Is Communism Reversible?

[MSimon]

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/is-c ... eversible/

Very good video with my comments added. I was a hard core communist in my youth so what David Horowitz says in the video really rings true.

[Diogenes]

Is Communism Reversible?

Yes. We shoot them. Next question.

[williatw]

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/is-c ... eversible/

Very good video with my comments added. I was a hard core communist in my youth so what David Horowitz says in the video really rings true.

MSimon how the F could you have been a communist in your youth or any other time?! I could understand in theory at least the appeal of Marxism around about the turn of the 20th century, when it was just largely theory...but after Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, how many examples of murderous failed states did it take to finally take the bloom off the rose for you?

[MSimon]

Is Communism Reversible?

Yes. We shoot them. Next question.

And when you get a war in return? Sabotage? Economic destruction? Bodies piled high?

The smarter thing to do is to turn them. Sadly it is something you are incapable of. You propose exchanging the control of the left for the control of the right. Not an attractive proposition for those sick and tired of control.

From the above "Is Communism..." link:

Let me add one parenthetical note to this. You may have missed Horowitz’ interjection of “if the Republicans don’t just screw it up” in his response to “Is Communism Reversible?” My take? Republicans will screw it up. But there is hope The Libertarians Are Coming.

The ideology of control is dying in America. You can help that death along or you can side with your band of controllers. No matter. The Youth have come around to my way of thinking. That will last at least a generation. So you will have plenty of time to convince them that your brand of control is superior to liberty. Good luck.

[MSimon]

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/is-c ... eversible/

Very good video with my comments added. I was a hard core communist in my youth so what David Horowitz says in the video really rings true.

MSimon how the F could you have been a communist in your youth or any other time?! I could understand in theory at least the appeal of Marxism around about the turn of the 20th century, when it was just largely theory...but after Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, how many examples of murderous failed states did it take to finally take the bloom off the rose for you?

What turned me was the boat people of Vietnam. I believed that the New Left was a kinder gentler form of communism. Well I was young and stupid. And it was a part of the Zeitgeist of my time. I grew up in the 60s. You had to be there. In addition I was recruited (not too effectively) by Peter Berg of "Planet Drum Foundation". And Peter Coyote. Yeah. THAT Peter Coyote.

There was a LOT of injustice. Institutional racism. Drug prohibition. Hunger. And I thought the communists had the answer. But they are liars. They point out defects caused by control and offer "different" control as the solution. It took me a while to see that minimal control is a better alternative.

It helped too that I found religion. Not any recognized religion. But in a way the one true religion. God talks to me. All the time. I rarely mention it because most people would give me a label. Crazy. And maybe I am. But the advise has been uniformly good.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

By the noonday brightness and by the night when it darkeneth thy Lord hath not forsaken thee neither hath He been displeased. And surely the future shall be better for thee than the past. And in the end he shall be bounteous unto thee and ye shall be satisfied. Did he not find thee an orphan and gave thee a home? Naked and clothe thee?

[Diogenes]

Is Communism Reversible?

Yes. We shoot them. Next question.

And when you get a war in return? Sabotage? Economic destruction? Bodies piled high?

That seems to be the course the stupid 52% have chosen, but we'll see. I think Romney was our last chance to stave off economic collapse, but again, we'll see.

The smarter thing to do is to turn them. Sadly it is something you are incapable of.

And I think you are naive to believe you can turn them. What will turn them is PAIN. SEARING HORRIBLE FINANCIAL PAIN, and that only temporarily. Here, let Rudyard Kipling help you.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;


Rudyard Kipling, 1919.

You propose exchanging the control of the left for the control of the right. Not an attractive proposition for those sick and tired of control.

No Simon, that is the propaganda which you want to believe and keep repeating. It is my philosophy that there is a proper amount of Governance, and that government's should exert neither more nor less than the proper amount. It is like steering a ship. You neither go hard port or starboard, you move the wheel a bit in response to the direction the ship is going, but it is mostly in the center.


I am Burkean in my philosophy.


Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

Edmund Burke, 1791.

The ideology of control is dying in America.

Oh, you are most certainly right about that, but not in the manner you mean. SELF-CONTROL is what is dying, and with it, so will a lot of people.

You can help that death along or you can side with your band of controllers.

No Simon, keeping idiots from getting their hands on dangerous narcotics is not totalitarianism. It is just as necessary to the well being of a nation as trying to discourage fools from getting their hands on explosives.

No matter. The Youth have come around to my way of thinking.

And that ought to be a clue for you, but you won't grasp the significance of it.

That will last at least a generation. So you will have plenty of time to convince them that your brand of control is superior to liberty. Good luck.

Liberty cannot exist with Anarchy. You claim to be a promoter of Liberty, yet you would wreck every chance at it with you anarchist ideas.

[JLawson]

http://classicalvalues.com/2013/12/is-c ... eversible/

Very good video with my comments added. I was a hard core communist in my youth so what David Horowitz says in the video really rings true.

MSimon how the F could you have been a communist in your youth or any other time?! I could understand in theory at least the appeal of Marxism around about the turn of the 20th century, when it was just largely theory...but after Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, how many examples of murderous failed states did it take to finally take the bloom off the rose for you?

It was pretty clear to me as a kid in the '60s. What direction were the people who crossed the Berlin Wall running - when they were shot in the back?

Nothing I've seen since then has persuaded me that Communism had any long-term staying power. It'll go for a while, with a good figurehead/cult of personality leader - but once that leader dies it's just a matter of time until the whole edifice collapses.

Of course, those making out okay under it, like the party hacks, will try hard to keep things going. But eventually it'll collapse. And the longer it's propped up, the worse it falls.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog ... ity-havana

[hanelyp]

The history of communism is littered wall to wall with murder by the state in the name of the cause. The whole ideology labors under the pretense that theft isn't theft, and making an honest profit is theft. There comes a point where shooting a communist is a simple act of self defense.

[TDPerk]

And when you get a war in return? Sabotage? Economic destruction? Bodies piled high?

If it can be won, why not? How is it not just and practical?

I am Burkean in my philosophy.

Which make a you a valid target, when it comes to it, to anyone who believes in Natural Law or Classical Liberalism. The Tory is the redcoat, desirous of unwarranted authority for those he feels self-elected to his class, we are better off with you shot dead.

Burke stand opposite Locke in every practical effect on politics.

There is no synergy there, only antagonism.

[Diogenes]

I am Burkean in my philosophy.

Which make a you a valid target, when it comes to it, to anyone who believes in Natural Law or Classical Liberalism. The Tory is the redcoat, desirous of unwarranted authority for those he feels self-elected to his class, we are better off with you shot dead.

Says the supposed Libertarian.

Burke stand opposite Locke in every practical effect on politics.

No he doesn't. You simply argue such because this is what you wish to believe.


In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.




Sec. 12. By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence, that can be committed in the state of nature, may in the state of nature be also punished equally, and as far forth as it may, in a commonwealth: for though it would be besides my present purpose, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment; yet, it is certain there is such a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of commonwealths; nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.

[TDPerk]

Says the supposed Libertarian.

No "Supposed" to it. And for that matter, there are the old admonishments, "If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one.", and, "If someone says they will kill you, arise quickly and kill them."

Nothing contrary to Libertarianism in either of them.

Neither, as a practical matter, was there anything classically liberal in Burke. He, figuratively, and his peerage, literally, are only in the saddle to preserve the unjust prerogatives of their class--so they should be shot out of them.

He can praise Locke to the stars--how he and his peers voted is material.

When good, good. And for that matter, by accident at that.

When bad, vile.

[Diogenes]

Says the supposed Libertarian.

No "Supposed" to it. And for that matter, there are the old admonishments, "If you have no sword, sell your cloak and buy one.", and, "If someone says they will kill you, arise quickly and kill them."

Nothing contrary to Libertarianism in either of them.

Neither, as a practical matter, was there anything classically liberal in Burke. He, figuratively, and his peerage, literally, are only in the saddle to preserve the unjust prerogatives of their class--so they should be shot out of them.

This assertion seems to be completely wrong.


It must also be mentioned that during his career he rendered more important service to the cause of humanity than any man of his time; he prepared the way for the abolition of the slave trade, a measure which was destined to ripen to success in the hands of William Wilberforce; he advocated the cause of humanity in India against the voracious greed of the stockholders, who regarded its millions simply as materials for plunder, and largely contributed to improve the government of that country. Towards America he advocated a policy of justice and conciliation, which, had it been adopted, may well have averted the horrors of the American Revolutionary War. And to the advocacy of every cause which he espoused, he brought a capacity for patient research that was unlimited, and an eloquence that has never been transcended.


As for his "Peerage" he was a member of the House of Commons, not the House of Lords.

He can praise Locke to the stars--how he and his peers voted is material.

When good, good. And for that matter, by accident at that.

When bad, vile.

Yes, Locke is the standard we should be measuring by. And what did Locke say about slavery?


One hundred and seven. Since charity obliges us to wish well to the souls of all men, and religion ought to alter nothing in any man's civil estate or right, it shall be lawful for slaves, as well as others, to enter themselves, and be of what church or profession any of them shall think best, and, therefore, be as fully members as any freeman. But yet no slave shall hereby be exempted from that civil dominion his master hath over him, but be in all things in the same state and condition he was In before.


One hundred and ten. Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.


Funny that your preferred representative who wrote eloquently regarding the rights of man, didn't seem to apply his principles to the conditions of slaves, yet Burke, whom you condemn, worked to rid England of Slavery.


And what did he think of Peerage and Feudalism?


One hundred and thirteen. Whosoever shall possess any freehold in Carolina, upon what title or grant soever, shall, at the farthest, from and after the year one thousand six hundred and eighty-nine, pay yearly unto the lords proprietors, for each acre of land, English measure, as much fine silver as is at this present time in one English penny, or the value thereof, to be as a chief rent and acknowledgment to the lords proprietors, their heirs and successors, forever. And it shall be lawful for the palatine's court, by their officers, at any time to take a new survey of any man's land, not to oust him of any part of his possession, but that by such a survey the just number of acres he possesseth may be known, and the rent thereon due may be paid by him.


You should read the rest of his "The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina ". I dare say it ought to be quite the eyeopener for any Libertarian minded individual.


I'm thinking your hero has clay feet.

[MSimon]

And I think you are naive to believe you can turn them.

Probably. But I am preparing the ground so that when they turn they will know which way.

I did not turn away from the controllers of the left just to jump into the arms of the controllers of the right.

I chose minimal control. What turned me was the Ron Paul campaign of 1988. I was an early adopter. On foreign policy he is an idiot. On domestic policy my agreement runs 99.9%.

[MSimon]

No Simon, keeping idiots from getting their hands on dangerous narcotics is not totalitarianism. It is just as necessary to the well being of a nation as trying to discourage fools from getting their hands on explosives.

But the problem then arises - if you keep explosives from fools (the premise of gun control) then ordinary citizens will not be able to avail themselves of those tools.

The same is happening with drugs as our understanding of biology increases. Endocannabinoids.

http://veteransformedicalmarijuana.org/ ... d-symptoms

http://www.vice.com/read/more-and-more- ... their-ptsd

http://brainblogger.com/2013/12/07/medi ... ting-ptsd/

You also might like: http://search.nih.gov/search?utf8=%E2%9 ... mit=Search

You don't even have science on your side.

And now about 80% of the population favors legalizing pot for medical use.

So here we have a medicine that is very effective for treating the aftermath of combat and what we are doing is throwing those veterans in jail if they get caught. We have been doing that since 'Nam - a disgrace. This seems to me - and now to 58% of the population favoring full legalization - to be heartless. A direct contradiction to "heal the sick" and "love thy neighbor".

You denigrate your politics and your religion with you attitudes. Good!

Faith in God is the antidote for Control By Men. It is explained in Samuel - if you are a Biblical kind of guy. I'm more in the mold of Samuel as compared to the people beseeching him for a King.

And speaking of communism - The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise by Milton Friedman

Both parties are into Socialism/Communism. I am not a member of any Party.

[choff]

The old saw was that if you were under 25 and you weren't you had no heart, but if you were over 35 and you were you had no brain, so I guess your covered both ways.

Me, I finally figured out both sides in all debates were set up by the same oligarchs, divide and conquer.