Anarchy Is Choice

Communism is something I've asked a lot of questions about, and I've never found any that can perform without a centralized decree body. They seem to lack a fundamental respect for personal property, respect of ownership principles, and respect of individual sovereignty.
Granted, there's no barrier to Democratic communism, because they both work on a principle which implies that rights are cumulative, and that the majority can make decisions for everyone. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is a flawed argument, based in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism assumes that individual rights are SUBSUMED by the collective, but to draw that assumption to its logical conclusion, one should look at organ transplants. If you were given a cattle bolt-gun to the brain, you could be taken into immediate surgery, and enough body parts could be harvested to save or improve the lives of about 20 other people. Sounds good in theory, except for the part where you get murdered.

If I misunderstand this, I'll retract it, but I THINK I just saw you reference eminent domain as an event which happens in a capitalist society? That should be cleared up: In a capitalist society, an object gets sold only if the supplier and demander AGREE upon a price. The supplier is the OWNER of a piece of property in this case, and I (and many others, including 4 supreme court justices if I recall) find it offensive that government force was brought to bear on that person, or people, who own property which the government deemed "of better utility" if put to a different use.

Heinlein pointed out how capitalism works WITH that 'inherent flaw' in human nature (though to call it a flaw implies that someone is trying to change human nature, which, as we know, never works)
Heinlein's quote that rings through the ages is as such: "Never appeal to a man's better nature: he may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."
In short, if you want your buddy to help you move your furniture to the new apartment, you COULD tell him that he ought to want to, because you're friends, and it'd be right neighborly of him. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't...
Or, you could offer him twenty bucks and a six pack in front of the flatscreen when the game comes on, after you get settled in. My bet's on the second one. :)
Self-interest isn't bad, you see, it's the most predictable thing you could ever hope for, when trying to make a deal. :)

If the government were asking for MY property, I would be aware that they have, in effect, taken enough of other people's money that no matter the price I charged, they would probably pay it, and I would no longer have "the house grandpa built with his own hands", so my response would be "I'm sorry, the property is not for sale". If I asked a ridiculous amount of money anyways and they paid it? Well, I have no way to complain, as I DID say I'd sell it, and that's an agreement. I guess I'd just take my ridiculous newfound wealth and find someplace wonderful to live... Or buy an apartment complex and make a good investment out of it in this market? :)

I'm not sure what part of this is supposed to sound like a bad thing, but respecting people's rights isn't bad, and, in fact, GREED isn't bad either... It's being UNwilling to respect the rights and property of others that allows greed to become a bad thing.

I do think I just saw you subtly imply that if people don't stop working to improve their own lot in life, there will be killings, or other disregard for human and civil rights.
Not a fan, personally. Threats sorta have an adverse effect on me, they make me NOT want to do whatever is being coerced, even if I wanted to a minute ago.

Ok, reviewing the hypothetical question, I am to accept that an unjust eminent domain situation exists, and the seller is unwilling to negotiate. Well, the RIGHT solution is that again, no sale occurs. The GOVERNMENT solution is to ignore the will of the property owner, and hire an appraiser, then shove a check into the (former) owner's hands, for X many taxpayer dollars, and then they print up a new deed of ownership, and invalidate the previous one.

As for the threats, I never even implied "complaining" was at issue. Although, that does remind me of that cute bumper sticker "stop complaining and work harder: millions on welfare depend on you."

I disagree: I think what people are slurring as "greed" often IS just self-interest... One party earns money and wishes to keep it, the other side didn't earn it, but wishes to take it and redistribute it amongst themselves, but guess which side is labeled "greedy"?

While everyone getting a job on wall street WOULD level the playing field, it's vaguely reminiscent of a soviet solution in reverse (and still has elements of "but how do we keep them down on the farm?"). The proper answer here would be to remove government from corporations... No, really, I mean ALL of it. Right now government is the only thing that prevents you from suing the dick right off a corrupt CEO. If you and a thousand other people lost 25 million dollars together through some corporate circus act, class-action up, and sue the piss out of that asshole. He's a smart guy, he'll figure out who cost him the money, and that department will actually punish the guy(s) (or gals?) responsible, and it won't be up to the courts to find out who did it, the company who actually has access to all their own information will bring justice down swift and efficiently.

Greed isn't bad, if you want to see what people do WITHOUT greed, look at folks in an opium den without a care in the world.
Greed should extend to this: "A man's reach should always exceed his grasp".

ok, this is disturbing: I just typed out a long response to Davih_H and suddenly it's not only gone, but his original comment is gone as well...
Current? Are you censoring normal comments??