>>t is a system in which all goods and services are available to everyone without the use of money, credits, barter, or any other form of debt or servitude.<<

No forms of servitude means nobody mining or manufacturing. Nobody produces countless goods because they need 9,000 ovens. They produce them for other people. They serve others in order to be rewarded.

>>If all the money in the world disappeared overnight, as long as topsoil, factories, personnel and other resources were left intact, we could build anything we needed to fulfill most human needs.<<

You fail to offer alternate forms of motivation to preserve personnel. If incentives disappear overnight, so does personnel. Please fill in this gap.

>>It is not money that people require, but rather free access to most of their needs without worrying about financial security or having to appeal to a government bureaucracy.<<

You don't need "free access" to goods unless you can first create the goods. I'm not volunteering to mine or work in a factory all day for your benefit. And you're not offering to labor your whole life to provide for my needs either. You talk of "access" but do not address labor and production, instead presuming "personnel" are a good like iron ore that's inanimate and doesn't walk away when you remove it's incentive to stay and produce. Please fill in this gap.

>>The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would encourage people toward self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually.<<

I like wealth, property, and power. You can encourage whatever you want, but I will devote my efforts to obtaining cool things like the 24" widescreen I'm using as I type this, the quad-core 2.8 ghz i7 processor that's processing this exchange, and the ability to incentivize people to develop, produce, and deliver these things to me. I find things like these very spiritually fulfilling because they're fun and give me access to communication with anyone and any information I desire. You can encourage whatever you want, but that doesn't give you any reason to expect people to change their motivations because you encourage them to. What reason do you have to think I'll be fulfilled by anything other than what I enjoy being fulfilled by now? Please fill in this gap.

>>Besides computerized centers throughout the communities where products would eventually be displayed, there will be 3-D, flat-screen imaging in each home. If you desire an item, an order can be placed and the item automatically delivered directly to your place of residence without a price tag, servitude, or debt of any kind. This includes whatever people need such as housing, clothing, education, health care, entertainment, etc.<<

How do you ensure that production will match orders? I have a family and I want 5 flat screens. But I'm not a very hard worker. How do you ensure that lazy people like me won't overdraw from the production capacity of the hard workers? We can only have as many flat screens as we can produce. And I'm not an engineer nor can I operate machinery that produces these electronics. But I man can I consume them. How would such a system ensure production to match demand? Please fill in this gap.

>>Eventually goods and services will be mass-produced in such abundance as to be too cheap to monitor.<<

Currently capitalism motivates people to produce the best and most economically-produced products at the lowest price they can. What do you propose replace this motivation which currently lowers prices and increases volume of production? Please fill in this gap.

>>In a cybernated society, people will have more time for individual interests such as going back to school, working in the arts and sciences, traveling, etc. There will be many choices for exploring, studying, enjoying, and participation.<<

Again I am curious how you propose to ensure that production matches demand. Please fill in this gap.

>>#2 "We don

>>They account for those with medical insurance who apply for procedures, what about the millions with no insurance in America?<<

They account for the whole population. So your statement is inaccurate, ie wrong. For the millions without insurance, there are programs available for the poor. That's why tens of millions of people enter the country illegally to abuse our out of control government entitlements. They don't flock here because we're uncompassionate to the poor. And the care available to the poor in the USA is superior to superior to that of countries with completely socialized medicine because the rest of the country contributes money to medical advancements (we reward those who make things that make our lives better) without the drain of huge government overheard and misdirection of funds that results from government, not the free market, making reward decisions.

And I take offense at the implication that socialized medical care is somehow more human because it offers "care" to "all." It doesn't offer all care to everyone. The claim that all treatment options are available to all patients is completely ignorant bullshit. That would bankrupt any system. Expensive treatments are denied, delayed and rationed, and lying about it doesn't change the fact.

>>In England we also have private medical health, 95% of people with private medical care have their procedures within six months.<<

Thank you for supporting my position. If I was going to have to wait 6 months for care in the USA, I'd change my healthcare provider. In England, your ability to choose this option is further hindered by how much you're taxed to support socialized inferior care.

>>I dont think Obama was actually trying to replace private health care, merely provide for those who cannot afford it.<<

Then why does everyone (the numbers are in now: literlally, everyone, including obama) agree that it will raise healthcare premiums? You're claiming that Obama is raising healthcare costs in order to provide for those who cannot afford it. That's ridiculous.

>>If you have private medical care it will not affect you, you will still get the best treatment, what no American has ever done is explain why adding an additional layer of care for the poor in your country makes Obama evil?<<

Again your statement shows ignorance and is inaccurate. Your statement is wrong. Of course raising the price of care and taxing care more will affect those with private insurance. Obama's claims and your claim here that somehow this change will not affect people is ridiculous and wrong on the facts. Obama is taxing premium healthcare (premium being good care that is well within the means of the working). How does taxing the healthcare everyone wants significantly more (raising its price and taking it out of reach of more people) help people get the healthcare everyone wants? It doesn't. It makes it more difficult. In addition to taxing desirable healthcare significantly more, Obama's changes will increase the cost of healthcare premiums across the board, further making it more difficult to aquire decent healthcare.

>>I am addressing this at Avagardo, I have been informed the best way to deal with Kemp is just to ignore his whining.<<

As always, I respond to your content without the crying. When you continually ignore posts that embarrass you, the only one you're embarrassing even more is yourself. If you had any self respect you would respond to the arguments that you don't have an easy response to or stop posting about positions you're incapable of defending. Your appeal to authority is as senseless as your ad-hominem attacks. Only people who would flame like you are here would support your notion that this fallacy somehow makes your position less laughable. And only awkward children do that. I'm sure they all agree with you. Everyone else is embarrassed this sort of conduct. I'll keep responding to the content, because the only way I can fight this embarrassing behavior is by example. Keep crying. Your tears give me strength.

Don't forget that you'll be paying for viagra, birth control pills, and abortions too under Obamacare, Chris_Balsz. Okay, I don't want to know your response to the viagra bit, but at least you have the comfort of knowing your dollars are killing the kids of unwanting mothers.

I find a chief executive siding with foreign nationals who have illegally invaded a country over those citizens whom they harm to be disturbing. I'm such a conservative lunatic! The lunacy of Obama and the irresponsible ignorance of those clueless and uneducated enough to defend actions like this are making me look conservative and I'm sick and tired of it. There's no debate that they're foreign nations. They's no debate that they've illegally entered our nation. There's no debate that they're hurting citizens of our nation. What's wrong with the executive branch enforcing our laws? The people in it are the only thing wrong with it.

If we weren't having insane discussions about absolutely ridiculous behavior by Obama & Co. I could get back to attacking conservatives and liberals. Between this and "taxes help the economy!" there's too much inane garbage posted to leave much room for criticizing the response to it. You wouldn't have to do everything right to get my support in arguing against the philosophy and action of Mao which killed tens of millions. And here were's talking about people who look up to Mao and hope to attain what he did.

>> dont think that if the 2nd one is changed, all of a sudden theres going to be other amendments in the bill of rights thats going to be targeted....<<

It is precisely 2nd Amendment rights that protect the rest of the Constitution. Well, it was supposed to be. We're already standing idle while our government violates the constitution and literally laughs at Constitutional considerations. It's a shame that most Americans are ignorant pussies now and won't stand up for themselves or the law.

I caught a few minutes of John Stossel's show tonight. Stossel asked one of the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting what he thought about guns being banned at the school (ie, those with legal concealed carry permits were restricted from carrying at the school), and the fact that an armed student could possibly have defended himself and stopped the shooter before he murdered 30 people. The victim responded that such an armed student could have gotten shot. This response confused me, because dozens of such students were shot and murdered that day. I somehow doubt that a major concern of students that day was that a fellow student might have legal concealed carry rights in the state and the school could have endangered their safety by allowing said students to carry on campus.

The school's rules prohibited the shooter from carrying on campus. Those rules didn't protect anyone that day.

The victim didn't answer the question. And his response was plain weird. He proposed that something that could have saved dozens of lives was... too dangerous to allow. If his conclusion that it's safest to outlaw people's ability to protect themselves was correct, he could have actually answered the question. He would have said "yes, an armed student could possibly have stopped the shooter, but..." and given the reason that allowing the carrying of firearms is more dangerous than banning them. But there is no such reason.

"Gun crime" and crime rates rose in Britain since Britain enacted some of the strictest gun control in the world (while crime rates fell in the USA). But people who feel safer pretending that nobody around them will ever be armed because the law prevents it put their ignorant feelings above the lives of their fellow man.

But wishing cannot make it so. All of these ignorant, repetitive posts continually ignore the facts in evidence. And such willful ignorance is dangerous. It, literally, gets people killed.

Now the federal government is boycotting Arizona.

I don't support this. The majority of the American people certainly don't.

I don't support some states' policies on homosexual unions, drugs, healthcare, etc etc etc. But I don't support boycotting those states. This is America. And I'm proud to be an American and support states' rights to legislate however they see fit, regardless of whether or not they choose as I'd choose. I'm embarrassed to have a president with the mentality and intellect of a child.

The president advocating that people ignore laws that he's charged with defending is disgusting.

Then why do you troll and not respond to people who want to discuss the ideas presented in your posts?

Child? You're only embarrassing yourself.

More nonsense:
>>although there are other justifications for ensuring the right to keep and bear arms, they are all redundant, because the primary justification for the right to keep and bear arms is for national readiness for war.<<

Go look up "redundant," xeno syndicated. You don't know what it means. Nor are you any authority on what is the "primary" justification for the right to bear arms. You have in no way discounted the arguments made against gun control which are not related to war.

I ate the noodle, Einstein. My apologies.

He didn't specify the US Constitution, Zarf BeebleBrix. He just referenced the topic of gun control. You're way off-point. What's the name of the fallacy where everyone starts talking about unrelated topics because they can't respond to the points made their argument again? I know xeno's familiar with it.

LOL @ You_Fool. What a joke.

You're spamming the forum with ignorant garbage that nobody on earth believes. Back up your claim that the USA has third world medical care. Then, because you're so diligent and educated, give us evidence to support your claim that socialized medicine results in more medical advancements than a capitalist system that rewards advancements. You've spammed my threads with retarded off-topic garbage. You can't back up your ignorant remarks in this one with a single, even contentious, source. I don't care whether you want me to post or not.

The difference between us is that I actually discuss the content. I don't meet anyone's definition of a troll. Stop crying. You just post really awkward virtual-masturbation material. I'd contribute to discussion of Obama's impact on America's standing in the world, because you manage to be not-entirely-wrong while having NO grasp of the underlying concepts and mechanisms in play, but I'm not interested in encouraging a spamming troll who has nothing better to do than post ignorant garbage that he evidently gains sexual gratification from seeing that anyone wastes their time reading. You can't claim the high road while excreting fecal matter in public. I'm saying you're a troll who's incapable of discussing basic content. Crying about it won't stop me from saying it. If you wanted to take the right road you'd stick it to me by backing up your claims. But you can't do that. So cry away. We care about your feelings.

>>Kemp said gun control had nothing to do with war.<<

While I could, perhaps, have stated it more clearly for a retard, I never said that it has nothing to do with war. The 2nd Amendment has in it an explanation that concerns war. I merely pointed out that there are additional arguments against gun control that have absolutely nothing to do with war, which you have continually ignored in claiming that the topic of war completely covers the topic, when it clearly does not.

>> I show how it does have to do with war, how it is rooted in having a national readiness for war, and then Kemp comes back and says it's not 'ONLY' about war. <<

That's obviously what I said from the beginning. I'm obviously aware of the defense-against-tyranny argument for gun rights. They're even stated in the 2nd amendment. Even if I hadn't been clear from the beginning, the point was and still is that war is not a topic that somehow "covers" gun control. It wouldn't matter if I just came to that realization and posted it now. You'd still be wrong.

You're a troll xeno. You never respond to points made against you. You call names (STILL having not responded to ANY of the posts addressed to you). I might point out that soooomeone is an embarrassing bloody idiot with the intellectual capacity of a child and the demeanor of a violent psychotic, BUT I'll point it out in/after responding to every one of their points addressed to me and explain how I came to that conclusion.

Let me give you an example from this thread: I said:
"Because that's what the debate about me protecting my right to defend myself and my family and shoot bambi is about: war!"
My point was very clearly that discussion of people's right to defend themselves and right to recreational hunting is NOT related to war. You disagree and claim that self-defense and hunting are related to war, but WHERE IS YOUR POST STATING/EXPLAINING YOUR DISAGREEMENT?

Stop spamming us with your angry insults. You have failed to post ANYTHING of your disagreement with the content I have posted, favoring instead ad-hominem attacks. Nobody cares what you call pathetic. Your inane nonsense posts (with misplaced aggression) are what's ridiculous. You're not embarrassing anyone but yourself. So long as you ignore all of the content addressed to you and insult others for posting legitimate content (without insults, anger, misplaced aggression), you're just going to get written off. It's only fair to the innocent readers of this forum that we don't take spamming trolls seriously. That would waste their time and embarrass all of us.

Edit: How funny is it that this nonsense is a result of questioning his categorization of topics.