the crowd is untruth and other assumptions

Observe wrote: “I imagine you are the only one I have to explain what
communism is or isn’t. Everyone else is paying attention”

and then observe proves this statement wrong by stealing some
definition of communism (from somewhere else, he won’t say where)
if he actually knew what communism is, he would have said so with
HIS OWN WORDS… but he couldn’t…so, he had to go to some other
definition… and that is fine… (as long as he had given credit to that
other site, I couldn’t have cared less, but he didn’t… he passed that
definition off as his own and it clearly wasn’t)

the really interesting thing is the assumption, and it is an assumption,
that everyone does know what certain terms mean or are defined as…

for example, the Republican party talks a lot, a lot, about family values
and yet, they couldn’t define it to save their lives…what exactly is
“family values?”…I created a thread where I asked someone to
explain what a “globalist” is and not one person answered…
these terms get tossed around and yet, no one seems to be
able to define them…and therein lies much of the modern age problems…
terms like communism, globalism, liberal, family values… get tossed
around but no one takes the time to define what exactly what those
terms mean? What does it mean to be a globalist or to be
a communist? Observe gave us a dictionary description of communism,
but that is a rote understanding of communism… to save his life,
he couldn’t tell us what communism means in a practical sense,
what does communism mean outside of a dictionary?

and he certainly couldn’t tell us what the driving force behind communism is,
or what it means…what is the exact theory behind communism?
he has no idea… I only know because I studied communism (along with
other economic possibilities like capitalism, feudalism, mercantilism,
hunter-gatherer… and I have studied the political possibilities of existence,
democracy, monarchy, anarchism, dictatorships)… something
that observe has yet to understand… the economic and the political
are two different and distinct theories…in other words, I don’t make
the assumptions that observe makes… and it is the assumptions
that fuel the failures of observe and UR and pedreeo…

that they can’t tell the difference between their assumptions
and what is true is what I find curious… making assumptions is
fine as long as one tell us they are assumptions… they are unable
to sort out or separate out what is assumptions and what is not an assumption…

we spend much of, if not most of our lives dealing with our assumptions of
something instead of dealing with the reality or facts of something…
observe thinks he knows what communism is, when in fact, he is engaged
in his assumptions about communism…that doesn’t sound like a lot, but
it really is…

much of what drives the discussion on ILP relies on the difference between
assumptions and what is true… most people offer us their assumptions
about something, but not what is true about something…I hold that
the earth is 6,000 years old is an assumption, when in fact it is billions of years
old…and people will hold to their assumptions before the facts… and this
is what observe does… he holds to his assumptions before the facts…

I believe that much of philosophy is simple spending time working
out what is personal assumptions and what is facts… Christians
hold to their assumptions that there is a god… it would never dawn on
them to challenge their assumptions… and that is the root basis of
philosophy… to challenge our own root assumptions… and not
only our own personal assumptions, but our collective assumptions…

Kierkegaard once wrote… “the crowd is untruth”

but why is that true? Because the crowd deals with assumptions,
their collective assumptions… that there is something that we can
point to, that is “family values”… what family values are, collectively is
never actually written out… it is assumed…as is most of our
collective knowledge… we simple assume that we all know what
democracy is or what communism is or what is true or what is false…

individually and collectively, we simply assume… instead of
asking ourselves, is this an assumption or is this actually true?

is democracy really the best form of government? who knows because
it is just assumed that democracy is the best form of government…
we haven’t engaged in some sort of understanding what political or
economic system is best for us, individually or collectively…
we have just assumed…that this is true or that is not true…
how about instead of just assuming, we actually try to get to the
heart of our assumptions and find out what is true and what isn’t…

Kropotkin

I think high tax capitalism is one of the few options for a successful society.

Free health care, free education, etc.

Things like meds are a rip off because they are so privatized.
But if you tax them heavily, the huge profits go down to basic profits.
Those basic profits are enough to survive as a company,
but normally people want to rip off the government too.

Business = mutual screwing over for cash.