That was a shocking example of a form of "liberal/socialist funyism". More than deserving of addition to FSTDT.

That's why we have the second amendment. At some point it may be necessary to take back the control from the corrupt and come up with a new socio-economic system. Kind of hard when the people who run the country have guns and we have only knives and clubs.

I'm actually kind of offended I'm not quoted on that site.

Obama/Biden ticket.

Replace 'b' with 's'

Osama/Biden

replace 'e' with 'a' and 'B; with 'L' and 'i' with 'a' take out the '/' and add "Bin'

Osama Bin Laden

O_O

Compared to the raptureready.com quotes on fstdt you're post is too mild to get put on there. Even fake crazy doesn't outmatch their real crazy.

Well, it mostly is just a site for crazy religious stuff. And almost all of the crazy political stuff is right wing (one of my pet peeves is when they put up something written by a gun owner or a free market proponent and vilify it). It was genuinely odd to see a leftist get posted there. I read fstdt regularly, so I'll post any additional quotes from this web site that I see there on this thread. Perhaps they could post some of the crazy theist stuff that we get occasionally.

Hahaha, some of the commenters suspect satire.

Aside: er... umm.. why not? who do you suppose supports the rich people?

/Aside

Yeah this is kinda crazy, Matt..

Well, that part's not radical. I DO think the rich should help the poor; it just shouldn't be forced or compulsory because then you're trading too much liberty for security. 

The radical part is where Matt proclaims that we should lynch all the wealthy bastards and distribute their wealth. Um, who's going to keep the country running, a panel of drug addicts? Pro-socialism books typically portray the world before socialism (criticizing capitalism, etc.) while anti-socialism books typically show the transitional period or what happens afterwards, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Atlas Shrugged. (disclaimer: I haven't read that many books on this subject) I would contend that utopian socialism is similar to heaven in the fact that the proponents have an idealistic image of the outcome, but don't have any clue of how it's going to work.

Okay. I've read both, but I haven't exactly studied the author's intentions so I won't contest this. 

But, humans simply aren't inherently equal. Since you appear to be a strong utilitarian that pursues every line of logic as far as possible, wouldn't the best course for humanity be, then, to allow every individual to reach their maximum potential? Humans who possess higher mental and social ability will naturally rise to the upper classes while people like Arj will almost always stay near the bottom; of course, this isn't true in all cases, but if you average it out, there is obviously a direct correlation. Thus, it is simply invalid to say that everyone that is rich is a fucktard bastard who is exploiting everyone else. Many wealthy individuals, like Bill Gates or Oprah, donate incalculable sums to society every year. Why can't we just conclude that, most likely, they've achieved their status through their hard work and intellectual merit instead of stealing everyone else's? Why does rich=evil?

Hypothetically, if you get rich and I get poor, what reason do I have to charge that this is because you stole from me? What do you mean by "exploit?" 

If you have the liberty to earn, but not to lose, how is that real liberty? I know you'll still disagree, but this is security, not liberty. To say, "freedom from fear," or, "freedom from want," is misleading because fear and want are not oppressive regimes, they're inevitable characteristics of human nature. What is "enough," and how do you become free from not having it?

If you force socialism, you're offering security and taking away the liberty to earn and lose. This is the real reason why the rich is against the socialism while the poor are for it. The rich, whom are more able, won't be able to earn, while the poor, whom are less able, will be protected from losing.  

I agree that too much disparity is bad, but why does it need to be completely evened out? How would society function? One question I've posed that has never received an adequate answer from any far leftie is, what incentive would people have to work?  

What's going to happen to all the minimum wage jobs?!?

So the excessive profit is distributed for welfare.

I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

Are you sure your civic books weren't talking about social and legal equality? We are all equal under the law, but that does not mean that we need to be economically equal. I have trouble believing that a civics book in the US claims that people should be economically equal. Also, couldn't there be a political philosophy that values economic freedom and equality under the law very highly?

I always thought minimum wage was a weird Idea.  I mean if you are forced to hire the wages of your employees then couldn't you just up your prices to minimize the cost to you?  If this trend is prevelent in a society it would think it would increase the average cost of living.  Which means that those making the minimum would still be stuck in the same position of struggling with bills (if they are struggling).

All I know about that is I support myself. As far as working to take care of my family I mean. I dont care to dig much deeper into that point. My point was very simple. Last I knew Matt was unemployed. Unless thats changed he isnt in a position to talk about being exploited by a rich C.E.O that he doesnt even work for. Get it?

Hmmm, I'm not sure. I think support goes farther than help, but there is definitely some overlap.

 Shizzles DO say the darndest things.  

I feel the same way about some conservatives or libertarians that espouse crazy pro-market views (ie: 'lets abolish the governments and have corporations run the police and courts', I heard this one in real life). I hear some people's claims and think "Jesus titty-fucking Christ, now everyone is going to think that free market proponents are like this nut." I suppose we just need to judge people only based on their claims and not the claims made by people of similar ideologies. If only there was some way to prevent crazies from misrepresenting otherwise mild ideologies.

Matt, you suffer from the SAME delusionall utopian thinking that gets humanity into trouble.

As I explained before, you cannot get rid of capitalism, it exists in every government. You are confusing ABUSE with open market vs government run market. YOU would have to kill me to take my house or my business from me to give it to the government. Do you want to kill a fellow atheist?

An open market does not mean lack of regulation. I agree that big business is running amuck with slash and burn capitalism. but that doesnt mean the government cant step in, which it should. But to hand everything over to the goverment IS STUPID and puts the absolute power of goverment into being in the position of being the criminal.

If you want to get rid of our open market, just remember that you are an atheist living in a Christian majority. You get rid of our open market, guess who is going to be silenced first?

I suggest you read or re-read Animal Farm and 1984 before you spew your crap about getting rid of "capitalism".

"Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" Benjimen Franklin

See? See?

Dammit.

How in the bloody blue blazes am I supposed to have a rational discussion with people about their misconceptions concerning a political ideology's points when someone has bastardized it with random lunacy???

They certainly won't quote me because they think all us atheists think alike, and here I am trying to counter what Matt is saying. They just want to quote Matt to scare others ,"See see see, they love people like Stalin". I know Matt hates dictators. I just don't think he understands that capitalism is NOT the same as an open market system(which can be regulated ) and a closed government run system (which comes with the attitude( "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" ) which is very oppressive to those who might want to question their power.

I do value his intent in that we should value the poor. I saw a story on the news a few years back about a women who wrote a book about the fallacy of "unskilled labor", jobs like janitor, store clerk, maid....ect ect ect. She took jobs like that for a couple years and then wrote the book that explained that EVEN the lowest paid workers have to have skill to do their job to please the boss and the customer.

Most low paid workers now, and understandably so, DON'T do the best they can because they feel like the company that they work for doesn't care about them. BUT, if you ask my co-workers, at my job, whom they value more, me, or the owner's son, without exception they would all pick me over that lazy SOB. Being low paid doesn't mean one cant value what they do, or that it doesn't take skill.

The problem is wadge gap, people who have what they need, and a balance of life outside the job, will be more productive. But if all they do is feel like they are working 24/7 just to pay bills, they are going to go into work like zombies and merely do the bare minimum to get the check.

Megga corps treat their employees like pieces of equiptment in a concentration camp. I work for a mom and pop shop and because the owner is on site, he cant get away with treating me like crap face to face. I have to prove to him that I am deserving of having my own say, but I earned it, and because I go above and beyond, I pretty much do what I like when I like because I get him the results he wants.

You are looking at socialism as if it cannot be corrupted and turn into facism. Which is the same fascism of "let them eat cake" which you and I accuse the megga corps of, and rightfully so.

I know exactly what you are saying and am fully AWARE of it, and in a utopian world, you would be right, but we live in reality. And the reality is the more power over the economy you give government, the more strings are attached and the end extreem of that is when the state says, "Don't bad mouth me, I am feeding you".

You are looking at the current state of Europe as it is now, have you thought about what it might look like 100 years from now, or 1,000 years from now?

Regulating the economy to correct what you rightfully point out in the gap, is fine. But again, the more power you give government over your life, the less rights you have. Since power corrupts, it is better to have an open market so we at least have the oportunity to correct it. If we allow government to allways "correct" things......those people who think that way, fail to forget LONG TERM, that that government may not agree with a dissentor, and at that point, what do you do?

It is easyer for government to go after a criminal than it is when the government becomes the criminal. You are making the false assumption that sociallism is uncoruptable.

No matter what government you live under, you are still dealing with human beings who may not always have your best intrest at heart and they may not always agree with you. If you are going to have a government, which is unavoidable, the best thing you can do is to give them only what power is nessary, with constant checks and oversight, as possible and only power based on common law, not emotional ideology.

Exactly!!!

Matt, why don't you move to a communist commune? Then show us how wonderful life is there and how everyone always has enough to eat and live on. You make a proposition that paying people according to what they need instead of what the market decides won't lead to overpopulation/extreme poverty/starvation for everyone. Show us life on this wonderful commune without capitalism or the rich. Steam video of your life so we can all see that communism is better. We'll all become converts after you show us hard evidence of your economic theory working. Just like we'll all believe in Jesus when we see hard evidence.

You always rail against wage labor. Yet, when labor unions negotiate contracts, the workers invariable choose fixed hourly wage over profit sharing and/or ownership. Why is that, if wage labor is so bad and being a capitalist pig business owners is so easy? Don't the workers know what is best for themselves?

As soon as we pass these laws we also pass one automatically nationalizing any business that tries to move overseas and the owner or entire board of directors is sent for life to a prison that makes gitmo look like club med (daily beetings, rotten food thrown in their face every meal, spit on by their former employess once a week. ) Trying to move a business out of the country would officially be punished by life in the worst prison imaginable. I am strongly against just "letting people run their business how they want. " I'd rather see the government tell every business exactly how to run. As to the part about making stuff up to fire people, I'd have it they have to have well documented proof the person did what they said - basically businesses should have to have government approval to fire anyone - or they can get rid of them but they have to pay 5 years worth of wages to them and pay for their medical insurance until they get another job or 5 years whatever comes first. They also should need government approval for any policy they have. I'd personally like to outlaw private enterprise above the mom and pop level anyway.

And don't forget, factory work is the best plenty of people can hope for. Globalization should also be illegal.

The Geneva convention? That only applies to POWs captured in war (Bush was actually right it doesn't apply to terrorists as they were not in uniform. ) Maybe it would violate the bill of rights but it would be for the greater good and capitalist scum don't deserve any rights whatsoever.