Yeah, I should stop.

It's obvious that my replies upset him, though. If I can discourage him from posting this retarded bullshit more by posting, I'm not sure which is better.

A bunch of idiots, including naive moderators, do encourage him by responding. Ignoring him only works if enough people do it. Replying on the facts and making him rage works either way. I'm open to discussion, though. Maybe I should stop.

> Justinian I wrote:

> Xeno,

You are assuming that wealth is limited.

This is a good point.  You are suggesting that 1% of total world's wealth may be enough to sustain humanity's basic needs.   An ethical, sustainable, equitable civilization with a benevolent dictator owning 99% and the rest of humanity the remaining 1% might, then be possible.  But would it be plausible?  As it is, perhaps 35% of the world's wealth is held by the poor and middle class, and their endeavor to fulfill basic human needs is highly frustrated.  Based on this, I think it would be more likely that their endeavor to fulfill basic human needs would be even more frustrated in a world where they control only 1% of the world's wealth.

Besides, wealth IS limmited.  See below regarding your next point:

"Capitalism creates wealth."

Capitalism is simply a means of distributing wealth.  Wealth is not created by it.  Consider wealth as something intrinsic and finite like the resources in a mountain.  There is only so much metal in this given region to be mined.  After it is mined, its 'wealth' has been diminished by the amount mined.  The metals, have gone into products elsewhere, adding wealth to those products.  Some of these metals were used to construct, in part, your monitor (be it your computer's screen, phone's screen, TV's screen, or screen of whatever device by which you are reading this sentence).  The mountain's wealth, and the wealth of all places from which other natural resources were used to construct the other parts of your monitor, has been depleted by this process.  What we are talking about isn't really the mountain's wealth, of course, but, rather the wealth of future generations who might have otherwise used those metals in the future.  Also, the wealth of all those whose labor was involved in the process of harvesting the resources, manufacturing, and distributing the product to you has also been depleted.   By the capitalistic process involved with the production and distribution of your monitor, then, wealth has simply been redistributed to you by the amount of the intrinsic wealth inherent in your monitor.  How much wealth, then did you provide them in exchange?  It must necessarily have been MORE than the intrinsic wealth inherent of the TV monitor, for the process of producing and distributing the product to you they would only have done for profit.  Thus by your purchase, you diminished your wealth: they profited by the amount your labor you exchanged which is in addition to the intrinsic wealth inherent of your monitor.  Ultimately, the environment, or rather, the wealth of future generations makes up the deficit in this process: at one point in the future, while your monitor is buried in some landfill site, the mountain or regions from which the resources were originally extracted for the production and distribution of your monitor will have been depleted, and that future generation will not be able to use those resources.  The capitalistic process, then, does not create wealth, but merely transfers it to our time from future generations.

"Sure, the majority of created wealth goes to the entrepreneurs, but at the same time everyone becomes wealthier."

If we are talking, then, about redistributed wealth, wealth which is redistributed from future generations to ours, wealth which is redistributed to ours without the consent of those future generations, is it really relevant who gets it?  That anyone does is unethical, and do so without regard for those future generations is a crime; worse yet is how our system distributes this wealth to those in our time who need it the LEAST, when we should be redistributing this wealth to those who need it the most: to those who are frustrated in fulfilling their basic human needs.

"Is he serious about this lawsuit thing? What a joke."

Well, I believe I could sue Kemp and Einstein if I wanted to.  They've called me a communist, a criminal, twisted and misrepresented my positions, and have done so disingenuously for the purpose of promoting their ideas over mine. If we were to liken my ideas to a product and kemps and Einstein's ideas to a competing product, anyone who would ridicule distort the facts, mis-represent the facts about a competing product of a competing business and slander the competing brand-name, business-owner, etc., would get sued for sure.  If it would not be tolerated in business, it shouldn't be tolerated here.  They should not be able to distort, mis-represent the points of views of other posters, and certainly should be held accountable for slander / libel.

+1 Acolyte

Btw your ideas were used by Stalin, he had to kill a few million here, a few million there, to get people to comply with those ideas.

>>You're trolling.
>> Grow up.

Troll calling the troll childish.... so entertaining

I asked him legitimate questions about the content of his posts. I genuinely wanted to know his answers. I asked him to clear up anything I got wrong.

He answered no questions. He corrected nothing. He just cried.

If you think I'm the troll, you're a big baby. Intellectual limitations implied.

You're just debasing this forum.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

You're no worse than them, but you're being just as bad.

"of course my low is littered with too much intelligence to be more than a sarcastic mirroring of your own incompetence.." BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH what a mouthful of retarded nonsense.

Sometimes I check out the retard crack head forums too. Good stuff. Not very educational, though.

> V.Kemp wrote:

> Sometimes I check out the retard crack head forums too. Good stuff. Not very educational, though.

Actually, it was a BBC documentary called "Surviving Progress".  Most of what they were saying I knew years ago.   The notion that the elites have historically been willing to extract said repayments on debts owed to them by force, and thus spread desolation, destruction, war, mayhem, famine, and even collapse of their own civilization itself before agreeing to forgive said debts - debts which have typically grown to such an extent that it is literally impossible for them to be repaid - this notion I hadn't come across before.  The example they used was the Roman Empire.

xeno syndicated: "The above is just another example of how the law is designed to protect the interests of corporations, investors, shareholders, etc. - in short the rich - and not individuals, nor society as a whole.  Humanity itself is being defrauded by how we conduct civilization / how civilization is conducted."

I don't disagree with you that justice has been perverted to protect those in power, but you have no legitimate claim here under /any/ permutation of legal code. What sort of relief would you seek from pursuing whatever case you have in mind? What standard do you expect a court to use in evaluating each element of your claim? How would you even identify who V.Kemp and Einstein are in real life, much less obtain their residential addresses, and then manage the logistics of filing separate claims in each jurisdiction (since I'm reasonably certain they are probably not next door neighbors, nor reside within the same legal district). Would you even know how to begin choosing a venue with which to file your petition?

Nevermind. Assuming it was even possible for you to answer any one of those questions intelligently, the essence of your complaint can be summarily dismissed on the grounds that Einstein and V.Kemp have not, at any time, violated your rights by voicing their own opinions. Especially not in a setting such as this, where there is little ambiguity as to the nature and context of thread discussions.

You can not forcefully suppress the speech of others just because they dispute the contents of your own speech.

"You can not forcefully suppress the speech of others just because they dispute the contents of your own speech."

This is unreasonable.  They slander my reputation with lies, false accusations, which effectually suppresses my free speech.  They do so with the intent of stifling dialogue on issues at hand, with the intent of sabotaging healthy debate on issues they would rather not see debated, and do so with speech which verges on hate-speech.  And you, acolyte, are making it seem that I am the bully, here.... 

Why does Kemp keep responding?  I have asked him not to respond in my threads; his participation stops the process of sincere debate (as evidenced by this very discussion).  It is not only a slander / libel suit against Kemp, a harassment suite, and perhaps hate crime suit as well.