Why are the WW2 vets angry at the Obama Admin?

[Coito ergo sum]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

Yes, actually. That's also a good description of slavery. if you have a compulsory responsibility to care for your neighbor, then you are his slave. That's the big problem with Marxist Communism and Communism in general. It obligates each individual to do what the collective thinks he is most capable of or what the community most needs. In exchange, he gets what the community thinks he "needs."

Slavery.

Your actions may get restricted by the needs of society does not equal slavery, its in fact the basis of civilisation. Your face these restrictions from your first breath to your last (and in some ways even after you are dead).

You only alternative to this is living on a desert island and even there you are going to face a lot more restrictions from nature

You didn't say "Marxism = people have their actions restricted in some ways because of the needs/interests of society as a whole." You said "people have a compulsory, non-optional responsibility FOR each other." Those are completely different things.

Marxism isn't just that people have their actions restricted due to the needs of the society. Suggesting that we have laws to restrict people's behaviors is not "Marxism" -- and capitalism is not the absence of such restrictions.

Nobody is suggesting, are they, that there ought to be no laws and all behavior ought to be unrestricted? Are they? I haven't heard it. But, you offered a definition of Marxism, or at least you equated Marxism with a nonoptional, compulsory responsibility toward others in your society. By that definition or equalization, Marxism really is a horrible thing, because when you have a compulsory, non-optional RESPONSIBILITY FOR others, then you are, in fact, a slave. In the case of Communism, the community (in reality the people in power) decide what you ought to be doing to fulfill that responsibility, and then the community (in reality the people in power) decide what you need to survive. That's a slave, by any definition. It's just calling the slave-owner "the community" instead of a few people on a plantation.

[MrJonno]

You have restrictions on your behaviour because you have a compulsory non-optional responsibility to others, you can't separate the two

Society does decide what your responsibilities to others via taxes and it can even make you work compulsory for the good of the state (its called jury duty and I would love to see an explanation why doing jury service is any less 'slavery' than the state forcing you to build a road for 6 months, and no a court or judge saying jury service is not slavery is not an answer. Don't get me on military service, that's basically saying your life belongs to the state and we can send you off to be exterminated at the flick of a pen

It's not a question on whether an individual has compulsory responsibilities to others, that's a given in any country anywhere, the only question is how great those responsibilities are how you pay your due.

[Coito ergo sum]

You have restrictions on your behaviour because you have a compulsory non-optional responsibility to others, you can't separate the two

We have restrictions on our behavior, because when people get together and live in close proximity with each other and have various business and personal interactions with each other there is a need for rules and order to protect people from wrongful acts of others and to provide a fair and safe environment for people to coexist. We do not have a "nonoptional responsibility toward others," because, obviously, if someone is having trouble with their bills, or can't pay to fix their HVAC system, that doesn't mean you have to help them. You have the option. But, you don't have to. You absolutely DO have the option not to be "responsible" for other people. What happens is that we have elected representatives that carve out exceptions to the "optional" aspect, and make certain things in a sense non-optional because the government either writes checks or provides services paid for by tax dollars.

Society does decide what your responsibilities to others via taxes and it can even make you work compulsory for the good of the state (its called jury duty and I would love to see an explanation why doing jury service is any less 'slavery' than the state forcing you to build a road for 6 months, and no a court or judge saying jury service is not slavery is not an answer. Don't get me on military service, that's basically saying your life belongs to the state and we can send you off to be exterminated at the flick of a pen

These are exceptions, not the general rule. Moreover, jury duty in the US is technically compensated, although the State proves that it is less trustworthy than private organizations, because it exempts itself from minimum wage laws by allowing a very low wage for serving on jury duty.

The State does not compel you to be responsible to others, though. It generally just compels you to pay more or less in taxes. it can't compel you to repair machines or take out an appendix. It can't compel you to write your neighbor a check. It can only compel you to pay taxes. Well, the State in a Marxist system CAN compel you to take out appendixes and repair machines -- that's because Marxist Communism is slavery. You are to contribute all that you are able to contribute, which is determined by the community (not you, the individual) and in compensation you don't get the opportunity to charge what you would like to charge -- you're only entitled to what you "need" in the mind of the community.

That's why Marxist Communism is slavery. At least in a capitalist system, which does not by any means guarantee wealth, it at least gives one a fighting chance. In Marxist Communism, wealth and prosperity is a vice, an unfairness. You are to contribute all you can (whatever you're ordered to contribute) and you'll get your necessities -- EXACTLY like antebellum slaves got -- get out and pick the cotton, and your "three hots and a cot" (if you're lucky and last year's harvest was good) will be there for you.

It's not a question on whether an individual has compulsory responsibilities to others, that's a given in any country anywhere, the only question is how great those responsibilities are how you pay your due.

That, of course, has fuck-all to do with "Marxism" which is what you said it was. it isn't. Marxism isn't that. Of course, in any system where there is any government that imposes any laws, there are taxes used for welfare purpose and people are compelled to serve on juries or even enter the military. However, that doesn't make them Marxist. The idea that Marxism = government is some strange idea that pro Marxists and pro-Communism folks have been selling for the last few years. They like to claim that opening a public library is an example of Marxism, communism or socialism, when, of course, it isn't.

let's try to find the common ground here, so we don't go around in circles:

1. In any society, people have mutual responsibilities imposed by law. Examples may include military service, serving on juries, abiding traffic laws, treating employees according to certain laws, paying taxes, complying with corporate and securities regulations, and a host of other responsibilities imposed by law.

I think we both agree with that -- that is what you said exists, and I can't deny that that is the way of things.

HOWEVER,

2. Where I think we disagree is that I do not think that paying taxes, welfare doled out by the state, or having a public library, or serving on juries, etc. constitutes either (a) Marxism or (b) a compulsory, nonoptional responsibility for other people.

My reasons -- One, Marxism is not that -- at all. Marxism or Marxist socialism/communism means that everyone gets according to his needs (only) and everyone gives according to his ability to give or work (and the level of receiving and giving is set by "the community" somehow), and there is no private property or private enterprise, since all the means of production is controlled by the community (the state). And, therefore, Marxism =/= "a compulsory nonoptional responsibilty for other people."

Further, Marxism certainly does not mean just that societies entail rules on our behavior that require us to do stuff or refrain from doing stuff. That is not what Marxism is. That's what government is, and government =/= Marxism. Marxist Communism is a specific thing that really is very detrimental to individual humans. While I hesitate to use the term "evil" because I don't think there is such a thing as "evil" -- it is a good and useful label for it. Marxist Communism is as unappealing as a political and economic system can get. I equate it with fascism (not in its manner of operation but in its effect on the individual citizen). It's as horrible as fascism.

[laklak]

My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Your right to eat ends at my wallet. Pretty simple, actually.

[Svartalf]

I ain't eating your wallet, now if you don't hand what's inside, my fist shall overstep my rights on your nose.

[Robert_S]

My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Your right to eat ends at my wallet. Pretty simple, actually.

Is your wallet leather? if it is, is it made from free range cows or some diseased ass feedlot crap?

[MrJonno]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

You do realise I was taking the piss out of Seth with that, if you don't want to nationalise 100% of all mean of production you are not a marxist.
However to Seth everyone is a marxist

[Seth]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

Yup, pure evil. We call it "involuntary servitude," and it's unlawful here.

The Tea party is trying to block semi-universal healthcare as once its in the only argument will be how to management it the best way (not how whether to have it or not). No country has ever gone from universal health to non-universal healthcare and they know it

Well, not yet, but the UK's considering it. Eventually they all will because they will all run out of OPM to support it, or anything else, and they will all collapse, leaving no health care for anyone.

[piscator]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

Yup, pure evil. We call it "involuntary servitude," and it's unlawful here.

Did you register for Selective Service? It's required by law.

You volunteer to produce income. It's optional, and comes with strings attached. You can skip it if you prefer.

The Tea party is trying to block semi-universal healthcare as once its in the only argument will be how to management it the best way (not how whether to have it or not). No country has ever gone from universal health to non-universal healthcare and they know it

Well, not yet, but the UK's considering it. Eventually they all will because they will all run out of OPM to support it, or anything else, and they will all collapse, leaving no health care for anyone.

What the hell do you think insurance is? In case you don't know, it's risk management via Other People's Money.

Do you think auto liability insurance is any less compulsory than income taxes? You choose to make income just as surely as you choose to operate a motor vehicle. You can forego either. or both if you like. You're not a slave, and no one in the US government is holding a gun to your head to produce income.

[Seth]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

Yup, pure evil. We call it "involuntary servitude," and it's unlawful here.

Did you register for Selective Service? It's required by law.

Yup. Did my time in line too... during the Vietnam war. And prison and military service are two of about four circumstances I can think of where an individual can be forcibly compelled to labor on behalf of others. The other two are the duty to assist police on command and the duty to assist a firefighter on command. All of these are related to the keeping of the peace and protection from a common enemy, which is entirely different from forcing someone into a labor camp to work on behalf of others against their will.

You perpetrate the common fallacy of assuming that because one form of involuntary servitude is lawful and reasonable that therefore all forms of involuntary servitude are lawful and reasonable.

That's not the case.

You volunteer to produce income. It's optional, and comes with strings attached. You can skip it if you prefer.

Yes, I can. And that's the point. I have no "compulsory non-opt out responsibility" for anyone other than myself, or perhaps my children if I had any.

The Tea party is trying to block semi-universal healthcare as once its in the only argument will be how to management it the best way (not how whether to have it or not). No country has ever gone from universal health to non-universal healthcare and they know it

Well, not yet, but the UK's considering it. Eventually they all will because they will all run out of OPM to support it, or anything else, and they will all collapse, leaving no health care for anyone.

What the hell do you think insurance is? In case you don't know, it's risk management via Other People's Money.

Not when it's compulsory. That's involuntary servitude. I'm being required to work in order to pay someone else's medical costs. I refuse.

Do you think auto liability insurance is any less compulsory than income taxes?

Yes. One is only required to buy auto liability insurance if one operates a motor vehicle on a public highway. It's entirely non-compulsory.

You choose to make income just as surely as you choose to operate a motor vehicle.

Yup. And choosing to do neither frees me from any "compulsory non-opt out" responsibility to anyone else. Besides which, I've said before that paying taxes to compensate the government for services it provides to ME is perfectly appropriate.

You can forego either. or both if you like. You're not a slave, and no one in the US government is holding a gun to your head to produce income.

But the government is pointing a gun directly at my head with Obamacare. I must either buy a policy that suits Obama or pay a tax for DOING NOTHING. If I refuse to pay that tax, the IRS will come after me, and if I resist, it will eventually show up with armed paramilitary agents who will ultimately kill me if I refuse to surrender to their slavery.

[pErvinalia]

Well, the State in a Marxist system CAN compel you to take out appendixes and repair machines -- that's because Marxist Communism is slavery.

There's no "state" in communism. It's either or both nationless (if that could ever be achieved) and authoritarianless (to make a word up to represent that there is no controlling state).

You are talking about state socialism.

[pErvinalia]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

You do realise I was taking the piss out of Seth with that, if you don't want to nationalise 100% of all mean of production you are not a marxist.
However to Seth everyone is a marxist

No he doesn't realise you are taking the piss. He seems to fail at that all the time.

[piscator]

Well, the State in a Marxist system CAN compel you to take out appendixes and repair machines -- that's because Marxist Communism is slavery.

There's no "state" in communism. It's either or both nationless (if that could ever be achieved) and authoritarianless (to make a word up to represent that there is no controlling state).

You are talking about state socialism.

He's talking about authoritarian Bolshevism, Stalinism.

But then again, he's replying to MrJonno...

[Warren Dew]

Marxist = people have a compulsory non-opt out responsibility for each other. the sheer evil of it!

Yup, pure evil. We call it "involuntary servitude," and it's unlawful here.

Did you register for Selective Service? It's required by law.

Yup. Did my time in line too... during the Vietnam war. And prison and military service are two of about four circumstances I can think of where an individual can be forcibly compelled to labor on behalf of others. The other two are the duty to assist police on command and the duty to assist a firefighter on command. All of these are related to the keeping of the peace and protection from a common enemy, which is entirely different from forcing someone into a labor camp to work on behalf of others against their will.

I'd have to disagree with all except prison. Prisoners have already been convicted of crimes and have thus forfeited some rights. But an all voluntary military works fine, and voluntary assistance of police and firefighters is probably better than enforced assistance as well. In the case of police, it would place at least one check on corrupt, excessive exercise of police power, which does sometimes occur.

[piscator]

What the hell do you think insurance is? In case you don't know, it's risk management via Other People's Money.

Not when it's compulsory.

So you're under the impression that it's some form of magic, not other people's insurance payments, that pay your insurance claims?