What will be done? For the most part nothing. They will die off naturally. The only time intervention would and/or should be carried out is in the case of harm such as a parent who attempts to "pray the cancer away" rather than have their child treated by medicine or other such cases of neglect, abuse, or endangerment. If an adult wants to handle snakes or refuse blood transfusions or the like then that is on them and the sooner they award themselves a Darwin Award the better. Parents however hold no right to award their children a Darwin Award.
How are you so unimaginably ignorant?
In what part of the north of the United States do large swaths of the religious population reject modern society? Local churches are very much involved in modern medicine, from direct donations to financial support of those seeking modern medical aid? Or holding chapels within hospitals? I would have thought that the glaring polarization in the United States's political system would have caused some people to wake up.
The Deep South and the Appalachia region are not necessarily anti-science; that in fact can be seen when they embrace modern technological aspects of military technology or other modern appliances. They are however, anti-government. And the northern states, particularly the Yankees, are very pro-science, on the belief that science is the new god of this world (a very wrong belief, I might add) that can cure all that is wrong in the world.
It is no secret that Yankeedom and its allies have used science, invented or actual, to push their political agendas over local government through the federal government by using it as a means to alter their lifestyle. Nor is it a new trick. The north has traditionally used the Feds to achieve this end for countless decades. It is mostly with good intentions that Yankeedom has done this and the Deep South is not remotely innocent. Their slave society pushed Yankeedom into the belief that they cannot be trusted. Nor is Appalachia wholly innocent either.
To oppose individual religious groups, beliefs, and such is one thing. To assert that all the world is in peril because religion exists is the tell-tale sign of a narrow man who relishes only what he knows, not that which he can learn. You are intellectually sir, no more sophisticated than an inbred white hick who fires off his gun to warn off any wanderers. That is your tiny hilltop of pseudo-intellectualism and it is all but barren, but by God is it yours.
If you expect me to defend anything the Soviets did from the instant they started their revolution onward you are barking up the wrong tree. Russia is was and always has been fucked. The belief that socialism could or can be imposed from the top down is fucked.
Which is funny, because whenever people like Sanders come along, the push is always to support them at the national level, not preach what they believe in. Socialism and communism must always be imposed from top down. Because if it isn't, then people who disagree with the policy will immediately out compete those who do not.
en.wikipedia.org
I'm sorry you were saying?
This does nothing to really win anyone over. China is the most horribly over leveraged country in the history of the world. They literally shove trillions of dollars of stimulus into their economy every year just to keep it running. And that's even after they undercut their trade partners, steal other nation's technological secrets, and dump their products in new and creative ways on foreign markets. China is a massive parasite that is beginning to run out of other people's money and charity. A parasite that has convinced itself to be the new king of the world.
Much like any communist.
It's also the most powerful nation in existence at the moment that practices slave labor, engages in racial (and religious) discrimination up to and including concentration camps, and has institutionalized husband replacement. And in case you didn't read between the lines, that means thousands of ethnic minorities in China are being raped. And then the next morning they have the privilege of getting up and serving her rapist breakfast.
See above.
As to factory bosses they are welcome to work at the factories which are owned by the people who actually work at the factory. If they attempt to use violence then violence will be returned. As previously stated the "seizure" of property is pro-forma. As to your question of housing I am not sure what you mean. If they are living in the house they own it. Anyone who attempts to move in without their permission would be trespassing. With regards to the farmers who's personal property (ie their tractors, barns, acres of land) belongs to them I would violently oppose a state attempting to seize their personal property.
Oh, so this is the typical "stoner needs a job, but doesn't want to work, so he should be able to set his own standards, his own rules, and his own hours" socialism, isn't it? So tell me, if someone is hurt on the factory floor, who pays? Because if everyone owns it, then everyone is liable. Which is about as good as saying no-one does, because everyone in the factory, not wanting to share their resources, will trend towards insisting that the victim was negligent.
I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything.
Translation: "I've never worked hard for anything before, why start now? Someone else should just GIVE ME my freedom and wealth."
As to the idea of a "great leader" you have not been paying attention again. I actively disbelieve in greatman theory. And I distrust anyone and everyone is positions of power and authority. Anyone who claims they are a "Great Leader" or if others proclaim someone a "Great Leader" that individual is to immediately be considered suspect in the extreme. The entire purpose of the market syndicalist agenda is to decentralize the leavers of power and thus limit the damage a self-deluded great man and his delusional followers might do. And FYI the revolutionary is the one who fires first. What we seek ultimately is a bloodless victory. Though I do suspect that your kind will attempt to muster a final violent blow in an attempt of preserving your corrupt system.
So let me get this straight. You actively have no faith in any one person to do the right thing, but you somehow thing that groups of people if trusted to do the right thing to form a socialist society, will do the right thing? And what happens when people form into small tribes so they can just TAKE what they want? What happens when Yankeedom disarms itself in a military, economic, and cultural sense and Appalachia just marches up armies of hicks on trucks and systematically wipes us out?
You do understand that if a law were passed immediately nullifying private property and turning rental properties over to the inhabitants and work places over to the workers the entire political infrastructure being preserved we would live in a socialist society? Personal property would still be preserved intact and in full. I am an anarchist which means I want the decentralization of power not the consolidation of power. get that through your thick skull. You have a narrative you must hold onto. I get it. You have no interest in trying to analyze and critique what is being said. I get it. You love holding onto your strawmen so you can burn them down. I get that as well.
You do realize that in order for your dream to become a reality, you would need to wield highly concentrated power? Highly centralized, highly concentrated power? And that even with the full might of the US Federal government at your command, you would be unable to enforce those laws upon the Deep South and Appalachia? Whose local governments would laugh and ignore you?
What happens then stoner? You gonna send in your centrally controlled federal military force to invade? Because you have no means of forcing either of those cultural bastions to obey you. Appalachians have historically chosen to be dirt poor and free than follow whatever the Federal government tells them--even when it is undoubtedly in their best interest. And the Deep South would only pretend to comply, while ruthlessly exploiting every loophole or undermining any probing into their system. You'd have more luck getting the Russians to actually cut oil output.
An argument ad populum is not an argument its a logical fallacy. To hold an opinion one must be qualified to hold an opinion. This does not mean one is required to get a degree in a certain field. It does mean that one must be in passing familiar with the material so as to be able to present it to an individual who does believe it and have them say "yes. That is what I mean when I say X.". In short to hold a qualified opinion one must know both sides and be able to present both sides.
But that would leave you horribly unqualified to hold an opinion outside of whether consumables are better than blunts.
Here I present you with a challenge. Let us reverse roles. You defend socialism and I will attack socialism. Additionally I will take on the added burden of presenting a positive case for capitalism and the preservation of private property. This is a task which I am capable of doing. Are you?
So is this a pathetic attempt to undermine someone's resistance to socialism by getting them to argue it for you or are you so fucking stoned that you need someone to argue for your side? Because I don't know of anyone who would want to take on the argument of a side that has historically proven to be horribly corrupt and incapable of enacting the social and economic change promised.
Hey I know! How about instead of having fought the Civil War to end slavery, we argue for the Slave Owners and the Slave Owners argue for us! And when we pants them with their own arguments, they could have gone shamefully home and continue to be despotic slave owners!
Your capitalism is a fantasy peddled to the unwashed masses to preserve your power and sacrifice millions to your own lust for power. I am talking about capitalism as it has manifested in the real world. Death squads to impose corporate will and compliance. Exploitation of undeveloped regions to line the pockets of million and billionaires. Famine. Genocide. Totalitarian surveillance states. Concentration camps. Death camps. Economies mismanaged for the benefit of a small percentage of people.
If Communism Killed Millions, How Many Did Capitalism Kill? Granting for a single moment that any of what you said is true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Funny. Could have sworn that most capitalist countries
aren't failed states. All forms of economy will impose some form of compliance and loss in life. Not to mention the occasional atrocity or two. And yet, communist regimes not only top this, but they tend to quickly implode upon themselves.
At this point it is getting old repeating myself. So this time do pay attention. If we take your logic and apply it evenly the Democratic Republic of Congo, The Central African Republic, The Republic of Chad, The Republic of Turkmenistan, The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, The Republic of Yemen, The Republic of Uzbekistan, The Peoples Republic of Laos, etc, etc, etc. (I can go on for quite some time) are all manifestations of Democratic Republics. If you believe that I have a bridge I would like to sell you. It's in their name. It's in their founding writings that they are democratic. Nobody believes this. Why does nobody believe this? Because, and say it with me. We construct the definition first, then we see if those things match the definition.
No retard.
Humans are almost completely incapable of defining something first and then having reality follow. Humans observe their surroundings and attempt to categorize them as a means to understand them and then use it for their own benefit. Because we are a tool-using species. Language allowed us to convey these concepts not only to each other, but in time, to define it more accurately. When you define something and then wait to sit around and see that reality follows, you are either a liar or a retard.
Or a stoner about to get lit.
And how do we construct the definition? By examining the writings of the political theorists who established the term. We do not go to the masses who know little if anything at all about a subject when we wish to learn about a subject or how terms are understood or used. We go to those who's job it is to use those terms and see how they use them. This is why we know that those countries and hundreds of others some still around some long gone were not Republics. This is how we know that these countries are not democratic.
You act as though 99% of countries picked their names through some sort of national think tank involving the vast majority or the entire nation. As opposed to selected elite who chose the name either based on personal preference, historical precedence, cultural identity, or political (or personal) convenience. The reason why, you blazer, that 90% of the countries that include Democratic or Republic in their names that are anything but, is for the purpose of branding. Both for internal and external consumption.
Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course. This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.
So wait, you understand that people can hijack movements, but not governmental structure brands to suit their own purpose? You at a Bake Sale right now boi?
Yes all pretty words. Politicians are famous for pretty words. They never never lie. They never ever say a whole lot of nothing, or things which are the opposite of what they mean or do. Never. It doesn't happen.
And they of course, never ever tell the truth. Because that would mean that a stoner might have to put effort in who they should or should not trust.
Yes Aristarchus the man who discovered the earth was not the center of the universe, who discovered the sun was a burning ball, who put the planets in their correct order and distances. In other words the man who discovered modern cosmology before modern cosmology is a fucking footnote! The man who invented modern science before modern science was a thing was a fucking footnote! And why? So that mystic peddlers could continue to peddle their mysticism.
"Like, did ya know bro...the church did some bad things...so they're responsible for all evil in the world bro?"
"Or my bitch mother...made me get dressed for church?"
"And like...they always preach about working hard and...like, living for the sake of others bro?"
"Instead of like...not working, but getting paid to think on a higher plane bro? Like what I do?"
"It's fascism bro...like, why can't the entire world...like, see religion for its evil?"
"I just want to get high bro..."
And yes. Christianity was responsible for the evil's of anti-christian USSR. Do you know anything about the history of the Russian Orthodox Church or it's role in reinforcing the rule of brutal Tzars and Tzarinas? Are you aware of how Rasputin contributed to the unrest in Russia? Are you aware of Konstantin Pobedonotsev and the brutality which he advocated for against the peasants? Nothing can justify the actions of the USSR. Nothing. It was autocratic, despotic, authoritarian and disgusting. The abuses of the Russian Orthodox Church were returned to it. Does this mean it was right? Absolutely not. It wasn't. Was Christianity responsible for the anti-Christianity of the USSR. Learn your fucking history. You bet your ass it was.
Or maybe...just maybe, it has to do with the fact that the ethnic Russians, living in the Hordelands, have practiced physical and psychological means of divide and conquer for hundreds of years in one form of another and in fact has nothing to do with Christian beliefs that originated in a completely different geopolitical region?
Grab a map or a globe bro. Why do you think the religious policies that began in the Middle East would be at all suitable for people in the Hordelands?
Let's get something very clear. And this is a matter of historic fact. The peasants were property. Legally they were slaves by another name. I don't mean they were wage slaves either. What happened in Russia was predictable. Slave rebellions are always nasty affairs. always. And even when the slaves win they loose. In history I am aware of only one case where slaves were able to mount a successful rebellion against slave owners and were able to establish a working functioning government. With rare exception slaves are uneducated and are incapable due to ignorance (not lack of ability) to establishing a working functional government and the civil institutions necessary for a functioning society. What happened in Russia was exactly what anyone who knows anything about slave revolts could have predicted.
Tell me, which bong did you get these historical facts from? Because while famines did happen in medieval times due to mismanagement, neglect, and corruption...they were most often the result of humans being unable to have enough control over their production capabilities. And the more power and control you wield over the population, the greater the results will be. For good or for ill.
Returning to Aristarchus because your flippancy is not only disgusting but demonstrates exactly the problem with reactionaries. The fact that you think the person who discovered what was more or less modern cosmology without the benefit of even so much as a telescope and that he is remembered only as a footnote is a stain on human history. You want an entertaining read? Read Novus Organum. Christianity is a stain on history, it has always fought progress, it is a death cult, what we have today we have not because of but in spite of Christianity.
A stoner who can google. Who knew?
Check your numbers buster. I have.
"Bongs don't lie brah."
And there were and are capitalist gulags. It's a good thing I oppose gulags. I am going to tell you what the most pathetic part is. The most pathetic part is that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You are as bad as someone who rails against the bible and yet has never red a page and thinks that they are somehow qualified to give an opinion because they have heard third hand what others have to say. At least if I am going to criticize something I go to the source before I start doing so.
"I don't read like normal people brah, I can take one hit and I just...I just blaze through...like, I don't feel like I'm even reading it anymore...it's more like a dream. I can taste everything brah."
Are humans fallible? yes. Are they corrupt? No.
"Humans aren't corrupt brah. Sanders never sold me out to the establishment brah. He's out for poor guys like me. That's why he owns three homes and I suck dick for a baked brownie."
That is your disgusting Christian philosophy rearing its head.
"Like, we should just Dwarnize Christans brah. It's only white people anyway brah. Like amigo Jose would never vote for an international religious institution that has abused its powers and authority in the past brah. Throw open the borders brah. Free love."
Are humans corruptible? Yes. Which is why I do not trust lots of power in the hands of a few. Better to dilute power and its temptation as much as possible. It is rather comical however that on the one hand you put forward the proposition that humans are corrupt, and on the other that a system which perpetuates power in the hands of a few is a great system. And again.
I doubt that is the case here. Most of the people here are pro-Trump, which means most of them actually believe that there is too much power centralized in too few hands and that they prefer more power in local governments. This is not an unreasonable position, because most of the people here are from states whose culture has not been treated well in the recent (or even ancient) past by the Feds. Or so they feel.
And the US has always tried to balance the communal good favored by Yankeedom, Midlanders, Left Coast, New Netherlands, and Tidewater with the libertarian desire for personal freedoms as pursued by the Deep South and Appalachia. And so too has every major US founding culture opposed any imposition by large, international religious organizations via the Catholic Church. New Englanders were Puritans fleeing the Catholic & England Church, Tidewater followed the Anglican Church (England Church) who despised the Catholics, Appalachian religious groups opposed any kind of organized religion outside of themselves, and the Midlanders were primarily composed of Quakers.
I have red the bible. The devil is the good guy. Yahweh is the genocidal authoritarian psychopath.
The devil was never, not even once, presented as the good guy. That's even if you look at the actual historical resources of the Bible, not just the modern one based off flawed editing, localization, and re-telling. He was at best, always a tool of Yahweh. Nor was Yahweh ever presented as a psychopath. Indeed, the views on God changed throughout history. And that's even setting aside the merging and divorce of previous deities as He moved through cultures and time.
Really, you have to be a complete fucking berk to assert your atheist, science-based position and then completely ignore actual academic research on the historical aspect of God.
O, Oh this hurts. This is just too funny. Let me guess. You think the snake in the garden is the devil too? Or that Raqia in herbrew or Firmament in English means sky? Unholy shit what Christians know about their own holy book could fit in a thimble. Let's talk about "The Satan" heavenly prosecutor and member of the sons of god (bene elohim).
so let me get this story correct. The mafia don brags about how this Jimmy fears him. The enforcer is like "No he is humoring you. I mean look you've made him off limits. He just pretends to fear the family. You placed all kinds of restrictions on how he has to be treated. Whenever he opens his sandwich shop you dump loads of money on it. But man I am telling you. Withdraw your restriction and your favors and he will spit in your face.". And the Don of course being the idiot that he is, is all like 
"Go in and fuck up his shit as much as you want. But don't harm a hair on his head." 
