Political Profile: carmen510

1. What's your understanding of Democracy?
It is a system of government where the people are to elect their own leaders. In theory, this is the best government, because the people have their freedom to choose leaders they would like. In reality, that leaves a lot of room for demagogues, racists, incompetents, and evil people to become leaders. Also, it assumes people always knows what is right for them, which is not always the case.

2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Theoretically, it is an economic system where the citizenry controls the entire economic system and the state owns everything for the good of the people. This system of economics seems to be the best, because it allows a country to redistribute wealth to all the people, and work for their greater good. In reality, many communist states have failed, because many communist leaders (Or at least, governments) were corrupt, incompetent, and evil men as well. It works in theory, but it cannot work in practice until the government is "purged" of all unwanted elements.

3. What's your understanding of Capitalism?
It is the economic system where ownership and the means of gathering wealth is private. This is slightly better than Communism in my opinion, for several reasons. Communism doesn't always encourage efficient and new methods/technologies for production or domestic uses. Capitalism does, as competition for money forces capitalists to be more creative. Also, while it does leave some people behind, it also elevates many in society. Communism usually takes wealth from the hard-working to give to the poor, which would be good if people were actually willing to do work for the good of the country. I believe that free trade should be implemented as well, because it elevates the world economy as a whole. (I will expand upon that later) Capitalism does have its pitfalls, see 2008-2009 economic recession.

4. What's your understanding of Fascism?
It is a system of government similar to Communism in the fact that the government usually controls the means of production. However, it is very different in the fact that it usually allows right to ownership, it advocates a one-party system, and is authoritarian. This may actually become a good government, if there was a benevolent leader who could use his power for good. Sadly, I cannot recall a case where this was true.

5. Make a list of the all human rights you consider essential
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, rights to fair trial & warrants, freedom to firearms, the right against unreasonable search and seizures of property, property rights, rights against cruel or unusual punishment, no torture, allowance of gay marriage and abortion, will add more.

6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY DETECTOR]

7. What's your understanding of Equality?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE DETECTOR]

8. What's your understanding of a prosperous society?
Will be added.

9. What's your stance towards the environment?
We should stop pollution, but mainly for my aesthetic reasons. I do not believe in global warming, but I do believe people should have a right to a clean environment. I also believe that we should try to protect endangered species, but we must understand extinction is a natural process of life. We should stop destroying rich habitats such as wetlands or jungles however.

10. What's your understanding of Socialism? (Added by Kenzu)
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 KENZU DETECTOR]

carmen510 wrote:

freedom to firearms

Why if I may ask?

carmen510 wrote:

6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY DETECTOR]

7. What's your understanding of Equality?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE DETECTOR]

10. What's your understanding of Socialism? (Added by Kenzu)
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 KENZU DETECTOR]

Uhhm.. what?

carmen510 wrote:

2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Theoretically, it is a system of government where the government controls the entire economic system and owns everything for the good of the people. This system of government seems to be the best, because it avoids the pitfalls of democracy and allows a benevolent government to rule over the people. In reality, many communist states have failed, because many communist leaders were corrupt, incompetent, and evil men as well. It works in theory, but it cannot work in practice until the government is "purged" of all unwanted elements.

Here we go again. *sigh*

Yep. Just wait for Zeal to come on. Mega post.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Yep. Just wait for Zeal to come on. Mega post.

LOL

carmen510 wrote:

2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Theoretically, it is a system of government where the government controls the entire economic system and owns everything for the good of the people. This system of government seems to be the best, because it avoids the pitfalls of democracy and allows a benevolent government to rule over the people. In reality, many communist states have failed, because many communist leaders were corrupt, incompetent, and evil men as well. It works in theory, but it cannot work in practice until the government is "purged" of all unwanted elements.

Government? GOVERNMENT!?!? Communism=NO government. No government = no leaders. Communism+government= stalinism. Workers directly control the state. The workers own the factories through collective ownership. There is no economy because money and wealth would be abolished. This would work better for socialism, but what you are describing is not communism.

CoolKidX wrote:

carmen510 wrote:

freedom to firearms

Why if I may ask?

carmen510 wrote:

6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY DETECTOR]

7. What's your understanding of Equality?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE DETECTOR]

10. What's your understanding of Socialism? (Added by Kenzu)
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 KENZU DETECTOR]

Uhhm.. what?

1. Freedom of firearms is a necessary deterrent against an oppressive government in power, or as self-defense against criminals. I would prefer if nobody needed to use firearms, but it is impossible to eliminate all weaponry and thus, deterrents are needed.

As for the oppressive regime part, weaponry is necessary to bring about a form of revolution when peaceful methods have failed.

2. That's just my way of saying I generally don't like going into philosophy.


As for my understanding for Communism, what's so wrong about that?

Quote :

As for my understanding for Communism, what's so wrong about that?

You'll see in a mega post.. its coming.. you wakend ze beast.

Definition of communism slightly revised, I was thinking more of communist government rather than communism.

carmen510 wrote:

Definition of communism slightly revised, I was thinking more of communist government rather than communism.

It still refers to the existance of a state. "Communist government"? Oh dear. Oh my.

First of all, welcome back. I'm glad you've come here for I always had the impression you are one of the most reasonable members we have.

To the rest: *plays "O Fortuna" by Karl Orff*

carmen510 wrote:

1. What's your understanding of Democracy?
It is the system of government where the people are to elect their own leaders.

Hasn't the ethymology of the word got any value?

carmen510 wrote:

In theory, this is the best government, because the people have their freedom to choose leaders they would like.

So the freedom to choose who delimits your freedom is in theory the best system? Big problem with capitalism indeed: people get to "choose" who rips them off, so it's ok. Sounds bibletastic.

carmen510 wrote:

In reality, that leaves a lot of room for demagogues, racists, incompetents, and evil people to become leaders.

So, shouldn't this really mean that leaving space for oligarchies and such to exist is perhaps not the best idea?

carmen510 wrote:

Also, it assumes people always knows what is right for them, which is not always the case.

Are you really sure you don't know what is good for yourself? Or that I don't know? Are you sure someone else may know your or my needs better than we do? And then, if people don't know what is right for them... how could they know what is right for others?

carmen510 wrote:

2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Theoretically, it is a system of government where the government controls the entire economic system and owns everything for the good of the people.

Nope, at least not according to those that thought it up.

Communism is a system in which the workers control the economy directly being them who determine the needs and the ways to suffice them by consensus. Since the workers are the people and they're who have power... sounds like an allusion to a very important word (politically) with greek roots...

carmen510 wrote:

This system of government seems to be the best, because it avoids the pitfalls of democracy and allows a benevolent government to rule over the people.

Let's try to keep objective and avoid subjective terms like "good", "bad" and their superlatives.

As for benevolent government... let's see how possible is that:

carmen510 wrote:

In reality, many communist states have failed, because many communist leaders were corrupt, incompetent, and evil men as well.

"Communist state" is an oxymoron as state and communism are mutually exclusive. As for the qualities of the leaders... well... aren't such leaders like... 99.99% of the cases everywhere?

carmen510 wrote:

It works in theory, but it cannot work in practice until the government is "purged" of all unwanted elements.

Same old story with any "few rule over all" (oligocratic) system. It's always expected that these few will do what's good for everyone (as if few could know better what's good for everyone better than everyone - arguably this is possible though, through a scientific aristocratic popular dictatorship but just in the satisfaction of objective needs while forgetting subjective ones which are no less imporant). It's always expected that the leaders will be "good" and what not... it's a very old story that always has had the same outcomes... why don't people learn? Because they still use leader based, owner based, oligarchy based systems. People still follow the notion that a handful of men should rule and, these handful of men enjoying of the priviledges this condition allows (including determining what people learn and not to some extent) do not let people get rid of the chains of ignorance.

Oligarchic, plutocratic, totalitarian systems all of them immitate the ways of religion back in the Dark ages. Imposing their dogmas and disallowing, cancelling or distorting the truth, prosecuting and soiling those who sought for it; Claiming that we should all bow down to someone; Harnessing all knowledge and information possible, controlling language; Creating a set of moral standards to be followed by all, creating and determining the law.

carmen510 wrote:

3. What's your understanding of Capitalism?
It is the economic system where ownership and the means of gathering wealth is private.

So private that you get millions breaking their backs for teh private benefit of few.

carmen510 wrote:

This is slightly better than Communism in my opinion, for several reasons. Communism doesn't always encourage efficient and new methods/technologies for production or domestic uses.

Yet, as we demonstrated above, you don't know what communism is so your opinion becomes nullified, at least in regards to communism. Else, you're completeley disregarding the process through which the quality of technology is achieved which is merely through scientific development in accordance to suffice needs.

Now lets asess this comment given your understanding of "communism" which is nothing but a social dictatorship or a state capitalism:

Since the state is who determines the needs, the economy and the entire technological development work in function to the state's needs. Usually the state's need is selfdefense and means to keep people controlled and this involved a wide array of methods some of which imply of course the efficient satisfaction of basic needs. In the case of a state capitalist system, the state should be careful not to spend more thanwhat it earns, yet, if it doesn't export the burden of exploitation people will sooner or later get tired. Else, as we've seen, state capitalisms like USSR's neglected consistently the "consumer goods sector" while none the less creating a consumist culture and a consume-based economy.

Yet, the industrial, military and space technology of such systems (suficing mainly statist needs) were far from underdeveloped and, proportionally, USSR developed much faster than any other country in hstory. In 27 years it jumped from the least developed European nation to one of the only two superpowers which in some aspects even doubled the prowess of the other superpower. Soviet military technology, for example, was in many terms superior to western, aerospace technology as well and this gap reached its peak in the 70's and 80's and had USSR not collapsed it would have just widened. And why? It was a need of the state. Had the state considered its people's needs as own it would have followed a quite different agenda, perhaps to teh point of really setting the conditions for the establishemnt fo socialism.

carmen510 wrote:

Capitalism does, as competition for money forces capitalists to be more creative.

Surely guys like Pithagoras, Hipocrates, Baldr, Galileo, Da Vinci, Descartes, Fourier, Tsiolkovskiy, Einstein, Lavoisier, Lomonosov, Avogadro, Bach, Sagan and dozens of others, whose contributions to human cognositive developent couldn't have been creative without competition. Come on

carmen510 wrote:

Also, while it does leave some people behind, it also elevates many in society.

Through the ladder of massive human labour!

carmen510 wrote:

Communism usually takes wealth from the hard-working to give to the poor, which would be good if people were actually willing to do work for the good of the country.

Point cleared above.

carmen510 wrote:

I believe that free trade should be implemented as well, because it elevates the world economy as a whole. (I will expand upon that later) Capitalism does have its pitfalls, see 2008-2009 economic recession.

Won't deepen on this because I'm not sure on your standards to regard something as "pitfall".

carmen510 wrote:

4. What's your understanding of Fascism?
It is a system of government similar to Communism in the fact that the government usually controls the means of production.

As for the "communism part" nope, it was cleared already. As we have seen in all the examples of fascism (supposing US and such are not considered watered down versions of it) there is a bourgeioisie of which interests are more often than not protected by the state. See Mussolinian Italy, Nazi Germany, Chile, Franquist Spain, 1950's Brazil, Videla's Argentina, etc. (Now that I think about it... what a coincidence that Chile, Brazil and Argentina were prefered exile places by autoexiled nazi and fascist leaders from Germany and Italy...)

carmen510 wrote:

However, it is very different in the fact that it usually allows right to ownership, it advocates a one-party system, and is authoritarian.

I don't know but seems pretty much like what Cuba, USSR, NK, China and many other countries have or had...

carmen510 wrote:

This may actually become a good government, if there was a benevolent leader who could use his power for good. Sadly, I cannot recall a case where this was true.

So a government that is either based on literally beating up workers for not working hard enough for their bosses or on enslaving several foreign nations to impose such a system can become "good"? Man, your "good" and "bad" standards are rather weird... Could we avoid subjectivities?

Also:

And so the messiah came down from above bringing peace, love and pointing the way towards the land of honey and milk...

carmen510 wrote:

5. Make a list of the all human rights you consider essential
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, rights to fair trial & warrants, freedom to firearms, the right against unreasonable search and seizures of property, property rights, rights against cruel or unusual punishment, no torture, allowance of gay marriage and abortion, will add more.

I remember when I thought up this question... I should have asked myself "wait, who's got the right to determine my rights?".

carmen510 wrote:

6. What's your understanding of Freedom?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY DETECTOR]

Oh come on, it's definitely not a hard one. If yo ask me I summarize it in one line: Freedom is to not be involved in either side of coercive and deceptive relationships.

Deprived of truth, you can't truly know or choose. Deprived of choice, you can't choose. Submitted to force, you can't freely act.

carmen510 wrote:

7. What's your understanding of Equality?
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 PHILOSOPHY AND IMPOSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE DETECTOR]

And my question here would be... why?

carmen510 wrote:

10. What's your understanding of Socialism? (Added by Kenzu)
[CENSORED BY CARMEN510 KENZU DETECTOR]

Let me search for the link.... Ah here it is, please check.

Told ya.

Z wrote:

To the rest: *plays "O Fortuna" by Karl Orff*

Its CARL, not KARL, with a C, c,c,c,c.
Jeeze, get it right.
But seriously that, that's hilarious Zealot .

CoolKidX wrote:

Its CARL, not KARL, with a C, c,c,c,c.
Jeeze, get it right.
But seriously that, that's hilarious Zealot .

"K" is nicer Thanks for the coorection though.

See? Epic.
I do the same with religion.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

Its CARL, not KARL, with a C, c,c,c,c.
Jeeze, get it right.
But seriously that, that's hilarious Zealot .

"K" is nicer Thanks for the coorection though.

yah, like MORTAL KOMBAT

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

FIGHT!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbeXI45wNyQ&feature=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYjtSumBRo&feature=channel_page
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEbXLXe5Yls&feature=channel_page

Rofl, those vids rock.

In the second the dude actually really gets into it.

I like the first one.

God dammit, ZK beat me to the mega post.

carmen510 wrote:

1. What's your understanding of Democracy?
It is a system of government where the people are to elect their own leaders. In theory, this is the best government, because the people have their freedom to choose leaders they would like. In reality, that leaves a lot of room for demagogues, racists, incompetents, and evil people to become leaders. Also, it assumes people always knows what is right for them, which is not always the case.

I think people do inherently know what's in their best interest. But propaganda is a very real - and to the busy lunatics who rule over us, necessary - component of democracy; people can be convinced that a thing that is against their interest truly is, and vice versa.

The problem with democracy, for me anyway, is that it tends to function as a form of "majoritarianism." There's a fundamental difference between saying that "people don't know what's best for them" and saying that "people don't know what's best for other people." I think that the former statement is false, and that the latter is true.

If the above is what you meant by it - which I kind of doubt - then I'd agree with you.

carmen510 wrote:

2 What's your understanding of Communism?
Theoretically, it is an economic system where the citizenry controls the entire economic system and the state owns everything for the good of the people. This system of economics seems to be the best, because it allows a country to redistribute wealth to all the people, and work for their greater good. In reality, many communist states have failed, because many communist leaders (Or at least, governments) were corrupt, incompetent, and evil men as well. It works in theory, but it cannot work in practice until the government is "purged" of all unwanted elements.

What you are describing here - as most Western observers do - is actually a form of State Capitalism, which the Soviet Union was infamous for and which many Marxist, Anarchist, and Socialist contemporaries who lived outside of the Soviet Union wrote and spoke at length about it.

The whole notion of Communism is that in the final progressive epoch of history "the State will whither away." Marx was very clear of this. And his "dictatorship of the proletariat" - which Bakunin criticized at length, despite the fact that he didn't actually understand it - was not actually a literal dictatorship. It simply meant that the proletariat - the working class- would be the only existing class, because different classes are created based on unequal relations to the modes of production - i.e. the bourgeoisie exist because they own the means, the proletariat exist because they work for, and in some cases are, the means. Therefore, if all people have equal relations to the means of production, classes will disappear. In Marxian theory, since the State serves as a bulwark for the interests of a certain class - under Feudalism, it was the aristocracy, under Capitalism, it is the bourgeoisie, and under Socialism, it will be the proletariat; Lenin wrote at great length about this topic in State and Revolution - the complete abolition of all classes but one - the proletariat - will necessitate the complete removal of the State. Hence, it will "whither away."

So what does this all mean? Well, basically, true Communism cannot exist with a State, and it certainly, certainly cannot exist with the kind of small group of bureaucrats running the show as the Soviet Union did. By State Capitalism, we refer to a system where the State owns all productive forces - not the working class - yet the economy functions in a Capitalist way - because it retains wage labor and creates surplus value. Some have tried to refer the ownership of industries by the State as a Socialist concept; I will seek to, in the next paragraph, address why this is false, especially if we're concerning ourselves with the Socialism of antiquity, not of the later perversions of it.

Now whether or not we want to call that Socialist or not is another question, which I will address now. Socialism in its earliest conception - and we're going way back, before Marx even, to the writings of Fourier, Owen, and even Godwin - has had nothing to even do with the State. The primary purpose of it was to secure the ownership of the means of production into the hands of the working class, or the people directly. Even Marx - who has been misread and misinterpreted so many ways to legitimize State Socialism - knew that the working class must own the productive forces directly; this is a feature of both Socialism and Communism. The State exists under Socialism only to secure political - not economic - gains for the working class. The working class, the people directly, own the productive forces under both Socialism and Communism.

So theoretically, no, the State does not own "everything for the good of the people" under Socialism. You were right with your first answer: "the citizenry."

carmen510 wrote:

3. What's your understanding of Capitalism?
It is the economic system where ownership and the means of gathering wealth is private. This is slightly better than Communism in my opinion, for several reasons. Communism doesn't always encourage efficient and new methods/technologies for production or domestic uses. Capitalism does, as competition for money forces capitalists to be more creative. Also, while it does leave some people behind, it also elevates many in society. Communism usually takes wealth from the hard-working to give to the poor, which would be good if people were actually willing to do work for the good of the country. I believe that free trade should be implemented as well, because it elevates the world economy as a whole. (I will expand upon that later) Capitalism does have its pitfalls, see 2008-2009 economic recession.

I won't address too much with this. However, I'll raise a few points.

I think the notion that technology would not improve under Communism isn't fair. If Communism is understood to revolutionize the workplace in many different ways, the advancement in technological research would have to be, I should think, an integral part of this. But this is kind of a moot point, in my opinion. I just tend to think that people are genuinely good, and will want to improve their living conditions for more reasons than just to make a profit.

Again, though, I think you're conflating "Communism" with Soviet and Sino models of - and I'm really cringing at the thought that I'm going to say this - "Socialism." Under Communism, there won't be wages. Therefore, there will be no wages to steal.

But you and I do agree that theft in this way is not a good thing.

Nothing else is too disagreeable with this part.

carmen510 wrote:

4. What's your understanding of Fascism?
It is a system of government similar to Communism in the fact that the government usually controls the means of production. However, it is very different in the fact that it usually allows right to ownership, it advocates a one-party system, and is authoritarian. This may actually become a good government, if there was a benevolent leader who could use his power for good. Sadly, I cannot recall a case where this was true.

Fascists were Corporatists; Mussolini himself admitted to this. The State did not own a thing, economically speaking. It had private ownership out the ass.

Again, I think you're confusing Communism with the Soviet Union, China, and others. This is an unfortate misconception that many, many make.

As a minor side, I should mention two things:

A.) I didn't read ZK's wall o' text yet, so I may have said similar stuff as he did - he and I tend to agree on quite a lot.

B.) I don't know why you got flack for supporting the right to guns. I don't own any, but I think everyone - literally, everyone - should. When your government gets out of hand, it needs to know that its citizenry is able and willing to resist it.

That's all I've got for now.

WeiWuWei wrote:

God dammit, ZK beat me to the mega post.

I'd say you pretty much complemented mine , which was perhaps, quite focused on semantics.

WWW wrote:

I think people do inherently know what's in their best interest. But propaganda is a very real - and to the busy lunatics who rule over us, necessary - component of democracy; people can be convinced that a thing that is against their interest truly is, and vice versa.

And this would probably get us to a whole philosphic debate on democracy.

If I contend that democracy is the power of the people thus everyone having equal power (defacto anarchy) then I'd also contend that minsinformed and ignorant persons automatically lose or don't have power.

Also, we fall into the "expertise and knowledge as means to get authority" thing. For example, as I said somewhere else in State University I think, a doctor has authority over you in regards to your health and overall physical integrity considering you may lack the knowledges about these matters that he has. You determine that you have the need to get well, but he determines the way to achieve that goal of yours. The same happens with nearly everything: construction, machinery, agronomy, etc.

Point made.

WuWuWu wrote:

The State exists under Socialism only to secure political - not economic - gains for the working class. The working class, the people directly, own the productive forces under both Socialism and Communism.

If the state exists it determines and enforces the policies so the state ultimately determines to what ends will the means of production be used. For state to work under socialism it would have to unavoidably serve the interest of the workers, that is, merely as a mechanism entirely subject to the workers. But if the state is a means of coercion and it has no power over the workers... then what's it's purpose whatsoever?

WWW wrote:

So theoretically, no, the State does not own "everything for the good of the people" under Socialism. You were right with your first answer: "the citizenry."

I wouldn't say "theoretically". If in practice the state owns the means of production then it is not socialism both theoretically and pragmatically.

TrippleW wrote:

I think the notion that technology would not improve under Communism isn't fair.

Not only it is not fair, it's absolutely ludicrous (sorry for the tone but It definitely makes no sense). To claim technology wouldn't advance just because there's no competition for survival or profit is absolutely absurd and requires to completely disregard the process by and the reasons for which technology is developed in the first place. And I'd even contend it also requires to disregard the character of scientists and innovators.

Technology is there to ease things, that is, make our labour more efficient by making it less demaning in both strength and time, to allow for a greater output and/r to overall suffice a need impossible to suffice without it.

Taking into account that we naturally search to suffice our needs in an ever more efficent way, within a communist framework this development would happen at even faster rates. Considering that people do not count with the material limitations of capitalism, knowledge would be distributed far more efficiently allowing for enhanced cognoscitive capabilities; since the objective is to suffice needs as opposed to creating "cost-efficient goods" for profit along no need for income to keep industries afloat (or the "need to keep them afloat" whatsoever), there would be no reason to diminish quality - it would always be as high as cognoscitive capabilities allowed; since the users would be involved in the productive process, "quality control" would happen directly, naturally and in the most efficient possible way; related to lack of material limitations: since there's no need for investment, bureaucracy, cost-efficience (not to confuse with "resource management", marketing, etc. all it would take would be initiative, knowledge, organization and will all within a totally self-correcting framework, nothing more.

Maximum efficience and quality could (I'd say "would") be democratically achieved.

WWW wrote:

I just tend to think that people are genuinely good, and will want to improve their living conditions for more reasons than just to make a profit.

And even from a merely rational point of view: we want to have the maximum ammount of free time possible (understading "free time" as time that we can individually manage as we please, taht is, without what I'll call "communitary responsabilities" or "responsabilities with the collective" - this taken for granted within a collectivist economic framework). To get this free time, we have to dedicate as few time as possible to what is objectively necesary (work to suffice basic needs) and supposing that we don't actually find it joyous (which many do, specially researchers and innovators) and that is achieved with better technology.



Again, though, I think you're conflating "Communism" with Soviet and Sino models of - and I'm really cringing at the thought that I'm going to say this - "Socialism." Under Communism, there won't be wages. Therefore, there will be no wages to steal.

But you and I do agree that theft in this way is not a good thing.

Nothing else is too disagreeable with this part.

WWW wrote:

As a minor side, I should mention two things:

A.) I didn't read ZK's wall o' text yet, so I may have said similar stuff as he did - he and I tend to agree on quite a lot.

Tru dat brah. I think we complemented each other. As i said, I greatly focused on semantics and their importance, in some things. Proper Communication (Communism-Communication, coincidence? Don't think so!) is essential.

WWW wrote:

B.) I don't know why you got flack for supporting the right to guns. I don't own any, but I think everyone - literally, everyone - should. When your government gets out of hand, it needs to know that its citizenry is able and willing to resist it.

That's all I've got for now.

This unavoidably brought to my mind RedSoviet's (and many persons') notions that people would go on killing sprees if there was no state (or god for that matter) because the only thing preventing them from killing their peers (for fun and excitement, in their words) is fear to punishment...

You really have to suffer from some mental imbalance or a lot of rage to think that. I actually have desired to kill people in some stages of my life and what prevented me from doing it was reasoning that there's no point and no benefit in causing harm to others, I wasn't even afraid to die.

But well, this is discussion for another thread, which I'll open!