Response to the article Desktop Revolution

Damn Thoreau, more power to the government, forget civil disobedience.

...and passions are ignited. g-dubs, you somehow strike me as a strong supporter of George 'dubya' Bush, the man who is scrapping global protection treaties to stop pollution and global warming, and also cutting funding to the EPA, opening some of the most beautiful lands in our country to motorized recreation, eliminating national monuments, and destroying fragile wildlife and their habitats (i.e. salmon, arctic wilderness) with a wasteful and unprogressive energy policy.
Also, it's funny how he lost the election by around 200,000 votes and yet retains the presidency.

Sorry, had to get my gun off. I'm sure the American people have already realized their mistake and will move to correct it in four years.



'Jerry, I just saw a pigman. A PIGMAN!!!'

Nope kamikaze I am about as liberal as they get, and in no way support Bush. I just think young people these days really get off on protest and civil disobedience and the word 'revolution' which can lead to violence. And the people aren't realizing their mistake in Bush, his favor rating is at 55-56% in the newest TIME/CNN poll and overall the people support him, at this pace he will be reelected in '04.

like thoreau said the best goverment is no geovernment at all but that is only possible when society is ready for it. I agree with him completely but i definitel dont think society is ready for it

member of the crazed posting bros
Member of the white hoodie revolution

Society is definatly not ready for anarchy. A governmentless society would b completechaos and insanity. It would be a perfect society if it was possible to have an ordered, yet governmentless society.

~'It's More Fun Being A Pioneer, Then Just Another Clone Doing The Same Old Thing!'
Skogen Sprang

~'If Sex is a pain in the ass, you're doing it wrong!'

I totally disagree with having no government, I am all for Socialism and complete government ownership and control of the economy. Marx, Engel and others provide the real societal philosiphy, not Thoreau. It would be absolute mayhem to turn everything over to the people. The problems caused by private ownership are enough, in a governmentless society a few of the most wealthy would rise up and take complete control over everyone else. Enough problems have come from private ownership of business, now we want to get rid of government control so these rich big business owners can rule us. We've already given them the economy, now we want to give up the political system too? Thoreau's philosophy is a little late, Europe suffered through these Feudal problems 1,000 years ago. How can we possibly want to step back to being serfs for the very few wealthy and powerful who will rise up and take control over us without stronger government control over political and economical situations. We are already on the way to this in many aspects of life, imagine what would happen with no government at all.

Sorry g-dubs, I was in a bad mood last night. Socialized government provides for a stable economy and a classless system, but it's also low-income equality for the ruled and decadence for the rulers. However some concepts like socialized medicine are acceptable; but a total socialist government leads to suppression, stagnation of markets, and no growth as a nation.



'Jerry, I just saw a pigman. A PIGMAN!!!'

Also, stronger government control may very well lead us back to serfdom.



'Jerry, I just saw a pigman. A PIGMAN!!!'

All I have to add is that I totally agree with Kamikaze on Bush. I don't know why the voters voted for him. Because he was 'cooler' Than Gore?

The problem with Socialism is the wrong leader can turn things bad in a hurry. This was the problem with the Soviet Union, and leaders like Stalin who were power driven and mistreated the people eventually led to its demise. If Lenin had made it 10 or 15 more years I honestly think he could have made the Soviet Union one of the most powerful and successful countries economically in all of history. He took Russia from the very worst of imperialism and brought the people of the worlds largest nation together faster and more successfully than anyone else in history. From the starving and freezing masses of the Revolution to setting the groundwork for a world superpower in 10 years, if only there would have been more time he really could have made the system a success. Mao was also brilliant, yet he became overwhelmed with his power and set China back when he attempted to eradicate culture.

As for the lack of progress that many people mention, it happens, but consider this... The U.S actually feared that the Communist world could destroy them due to their technology for many years. They put a man in space first, and created mass amounts of weapons powerful enough to destroy the Earth. Now I certainly don't think this is a good thing, but they advanced technologically quite well despite a system that is said to not allow that sort of thing. And just think of all the money poured into the space and weapons race, that had it been used on the people would have given the USSR a real chance at great success. There are certainly downsides to Socialism, but it is far and away the best system if worked properly. The only problem is it has gotten such a bad name, who knows if it will ever receive another opportunity with a good leader, but it certainly deserves the chance. If worked properly, all people would receive a standard of life previously unimaginable.

I disagree that the main problem with socialism, or communism, is that it corrupts leaders. I mean that is the case in those instances you mentioned, but I think that is a result of a lack of any real democratic process rather than socialism. I think a capitalist society is at least, if not more, likely to produce corrupt leaders. Chretien and Bush are both crooked as hell, but the democratic system keeps them from getting too much out of control.

The real problem with socialism and communism is that they had there chance and unfortunaly they failed. The time is no longer ripe for these theories. Both were developped as a result of the oppression of the large working class and were centred around the principle that 'work will set you free'. Quite frankly, right now a world living by that dogma is about as based in reality as anarchy (which is really a very interesting concept and alot more complex than i previously thought).

Our society has become too self-centred and not only that, we are no longer an industrial society. The demographic that fought for socialism/communism is now predominately found in developping countries where cheap labour can be exploited.

The best we can hope for until an entirely new system of thought is developped is capitalism with an adequate social infastructure.

Capitalism sometimes provides corrupt rulers; it also includes an easy and controlled way to get rid of them. When socialism picks up a corrupt ruler, you're stuck with him until the next bloody revolution.



'Jerry, I just saw a pigman. A PIGMAN!!!'

you're talking about democracy

capitalism has nothing to do with democracy

g-dubs, anarchy is the best form of government IF PPL HAD ENOUGH RESPONSIBILITY TO GOVERN THEMSELVES, I'm not saying that it wouldnt be total chaos now because some ppl obviously cant handle it.

member of the crazed posting bros
Member of the white hoodie revolution

WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK