Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Member Since 10 Mar 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 08:09 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Problem With Capitalism

Yesterday, 08:09 PM

Wait, so you're saying decisions that affect us all should only be made by self-appointed corporate controllers with no collective oversight, but that's OK because there will be collective oversight to control their decisions?


I am not sure I did comprehend. I cannot react a bit :(


Why is someone reactable and solvable to marketable power of money- it is a comunist who forbids them, yet empowers very them, is trying to rule them!


Leviathan six rules:


-This shared will raise a folk for whom money is an ultimate acquire- (rule number one)

- the marketable money will rule work and share (rule number two)

- The money will gain ultimate power ower any executing power out there (rule number three)

- The money will rule over justice, execution, and will market out any aspect of a living being (rule number four)

- An ultimate apointed authority will fill the ultimate manipulating power of money (rule number five)

- The Leviathan standing over law of supreme manipulation will build ultimate rule and perspective and justice and functional moralty (rule number six)


Welcome to Leviathan.


(You fight against monetary authority by stealing it and redistributing it?) Ha ha  haaaa?

In Topic: The Problem With Capitalism

Yesterday, 07:53 AM

Again, I will review your post slowly then.

Those who are advocating for "small government" are basically advocating that the decision-making for important issues should be moved from public entities that are *somehow*, to some extent at least, accountable to the people, to private entities that are accountable only to their internal processes. How does that make any sense exactly?


I have mentioned legal responsibility for anything those people do, you repeat over and over that they are accountable only to share holders numbers. Those people are subjects to even any regulating responsibility that can be held by any law, initiated by law-giving power.


I don't know how many times can I re-iterate that I'm arguing about both socialism *and* a more open democratic system where people are even more active in participating in decision-making of any kind, as much as this is possible at any given circumstances. Personal property is guaranteed, private property is abolished, the means of productions are socially owned, and the decision-making on how to use said means of production is taken through democratic processes and with the explicit goal of making life better for everybody, and utilize technological advancements with the purpose to arrive to the post-scarcity society that is the topic of this thread.


The money earning subjects are already sharing their cut through taxes, you speak of some naturalies sharing, or distributing entire cut solely to its employees, or what? You refuse to realize, that law-giving power is already in the authority of folk, the result is not too positivily over-whelming either, yet you still even want to create a higher authority whose deeds and moves would be backed by decision-making on how to use said means of production is taken through democratic processes.


If people would want more instant and influencing power over the public funds, I see no problem there. But your numbling about free-of-consequences corporations and corupted byrocrats being replaced by a supper-appointed authority free to "work for people's interest" is what I find as too "experimental", a literate statements full of ... untruth, pardon me, backed-up by your nice view of public fund share, public fund income, which don't need that to exist at all.


Again, people have their law-giving institution, and their police and army that is supposed to force their laws.


You repeat over and over about subjects that are rich and immune to that- and if the reason it's not working idealy is corruption, you offered even more ridiculous solution.

In Topic: The Problem With Capitalism

Yesterday, 05:21 AM

okay, that doesn't work, let's hand over the decision-making to private corporations and their executives, whose only accountability is presenting nice quarterly year reports to the board and stockholders"?


They are still legaly responsible, both sides of a corupting event. At least they won't sleep that good.

In your utopic state-run-everything system, there would be individuals literaly standing over law, untouchable, accounting you have already restricted people from earning money, other totalitary stuff can be set free.


You have appointed folk as the last controlling instance- please....


This greatly contradicts your hopes for, not too powerfull individuals affecting society in wide ranges.

In Topic: Five Favourite Smiths songs?

Yesterday, 05:13 AM

- This Charming Man

- Panic in the Streets of London

- How Soon is Now

- Heaven Knows I am Misearable Now

- Some Girls are Bigger Than Others

In Topic: The Problem With Capitalism

25 September 2016 - 07:06 PM



No one was ever able to observe this photo, seeing & analyzing subjects in it,  without weten-ing of thier eyes as protection that it captured.  The two unprotected man in photo died in weeks.


Another super-good-state-pure-man rules. 


Do not propagate such thoughts Mikeman!