Communists get it wrong

[phinehas]

Fundamentally, communism argues that all labor belongs to the individual laborer; no man can own another man's body, and therefore each man owns his own labor.  In this model all "profit" actually belongs in part to the laborer, not, or not just, those who control the means of production, such as the business or factory owner.  Profit that is not shared with the laborer, therefore, is considered inherently exploitive.

A common ideological thought that isn't correct.

The REASON why the profits of a business are in control by the business owner and NOT those that work FOR the business owner is BECAUSE the Business owner is the one that put up the Capital to start and run the business and assumes all the risks.

The problem with Socialism is that the Planners are the ones that are in control of profits but they are not the ones that put up the Capital to start and run the business and they assume none of the risks...the current and now, multi-generational future tax payers assume all of the risk.  The obvious problem with scenario is that the Planners suck at running any business and the businesses they run are in perpetual bankruptcy.

[vh]

you basically said it fails because planners suck at businesses without any reasoning

[phinehas]

I gave reasoning..."are in perpetual bankruptcy"

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting some people were born yesterday and have zero experience in life and know nothing.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

There is all the evidence anyone needs to show that Governments can not run a business...they can't run themselves, even with adequate resources.

[vh]

that's ad hominem

also one example of a capitalist government doesn't show that "governments can not run a business"

also you "perpetual bankrupty" argument is kind of circular reasoning. they suck at running businesses because they're bankrupt? no shit.

[atomic7732]

i like how you used 'profit' in your explanation of communism gg try again

[phinehas]

that's ad hominem

also one example of a capitalist government doesn't show that "governments can not run a business"

also you "perpetual bankrupty" argument is kind of circular reasoning. they suck at running businesses because they're bankrupt? no shit.

It looks like Ad Hominem but there is more evidence it's the truth than otherwise.

I didn't give one example, the other tab has a world clock and I bet if you look around you will see all governments that have followed the Socialist path are in huge, inescapable debt.

It's not circular reasoning...it's cause and effect.  Not high brow at all.  My 8 year old understands it.

[phinehas]

i like how you used 'profit' in your explanation of communism gg try again

gg, you didn't even read the quote try again

[vh]

"It's not circular reasoning...it's cause and effect.  Not high brow at all.  My 8 year old understands it."

no i assure you it is circular reasoning. you say the governments are bad at business, and then tell me they're bad at business because they're bankrupt. that's pretty circular.

"It looks like Ad Hominem but there is more evidence it's the truth than otherwise."
uh no. you could try telling this argument to someone who is mentally retarded, then tell them they're retarded when they don't understand. it may be true, but it's still ad hominem because it's unrelated to the topic.

"I didn't give one example, the other tab has a world clock and I bet if you look around you will see all governments that have followed the Socialist path are in huge, inescapable debt."
you said you didn't give one example yet you can only mention the debt clock you linked me. some evidence.

[phinehas]

no i assure you it is circular reasoning. you say the governments are bad at business, and then tell me they're bad at business because they're bankrupt. that's pretty circular.

I don't think you understand circular reasoning.  Is it circular reasoning for me to say, "You do poorly in school...why?  because you have failed every class.".  It's not.   The fact that you fail every class is evidence that you do poorly in school.  It's objective evidence.  Sheesh. 

"uh no. you could try telling this argument to someone who is mentally retarded, then tell them they're retarded when they don't understand. it may be true, but it's still ad hominem because it's unrelated to the topic."

Ok, you got me there.  Oh, by the way, using the word "retarded" is frowned upon on this forum.  Oh, I forgot, you all have a free pass on that stuff, it's just me that get's called out by Dan.  My bad.  Carry on, talk about midgets and such.

you said you didn't give one example yet you can only mention the debt clock you linked me. some evidence.

Uh, yeah..again...there is a tab on the website that shows other countries...so it's just not one example. 

[vh]

I don't think you understand circular reasoning.  Is it circular reasoning for me to say, "You do poorly in school...why?  because you have failed every class.".  It's not.   The fact that you fail every class is evidence that you do poorly in school.  It's objective evidence.  Sheesh. 

except here you have evidence but back there you made a claim without evidence.

Ok, you got me there.  Oh, by the way, using the word "retarded" is frowned upon on this forum.  Oh, I forgot, you all have a free pass on that stuff, it's just me that get's called out by Dan.  My bad.  Carry on, talk about midgets and such.

it's frowned upon if you use it as an insult, not if you use it to properly convey an idea. midget.

Uh, yeah..again...there is a tab on the website that shows other countries...so it's just not one example. 

i might as well link you to a database of historic economic data and claim that capitalism fails.

[phinehas]

except here you have evidence but back there you made a claim without evidence.

I made a claim without evidence?  Do you need upfront evidence provided to you for every claim made?  If I said the sky is generally blue on a summer day, do I need to show you a photo?  So, when I conveyed that the planners of governments would suck at running the businesses they would liberate from the private sector via Socialism BECAUSE they have shown to be in perpetual bankruptcy with what they are running...you are not aware of National debt?  You have no knowledge of most countries huge debt?  It's not common knowledge to you?  You need evidence to believe this is the case because you are simply ignorant of this fact around the world?  Really?  Ok, just assume I won't give that to YOU in the future because I don't want to have to work so hard for you to gain basic knowledge.

it's frowned upon if you use it as an insult, not if you use it to properly convey an idea. midget.

LOL, ok, then let's see if your midget insult get's any negative response from Dan.  I bet you it doesn't.

i might as well link you to a database of historic economic data and claim that capitalism fails.

Certainly link me to an economic clock showing the debt going down and I would have to re-evaluate my opinion.  Until then...128 trillion and climbing is the factual reality you can't simply ignore.

[vh]

I made a claim without evidence?  Do you need upfront evidence provided to you for every claim made?  If I said the sky is generally blue on a summer day, do I need to show you a photo?  So, when I conveyed that the planners of governments would suck at running the businesses they would liberate from the private sector via Socialism BECAUSE they have shown to be in perpetual bankruptcy with what they are running...you are not aware of National debt?  You have no knowledge of most countries huge debt?  It's not common knowledge to you?  You need evidence to believe this is the case because you are simply ignorant of this fact around the world?  Really?  Ok, just assume I won't give that to YOU in the future because I don't want to have to work so hard for you to gain basic knowledge.

you don't need evidence for the claim that the sky is blue NOT because it's obvious but because we agree on it. you need evidence for the claim that socialism fails not because it is, according to you, not common knowledge, but because we don't agree on it.

LOL, ok, then let's see if your midget insult get's any negative response from Dan.  I bet you it doesn't.

that wasn't an insult. that was a sarcastic reply to your accusation that i was talking about "midgets and such"

Certainly link me to an economic clock showing the debt going down and I would have to re-evaluate my opinion.  Until then...128 trillion and climbing is the factual reality you can't simply ignore.

128 trillion and climbing doesn't mean anything by itself. you might as well say 43 cents and falling.

[phinehas]

you don't need evidence for the claim that the sky is blue NOT because it's obvious but because we agree on it

.

No, it is obvious.  It's objective reality.  Numbers don't lie, 128 trillion dollars in Socialism debt can be objectively shown to be a negative.  A consensus is not needed for something to be objectively valid.

that wasn't an insult. that was a sarcastic reply to your accusation that i was talking about "midgets and such"

So, If I then called you a retard right now and then stated it was simply sarcasm it would be ok.  Let's see if that excuse will work for me.

128 trillion and climbing doesn't mean anything by itself. you might as well say 43 cents and falling.

I didn't simply start a thread with the words, "128 trillion and climbing".  I actually put context to it and showed what the 128 trillion dollars was and the implications of it climbing should be easily understood by anybody that can type on a computer to gain access to the "interwebs".

[vh]

No, it is obvious.  It's objective reality.  Numbers don't lie, 128 trillion dollars in Socialism debt can be objectively shown to be a negative.  A consensus is not needed for something to be objectively valid.

you say it's a negative, but you don't show that the negative outweighs the positive. i can show many negatives of capitalism too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fracking-pollution/

So, If I then called you a retard right now and then stated it was simply sarcasm it would be ok.  Let's see if that excuse will work for me.

no it wouldn't be ok because it wouldn't truly be sarcasm.

I didn't simply start a thread with the words, "128 trillion and climbing".  I actually put context to it and showed what the 128 trillion dollars was and the implications of it climbing should be easily understood by anybody that can type on a computer to gain access to the "interwebs".

do you have any evidence to suggest that " the implications of it climbing should be easily understood by anybody that can type on a computer to gain access to the "interwebs""?

[phinehas]

you say it's a negative, but you don't show that the negative outweighs the positive. i can show many negatives of capitalism too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/fracking-pollution/

Show me the positives of Fraking in relation to the negatives then.  Did you do that?

no it wouldn't be ok because it wouldn't truly be sarcasm.

So you can read minds now.  If I say something sarcastically, how do you prove it wasn't.  Good luck with that.

do you have any evidence to suggest that " the implications of it climbing should be easily understood by anybody that can type on a computer to gain access to the "interwebs""?

Again, you are suggesting that I have to give you evidence that debt is a negative and income is a positive.  Do I really...really need to prove that to you because you don't actually know that to be true or do you simply want to waste my time explaining and giving evidence to something you already accept as truth.  If the former, you need to spend less time on this forum and read, if the latter, you won't get me to waste my time.  I will post what I want in the effort I want to give for my own purposes.

[vh]

Show me the positives of Fraking in relation to the negatives then.  Did you do that?

no, because i was demonstrating how showing the negatives without positives is ineffectual.

So you can read minds now.  If I say something sarcastically, how do you prove it wasn't.  Good luck with that.

i prove it because you told me you were going to say it 'sarcastically'. which you aren't, because you already told me how you were going to say it. you are going to say it as an experiment.

Again, you are suggesting that I have to give you evidence that debt is a negative and income is a positive.  Do I really...really need to prove that to you because you don't actually know that to be true or do you simply want to waste my time explaining and giving evidence to something you already accept as truth.  If the former, you need to spend less time on this forum and read, if the latter, you won't get me to waste my time.  I will post what I want in the effort I want to give for my own purposes.

no. i'm asking for evidence that "the implications of it climbing should be easily understood by anybody that can type on a computer to gain access to the "interwebs"" i'm not asking for evidence that "debt is a negative and income is a positive"
by the way, you switched from "climbing [debt]" to "debt", which makes no sense.

you say

Numbers don't lie

, but neither do they prove anything.

[Darvince]

Numbers don't lie, as they are not sentient, but their presentation can be extremely misleading. I could make a site called "worlddebt.org" and make all of the numbers falling, and present it to you as evidence, making sure to have whatever countries you erroneously claim are socialist to have the fastest falling numbers, and possibly some zeros.

[Xriqxa]

Ah, Phinehas! Not again!

[tuto99]

You know, phinehas, you can just make one topic.