That's all very nice, but from what I've seen IRL people who must be fed from Governments plate in wealthy western part of the globe are most of the time lazy fucks who screwed up their own life in one way or another. There is no need to provide, just give enough jobs and make them earn it. Dude, what kind of life experience did you have anyways? I mean, we don't connect at all lol.
What's so bad abut consuming (not idiotic buying spree of course) and how are you going to eliminate it?
That's exactly what it means, stop trying to jump off my fork. If I quote Jefferson that means I agree with him most of the time and represent his traits and vice versa.
Well then I'm your enemy. If you agree with them, wouldn't you want me to accept/submit to their point of view even if I hated them?
The "watching" word man, it's there. I'm not obligated to watch out/care for anyone's well being in order to justify my existence. Ayn Rand would wipe floor with Chomsky's kisser any day..
And I can make the Iron man suit for myself. Well, why do you want to eliminate classes then? I don't, rich, poor, middle class, above middle class, below middle class..Love it all. Motivation, no class - no motivation. nOw tell me how wrong I am and how evil greed is, which I love btw.
People are unequal, everyone has his own story of failure and success, which is very natural. All competition, both human and natural is always taking place on unequal ground, if grounds were absolutely equal there would be nothing but mutual and absolute destruction.
I called you a fucking brain dead moron cuz you reminded me of that guy on youtube who said he'd vote for Obama cuz Obama will legalize weed. You suffer from the same fantasy level bro. I mean, give up on your lalala world ideals and enjoy reality. Iz bettah.

Hmm, if I didn't have a strong conviction of being correct I wouldn't engage in the debate to begin with. And we have an argument because we have different opinions, so we started it, didn't we? And I ain't a dick, I serve my own interests.

The connection I'm trying to make has to do not only with the obvious immediate benefits of sustaining the person but more so on the consumption of time. The fact of the matter is that a vast majority of people's lives (working lives) is aimed towards trying to either acquire access to or sustain the availability of the 6 or so needs I listed. If these needs are provided for then a certain amount of equal footing will be established for the citizenry from which I believe a rise in everyone's capability/opportunity to excel will necessarily follow. Pursuing one's individualized internal drives and motivations to attain their own definition of a fulfilling and meaningful existence, like everything in life, more than anything requires time. Eliminate a major time consuming aspect imposed by such capitalistic systems and the possibilities are far, far more open for individual enrichment. Thus, the society as a whole will inevitably benefit.

Simply quoting someone does not imply an endorsement their methodology. I'm well aware Marx's dialectic and, to a large extent, I agree with some of the major principles involved. However, having an external entity (in this case government) proportioning/telling the people what their needs are to be is an example of unjustified authority that I wholeheartedly oppose. My quoting of a philosophical idea presented by Marx does not mean that I support the overall ideology of the man who stated it. It can be achieved by many different ends. To borrow a colloqual saying from my region, there's more than one way to skin a cat. :P

As I said before, the common man should be in control of his own destiny. This is a conviction that I hold very strongly. Every possibility, every direction is open. However, my proposition requires that the only provision/stipulation upon this goal is that in doing so that is does/will not restrict or take advantage of another individual's right or ability to do the same. No more, no less. In my mind this makes sense. What do you see wrong with giving every person the freedom to choose their own way while watching out for the overall wellbeing of their fellow traveller?

Only if the overwhelming majority of the citizenry (baby) decides to accept an absolute, unquestioned ruler (mum). If so, that is their choice. The people should be totally free to choose what they desire for themselves. Like I said, your assuming that because I quoted Marx that I accept the full expansion of his ideals i.e Leninist/Stalinist economics, which I don't. I want what I concider to be the redeemable qualities of the respective ideologies to be taken into account and meshed together accordingly. A more freely advanced Social Democracy, if you will. They can easily be compatible if you seriously concider what I'm trying to say. In the end, though, my ideal vision is that "class" (both socially and economically) will be eliminated from perception.

No. Not even close, imo. Social contract only applies to what the individual can aquire/exceeed/extend beyond his fellow man. It's a competition based on unequal grounds and, therefore, in my mind, illegitimate. If your fellow man is on equal footing then it is fine, but far, far, far more often than not it becomes a competition between vastly unequal peoples.

Your honesty is mostly why I continue interacting with you. Honestly, most of the time your a dick of the highest order. But I take no offense from what you've said (though, imo, calling me a "brain dead fucking moron" was a tad bit harsh). Like you, I'm simply speaking my mind. The difference is that I don't try to start an argument over my opinions like I sometimes feel you are. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I sincerely enjoy the fact that you are mostly willing and capable of interacting in such a discussion. And for that I thank you. You're still fucking crazy, though. ;)

On an unrelated note, what do you think of this...

YouTube Video

So wait up, feeding people and establishing care state is the same as giving them the right to excel? Are you trying to say that they are the same? I have tough time connecting with what you are saying sir.

When you quoted Marx, did you actually do your own research on him and that he was against free market and all that stuff?Or that he was for devaluing goods and making sure people couldn't earn more than they they had a need for (Government would decide what they need etc)

I mean, you quote the guy, but then you kinda disagree with him, then you agree that people aren't equal but then you state they sort of are. You are always coming up with very complex ideas that actually contradict each other and all of them would never work the way you want them to.
So we do need a government to watch us and feed us (mum) because we can't even feed ourselves properly (baby). What does the mum do to her child all the time? She controls him/her. Do you want to be treated as a child? Or do you think that the government will wipe your ass and give you bunch of individual rights just like that? You see, every single concept you make sounds like "I wanna have my dick in vagina and someones dick in my anal", or "I wanna sit on 2 chairs at the same time" IE I want to have the best of both worlds. People will never manage without government/power structure, hence, it's impossible by default.
Do you really believe that? And where the government/institutions arise then? Anyways, the most advanced and fair system is liberalism and capitalism. It works, it has shortcomings, everything does. The most dishonest version was developed by the guy you quoted and supported by your fav intellectual. The main reason I disagree with you is because you're being unrealistic and contradicting yourself.
That's what we have nowadays. Don't we?
no I'm not, I'm honest and intense. And crazy, but badass crazy. Anyways, sorry for insulting you, but really felt like doing it.

Sweet Zombie Jesus! You do see the full point I'm trying to make. Why didn't you say this first? :P So what's your problem with this exactly?

Well, ideally (don't even start in with your shit ), you wouldn't need to. The calculations would be done by yourself with honesty and moral responsibility to maintain respectable social cohesion. Of course, this would under a stateless society I advocate. Remember, Anarchism requires, more than anything else, personal responsibility. Under a government run society, however, they would, unfortunately, be done by the governing bodies, most likely.

I feel that I understand my Marx paraphrase, so I don't see how it implies 3 distinctively separate parties. Why can't all three be the people themselves? In my mind and from many interactions I've had, these can all be accomplished by the cooperation of the individual parties themselves. Social operation thru agreeable social contract. You say the 'watcher' has to be the 'Government/Corporations/Big Brother'. Why is that the case? To me, it seems that it is because of illegitimatly established authorities. To get at the core of the subject, how is the 'state', 'government' or the 'corportations' any different from the religious institutions of old?

In reality, they aren't. Imo, they are nothing more than than well entrenched and culturally established charades designed to tell certain classes of people that they are not capable of managing their own affairs, so certain, more well to do groups of people should do it for them. Which is absolute bullocks btw. This method leads to exploitation, disparagement, and, eventually death and violent revolution. The people can, have and will, if given the opportunity, run things fairly and adequately amongst themselves. All historical accounts attest to this fact.

All of the Darth Bane (Star Wars comics ftmfw) quotes are dealing with equalizing the people in all respects. Like emotionless robots. I disapprove of this notion greatly. Like I said noone is equal to another by ability, aptitude, and/or talent. These are characteristics of the individual. They are equal only in the realm of physical necessities (food, water, shelter, ect.) needed for their immediate survival. Only after these things are met/provided for can people truly be capable of equal opportunity amongst their fellow men. Only then can people adequetely (morally and ethically) be judged on their merits.

And, yes, most of the time you are totally fucking crazy...

And I summed up your previous post. The equality you talk about doesn't lie in providing food and satisfying basic needs. It lies in giving people equal ability to excel, that's all. Not feeding them.
And If I want to take more than I need. If I want to take as much as I can? Who will calculate the proportion of my needs? Marx?
If you will read your Marx quote well and try to comprehand it, IE how it would work in not so perfect world, you'll see that it's a exchange system that requires 3 subjects, Giver, Equalizer/watcher and receiver. The watcher is Government/Corporation/Big brother and your best friend, not.
Need=good excuse for want
Want=Sad but true by metallica, Love it.
Equality=I'm pretty crazy, I know.

Apparently, you didn't understand what I was saying at all because in no way is what I said contradictory. The equality I spoke of is not that everyone is/should be identical robots with no individually distinctive marks. That seems to be what you got from it and you're totally wrong. Imo, the reason for such confusion is in your inability to distinguishing the specific meanings of the terms I employed from your own idea of what the terms mean to you. That's a prime example of intellectual dishonesty and, at least, bias.

I clearly outlined in the first couple of sentences that the difference the specific traits, abilities of the individual that distinguish them from everybody else and that of the required necessities (food, water, shelter, ect.) that everybody on the planet must have to survive. I'm saying that what is required is what is needed to live. That's where the equality lies. And any government worth it's weight in shit should seek to provide these necessities. No more, no less. This doesn't require Communism as it can just as easily be achieved through Democratic Socialism or Cooperative Anarchism. ;) To each his own, indeed, but with the added concern for his fellow travelers...

Dude, wrong again. You must not understand that phrase. Let me put it this way, every person should contribute to society to the best of their ability and consume from society in proportion to their needs. Where that implies that you can't keep your money or that your abilities aren't your own is utterly mind boggling to me. And how that makes you think I've "entered the realm of communism" is equally confusing. Have I not already said way back that Communism is a nice sounding, utopian fanstasy but it could never work?

But more importantly, explain how you think food is a 'want' and not a 'need'? Water? Shelter? Clothing? Does someone not always die if they don't eat, drink, protect themselves from the harsh environment enough? Sure, with the idea of excess it requires the abundance of something in which case anything can transfer to a 'want'. But only after the physical 'need' is met first and foremost. Therefore, regardless of excessive intake, these things are still needed.

Or better yet, can you tell me how you define 'need', 'want', and 'equality'...?

I like how well you contradict yourself, people are not equal but in the end they are because they must be fed or otherwise they will get sad. And the government is to make sure the spoon isn't empty.
Suum cuique
Man, you're fucking brain dead moron. It's not need, it's what you want. It's not from each their own ability. My ability is mine alone and money I make from myself is my own money. You're already entered the realm of communism within your own psyche, have a nice journey.

lmao. Hippies are lame, thoughtless, pseudo-mystical, rhetoric regurgitators. Plus, they smell weird. :P

I'm well aware that people are not equal in capability, aptitude or talent. Uniqueness; that's the beauty of the individual. However, in my mind, if we are to entertain moral questions concerning politics/economy with honesty and seriousness (and they are moral questions), we should keep in mind that if we are to think of ourselves and our fellow men as equals in society, then, necessarily, we should hold them as equal in 'need'. Everyone is a mouth to feed, everyone is a back to cloth, everyone is sickness to mend, everyone is a mind to enrich. I may be an Anarchist, but I live in reality so if a government is going to exist it should be able to provide and sustain the basics for those it governs. Only then will equal oppurtunity truly be within the grasp of the citizenry.

What I'm getting at is the core of the individual right or, even more so, the necessities required to sustain a meaningful life to seek "the pursuit of happieness". That is to say the moral and ethical importance of politics and economics should be focused upon the said individual's basic necessities to experience a worthwhile existence. "Basic necessities" in this case meaning such adequet amounts of food, water, clothing, shelter, health care and education in order to sustain and/or perpetuate the advancement of the individual and, furthermore, the whole of the species. The system in place in America today holds the position that presuppose the idea that the 'necessities' of life to are merely to be concidered as 'commodities'. From my assessment, that is the source of the most overall outrage at the economic system and, hell, has been since the 1840's.

In short, to give Marx some credit here: To each, their need. From each, their ability...

You with your equality delusions. People aren't equal so get over with it. You're like some kind of hippie.
Thing is, he's being realistic and I totally agree with him. So come on, give up on Chomsky.

lol. Not at all what I gathered from his posts. He's taking either extreme rarities or personal anecdotes as examples to attest to the validity of his operating position, that being that the problem isn't the systems itself, it's the people. He says he prefers the current system because it makes him money and he doesn't care how or where that money comes from. From his statements, it seems that he's for the equal oppurtunity of all, which sounds nice and plays well with his unfettered captialistic stance. But the systems is inherently designed to provide only one mode of equality to its participant...the equal oppurtunity to be exploited, taken advantage of, and, otherwise, fucked by the other guy(s). This is something I'm reasonably sure he's aware of, but fails to see how this is a negative economically, socially and ,overall, to borrow his wording, 'animal-like'.

Anywho, those are just my thoughts as of now. I intend to respond, but I want to sit back a watch a little while longer. This has always been a hotbutton topic for Fats, so I'm wondering what he'll say next. lol...