Welcome to Gaia! ::

Some of our Founding Fathers owned slaves for one thing, so all men being created equal was a pretty bullshitty thing for them to add. The majority of the Founding Fathers were the aristocracy of their day and while they valued the working man (they were working men themselves), they must have been fools to think there would be no classes...and they would've done something to stop the classes that were already in existence. If the system was built specifically to keep the aristocracy out of government because they were privileged enough to have wealth and an education, then they would have had to leave the government themselves.

It wasn't, though. It was built to protect the rights of every person regardless of class, not to eliminate class. For the same reasons the aristocracy is in power now, it was in power then. I don't entirely agree with it.

that is why i am communist- i want a society with no money.

this is, in my eyes, the source of all that is wrong in the world.

why would one steal if not for a want of money or objects?

why would one go to war and fight if not for the pay, or if not to strengthen the economy of their homecountry? what battle has ever been fought without money in mind by at least one higher-up?

why would one abort if there would always be plenty for their child, if money or time or potential earnings in the future (education) were not an issue?

it all boils down to money. in a world without money, who would need to steal? in a world without money, there would be no classes to backstab and opress for. in a world without money, there would be no need to steal or fight.

my aim is simple, my idea is simple- simplicity is best in things like this, there are less ways to exploit since there are fewer loopholes.

No money. not even trade. just a central "market" from which everyone takes, and to which everyone donates their labor. to take from the system, they must put in, and then, they may take what all the others have produced. it works on a system of surplus and labor and production. there is no money, there is no property or profit.

I'm so tempted to explain how that all doesn't boil down to money because your reasons for people doing things are off, but we've exhausted this in the ED.

But I'll say this. That doesn't have to do with the discussion. The discussion is about our founding fathers and the system they created, and whether they were delusional for thinking they could prevent an aristocracy.

It doesn't have to be state sanctioned to exist. By virtue of their wealth, the rich DO hold a special social rank and privilege above the common man in our society.



And take a look at our "rulers". They are wealthy, well educated, etc.



And yet the Few exist and often rule us. Look at the Kennedy's.



Ever watched 10 minutes of VH1's specials on rich people? The amount of free s**t they get is ridiculous. And that black universal credit card with ridiculous spending limits? Exclusive parties, private clubs, private jets, prostitutes, exemption from the law (yes, they do have a certain level of exemption from the law, I sure as ******** don't see Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan in a public driving course despite their many drunken faux paus involving vehicles).

Denying that the rich have certain special rights soley because they are the rich, is like denying you need oxygen to maintain your life. Now, is there legal precident for it? Not really. But it still exists.




1. True.
2. True. To a degree.
3. Not true. Many people are born into wealth (coughParisHiltoncough), the wealthy have a certain degree of special treatment in our society. It is not to the benefit of the majority of the public for one person to be enriched; generally, the rich do not even have to provide a service, as seen by the extension of wealth into hereditary rights. The People do not create the wealthy, the Market creates the Wealthy.



False. No rights come with a "responsibility to society". I have a right to live, I owe society nothing for this right. I have a right to property, I owe society nothing for this job.



Thus proving my point about hereditary wealth and it's continuance. 3nodding



I'm prescribing nothing. I'm merely observing the class division and it's culmination in an American aristocracy. Such a thing is neither morally laudable nor reprehensible.

In other words; don't put words in my mouth jackass.

[

No, pure capitalism does NOT give everybody an opportunity. Capitalism tempered by socialist protection measure's does, such as the US economy.

Oh dear god, you're one of those whiny conservative "OMGCOMMUNISM=SLAVERY!!!ONEONEeleventyone!" people aren't you?

Either way, it doesn't matter. All societies have an aristocracy. Fascist, democratic, capitalist, communist; class division is inevitable was my entire point.

He didn't call you a communist. He asked if you were going to say communism is the answer, since it involves a classless society, and it sounded like that's what you wanted.

If you're mad at him because you think he's calling you a communist, maybe you should calm down, because he was just asking, and if you're insulted because you think he called you a communist, then you're insulting a few members of this guild who DO believe communism will work. There's nothing wrong with thinking communism is the way to go; it's a valid belief.

I understand how infuriating it is when people assume things, but aren't you guilty of doing the same thing?



Maybe it would be best if everyone just cooled down and treated this rationally. I'm pretty sure he meant no harm.