wanted to say is that we need to give those things to people for free or for the price they will be able to afford.
and this massive subsidy would come from where? Who is going to pay for it?
Are you willing to ask the poor people to help me pay for my collection of Mercedeses and BMWs and my collection of Rolexes?
I feel it is my right to those things, and I feel that you personally should pay for some, or maybe even all of it.
You're either being intentionally dishonest or willfully ignorant. If you did any bit of research, you would know clearly how its going to be paid for and if you don't know, then it is you who needs to take classes or simply study almost any industrialized nation. The readings are in the syllabi. I cannot put the information in your head and don't even want you to just take my word for it because you don't know if I'm a credible source.
Your bolded part is completely dishonest. You do not feel that way and are just trying to derail the discussion with nonsense that you know is nonsense. Hypothetically speaking, if a majority of people agreed that you have a right to rolexes and luxury vehicles, then it would be done but that is a preposterous, disingenuous notion.
the problem is that theft, is diversly understood, take the conquest of byzanze, many european orthodox christians considered it an outright theft, why didnt osman used his army to build himself a castle instead of stealing the castle of the byzantinians and the constantinope dynasty.
same is with americans who use their advantage in technology to spam the entire world with how good they are and dominate it financiallay.
stealing sometimes if a form of liberation from a tyrant. thats why people do it. god takes and god gives.
regards
same is with americans who use their advantage in technology to spam the entire world with how good they are and dominate it financiallay.
stealing sometimes if a form of liberation from a tyrant. thats why people do it. god takes and god gives.
regards
Yet another person who will justify stealing as ok.
I am not looking for solutions to brainwash people. There are too many ignorant people in the world to educate.
The solution needs to be in protecting private property from those people. We need to stay one step ahead of them and this should not be a very difficult task because they tend to be unintelligent.
Guns, guard dogs, security systems are a start. Bitcoin is great. HOAs provide local security for neighborhoods.
But we need more. There should be segregation. Those that support theft should be kept far away from those that want to protect their property.
In a seastead community there should be checks on people entering the area to ensure that thieves are not approaching. If a community wants to be a den of thieves then go for it. All the better for identifying people as such.
Oh boy, you are digging your hole even deeper.
Any entry-level econ course would do:
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-110b-01-introduction-microeconomic-analysis-1
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-111a-01-introduction-macroeconomic-analysis
To which of the four areas: education, healthcare, food, and shelter, we don't have rights?
Is someone denying you any of those things because of who you are?
The US has the best education and healthcare on this planet. Food is cheap and abundant. There are places in the US where living expenses are lower than in many places in Latin America or Asia, not to mention European countries or Canada.
US citizens have more RIGHTS than citizens of any other country on the planet.
PS. Just because you cannot buy your pony does not mean that you don't have the right to buy that pony.
PPS. On second thought, I think you should take an elementary English language class. You are confusing (and redefining) the meaning of English words.
You added a word to my statement that changes the whole thing and then claim I don't understand the word.
I didn't say right to BUY things and I think you know and are being intentionally misleading. If you have no money, its going to be difficult to get all four of those things. 45,000 people die each year because they cannot afford healthcare and don't have insurance.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/10/15/study-45000-deaths-per-year-due-to-lack-of-health-insurance/
When people talk about healthcare as a right, or any of those things, we are talking about it being an entitlement that everyone has a legal right to regardless of what they have done previously. Any honest person would have acknowledge someone saying "healthcare should be a right" as such because everyone has already has the right to buy these things pretty much anywhere. We have a right to a lawyer. That doesn't mean we have to go and hire a lawyer because if we can't afford it, one will always be provided.
Quote
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
You also make the bolded statement with no supporting evidence (its false)
Quote
But Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization that releases an annual report on freedom around the world, measures it in terms of civil liberties and political rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Country_rankingsWe have a lot of rights and freedoms but theres about 40 countries ahead of us in this metric.
I did no such thing. I copied your post verbatim. You said that we need to give people rights to all these necessities.
I think what you wanted to say is that we need to give those things to people for free or for the price they will be able to afford.
and this massive subsidy would come from where? Who is going to pay for it?
Are you willing to ask the poor people to help me pay for my collection of Mercedeses and BMWs and my collection of Rolexes?
I feel it is my right to those things, and I feel that you personally should pay for some, or maybe even all of it.
Oh boy, you are digging your hole even deeper.
Any entry-level econ course would do:
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-110b-01-introduction-microeconomic-analysis-1
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-111a-01-introduction-macroeconomic-analysis
To which of the four areas: education, healthcare, food, and shelter, we don't have rights?
Is someone denying you any of those things because of who you are?
The US has the best education and healthcare on this planet. Food is cheap and abundant. There are places in the US where living expenses are lower than in many places in Latin America or Asia, not to mention European countries or Canada.
US citizens have more RIGHTS than citizens of any other country on the planet.
PS. Just because you cannot buy your pony does not mean that you don't have the right to buy that pony.
PPS. On second thought, I think you should take an elementary English language class. You are confusing (and redefining) the meaning of English words.
You added a word to my statement that changes the whole thing and then claim I don't understand the word.
I didn't say right to BUY things and I think you know and are being intentionally misleading. If you have no money, its going to be difficult to get all four of those things. 45,000 people die each year because they cannot afford healthcare and don't have insurance.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/10/15/study-45000-deaths-per-year-due-to-lack-of-health-insurance/
When people talk about healthcare as a right, or any of those things, we are talking about it being an entitlement that everyone has a legal right to regardless of what they have done previously. Any honest person would have acknowledge someone saying "healthcare should be a right" as such because everyone has already has the right to buy these things pretty much anywhere. We have a right to a lawyer. That doesn't mean we have to go and hire a lawyer because if we can't afford it, one will always be provided.
Quote
a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.
You also make the bolded statement with no supporting evidence (its false)
Quote
But Freedom House, an independent watchdog organization that releases an annual report on freedom around the world, measures it in terms of civil liberties and political rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Country_rankingsWe have a lot of rights and freedoms but theres about 40 countries ahead of us in this metric.
I thought I got through to you. I guess not.
I repeat. There is no theft under the capitalist division of labor. The free market is the most efficient system to self-correct any price dislocations (when workers are underpaid or overpaid). Market participants are willingly participating to exchange goods and services.
If you happen to use the inefficiencies of the free market to your advantage, all the power to you.
You just use the opportunity available to all. You are not stealing from anyone.
When a lioness sees a gazelle she will not wait for other lionesses to come around, she will go for the kill.
Capitalism best resembles nature. Are people being taken advantage of? Of course. No question about it.
There are many overpriced products/services being bought/sold as we speak. Calling it theft is disingenuous.
Just re-read your post again and let it sink in.
Capitalism does not take away your rights. Quite the opposite.
What do you want the "resources necessary for survival" to be tied to?
I think you are just confused. I suggest you take some Econ 101 class.
Which school's econ 101 class are you referring to? This topic was not addressed in any lower level econ classes at my schools. I'm not confused, I'm just incorporating ideas and thought processes that are well beyond an introductory level course.
If you look past the 100 level courses, you will find more advanced courses that actually address human development, well being, poverty, inequality and how all of those things fit in with economics.
So a person basing everything off of an econ 101 course is obviously not going to understand the perspective of someone who is incorporating courses and research from multiple fields. Heres some course suggestions
Principles of welfare economics
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-01sc-principles-of-microeconomics-fall-2011/unit-4-welfare-economics/principles-of-welfare-economics/
Econ 345a. Welfare Economics and Equity
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-345a-welfare-economics-and-equity
PS 20000: Introduction to Poverty Studies
https://sites.nd.edu/connie-snyder-mick/files/2015/07/PS20000SyllabusSP11official.pdf
Economics 390: Income, Wealth, and Health Inequality in the United States
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.brown.edu/dist/1/24/files/2018/10/Econ-390-Syllabus-2018-1-18mphp4.pdf
Simply reading the papers in the syllabi would go a long way.
Oh boy, you are digging your hole even deeper.
Any entry-level econ course would do:
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-110b-01-introduction-microeconomic-analysis-1
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-111a-01-introduction-macroeconomic-analysis
To which of the four areas: education, healthcare, food, and shelter, we don't have rights?
Is someone denying you any of those things because of who you are?
The US has the best education and healthcare on this planet. Food is cheap and abundant. There are places in the US where living expenses are lower than in many places in Latin America or Asia, not to mention European countries or Canada.
US citizens have more RIGHTS than citizens of any other country on the planet.
PS. Just because you cannot buy your pony does not mean that you don't have the right to buy that pony.
PPS. On second thought, I think you should take an elementary English language class. You are confusing (and redefining) the meaning of English words.
I thought I got through to you. I guess not.
I repeat. There is no theft under the capitalist division of labor. The free market is the most efficient system to self-correct any price dislocations (when workers are underpaid or overpaid). Market participants are willingly participating to exchange goods and services.
If you happen to use the inefficiencies of the free market to your advantage, all the power to you.
You just use the opportunity available to all. You are not stealing from anyone.
When a lioness sees a gazelle she will not wait for other lionesses to come around, she will go for the kill.
Capitalism best resembles nature. Are people being taken advantage of? Of course. No question about it.
There are many overpriced products/services being bought/sold as we speak. Calling it theft is disingenuous.
Just re-read your post again and let it sink in.
Capitalism does not take away your rights. Quite the opposite.
What do you want the "resources necessary for survival" to be tied to?
I think you are just confused. I suggest you take some Econ 101 class.
Which school's econ 101 class are you referring to? This topic was not addressed in any lower level econ classes at my schools. I'm not confused, I'm just incorporating ideas and thought processes that are well beyond an introductory level course.
If you look past the 100 level courses, you will find more advanced courses that actually address human development, well being, poverty, inequality and how all of those things fit in with economics.
So a person basing everything off of an econ 101 course is obviously not going to understand the perspective of someone who is incorporating courses and research from multiple fields. Heres some course suggestions
Principles of welfare economics
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/economics/14-01sc-principles-of-microeconomics-fall-2011/unit-4-welfare-economics/principles-of-welfare-economics/
Econ 345a. Welfare Economics and Equity
https://economics.yale.edu/courses/econ-345a-welfare-economics-and-equity
PS 20000: Introduction to Poverty Studies
https://sites.nd.edu/connie-snyder-mick/files/2015/07/PS20000SyllabusSP11official.pdf
Economics 390: Income, Wealth, and Health Inequality in the United States
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/sites.brown.edu/dist/1/24/files/2018/10/Econ-390-Syllabus-2018-1-18mphp4.pdf
Simply reading the papers in the syllabi would go a long way.
You are dead on that I am not fit to teach people how to use the fryer at mcdonalds but in your disrespect for service industry workers, you fail to see how that is not even an insult. I have never used the fryer at mcdonalds and a lot of times, the corporate people dictating use methods don't even know how to best use the equipment.
Its not even the same ideology. You just happen to be using the same words to describe two completely different things and this makes it difficult for you to see the difference. Present day China is the "different this time" version of the ideology you accuse me of actually working but its still not my ideology.
I do give wealth away when I find causes that deserve it. I'm giving wealth away here by using my time to teach you about leftist ideology. How could you say I have no morals or principles when thats clearly what drives all of my post. One time you told me I was too idealistic and that the world would never be perfect. Well you can't be idealistic without principals and morals. Savior complex could be an accurate criticism but it goes against your claims that I have no principles.
Its not even the same ideology. You just happen to be using the same words to describe two completely different things and this makes it difficult for you to see the difference. Present day China is the "different this time" version of the ideology you accuse me of actually working but its still not my ideology.
I do give wealth away when I find causes that deserve it. I'm giving wealth away here by using my time to teach you about leftist ideology. How could you say I have no morals or principles when thats clearly what drives all of my post. One time you told me I was too idealistic and that the world would never be perfect. Well you can't be idealistic without principals and morals. Savior complex could be an accurate criticism but it goes against your claims that I have no principles.
A McDonald's worker has never taught one of your
You just denying they are not the same is not an argument. Oh China is the "different this time" example is it? All you have to do is brush off the genocide, organ harvesting, and hundreds of thousands of people in concentration camps. You don't have principles or morals, you have a fluid ethos based ideology that shifts depending on whatever you are arguing, because you believe that the ends justify the means. Morals and principles are not a requirement to be a narcissist jerking themselves off over delusions of being a savior. You might actually believe you have them, but you continually demonstrate you don't by constantly contradicting yourself.
I thought I got through to you. I guess not.
I repeat. There is no theft under the capitalist division of labor. The free market is the most efficient system to self-correct any price dislocations (when workers are underpaid or overpaid). Market participants are willingly participating to exchange goods and services.
If you happen to use the inefficiencies of the free market to your advantage, all the power to you.
You just use the opportunity available to all. You are not stealing from anyone.
When a lioness sees a gazelle she will not wait for other lionesses to come around, she will go for the kill.
Capitalism best resembles nature. Are people being taken advantage of? Of course. No question about it.
There are many overpriced products/services being bought/sold as we speak. Calling it theft is disingenuous.
Just re-read your post again and let it sink in.
Capitalism does not take away your rights. Quite the opposite.
What do you want the "resources necessary for survival" to be tied to?
I think you are just confused. I suggest you take some Econ 101 class.
What class? You have no class. You are a fraud that is not fit to teach people how to use the fryer at McDonalds. What you advocate for IS about the USSR, because history shows that is inevitably what your ideology results in. You can pretend it is "different this time" over and over again at the cost of millions of lives, but that doesn't change the facts. You talk about how you don't deserve all the material wealth you have and don't deserve, but you don't give it away now do you? You talk about how you know more about poverty than the impoverished from the position of your pampered lifestyle, wagging your finger at people who have actually lived that experience. You preach to people who have suffered under Communism and Socialism that they "just don't get it" as you benefit from living in a Western capitalist society. You have no morals. You have no principles. You have no logos. You have no knowledge. All you have is bullshit, narcissism, and a savior complex.
Its not even the same ideology. You just happen to be using the same words to describe two completely different things and this makes it difficult for you to see the difference. Present day China is the "different this time" version of the ideology you accuse me of actually working but its still not my ideology.
I do give wealth away when I find causes that deserve it. I'm giving wealth away here by using my time to teach you about leftist ideology. How could you say I have no morals or principles when thats clearly what drives all of my post. One time you told me I was too idealistic and that the world would never be perfect. Well you can't be idealistic without principals and morals. Savior complex could be an accurate criticism but it goes against your claims that I have no principles.
I have been all over the world and have found that there are some cultures that feel that stealing is perfectly fine.
The solution to theft in most of the world is to discourage it through shame and punishment. But some parts of the world do not really see it as wrong. There is no point in shaming and while it may be technically against the law, it is not really enforced because it's "not that bad".
The thing I notice in these cultures is that every individual takes measures into their own hands to protect their goods and property. They have bars on the windows, razor wire fences, etc. (even the poorest homes are barred up). There is usually someone in the more populated areas when you park your car who watches your car for you (upon receiving payment), etc.
Most people in the west do not need to deal with this and are perhaps lucky in living in a place where theft is not as common.
But the countries where theft is common, people are better at preventing theft. I can see why someone from one of these countries going to the US would think "they just let you walk into the grocery store and take food off of the shelves by yourself...no guards at the door or anything", "people leave their homes unprotected with just windows that can be broken", "look, a perfectly good car with so many parts for the taking unprotected".
I see a few solutions...everyone evolves protection of their own property (either paying for a service or taking measures into your own hands every day of your life). Or it becomes exclusionary based where thieves are not allowed in a certain area and that area restricts newcomers allowing those in the protected area to live without too much worry about their property.
I'm not sure which is the better solution. The first solution sucks needing to worry about thieves every day, the second solution makes people soft and sort of prisoners of their location.
The solution to theft in most of the world is to discourage it through shame and punishment. But some parts of the world do not really see it as wrong. There is no point in shaming and while it may be technically against the law, it is not really enforced because it's "not that bad".
The thing I notice in these cultures is that every individual takes measures into their own hands to protect their goods and property. They have bars on the windows, razor wire fences, etc. (even the poorest homes are barred up). There is usually someone in the more populated areas when you park your car who watches your car for you (upon receiving payment), etc.
Most people in the west do not need to deal with this and are perhaps lucky in living in a place where theft is not as common.
But the countries where theft is common, people are better at preventing theft. I can see why someone from one of these countries going to the US would think "they just let you walk into the grocery store and take food off of the shelves by yourself...no guards at the door or anything", "people leave their homes unprotected with just windows that can be broken", "look, a perfectly good car with so many parts for the taking unprotected".
I see a few solutions...everyone evolves protection of their own property (either paying for a service or taking measures into your own hands every day of your life). Or it becomes exclusionary based where thieves are not allowed in a certain area and that area restricts newcomers allowing those in the protected area to live without too much worry about their property.
I'm not sure which is the better solution. The first solution sucks needing to worry about thieves every day, the second solution makes people soft and sort of prisoners of their location.
the problem is that theft, is diversly understood, take the conquest of byzanze, many european orthodox christians considered it an outright theft, why didnt osman used his army to build himself a castle instead of stealing the castle of the byzantinians and the constantinope dynasty.
same is with americans who use their advantage in technology to spam the entire world with how good they are and dominate it financiallay.
stealing sometimes if a form of liberation from a tyrant. thats why people do it. god takes and god gives.
regards
I thought I got through to you. I guess not.
I repeat. There is no theft under the capitalist division of labor. The free market is the most efficient system to self-correct any price dislocations (when workers are underpaid or overpaid). Market participants are willingly participating to exchange goods and services.
If you happen to use the inefficiencies of the free market to your advantage, all the power to you.
You just use the opportunity available to all. You are not stealing from anyone.
When a lioness sees a gazelle she will not wait for other lionesses to come around, she will go for the kill.
Capitalism best resembles nature. Are people being taken advantage of? Of course. No question about it.
There are many overpriced products/services being bought/sold as we speak. Calling it theft is disingenuous.
What class? You have no class. You are a fraud that is not fit to teach people how to use the fryer at McDonalds. What you advocate for IS about the USSR, because history shows that is inevitably what your ideology results in. You can pretend it is "different this time" over and over again at the cost of millions of lives, but that doesn't change the facts. ...
I liked the way the Khmer Rouge did it: make a 'year zero' by burning all the books and shooting anyone who wore glasses under the suspicion that they know how to read. Communists seem to have a thing about children so they had the kids do the machete killings in order to help with their training.
Marx is suggested to have been a Satanist, and there seems to be perhaps some credible evidence in this regard. One way or another, the expression of Communism in most instance of it's practice suggest that there were some real sickos at the helm. Likewise, it seems to have a disproportionate appeal to sickos in the modern world as well for whatever reason. In part because it has marketing value I would guess. But in fairness I would say that that appeal is more the fault of negligence on the part of the Capitalists for not realizing the long term value of mildly fair transfers of wealth than it is the fault of the 'Communists' who can make hay of the disparities for their own nefarious goal.
Jump to: