This is starting to be like debating with a drunk or a child. How close am I ??
You obviously have no idea what socialism truly is.
you too
What does that even mean?? Unlike you, I have demonstrated through my posts that I know precisely what socialism is in its 3 historic forms, so your irrational comment makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like a child rant, "I know you are but what am I?".
If you mean classic socialism, how do you think the means of production, distribution, and exchange can be owned or regulated without some central authority ??
it does not need to be "owned or regulated".
Of course it has to be owned and regulated. How else will it be produced, distributed, and exchanged?? How would you prevent someone from taking all of any of the resources or products?? The honor system?? You are being a bit naive.
Even if you take it to the Marxist extreme of a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism, how do you think it can be done without a central authority ??
Simple, people decides to do so.
Then those people you mentioned are the central authority who would be owning , controlling, and/or regulating. Again you are being naive to even suggest the possibility of everyone agreeing on a community scale, let alone regional, national, or worldwide level. How would you stop someone from taking it all or more than their fair share?? Its theirs right?? How do you decide the criteria by which it is decided what their fair share is?? Body weight?? Each person gets an equal amount?? Who is the decider of that criteria?? I can imaging a 450 pound fat guy fighting like hell and justifying for alot more "resources" than a 90 pound petite womanor a child. How do you stop infighting when resources and products get low?? Maybe by ownership and regulation?? Force?? If everyone owns a cornfield how do you make decisions on who gets what?? By regulation. Who regulates? Who uses force? Ownership takes care of all that and more. I regulate by my decision to trade, barter, or sell its products. Your utopian dream is a nightmare that will never exist. If someone has more force than you, they will justify that their fair share will be alot more than yours. Dont be naive.
and if you take it to its most current version of an RBE-type existance where everyone throws their shit in a huge pile and shares, how will you get them to throw their shit into that pile without direct force ?? And who will be doing it if not a government or UN-like central authority making mandates and enforcing them ??
either anyone realizes that its a good idea to throw their shit into the pile. or would getting forced by people how thinks so(who does not have a central authority)
Then the strongest and fittest are the central authority by sheer force. They make the rules and enforce them by force. Sound familiar??
Do you realize that under classic common law where there were no government and statutes, communities worked together in harmony and agreement, while retaining ALL of their birth rights, producing, distributing, and exchanging as they saw fit anmd as needed ??
i have absolutly no idea about what "classic common law" is, so i can not argue this point. BUT you are still talking about rights, which i already have clarified for you that they are no more then an illusion.
and your clarification has been rebutted and done away with in my previous posts. You have the amount of rights you can protect through force if they are infringed upon. I know I can protect what I have, or will die trying. My kids are worth it.
It was how the world survived before government and politics. Their politics was surviving by working together.
They also took care of criminals with an eye for an eye, and unsuprisingly there was little crime with such penalties.
have you considered that these people could be to some use for the society? and do you even have any proof of your claim of "little crimewith such penalties"?
O course these and every other person is of some use in a society or community. Thats where trade and barter happen. Each person brings something to the table. Others dont own it. If you do not contribute, your church, charitable group, or family and friends help take care of you ... or you die.
My proof of claim is common sense. There was alot of common sense back then. My proof is also YOU. If you knew you would have your hand chopped off if you stole, would you steal, or work for what you need?? If you knew you would be killed for unlawfully killing someone else, would you still kill them?? If you knew you would be castrated for raping a woman, would you still rape her?? If you knew that you would be shot and killed for infringing on me or my property, would you still infringe on it, or would you develop labor and trade relationships to get what you need to survive??
your arguments seems flawed...
neither of us truly believes that.
edit: and i needed to add my support for for following:
kokjo, please explain how an economy which deprives people of the incentive to work or innovate can possibly succeed.
Sounds like most of our lazy youth today that had bad parenting. The innovation incentive makes alot of sense too.
I am sure all those socialists busting their asses will appreciate those lazy socialists who want everything but do nothing ... oh wait ... there are no ass busting socialists. So you will have a world of lazy people who feel entitled to everything but want to do nothing to get it.
I wonder how thats supposed to work.
Ah ... the computers will do it all !
The closet zeitgeisters and venus project entheusiasts are now uncovered !