Why do black people tend to be Marxist?

[misterlc]

Procuring nourishment necessary for base survival can be considered "stealing" (A fox/peasant stealing hens for example). Putting forth the effort to capture another human, breaking their will so that they will execute yours under the threat of death, and placing that person in bondage indefinitely can not be considered "necessary for the base survival" of a human. How could you not be aware of this difference without explanation. Stealing items not necessary for "base survival" is just as wrong as slavery, not more or less.

In reality "expense" is equal to "labor" and almost all humans live at the expense of other humans similar to lions living at the expense of other lions. You are an intelligent person so you must be aware of this. You didn't build your home, other humans did. You didn't make your shoes other humans did. You didn't build your car or retrieve the fuel it runs on, others did. You didn't build the schools that you learned from others expended their energies to design them. You use the electricity that others provide for you and you drink the water that others make available for you.

To state that nobody has the right to live at the expense of others is borderline denial if not just outright denial.

To give you the credit that you deserve, you do expend your energies so that others can benefit from them as well and play a positive part in the system of humans living at the expense of others.

Perhaps you mean to state that nobody has the right to cheat people out of getting what they deserve in return for their expense, and if that is what you mean then I couldn't agree more. As far as blacks being Marxists I can't rightly say whether that is true or not because when I went to research "Marxism" it was described as varying in its theories and not being definitive. With that being the case whether someone is "Marxist" or not is based on individual opinion. It's like asking why a high percentage of a particular race is ugly or stupid. The very question suggests a strong prejudice. Prejudice that is neither good or bad but opinionated. It is my opinion that the majority of blacks are involved in a self destructive cycle and for whatever reason that they are in it, they will ultimately have to depend on themselves in order to improve their circumstances.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Procuring nourishment necessary for base survival can be considered "stealing" (A fox/peasant stealing hens for example). Putting forth the effort to capture another human, breaking their will so that they will execute yours under the threat of death, and placing that person in bondage indefinitely can not be considered "necessary for the base survival" of a human. How could you not be aware of this difference without explanation. Stealing items not necessary for "base survival" is just as wrong as slavery, not more or less.

That's hunting and killing and no humans don't hunt and kill each other in a civilized society so that analogy is irrelevant. Animals are not civilized. Why the needy can steal why the strong can't is beyond me.

I don't get why black people are so ignorant when it comes to this. Do you think the only way that one person can enslave another person is if they physically lock them up? Slavery existed all around the world and most of it was not of the type you're thinking of.

When you vote to steal from someone, you're enslaving them. They're forced to comply at gunpoint or go to jail where they're *completely* locked up against their will. If they resist they die. That argument is just completely wrong that it's not slavery.  Slavery doesn't have to be permanent or even by chains.  You own their labor, you own that person and you control what they do.

If you're stealing you're taking ownership of what someone else produced against their will, just like slavery. It doesn't matter whether you have chains or if the person "needs" it or not. How do you get to decide what another person steals?  Because you say so?

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

In reality "expense" is equal to "labor" and almost all humans live at the expense of other humans similar to lions living at the expense of other lions. You are an intelligent person so you must be aware of this. You didn't build your home, other humans did. You didn't make your shoes other humans did. You didn't build your car or retrieve the fuel it runs on, others did. You didn't build the schools that you learned from others expended their energies to design them. You use the electricity that others provide for you and you drink the water that others make available for you.

No. Labor is time and effort, and capital is supplies. I didn't live at the expense of anybody because I didn't force them to do anything. I provided them with something of value that they valued more than their labor/money which is why they paid for it voluntarily. They didn't have to buy it. They chose to. That's entirely different than a person just stealing and producing nothing. I don't know why you can't seem to understand this. Are you so Marxist that you can't understand the difference between producing and consuming?

If I offer a service and get some food, that's different than stealing because we've both enriched each others lives. The thief is living off of the expense of the other.

Where do you socialists think all of the things we value came from? Do you guys just think they magically fell from the sky? Why don't animals have any wealth? It's because they don't produce anything, they only consume. You simply can't consume and steal your way into prosperity as a nation; it's impossible. If you steal you're just taking what someone else produced so they stilll had to produce it. You're a Marxist who believes in zero sum game. If it's all a zero sum game, where did all of the things we value come from?

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

To state that nobody has the right to live at the expense of others is borderline denial if not just outright denial.

To give you the credit that you deserve, you do expend your energies so that others can benefit from them as well and play a positive part in the system of humans living at the expense of others.

No, to state that nobody has the right to steal from others in a free society is the truth.

To claim that a voluntary trade is equivalent to stealing from another person and living off of the expense of them is just Marxist insanity that's even more crazy than the usual religious nonsense. Marxism is truly a dogmatic religion.

Do you think the entrepreneur is the same as the person living on welfare? Really?

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Perhaps you mean to state that nobody has the right to cheat people out of getting what they deserve in return for their expense, and if that is what you mean then I couldn't agree more. As far as blacks being Marxists I can't rightly say whether that is true or not because when I went to research "Marxism" it was described as varying in its theories and not being definitive. With that being the case whether someone is "Marxist" or not is based on individual opinion. It's like asking why a high percentage of a particular race is ugly or stupid. The very question suggests a strong prejudice. Prejudice that is neither good or bad but opinionated. It is my opinion that the majority of blacks are involved in a self destructive cycle and for whatever reason that they are in it, they will ultimately have to depend on themselves in order to improve their circumstances.

No, cheating is fraud. You're a Marxist. If I put a gun to someone's head and steal their stuff, I didn't defraud them. I'm completely honest with my intent but the intent is wrong.

In a free society I have a right to sell my labor and my skills for what I want. I can use my capital for what I want.

In a Marxist society they collective/government owns it and they do with it what they will, like a slave owner. Take a look at the failure of Greece. People thought that everyone owed them something but there was no more money to steal and they went broke.

You clearly agree with Obama and the tenets of Marxism. I have no idea why you call yourself a capitalist. Many people say they are because they don't want to admit they're socialist because of the implications of the failure and the destruction it's caused, but you're a socialist. You don't believe in private property and you believe people have a right to take it and that people don't own their labor. You believe people who succeed get by at the expense of others.

thedinnertableblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/the-free-market-always-wins-why-socialism-can-never-succeed/




Blacks being Marxist is not prejudice. It's based on fact. Black people are generally Marxist, vote Marxist and hold Marxist beliefs. How can they improve themselves when they depend on others to carry them?  They can't because it doesn't work.

[misterlc]

Who said anything about humans hunting and killing each other?
Bondage is what I refer to when I speak of slavery, not a figurative form of enslavement that is subject to opinion.
Expenditure as defined by Merriam-Webster: an amount of time, energy, effort, etc., that is used to do something. Expense is defined as an act or instance of expenditure. Based on these definitions time and effort are considered an expense, and the expense that is necessary to procure capital, the reward for some expenditures.

Marxism as you define it is something that seems to be the way of the world. A ruling class (they) control the world and the peasant class (everyone else) has to accept what the ruling class dishes out. I don't like that idea any more than you do but it does seem to be the way of the entire planet since recorded history began. I wish that more people had your work ethic and drive to succeed because things would truly be better if they did, but the truth is they do not. That is why I wish more people like you where teachers to the youth but that is not my decision to make. People do start off as takers but I do believe that at some point they are supposed to become producers. The question is, Who will teach them to aim at production? Surely you don't think that the ruling class want to instruct consumers to become producers! And the peasant class is mired in poverty and ignorance. That's the reason that I encourage people like you to go above and beyond the call of duty when helping others. Myself I feel personally obligated to pass on a message of self reliance to young people who are inspired by my personal successes. Many more will instruct them that they should follow instead of lead. Perhaps if we try we can change the Marxism that plagues the world. And without dumping all the disabled dependents into the nearest volcano.

At the end of the day your whole response seems to be based off of you incorrectly reading the first few sentences of my last post, your own personal ignorance about the definitions of expense and expenditure, and your determination to label me what you will despite the fact that we agree more than we disagree. I don't think that people should get benefits that they don't deserve and I believe that carrying people too far is destructive to them. We all start off as dependent on others however and I do believe that it's good to carry children for a while and then let them stand on there own two feet.

Where did you get the idea that "a fox stealing a hen" is an equal/analogy to "humans performing cannibalism"?
To clarify I was referring to a human that hunts and kills a HEN for base survival is equal to the FOX that kills a HEN for base survival. The idea that all humans have an extremely civilized environment is not true and some people are faced with base self preservation challenges.

[JACK-2]

So, you believe humans are no different than animals? Therefore our way of life isn't inheritly superior to theirs. So, if I assaulted you like a chimpanzee would. I guess it's okay since that's just how they live?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Misterlc. I'm sorry man but you really need to do your research on these topics. I'm trying to not get annoyed but when you blatantly espouse false stuff with no knowledge on the matter and then call me ignorant it's really annoying.

Maybe I should use smilies more. I mean the ideology annoys me to no end, but it's not personal. I think people read words on a screen and take it differently.

Aug 3, 2015 17:10:12 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Who said anything about humans hunting and killing each other?
Bondage is what I refer to when I speak of slavery, not a figurative form of enslavement that is subject to opinion.
Expenditure as defined by Merriam-Webster: an amount of time, energy, effort, etc., that is used to do something. Expense is defined as an act or instance of expenditure. Based on these definitions time and effort are considered an expense, and the expense that is necessary to procure capital, the reward for some expenditures.

Don't do this. Don't try to play semantics. Doing something "at the expense" of someone means you did it at their loss. You didn't really provide anything equal in return. If I provide a service "at my expense" I'm losing money on it. If I were compensated for it, then I made a profit. Big difference.



No your analogy makes no sense. You're comparing animals eating and killing each other to survive as an excuse for people to steal. Humans don't kill and eat each other therefore it doesn't make sense. They produce things to enhance their lives, this is why animals don't have wealth and humans do.

Everything takes effort. Getting up and going to the bathroom takes effort. How does that make trading services the same as slavery? How does that make consumption and production the same exact thing? Your entire argument makes no sense. Stealing takes effort, and by the way the people who are locked in the dungeon are the workers who are forced to slave away at gunpoint for people who don't want to move.  Not the lazy. Stealing is work, but it's not productive work, which is why we don't want it in a civilized country.

Hunting and feeding yourself requires effort. You can trade your food for something else and you both get something of value improving the lives of both. Why can't you see the difference between producing and stealing? Why can't you see that stealing and slavery are really the same thing? You conveniently skipped my questions and just went on.

This is all nonsense. The socialists love to go around saying that "you didn't build that" and all of this other stuff when it comes to producing, but not consuming.

If I talk on the phone does someone say "You didn't talk on the phone because you didn't build it directly." No, because it's a dumb argument.

If someone ate food does someone say "You didn't eat that because you didn't make it." I ate it whether I grew and prepared it or not. Same with running a business. People gain wealth by producing and satisfying demand. It didn't come out of the sky because we were all sitting around waiting for free stuff.

This is just a way for losers to take away the accomplishments of those who did something. I built it, I took the risk, I earned it, and I deserve the reward. Not some loser.

If two people lived on different islands and one worked and the other sat around, who would be better off? The person who worked or sat around? A large society works like a small society it's just more of it. You can steal for a while but the ship sinks.

What if one person worked and the other person sat down on the same island? Would the guy working be better off? You just hurt his economy by forcing him to feed the other slug. Once too many people ride on the wagon and nobody is left pulling it, society collapses.

Aug 3, 2015 17:10:12 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Marxism as you define it is something that seems to be the way of the world. A ruling class (they) control the world and the peasant class (everyone else) has to accept what the ruling class dishes out. I don't like that idea any more than you do but it does seem to be the way of the entire planet since recorded history began. I wish that more people had your work ethic and drive to succeed because things would truly be better if they did, but the truth is they do not. That is why I wish more people like you where teachers to the youth but that is not my decision to make. People do start off as takers but I do believe that at some point they are supposed to become producers. The question is, Who will teach them to aim at production? Surely you don't think that the ruling class want to instruct consumers to become producers! And the peasant class is mired in poverty and ignorance. That's the reason that I encourage people like you to go above and beyond the call of duty when helping others. Myself I feel personally obligated to pass on a message of self reliance to young people who are inspired by my personal successes. Many more will instruct them that they should follow instead of lead. Perhaps if we try we can change the Marxism that plagues the world. And without dumping all the disabled dependents into the nearest volcano.

This is irrelevant. All of it. There will always be people in charge. Collectivist Marxism and socialism relies on the theft and the taking of property vs producing. The difference is night and day and I'm tired of having to repeat the difference. Did you even read the article I posted?

There will always be people in charge and the question is, would you rather people be at the top because they produced something of value to make your life easier, or because they used force and government to do it? One leads to freedom and a better standard of living and the other leads to poverty and misery. Look at what our country was and what it has become. We had tremendous wealth and now we have poverty. Our system was about protecting our individual freedom to pursue life the way we wanted and this lead to great wealth. That's what the government was for. Then socialism reared it's ugly head and the losers decided they wanted to steal because they resented people having more than they did and the people got in power by providing the ignorant and lazy a way to vote for it. This is why democracy was forbidden. You get to a point where you just can't fix stupid and no matter what you tell people they still feel entitled to steal. We just need to ban it and move on.

People can learn by producing by getting their assess off of free handouts. In a free society we had so much wealth we could easily take care of others in need through charity, now people just abuse the system. Nobody said anything about throwing anybody off of a volcano. I said you can't enslave others to give you stuff. People like you talk about caring in one word and stealing in another. Marxists are the biggest thieves in history and it's cost the death of over 100 million.  Look at Russia.

Personally I'd rather leave and let the morons rot and get what they deserve for stealing.. It'll take generations to wipe out this sense of entitlement. If you *really* want to help others, go make lots of wealth and donate it or better yet hire people. Sitting around telling other people they have other obligations and losers they have the right to steal isn't really doing anything productive.

Aug 3, 2015 17:10:12 GMT -5 misterlc said:

At the end of the day your whole response seems to be based off of you incorrectly reading the first few sentences of my last post, your own personal ignorance about the definitions of expense and expenditure, and your determination to label me what you will despite the fact that we agree more than we disagree. I don't think that people should get benefits that they don't deserve and I believe that carrying people too far is destructive to them. We all start off as dependent on others however and I do believe that it's good to carry children for a while and then let them stand on there own two feet.

No, it's not my own personal ignorance. Your analogy was wrong and made no sense and it's flawed. If you believe that stealing and producing is the same thing you're an outright communist. I know the definitions of the word but you have very little economic knowledge and to tell me I'm wrong about something when you're far off base is becoming irritating.

We don't agree at all. I don't agree in theft, I don't agree that I didn't build something. I also don't think people have a right to steal from others. You do. It's not Capitalism.

People voluntarily choose to have children. That's their responsibility, not mine. I have no obligation to something I didn't create.

I called you a Marxist because you keep trying to take away the credit from the producer by saying he didn't really produce it so that others have a right to steal it. No true capitalist believes in theft. You're a Marxist. I don't care what you say. You seem to have issues with people who have success and you need to get rid of that mindset if you want success.  Learn from others who have accomplished instead of trying to take the credit away from it or take the accomplishment yourself.

Aug 3, 2015 17:10:12 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Where did you get the idea that "a fox stealing a hen" is an equal/analogy to "humans performing cannibalism"?
To clarify I was referring to a human that hunts and kills a HEN for base survival is equal to the FOX that kills a HEN for base survival. The idea that all humans have an extremely civilized environment is not true and some people are faced with base self preservation challenges.

No, you mentioned stealing from a hen or eating them. That's not what happens in a civilized society. We are not in an anarchy or some communist hellhole so it's irrelevant. Marxist just want the losers to steal. If a powerful man stole things it would be wrong.  Tyranny is tyranny whether it's from one man or a group.

The best way to feed people is in a free system where people produce things. Animals don't produce anything at all, they only eat, sleep, and shit.  Kind of like losers.  That's why they have no wealth.

[misterlc]

You're not even having a discussion with me, just a fake version of me that you're making up to suit your arguments.
You say don't play semantics when what you mean is don't define words because the definitions don't suit you.

Everything requires an expenditure so you are deluded if you think that you don't receive benefits at the expense of others. Whether they are fairly compensated for their expense is a different matter than will an expense be made. Time is our ultimate expense because we cannot earn more through effort or capital. It is an expense that many people sacrifice for you and I to live the lifestyles that we do. The sad thing is that you want to belittle their expense and glorify yours. Their time is just as valuable as yours but you dismiss their expense and believe that others shouldn't dismiss yours. Hypocrisy.
The figure of speech "at my expense" is exactly that, a figure of speech. Since when are these taken literally? When they support an argument that basic definitions should be ignored so that you can be right?

If you know the definitions of a word and purposely ignore them how does that relate to your economic experience? I'll confess that my economic experience is limited, but I can tell that playing word games is a strategy that businessmen will employ regularly to benefit themselves. If my pointing out that it is not straightforward but rather misleading is irritating then my apologies but I stand by my assessment.

You didn't talk on the phone because you didn't build it directly? That's ridiculous and your personal invention because I never implied such a thing.
YOU didn't BUILD the PHONE! Not giving credit where it is due is a problem among humans that I don't understand. I'm not saying that you don't build something, I'm just clarifying that you don't build everything. Almost all humans benefit directly from the expense of other humans. The farmer expends his time and effort in the field planting seeds and harvesting produce. The factory workers expend their energies building the trucks that transport the food. The driver expends his time and effort transporting the food safely. The warehouse worker expends their efforts to store the food and to place onto more trucks that the factory workers took time to build. The drivers once again are needed to expend their time to deliver the food to the store where all the workers at the grocery store expend their energy to present it for sale. Finally you take the compensation you received for your expenditures and purchase something. How arrogant does a person have to be to dismiss every expenditure that all the other people made and claim "I provided the food by myself."? Staggeringly arrogant in my opinion and deluded to boot.

Call me a Marxist but that's simply not the case. I'm a realist that appreciates other people. You seem to me to be a pessimist that blames the worlds ills on other people. I like the idea of people willingly helping each other but you make it seem as if peoples' only purpose should be to benefit you or to fit your ideals of how they should behave, no matter what their situation. In actuality the disdain that you produce for people who are inherently equal to you is destructive and takes away from the potential you have to produce. Complain about the people of the world and then profess to have no obligation to help make things better. You're not obligated to complain either but that's a lot easier than assisting people in improving their situations so the laziness that you say is so negative is something that you yourself are guilty of. Since when has name calling been a useful strategy for improving ones community? The opinions that you place on people can be thrown right back at you so whats the point in destructive criticism?

You're stuck on the false notion that I approve of stealing because I used the analogy of a fox eating a hen to survive as being similar to a human eating a hen to survive. You didn't know that humans were animals that kill other animals and eat them to survive just like other predators do? Then you suggest that I should do research! If humans could sustain themselves on grass then I would not say that procuring food in the same way of a fox is no more of a crime for a human than a fox. A fox and a human are both animals that kill other animals for food/survival. Key word SURVIVAL. What is required for survival is not subjective and the notion that it is is absurd. Only a villain would call consider a man procuring food for survival a detestable act but the reality is that villains do exist. Heroes do as well. That's what I believe in. Heroism.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You're not even having a discussion with me, just a fake version of me that you're making up to suit your arguments.
You say don't play semantics when what you mean is don't define words because the definitions don't suit you.

No. You said we live at the expense of others. Living at the expense of others means you are living at the loss of someone. Like a loser on welfare living off of me. Producing something that someone voluntarily paid for means you are living at a profit and you're getting more benefit than you expended otherwise you wouldn't do it voluntarily. It's a big difference and you never answer any of my questions. You just go on and on about your feelings and other stuff that don't matter. How does stealing make a society more productive? And you're also Marxist like most black people.

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Everything requires an expenditure so you are deluded if you think that you don't receive benefits at the expense of others. Whether they are fairly compensated for their expense is a different matter than will an expense be made. Time is our ultimate expense because we cannot earn more through effort or capital. It is an expense that many people sacrifice for you and I to live the lifestyles that we do. The sad thing is that you want to belittle their expense and glorify yours. Their time is just as valuable as yours but you dismiss their expense and believe that others shouldn't dismiss yours. Hypocrisy.
The figure of speech "at my expense" is exactly that, a figure of speech. Since when are these taken literally? When they support an argument that basic definitions should be ignored so that you can be right?

Blah blah blah. Stealing requires an expense and so does breathing. A person voluntarily makes their own expense in a free system which improves their own lives. People don't "sacrifice", it's not a one sided ordeal, they trade their skills so they can further their own lives. These people don't know me in 99% of the cases and don't care. If I didn't have something of value to offer they wouldn't do it. Unless you know of a way where people can get things out of thin air.

Also that is a lie, people live a lot longer and have a lot more freedom in a free society than a communist or tribal one. Would you like to live to 22 or 23 fending for your life from dying early every day? You have the time to sit here online and spout Marxist ideology so you must benefit from it.  People have MORE time and MORE freedom in a free society and that's a fact. Their time is *not* equal. The time of a brain surgeon is much more valuable than that of a burger flipper or a murderer because he's doing something that's in higher demand that takes more skill. Any moron can flip burgers. You don't understand the basics of economics so why you embarrass yourself by arguing this is beyond me. Are you a communist who thinks everybody deserves the same pay? I like when people get out and work and I pay and tip well. I have a problem with people sitting on their asses acting like they deserve free stuff.

Who in the hell dismissed anything? I said that a free market means that people have a better standard of living. Everyone does what's in their own self interest but stealing leads to a negative result and producing leads to a positive one. Are you so dense you don't understand the difference? Not everybody's time has the same value because not everyone is equally productive. Hence the difference in pay.  Unless you think the guy who invented the phone has the same value as some welfare loser or thief.

Don't try to be purposefully ambiguous so you can switch the meanings of words later. You can say anything is an "investment" in the general sense, but there's a difference between that and actual investing.

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

If you know the definitions of a word and purposely ignore them how does that relate to your economic experience? I'll confess that my economic experience is limited, but I can tell that playing word games is a strategy that businessmen will employ regularly to benefit themselves. If my pointing out that it is not straightforward but rather misleading is irritating then my apologies but I stand by my assessment.

Politicians play word games to get votes from the stupid and lazy.

And people trying to take away the accomplishments of others is something losers do. You said "at the expense". Which is different than something taking an expense of energy. Voting for welfare takes energy. So what? It's not productive for society so it's irrelevant. An assessment based on ignorance and feelings is a waste of time. Educate yourself and you would give a better assessment.

There's clearly a difference and acting like stealing and producing is the same thing is just bullshit.

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You didn't talk on the phone because you didn't build it directly? That's ridiculous and your personal invention because I never implied such a thing.
YOU didn't BUILD the PHONE! Not giving credit where it is due is a problem among humans that I don't understand. I'm not saying that you don't build something, I'm just clarifying that you don't build everything. Almost all humans benefit directly from the expense of other humans. The farmer expends his time and effort in the field planting seeds and harvesting produce. The factory workers expend their energies building the trucks that transport the food. The driver expends his time and effort transporting the food safely. The warehouse worker expends their efforts to store the food and to place onto more trucks that the factory workers took time to build. The drivers once again are needed to expend their time to deliver the food to the store where all the workers at the grocery store expend their energy to present it for sale. Finally you take the compensation you received for your expenditures and purchase something. How arrogant does a person have to be to dismiss every expenditure that all the other people made and claim "I provided the food by myself."? Staggeringly arrogant in my opinion and deluded to boot.

Nobody said anything about building "everything". You're just burning strawmen. Quit with this Marxist crap of taking away people's accomplishments by saying that people didn't do it or that people can't be individualist because they all voluntarily trade their time. The entrepreneur has to take the initial risk otherwise those jobs would have never been created and you would never have anything. Society gets more benefit from his job creation and products than he gets paid. There's a surplus of value that is created that you're dismissing. Otherwise where does wealth come from? If it was a zero sum game we'd have no wealth, like animals.

Everything you use and touch was built by someone. You keep claiming that it was some collectivist effort when it wasn't. I can run my business on my own or hire people but it's still mine and I built it.  Period.

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Call me a Marxist but that's simply not the case. I'm a realist that appreciates other people. You seem to me to be a pessimist that blames the worlds ills on other people. I like the idea of people willingly helping each other but you make it seem as if peoples' only purpose should be to benefit you or to fit your ideals of how they should behave, no matter what their situation. In actuality the disdain that you produce for people who are inherently equal to you is destructive and takes away from the potential you have to produce. Complain about the people of the world and then profess to have no obligation to help make things better. You're not obligated to complain either but that's a lot easier than assisting people in improving their situations so the laziness that you say is so negative is something that you yourself are guilty of. Since when has name calling been a useful strategy for improving ones community? The opinions that you place on people can be thrown right back at you so whats the point in destructive criticism?

What the hell are you talking about?

1. You are a Marxist because you believe in the collective over the individual and you don't believe in individual freedom. By saying people can steal what they want and blatantly stupid things like ignoring property rights makes you a collectivist. That's *the* definition of collectivism. You're just like 99% of black people and to say you aren't is just a blatant lie. You like all Marxists have no understanding of economics or how money or value is created and think it exists in some fantasy world and some get lucky. You think that some have a right to steal from others so you think people like me exist to serve their own needs. I said people fulfill themselves and make their lives better through voluntary trade. Show me where I said everyone should just serve me. You're just making stuff up. I don't care what people do. If they want to be lazy that's their choice but they shouldn't be able to make me pay for them being irresponsible. You show your "caring" and appreciation by enslaving people at gunpoint, thanks a lot.

2. You are NOT a realist. You have no clue how money works. I'm as pragmatic as it gets. Your arguments are all based on feelings and BS "morals". You say slavery is wrong but stealing is OK not realizing you take away a person's will to do what they want. You completely ignore things like private charity. I care about *reality* not what makes losers feel good about themselves while they steal what I earn. You can't deny supply and demand or gravity just because you don't like it and you can't "feel" it away. All of your arguments you make are based on feelings, "love", idealism, and other things that are irrelevant. The question I'm asking you is how stealing is the same as producing and you won't answer it because you know I'm right and the way you want to deflect it is talk about feelings like all Marxists. You'd be right at home with Obama, Hitler, and the people of Greece.

"I believe in something because it makes me feel good" isn't a valid argument for why it works. Americans and the world are so financially ignorant that we're stuck with a terrible system that doesn't work so people can get free stuff and votes while covering it up with feelings. It's a dumb religious ideology full of class envy and no facts.

3. No, no two people are equal. This is just BS losers use to feel good about themselves. Everyone is different and people have different attributes and skills. Some are taller, some are shorter, some are more attractive, some are smarter, some are wealthier, etc. What gets me is you Marxists love to spout this yet you believe in "equaling things out" by allowing theft in a free society. We all know you clearly can't bring the trash to the top, so you try to bring the top down by stealing from them and limiting them.

Don't give me that BS argument about "Everyone eats, sleeps, and shits, therefore they're all equal". Please animals do the same thing, and insects live and die and nobody sees them as equal. All of the sudden when you become human you're all equal and all winners. Sorry, that may make losers who don't want to do anything feel better but it's not true. Some are born rich and live long and some are born poor and die young, or live with deformities.

It just happens that the poorest tend to be the dumbest and the laziest and the least talented and attractive. This is just the truth. Go to a rich area and a poor area and look at the difference of how people live, look, and take care of themselves, also look at how they spend their time. People don't spend their time equally or make decisions equally. The poor live for the moment and borrow money to buy shit they can't afford and pay interest.  You went out and bought a 3ds when you were struggling instead of investing your money.  Then you complained things were hard.  That's how you fall behind because you're not being productive with your resources and are just consuming them. Instead of furthering yourself by educating yourself or gaining extra skills you had kids and got married before you built your career and accomplished anything. It's not my job to compensate you for your decisions. Take responsibility for your life.

I do believe people should have equal treatment under the law, meaning you can't take away other people's rights. You don't. You believe people have a right to violate the rights of others to keep their own property by stealing it. Which is also hypocrisy.

The wealthy make their money work for them. That's the attitude that brings success and you can grow up poor and reach success like I did. People like you want to take away the truth and act like some people just got lucky when losers will just be losers. Throw a piece of shit in the best meal and the whole meal is rotten. Why on Earth should I work hard and have 50% or more of my wealth stolen why losers sit around and do nothing all day? You're out of your damned mind and that's what Marxists don't understand. Everything has a cost and you remove the incentive for the best and brightest to produce. I'd rather live in a society where I can help and be more productive and people appreciate my efforts instead of telling me I didn't build it and stealing it. I have no special debt to the US and people like you resent that I can leave, just like you resent the success of others like most blacks. The shame is I know many people who talk about "I want to be more successful and have more freedom". Then you dig deep enough they still have that loser/poverty mindset and they never get ahead because they focus on lack and complaining about not getting something for nothing instead of trying to be innovative.

Black people do nothing but complain about how life isn't fair for you and how you deserve more free stuff instead of getting off of your butt and producing, and then you want to tell me I'm complaining? I'm sure I've benefited society much more than you have and I've donated more too. The business owner hires people and creates opportunity and wealth. Your mindset leads to poverty. I have no problem helping those who want to help themselves to succeed. Why would I want to help some loser that doesn't want to assist themselves? You feel good Marxists get a big kick out of talking the talk, but you never walk the walk or do anything. You just pat yourself on the back about your beliefs while not making a difference and taking.

Then you want to place people's obligations at my feet? I'm not going to be a slave for the lazy. It's not my job. Screw you and anybody else who wants to tell me otherwise. I recall you telling me it was my fault losers crank out kids they couldn't afford for their own personal gain. Yea. I'm never going to agree with that stupid logic. This is why I always say hang around successful people if one wants to be successful. That way you're around the right mindset and can bounce ideas off of each other. Hanging around losers just drags you down with their resentment and envy. Can't move forward carrying the dead weight of those who make excuses and don't take responsibility for their own lives. Arguing with the ignorant, the dumb, and the entitled is a waste of time because that time could be spent more productively. You try to educate people but you can't fix stupid. This isn't about "namecalling" it's about telling the truth. Losers don't like the truth so they use feelings to deny it. I'm not trying to buy votes or sell movie tickets so I don't care.

The truth hurts.

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

You're stuck on the false notion that I approve of stealing because I used the analogy of a fox eating a hen to survive as being similar to a human eating a hen to survive. You didn't know that humans were animals that kill other animals and eat them to survive just like other predators do? Then you suggest that I should do research! If humans could sustain themselves on grass then I would not say that procuring food in the same way of a fox is no more of a crime for a human than a fox. A fox and a human are both animals that kill other animals for food/survival. Key word SURVIVAL. What is required for survival is not subjective and the notion that it is is absurd. Only a villain would call consider a man procuring food for survival a detestable act but the reality is that villains do exist. Heroes do as well. That's what I believe in. Heroism.

I know you do because you explicitly said people have a right to steal to get things. The words came out of your mouth.

Humans can live off of plants but that's irrelevant I asked you how that works in a civilized society and you had no answer. Survival of the fittest will always come into play. It's just that a society where people produce will be wealthier and have more than a society where people kill each other. If you're too dense to understand that then this is a waste of time. Animals have no wealth, tribal societies have no wealth. They don't produce anything. Losers and morons have to *try* to survive. The best and brightest thrive. I'm not sure in your insane analogy you draw the line at how much people are allowed to steal, or use force to "survive" in a civilized society, but that argument is stupid. People can get far more food by producing instead of killing and stealing to live day to day but you can't even see the difference.

Heroism is just a subjective feel good term. People do what's in their own self interest. If you're a hero it must be Robin Hood since you believe in stealing. People who are the villains are the politicians the losers who want to steal but you don't want people to take personal responsibility for themselves and you want to lay it at my feet. Not happening.

[JACK-2]

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Call me a Marxist but that's simply not the case. I'm a realist that appreciates other people. You seem to me to be a pessimist that blames the worlds ills on other people. I like the idea of people willingly helping each other but you make it seem as if peoples' only purpose should be to benefit you or to fit your ideals of how they should behave, no matter what their situation. In actuality the disdain that you produce for people who are inherently equal to you is destructive and takes away from the potential you have to produce. Complain about the people of the world and then profess to have no obligation to help make things better. You're not obligated to complain either but that's a lot easier than assisting people in improving their situations so the laziness that you say is so negative is something that you yourself are guilty of. Since when has name calling been a useful strategy for improving ones community? The opinions that you place on people can be thrown right back at you so whats the point in destructive criticism?

What exactly does constituent as making the world better? Because people who make business like C has are technically doing that. If you mean "make the world better" in the sense where there's no income inequality and people have all the exact same amount of material possessions all in the same quantity and quality. Plus the Government takes care of every single need you have then no. He's not making the world better, but I don't think a world like that is "better" in any sense anyway. Now that's assuming you were saying that, because during this back and forth I've lost track of the original question.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 4, 2015 8:17:09 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Aug 3, 2015 23:32:25 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Call me a Marxist but that's simply not the case. I'm a realist that appreciates other people. You seem to me to be a pessimist that blames the worlds ills on other people. I like the idea of people willingly helping each other but you make it seem as if peoples' only purpose should be to benefit you or to fit your ideals of how they should behave, no matter what their situation. In actuality the disdain that you produce for people who are inherently equal to you is destructive and takes away from the potential you have to produce. Complain about the people of the world and then profess to have no obligation to help make things better. You're not obligated to complain either but that's a lot easier than assisting people in improving their situations so the laziness that you say is so negative is something that you yourself are guilty of. Since when has name calling been a useful strategy for improving ones community? The opinions that you place on people can be thrown right back at you so whats the point in destructive criticism?

What exactly does constituent as making the world better? Because people who make business like C has are technically doing that. If you mean "make the world better" in the sense where there's no income inequality and people have all the exact same amount of material possessions all in the same quantity and quality. Plus the Government takes care of every single need you have then no. He's not making the world better, but I don't think a world like that is "better" in any sense anyway. Now that's assuming you were saying that, because during this back and forth I've lost track of the original question.

That sounds like a socialist utopia if that's what he means.

He said people have a right to steal for their basic needs. I disagree because where do you draw the line and you're not entitled to the property of others in a civilized societies.


He's also saying that everything is an expense and has equal value. That's inherently communist. Everything takes energy but taking the energy to steal is not the same as producing. He seems to disagree with both and won't say why.

[JACK-2]

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Procuring nourishment necessary for base survival can be considered "stealing" (A fox/peasant stealing hens for example). Putting forth the effort to capture another human, breaking their will so that they will execute yours under the threat of death, and placing that person in bondage indefinitely can not be considered "necessary for the base survival" of a human. How could you not be aware of this difference without explanation. Stealing items not necessary for "base survival" is just as wrong as slavery, not more or less.

The problem with this argument is that animals like: Cat's, Dogs, and so on aren't expected to abide by human laws. Which is why animals don't have have any rights, because they have no moral responsibilities. Saying a fox eating a hen is the equivalent of a person hunting. Is like calling a lion a murderer because he killed a man. It's inane, nobody expects animals to behave like people because they're not people. The fact that I have to point this out is sad, animals don't have any moral capacity. They can't recognize right or wrong. Which is why when you're dog nips at someone they aren't supposed to or craps where he/she shouldn't. The owner is the one who get's the fine, not the dog.

If you want to argue that human rules are all made up therefore we shouldn't follow them. Please explain how the status quo before civilization: The Law of the Jungle. Was a superior way of life. Outside of the usual appeal to nature fallacy.

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

In reality "expense" is equal to "labor" and almost all humans live at the expense of other humans similar to lions living at the expense of other lions. You are an intelligent person so you must be aware of this. You didn't build your home, other humans did. You didn't make your shoes other humans did. You didn't build your car or retrieve the fuel it runs on, others did. You didn't build the schools that you learned from others expended their energies to design them. You use the electricity that others provide for you and you drink the water that others make available for you.

To state that nobody has the right to live at the expense of others is borderline denial if not just outright denial.

Good luck arguing this person C-Master. How labour is equivalent to living at the expense of others. . .is beyond me. Yes, people build things with other peoples help and those people are usually compensated. What does that have to do with lions hunting big game? Better yet, how is an exchange of labour for payment equivalent to being taken advantage of?

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Perhaps you mean to state that nobody has the right to cheat people out of getting what they deserve in return for their expense, and if that is what you mean then I couldn't agree more. As far as blacks being Marxists I can't rightly say whether that is true or not because when I went to research "Marxism" it was described as varying in its theories and not being definitive. With that being the case whether someone is "Marxist" or not is based on individual opinion. It's like asking why a high percentage of a particular race is ugly or stupid. The very question suggests a strong prejudice. Prejudice that is neither good or bad but opinionated. It is my opinion that the majority of blacks are involved in a self destructive cycle and for whatever reason that they are in it, they will ultimately have to depend on themselves in order to improve their circumstances.

It doesn't matter if you feel it's a prejudice. We can track voting habits based on race because they keep data on it. Based on the data, Blacks mainly vote left. That's not an opinion.

[JACK-2]

Aug 4, 2015 8:20:54 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

He's also saying that everything is an expense and has equal value. That's inherently communist. Everything takes energy but taking the energy to steal is not the same as producing. He seems to disagree with both and won't say why.

So he starts off from a made up point and goes from there.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 4, 2015 8:30:51 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Procuring nourishment necessary for base survival can be considered "stealing" (A fox/peasant stealing hens for example). Putting forth the effort to capture another human, breaking their will so that they will execute yours under the threat of death, and placing that person in bondage indefinitely can not be considered "necessary for the base survival" of a human. How could you not be aware of this difference without explanation. Stealing items not necessary for "base survival" is just as wrong as slavery, not more or less.

The problem with this argument is that animals like: Cat's, Dogs, and so on aren't expected to abide by human laws. Which is why animals don't have have any rights, because they have no moral responsibilities. Saying a fox eating a hen is the equivalent of a person hunting. Is like calling a lion a murderer because he killed a man. It's inane, nobody expects animals to behave like people because they're not people. The fact that I have to point this out is sad, animals don't have any moral capacity. They can't recognize right or wrong. Which is why when you're dog nips at someone they aren't supposed to or craps where he/she shouldn't. The owner is the one who get's the fine, not the dog.

If you want to argue that human rules are all made up therefore we shouldn't follow them. Please explain how the status quo before civilization: The Law of the Jungle. Was a superior way of life. Outside of the usual appeal to nature fallacy.

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

In reality "expense" is equal to "labor" and almost all humans live at the expense of other humans similar to lions living at the expense of other lions. You are an intelligent person so you must be aware of this. You didn't build your home, other humans did. You didn't make your shoes other humans did. You didn't build your car or retrieve the fuel it runs on, others did. You didn't build the schools that you learned from others expended their energies to design them. You use the electricity that others provide for you and you drink the water that others make available for you.

To state that nobody has the right to live at the expense of others is borderline denial if not just outright denial.

Good luck arguing this person C-Master. How labour is equivalent to living at the expense of others. . .is beyond me. Yes, people build things with other peoples help and those people are usually compensated. What does that have to do with lions hunting big game? Better yet, how is an exchange of labour for payment equivalent to being taken advantage of?

Aug 3, 2015 15:10:48 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Perhaps you mean to state that nobody has the right to cheat people out of getting what they deserve in return for their expense, and if that is what you mean then I couldn't agree more. As far as blacks being Marxists I can't rightly say whether that is true or not because when I went to research "Marxism" it was described as varying in its theories and not being definitive. With that being the case whether someone is "Marxist" or not is based on individual opinion. It's like asking why a high percentage of a particular race is ugly or stupid. The very question suggests a strong prejudice. Prejudice that is neither good or bad but opinionated. It is my opinion that the majority of blacks are involved in a self destructive cycle and for whatever reason that they are in it, they will ultimately have to depend on themselves in order to improve their circumstances.

It doesn't matter if you feel it's a prejudice. We can track voting habits based on race because they keep data on it. Based on the data, Blacks mainly vote left. That's not an opinion.

It makes no sense to me either. How are you afforded these special perks because you're poor and then others can't do it? Then he says he's caring? Right... we're all equal indeed.

[JACK-2]

Well, Marxist believe that because some people are less fortunate than others.Then we should handicap other people to make it "fair". So, if I have two apples and you have none. I should give you one and we'll be equal. The problem is that there is no production in this process. Notice that the person who doesn't have an apple depends on the person who has one for his apples? Why can't he find his own apples? Basically, the man with no apples survives because he is given a free lunch. He also doesn't produce anything of value, the apple is traded at another mans expense. This is a bad way to live because the man who takes the apples gives nothing of value back and the system depends on someone else doing the work of getting the apples while the other person just consumes them. What if the apple gatherer dies, then what? More importantly what motivation does the apple gatherer have to gather apples not only to feed himself. But, the person who consumes his extra apple? It's also a drain on resources. The time spent getting an extra apple could be spent doing something else or getting something else. Alternately, he could save the apple for a rainy day and use it during his free time when he's doing something productive and becomes hungry. Instead of having to go get apples when ever he is hungry.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I don't even like the term "fortunate" because it implies success was just luck. If so then how do we have all of these great things?

Bottom line is Marxism doesn't work because the people aren't motivated to be productive. Why work hard if it'll be stolen, and why work hard if you get free stuff?

These dumb ideologies don't take into account human incentive despite claiming to be about emotion. They also don't care about facts. It's dumb.

Both people producing and trading is better.