What he's saying is that the "You must vax" crowd are worshippers of scientism. They've lost any measure of value for science, they've joined an actual belief system that relies on an appeal to authority to even exist.

"I will vax" or "I will not vax" are purely rational decisions at their core. Religious and non are part of both parties, and all have perfectly rational reasons. "You should vax" are religious authoritarians, no different than fundamentalist jihadists, and equally willing to invade private spaces to make their will known.

Ah. So private ownership only exists in communism, not capitalism? That's super. Tell us more.

Edit: Sorry doublepost. Downside of notifications. Didn't realize I was in same topic. Doesn't matter that the prior respondent double-posted as well. If I could report my own post, I would.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 11 2021 08:27pm

For one, it is possible to live "off the grid" within national forests, and people do. Second, the federal government manages the land, not private firms. And third, totalitarianism has existed for as long as it has been technologically feasible to micromanage human interactions, and the most well-known examples (e.g. the USSR, Maoist China, Saddam's Iraq, the Khmer Rouge) do not happen to be capitalist. Ancient Egypt was decidedly not capitalist, and yet you'll find that it functioned for large tracts as essentially a to

Where governments have "left people alone", it is generally because there either was no economic value, or the economic value was too difficult to extract and control.

The US was uniquely created in a way where the citizenry was designed to be more heavily armed than the government. There was no way the government could become totalitarian, as tyranny would be stomped on by the people themselves. It was a unique experiment.

Unfortunately, the citizenry themselves have accepted that the rights enshrined in their founding documents aren't really rights.

Thus? We're to today. Where freedom of religion is not sanctioned, freedom of speech is not sanctioned, freedom of self preservation is not sanctioned... Only whatever big daddy joe says goes.

Naturally living is good, but you'll get sick with 24/7 chemtrails. Living indoors w/ plants to provide oxygen and smoke to filter the air are the only real options now in lieu of a greenhouse.

Communism distinguishes between personal v. private property.

This post was edited by Handcuffs on Sep 12 2021 12:04pm

No, socialism distinguishes. Communism does not. And even socialism does not truly distinguish between private and public ownership. Why? Well, if a business owner owns their business and inventory, they're a 100% private owner. Yet they cannot conduct business without a license, they have to conduct their business in a way that the government tells them to, they have to conduct business with people they may not wish to, they still have to pay taxes on their privately owned property, etc. Further, residential property simply isn't "privately owned" at all. Buy a property, you don't own it. Proof? You're taxed on that property every year, and if you do not pay that tax, the property can and will be taken away from you. Home ownership simply means that rather than renting from a landlord, you're renting from the government.

Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

The true irony is that every form of government, at this time, utilizes capitalist practices, because as it turns out, "true communism" simply doesn't work at anything above a family/tribal structure. The real question is at what level does private ownership even really exist?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Sep 12 2021 12:15pm

From the Communist Manifesto:

Oh look, another person who has no idea what the words socialism or communism even mean is weighing in.

Look up usufruct.

The term “private property” also doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Have a guitar sitting on your bed? Neither of those are private property. They are possession/personal property.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Sep 12 2021 01:06pm

Read what you posted a little more critically. It's indicating that any private property that can be used to produce would be abolished. That would include residential, industrial, tech, vehicles, even computers, at this point. All forms of "capital". So you won't have your private farm, you won't have your private back yard garden, you won't have your private vehicle, you won't have your private revenue-generating computer, nothing.

Communism is a system of compulsory labor providing daily living requirements. No "saving for the future". Capitalism, in general, is a system where the harder you work today and the more capital you invest in, the more revenue you can generate to provide for your personal needs to not have to work in the future.

Think about it like this: If I own a half acre of land that I use to grow and can fruits and vegetables, I have a source of food not only for the season, but because I'm canning them, I have enough to have all the fruits and vegetables my family will need for a year. So, what if I then buy another half acre, and grow and can enough so that another family, who is not spending all their time growing and canning fruits and vegetables during the spring/summer/fall, but is instead invested in say... Fine art. Well, I personally have no need for fine art. But they DO have a need for food. So, they sell their fine art to somebody who wants or needs it, then use some of that currency to pay me for my excess food I now have. That is the result of capitalism. I now have extra money because of my capital investment and labor. BUT! Let's take a different look at things... If, rather than selling my excess food, let's say I just keep it. So rather than 1 year's worth of labor providing 1 year of my family's fruit and vegetable needs, now it provides two. So now, we can eat all the fruits and vegetables we need for two years, based on one year's worth of work. That's awesome, right? Now I don't need to work as long, or as hard, to eat. But, one can't live on fruits and vegetables alone, and how to get fertilizer, water, etc.?

The basic idea with capitalism is the acknowledgement that I will need more than my fruit and veggy acre will provide, so I produce more than I need, and do not save it, but instead trade it for other needs I have. Communism is that that option is not available. I do not own that acre. I do not own the product of that acre. Rather than that acre providing me 2 years worth of food based off 2/3rds of a year's worth of work, instead, I need to spend the full year and a half producing the food, I only get to keep what I need, the rest goes elsewhere, AND I then need to work in another job during the third of the year (winter) where I can't grow. And if I do not continuously work, then I no longer get the food I need to survive.

Effectively it takes away any and all control you have to provide for your own life and your own family, and instead drops that power directly into "the people". But the reality of "the people" is that the government enforces the distribution of goods and labor. Hence why so many people starved in the Soviet Union. Communism, in practice, at a national level, leads directly towards direct dictatorship in it's purest form. Socialism, on the flipside, does acknowledge that you do have a limited right to your own property, and the fruits of your own labor, and the capital you use to generate those products. However, it says that, "Because there are other people who have needs, we need you to pay taxes on your capital, we need you to pay taxes on your utilities, we need you to pay taxes on your transportation" effectively forcing you to sell the majority of the fruits of your labor in order to continue your private ownership of your capital to continue generating the end products you need to continue surviving.

Free market capitalism, on the other hand, which to my knowledge doesn't actually exist in the modern world, says, "My capital is mine. No taxes, no nothing. All the end product is mine. Others may need my excess, so they must trade for it. Based on what I gain from trading my end product, I can not only cover my needs that my capital doesn't cover, but I may be able to trade for more capital, to more adequately cover my needs. However, as my capital grows, so too do my labor requirements, so I need to hire others to help. Those others need to be compensated. That compensation can be used by those others to eventually purchase capital of their own, possibly creating direct competition for my end products." The most frequently raised objections to free market capitalism typically run along the lines of, "Well, who'll build the roads?" The simple answer is, "I will". Simply put, if I'm trading all my fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market, for instance, I need to be able to get to that market. The market and it's customers don't care how I get there, and they aren't coming to me. So it falls to me to make my path to transport my goods. On the larger scale though, "Dominoes will". Remember their road fixing campaign? Their business model relies on functional roads to operate. Likewise, Walmart will, as their business model requires their customers can get to them and that their vendors can deliver to them, and that they can transport from their warehouses to their retail outlets.

The more we centralize and socialize, the more the "do nots" gain without labor, while the "dos" lose the product of their labor and capital investment. And the ultimate end, in full out communism, is you simply own nothing, do what you're told, and HOPE your basic needs are met, and you don't end up being one of the nearly 4 million Ukrainians starved by your overlords.