o_O.Q said:
"are you advocating then for centralized management of the economy?" the point i was trying to make is that societies regulate the problem of individual drives clashing by establishing something common across all of the people of a society and that is what we call government for example government outlaws sexual harassment because the common idea of society is that sexual harassment is bad and therefore government enforces laws to curb sexual harassment and government is able to do so because it is a centralised force between the people of a society
this nonsense you were coming up with about centralisation being about individuals is wrong
just the word itself makes this clear "CENTRAL" or in other words "SOMETHING THAT EXISTS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE INDIVIDUAL THINGS"
on the other other hand "DECENTRALISED" or in other words "BREAKING OF A STRUCTURE INTO SMALLER PARTS OR INDIVIDUALS"
again where are you getting the idea that centralisation is about indivdiduals? while decentralisation is about groups?
|
Socialism would be broken into smaller groups, instead of a huge corporation overseeing a massive chain, it would be done in a bottom-top manner.
thismeintiel said:
No, you posted BS that I was easily able to refute. You don't privatize industry with a government taking it away from the people who started it and putting in someone who favors the government. It's the exact opposite of the meaning of the word. And o_O.Q posted something addressing it, as well. And let me burst your little Socialist Utopia bubble. Socialism has, is, and always will be a lie, whatever form it comes in. A lie perpetrated by a soon to be dictator to fool gullible people into thinking they will be given power, wealth, and/or protection. The people believe this one man, or small group lead by this man, will give them the Socialist Utopia they desire. But, instead rights are always stripped from the people, usually free speech and gun rights, to quiet discontent, to stop another revolution. The same people who helped him/them gain power are the same ones who are crushed beneath the weight of an oppressive government. Sure, they give people a "vote," but no one is going to vote against the man in charge, for fear they and their families will be persecuted and/or killed. And near the end, there is always a group/s that the people's plight is blamed on. In the end, the people are no better off and just filled with hatred for someone or something, all of which was accomplished on the backs of thousands/millions dead from either war within the country, persecution by the government, and/or starvation and disease. That's the way it has always played out and the way it will always play out. |
I'm not a utopian socialist. And privatization means making state-owned corporations private, so what does that have to do with what you're saying?
BasilZero said:
Imo, fictional works created from artist and creators should not be changed because of someone's view. If its one thing, it'll lead to another deviating from the creator's original intention which should imo be protected.
The creations are from the creator and any type of change that is made is censorship which I am against. In the case of Sleeping Beauty, there's two versions - the one that Disney made which is indeed a lighter version and the original version which was darker.
Both versions imo should exist - not be banned or questioned otherwise. Thankfully the right minded people have allowed both versions to co-exist both physically in libraries and digitally on the internet as it should be with any other creation. |
They shouldn't be changed, but you're saying too that they shouldn't even be questioned? Why?
