Jump to content

Photo

Why is communism a bad word?


  • Please log in to reply
172 replies to this topic

#141
AmaccurzerO

AmaccurzerO

    Old hand

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPip
  • 918 posts

Our freedom of speech exists because the state and the bosses don't control all the medias.

Did you already hear a politician or boss put forward any offer to prevent the simultaneous ownership of a media and of a company or to limit the state's grip on the medias?

 

A worker can only be free if the laws prevent his boss from trampling his rights which requires the state to intervein. The state will only intervein in the economy to serve people when the separation of powers forces it to do so.

 

When an economic system proves to be poorly performant people can easily change it when the separation of powers is strong.

Our freedom of speech is because the state do not control all the medias. If all medias were controlled by the state there will be not freedom of speech. That is what happens in totalitarian dictatorships.
 
On the other hand, state do not creates or generates wealth. As larger the state is, larger will be the public spending. As larger the public spending, larger will be the taxes you will have to pay. So, the math is simple.
 
There are two kind of persons: the one who wants a life-time work in public service and the one who wants to be self-sufficient and start his own business. In countries were the second prevails, the quality of life and human development is better. Where do you think the money  to pay "free" public services you enjoy today in your country comes from? Do you think that is there were a larger state and more public workers than private business the things would be better? I repeat, the math is simple.
 
There are people who just simple dont want to effort and are happy with a life-time simple job and the help of the state. Those people do not push the country forward, the entrepreneurs and business men do. Although, you're right that there are unscrupulous companies. But is in these cases where the state have to make prevail the rights and duties of both: the boss and the employee. The state must be like a referee, not Santa Clauss.

Edited by AmaccurzerO, 24 May 2020 - 05:56 PM.


#142
jjb54

jjb54

    I need coffee to think clearly! :P

  • Premium Member
  • 4,212 posts

Right OR Wrong?

 

News Reporter goes to jail for reporting the truth with facts?

 

Person loses their home and property because the Communist Leader " needs " it.

. o O ( Understand that it was because he spoke against the leader .... )

 

Tell me what is " good " or " great " or " fair " or " right " about Venezuela?

. o O ( Just look at what they can no longer get at the store. )

 

As a wise Prime Minister once stated: 

" The problem with socialism ( communism ) is that you eventually run out of other people's money. "

 

Even when you ask Comrade Bernie Sanders about his $$$ - YOU KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF AND NOSE OUT OF IT!

 

The " leaders " of Communism - Socialism are NOT about " We the people .... " Not in one place in history does this happen. They are about DICTATORSHIP and taking by hook or by crook what does NOT belong to them.

 

Communism is a " bad word " because it abuses the mass so that a very select few live High on the Hog.



#143
Oblivionaddicted

Oblivionaddicted

    Faithful poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,446 posts

 

Our freedom of speech exists because the state and the bosses don't control all the medias.

Did you already hear a politician or boss put forward any offer to prevent the simultaneous ownership of a media and of a company or to limit the state's grip on the medias?

 

A worker can only be free if the laws prevent his boss from trampling his rights which requires the state to intervein. The state will only intervein in the economy to serve people when the separation of powers forces it to do so.

 

When an economic system proves to be poorly performant people can easily change it when the separation of powers is strong.

Our freedom of speech is because the state do not control all the medias. If all medias were controlled by the state there will be not freedom of speech. That is what happens in totalitarian dictatorships.
 
On the other hand, state do not creates or generates wealth. As larger the state is, larger will be the public spending. As larger the public spending, larger will be the taxes you will have to pay. So, the math is simple.
 
There are two kind of persons: the one who wants a life-time work in public service and the one who wants to be self-sufficient and start his own business. In countries were the second prevails, the quality of life and human development is better. Where do you think the money  to pay "free" public services you enjoy today in your country comes from? Do you think that is there were a larger state and more public workers than private business the things would be better? I repeat, the math is simple.
 
There are people who just simple dont want to effort and are happy with a life-time simple job and the help of the state. Those people do not push the country forward, the entrepreneurs and business men do. Although, you're right that there are unscrupulous companies. But is in these cases where the state have to make prevail the rights and duties of both: the boss and the employee. The state must be like a referee, not Santa Clauss.

 

So it's not a problem if the slaver and public-poisoner company bosses can control the medias? Even if democracy notably relies on the freedom of the press?

 

So according you all the bosses act to improve our quality of life? Like the petroleum lobby that murders thousands of people every year? Like the agro-food lobby that also murders thousands of innocents every year using pesticides and carcinogenic additives? The list is very long and I didn't even mention all those bosses who prefer collecting the sport cars they will never drive instead of paying taxes as any citizen to build hospitals or schools.

 

So according to you the problem is the intervention of the state in the economy? It doesn't have any relationship with the system that gives the companies' leaders a structurally advantageous strength relationship towards the consumers because of a unique party or rigged elections based on clientelism when all the parties don't have the same financing? It doesn't come either from the fact those who lead the companies can also vote the laws when democracy relies on the separation of powers?


Edited by Oblivionaddicted, 28 May 2020 - 12:35 AM.


#144
AmaccurzerO

AmaccurzerO

    Old hand

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPip
  • 918 posts

 

 

Our freedom of speech exists because the state and the bosses don't control all the medias.

Did you already hear a politician or boss put forward any offer to prevent the simultaneous ownership of a media and of a company or to limit the state's grip on the medias?

 

A worker can only be free if the laws prevent his boss from trampling his rights which requires the state to intervein. The state will only intervein in the economy to serve people when the separation of powers forces it to do so.

 

When an economic system proves to be poorly performant people can easily change it when the separation of powers is strong.

Our freedom of speech is because the state do not control all the medias. If all medias were controlled by the state there will be not freedom of speech. That is what happens in totalitarian dictatorships.
 
On the other hand, state do not creates or generates wealth. As larger the state is, larger will be the public spending. As larger the public spending, larger will be the taxes you will have to pay. So, the math is simple.
 
There are two kind of persons: the one who wants a life-time work in public service and the one who wants to be self-sufficient and start his own business. In countries were the second prevails, the quality of life and human development is better. Where do you think the money  to pay "free" public services you enjoy today in your country comes from? Do you think that is there were a larger state and more public workers than private business the things would be better? I repeat, the math is simple.
 
There are people who just simple dont want to effort and are happy with a life-time simple job and the help of the state. Those people do not push the country forward, the entrepreneurs and business men do. Although, you're right that there are unscrupulous companies. But is in these cases where the state have to make prevail the rights and duties of both: the boss and the employee. The state must be like a referee, not Santa Clauss.

 

So it's not a problem if the slaver and public-poisoner company bosses can control the medias? Even if democracy notably relies on the freedom of the press?

 

So according you all the bosses act to improve our quality of life? Like the petroleum lobby that murders thousands of people every year? Like the agro-food lobby that also murders thousands of innocents every year using pesticides and carcinogenic additives? The list is very long and I didn't even mention all those bosses who prefer collecting the sport cars they will never drive instead of paying taxes as any citizen to build hospitals or schools.

 

So according to you the problem is the intervention of the state in the economy? It doesn't have any relationship with the system that gives the companies' leaders a structurally advantageous strength relationship towards the consumers because of a unique party or rigged elections based on clientelism when all the parties don't have the same financing? It doesn't come either from the fact those who lead the companies can also vote the laws when democracy relies on the separation of powers?

 

Didnt you read when I wrote:  Although, you're right that there are unscrupulous companies. ? Your hatred against the word "private property" blinds you?

Are all the owners of small, mediums or even so big companies are "murderers" for you? Yes, there are unescrupulous "bosses" and companies (should I write it in caps?). But not all that wants to be self-suficient and to have his own company is destinated to become a "big bad boss".

 

In democracy there are many medias: some controlled by state, some by your "big bad bosses" and some independient medias. Do you wish that state controls all the medias? And what if the state is corrupt and controls all the medias? 

 

And what is the problem with the people who collect cars? They pay enourmous taxes for their houses, cars and other posesions. Who manage those taxes? I can answer that: THE STATE. So, if there are no hospitals, schools and so on, is because the politicians and publics servers, whom should destinate al those taxes to the public spending, steal the money of the taxes.

 

So yes, I agree you that there are corrupt companies as there are corrupt politicians on both sides. But envying anyone who is successful and pointing it out as "the big bad boss" are the symptoms of social resentment. 



#145
Oblivionaddicted

Oblivionaddicted

    Faithful poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,446 posts

I want the medias to be independant from BOTH THE STATE AND THE COMPANY BOSSES, this is the only way to preserve the freedom of the press.

 

In our right-wing/fascist oligarchies like in the marxist-leninist dictatorships the only ones who pay taxes are those who don't finance the elections and don't pay commission/bribes to the politicians. The company bosses like jeff bezos don't pay any tax.

 

 

Why aren't the taxes managed for people's interest in so many countries?

 

  • Because of the evil villain state?

or

 

  • because any psychopath can usurp the power like in a marxist-leninist country? because of the absence of financial transparency? because of rigged elections since all the parties don't have the same financing?

Edited by Oblivionaddicted, 28 May 2020 - 01:35 PM.


#146
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,101 posts

 

I want the medias to be independant from BOTH THE STATE AND THE COMPANY BOSSES, this is the ony way to preserve the freedom of the press.

 

In our right-wing/fascist oligarchies like in the marxist-leninist dictatorships the only ones who pay taxes are those who don't finance the elections and don't pay commission/bribes to the politicians. The company bosses like jeff bezos don't pay any tax.

 

 

Why aren't the taxes managed for people's interest in so many countries?

 

  • Because of the evil villain state?

or

 

  • because any psychopath can usurp the power like in a marxist-leninist country? because of the absence of financial transparency? because of rigged elections since all the parties don't have the same financing?

 

We ostensibly have freedom of the press here in the US, however, most news outlets, regardless of what media they use, are parts of a very few conglomerates. The number of truly 'independent' outlets is vanishingly small. And each conglomerate has their own bias as well. It is evidenced by what news they report, and the manner in which they report it. And that is inevitably geared toward supporting what THEY believe are the 'facts'...... They exclude information that doesn't support their position. Read an article about some particular topic on MSNBC, then, read an article about the same bit of news on someplace like Fox News, and it almost seems like they are reporting on two unrelated events.... Accuracy doesn't seem to matter any more either. Look what happened to Tom Brokaw. In their rush to be "The First" to break a story, that didn't bother to fact check at all, and the story turned out to be completely false.....  It is no longer about reporting news, it's about ratings. Doesn't seem to matter if they have the story straight, it just needs to be pushed out there, before someone else beats them to it.

 

Another example.... A few years back, an airliner botched a landing, clipped a fence, and had a somewhat less than successful landing.... It was on the news within an hour. There are youtube clips of it out there, where the talking head was talking about the pilot... Wi Tu Lo..... and the co-pilot... Sum Ting Wong...... and he actually reported that with a straight face....... I was floored. How could someone NOT realize that those are not something made up by the good folks on the internet as JOKES??????

 

Nope. The news media is not what it once was. Their priorities have changed dramatically, and accurate, unbiased reporting, no longer exists. Its all social outrage, and drama now. Simply not worth watching.



#147
Oblivionaddicted

Oblivionaddicted

    Faithful poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,446 posts

How can you say you "ostensibly have freedom of the press" in the US when nearly all the medias depend of conglomerates that can manipulate people the way they want?



#148
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,101 posts

How can you say you "ostensibly have freedom of the press" in the US when nearly all the medias depend of conglomerates that can manipulate people the way they want?

The conglomerates are free to print whatever they care to. The government does not dictate what stories they can, or cannot run. Therefore, technically, it is a free press.......



#149
Oblivionaddicted

Oblivionaddicted

    Faithful poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,446 posts

 

How can you say you "ostensibly have freedom of the press" in the US when nearly all the medias depend of conglomerates that can manipulate people the way they want?

The conglomerates are free to print whatever they care to. The government does not dictate what stories they can, or cannot run. Therefore, technically, it is a free press.......

 

When the content of the articles is dictated by a conglomerate instead of the state which improvement does it bring to the freedom of the press?



#150
HeyYou

HeyYou

    Resident poster

  • Supporter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,101 posts

 

 

How can you say you "ostensibly have freedom of the press" in the US when nearly all the medias depend of conglomerates that can manipulate people the way they want?

The conglomerates are free to print whatever they care to. The government does not dictate what stories they can, or cannot run. Therefore, technically, it is a free press.......

 

When the content of the articles is dictated by a conglomerate instead of the state which improvement does it bring to the freedom of the press?

 

Never said it was an improvement. It still technically qualifies as "free" press though......






Page loaded in: 1.067 seconds