[QUOTE="bastards12345"]God is not, and cannot be all-powerful. That would defy the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter, as well as all the other scientific laws that we have established, tested, and improved over the ages.UGAThornhill

That sounds well and good but God doesn't have to be confined any physical laws.  It would actually stand to reason that if he created those physical laws he would, therefore, be above them.

Just because you can't comprehend how God fits into the natural order of things doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

Since we all know if god did exist he would not confirm to physical laws but would be above them. Therefore anything outside these laws can obviously not be tested through observations or empirical data. Hence, the mere idea of possibly proving something which is inherently outside human reason through cognitive ability or through observational data is ridiculous, and impossible. So, god can never be proven.

Jean Paul Sartre, Immanuel Kant, and Davide Hume

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="phragit"]Communism is not what most people think of it, to quote Engles: communism is the liberation of the proletariat. This means that everybody has all freedom, so long as they do not use this freedom to exploit other people. Communism only differs from capitalism, in that it does not allow corperate slavery, it is any social ownership of production and only production, property that is not capital is still privately owned. As far as production, communism is much more variable in the style of economy that it can sustain, versus capitalism. A communist economy that is strongly centralized will produce infinately more than a centralized capitalist country [we call these economies statist and fasctist, respectively]. Decentralized communist countries will produce slightly less than capitalist countries for the first 100 years or so, assuming they start at the same time; the main difference being that in the capitalist countries, the capitalists get rich, while the poor starve and in a communist state everybody, assuming the individual in questions works or cannot work for various reasons, lives a possibly fullfilling life. After 100 years or so in both, communists states will eventually produce more, because capitalism always eventually become bogged down in monopolies and malcontents, while communist states continue growing at a perportional rate.phragit

Phragit I understand what you are trying to do, but these people don't understand. When Communism conjurs in their mind they think dictatorship, or it goes it against human nature. I made a post in that Thunderjack thread a while back about how communism doesn't go against human nature but nobody would even respond. Quite sad, but the truth.

[QUOTE="jm4847"][QUOTE="Int7nse"] No public ever controls a goverment.
Int7nse

All he was trying to say is that it has happened where the people had gained control of the governemt. Have you ever heard of Spain during the 1930's or the Paris Commune? The Paris Commune likely only failed because the revolutionaries were not agressive enough in seizing the banks.

[QUOTE="-Karayan-"][QUOTE="Death_Masta187"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I agree, capitalism is evil.gp556by45

Honestly I'm beggining to really become tired of this argument. So here is an example at an attempt to refute it.

Let’s say one is born into a communist society in which there is a gift economy in place where things are traded for equal value and nobody is exploited. Everyone in this community works together because they realize the practical need for it. And everyone is happy because they are able to express themselves to the fullest extent, being that they don't have to worry about money, spend almost every waking moment working or sleeping. Crime is down because babies, infants, or children with mental illnesses, or problems, or phobias are treated right away and the community supports these institutions communally because it is in there best interest to keep crime down. Everyone is involved in the politics of each separate community, and no property is owned by one single individual or group of people, it is communally owned (except for personal items). What am I trying to say, you ask? Well would you be greedy under these circumstances? Of course not. So human nature qualities like greed don't actually exist they are attitudes which humans develop under the circumstances in which the live and what is convenient for them to think. Therefore it is logical to assume under these circumstances that communism would not fail because of human attitudes like greed. Just for the record I'm not trying to shove communist down anyone's throat just to challenge what is ordinarily thought about human nature and its merits.

I realize many people here will say that situation is ideaslistic. Your wrong. Communism is based on analyzing material, and economic relationships within society.

meh. Nothing wrong with socialism. In fact, most countries in the world have quite a few socialist elements. America is one of the few that doesn't/hasn't attempted large scale social programs like national healthcare, etc.eo12601

This seems to be a common pitfall; to think Socialism equals welfare or state-owned social programs to help the poor is Socialism. Its not Socialism its a form of Keyenzian(spelling?) economics. Many feel its just "keeping the masses at bay" and furthuring the enslavement of the proletariat or forseeing a soon end to Capitalism. This is not to say Socialism isn't about egalitarianizing however, it would just be done through a proletarian revolution where the proletariat would own the means of production. You see Socialists believe in a transitional state that will eventually become a stateless and classles society. While the Anarcho-Communists believe after the proletarian revolution we should progress straight into stateless communism. I know I went kind of off-topic but I feel it was for an important cause.

[QUOTE="dadafeig"][QUOTE="Thunderjack"][QUOTE="dadafeig"]

[QUOTE="Thunderjack"]In response to dadafeig- What Nation/culture are you basing these ideas on?Thunderjack

None specifically that I can think of.

Nope honestly just general observations about economic relationships within any society. However there might be a slight bias that they may come mostly from America since I live here but that in no way limits my outlook on how I look at economic qualities within any society. Why are you interested if its based on America or not?

To be honest I find it rather ironic because in your topic heading you say "Modern USA Culture: A pathetic reflection of Idealist weakness". And to be quite frank with you thinking that 99% of people can achieve anything they want if they try hard even despite the vastly difficult condtions which they are born into seems very idealistic to me at this point in America.  

[QUOTE="dadafeig"]

[QUOTE="Thunderjack"]In response to dadafeig- What Nation/culture are you basing these ideas on?Thunderjack

None specifically that I can think of.

Nope honestly just general observations about economic relationships within any society. However there might be a slight bias that they may come mostly from America since I live here but that in no way limits my outlook on how I look at economic qualities within any society. Why are you interested if its based on America or not?

In response to dadafeig- What Nation/culture are you basing these ideas on?Thunderjack

None specifically that I can think of.