With all of the technology we have, how is it now possible? Instead of the trillions spent on military investments, imagine if that effort wasused to invest in technology to actually help people. I can understand why you're skeptical, but please just do a little bit of reading on your own and try to understand where we're coming from. I really do care about other people, that's why I'm so horrified when I see people being hated for things that they cannot even control, such as their race.

Namely property rights: the fact that richer people have a lot more property and the fact that many workers do not own the means of production means that they are either forced to work in a capacity where they get a set amount of money and the owner gets all of the rest of the profits or they refuse and have to starve to death. There's also the amendment that ended slavery, except of course if it is for a crime. Rich people have better lawyers and more connections, so obviously they can avoid prison more easily than poorer people, which puts prisoners into slavery (not to mention as poorer people have less property they have less money and as they cannot afford to make ends meet they become desperate and commit theft, and the law ignores the circumstances: for example is a poor person stole $100 from Bill Gates to pay for food for his family he would get arrested, despite Bill Gates never needing that money at all).

I'm not really interested in arguing about communism. Any ideology that can only work under a very specific set of conditions or else it spirals into catastrophe is just not worth talking about seriously. It's simply a joke.

What I'm asking you is whether it's "I'll kill you out of my love for my race" or "I'll kill you out of my love for all humanity"... once we accept that it's okay to violently shut down dangerous speech why should your dangerous speech be exempted?

I'm not really interested in arguing about communism. Any ideology that can only work under a very specific set of conditions or else it spirals into catastrophe is just not worth talking about seriously. It's simply a joke.

What I'm asking you is whether it's "I'll kill you out of my love for my race" or "I'll kill you out of my love for all humanity"... once we accept that it's okay to violently shut down dangerous speech why should your dangerous speech be exempted?

If you don't even want to know what communism is about then there's no point in even continuing. How are we supposed to have this debate when you refuse to even research and see what we even advocate?

That's more of a consquence of the current economic climate and not the constitution, which only states: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It doesn't favour anybody, except the "citizen", what you're talking about here more is worker's rights which is a bit of a separate issue. I'm not sure what you mean by slavery here.

Now of course you would get arrested for theft if you stole from someone because if you didn't then your entire system would be so corrupt that it would not be functional. You have a point where being able to stand up to your rights can be an issue and many people from all parts of the political spectrum would agree here, but that's the battle isn't it?

Because this isn't about fascism, communism, or other particular ideology. It's about people who are defending the use of actual violence to stop people from (allegedly) talking about hypothetical violence. Once you cross that line you have zero right to expect people not to do the same to you.

A. Because I already know what communism is and don't care what you think it is.

B. Because this isn't about fascism, communism, or other particular ideology. It's about people who are defending the use of actual violence to stop people from (allegedly) talking about hypothetical violence. Once you cross that line you have zero right to expect people not to do the same to you.

The thing is, they are already doing it. As I said, this is a reaction, you can't be peaceful against a violent enemy. Yes, the people that were targeted might have been the wrong people, but you're acting like the violence is unprovoked and before this violence was some sort of unheard of thing that never occurred. Remember, the United States has allowed KKK members speak while simultaneously punishing and arresting socialists for their speech, so free speech is not even really guaranteed unless the US is fine with it.

The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitutde, except as punishment for a crime. That means that slavery is allowed in regards to prisoners, that's what I mean by slavery. Also, worker's rights is inseparable from property rights, as the vast majority of workers have to use someone else's private property in order to make a living. Also, what constitutes theft is biased against the poor, as profiting off the labour of others and unfairly compensating them is not a crime.