Ben No.3

But seriously... all culture belongs to everyone, I see no reasons why it's bad that all culture should be directly available (within close perimeter) to everyone.

Everyone is free to exercise their own religion and culture, as long as they behave by the laws set. That's how freedom in a republic should work.What you are saying is is that if there's a conflict of differences of culture (not the whole culture mind you, a part of the culture) that doesn't conflict with any laws, you are saying it is the country who should integrate to their culture on said issue, and not the immigrant to the culture of the land? That is more important?What culture of the land? Germany as it is now exists for not even three decades, and what culture we had before is, in recent years, quite crappy. Europe is just a melting point for dozens of cultures, what's bad about adding another one? The US, well immigration is the reason it exists. The only "real" Americans are either treated very poorly or killed.Since your not answering the very simple question, I should take it that you feel it is the land that the immigrants come TO that must change if there is a conflict of cultures?I'm not trying being snarky or judgmental, I was just curious. Essentially yes... I do not see culture connected to nations or nationality in any sense but a historic one... a conflict of cultures? Isn't a free market all about competition? Why not apply that to art? The Quran is quite well written and certainly nice to look at.

Everyone is free to exercise their own religion and culture, as long as they behave by the laws set. That's how freedom in a republic should work. It was intended as a response to you saying you don't know which culture they should adapt to as there is no European Culture Mind you, I agree with your response to me. As long as people aren't hurting anyone or breaking the law I'm fine with them doing whatever they want.. and I'm not even 100% on the law part of that In Germany and places like the EU you need to obey certain rules and observe culture and respect Western values And this includes more analysis and a slower intake for groups like the refugees. So they need to follow a structured migration framework. Your suggestions seems like the old days when Merkel said " welcome " And of course this created real issues "Western values" are the reason we have the refugees in the first place. A slower intake of refugees? The refugees are coming pretty quickly, just what exactly will you do with the refugees while they wait for testing? Huge camps? What a disaterous idea... health would hit rock bottom. You're from south Afrika, right? How is it that even you are now advocating against the equality of all men, against universal brotherhood, against the unity of us all? There was a time when people said I was your alter ego, Bruce, but you are giving up on those values you are so deadset on defending.

Everyone is free to exercise their own religion and culture, as long as they behave by the laws set. That's how freedom in a republic should work.What you are saying is is that if there's a conflict of differences of culture (not the whole culture mind you, a part of the culture) that doesn't conflict with any laws, you are saying it is the country who should integrate to their culture on said issue, and not the immigrant to the culture of the land? That is more important? What culture of the land? Germany as it is now exists for not even three decades, and what culture we had before is, in recent years, quite crappy. Europe is just a melting point for dozens of cultures, what's bad about adding another one? The US, well immigration is the reason it exists. The only "real" Americans are either treated very poorly or killed.

Everyone is free to exercise their own religion and culture, as long as they behave by the laws set. That's how freedom in a republic should work.

Here's the thing, the Arabian culture was ahead of us for centuries. I don't see anything wrong with importing that... heck, as long as people live according to our laws, they can follow whatever culture they want. Religion is different. We've come a long way, and they'll need to adapt the our secular lifestyle. I am not about excluding specifically Islam, I am about excluding religion as a whole, making it a private decision. Society as a whole needs to be secular. It is undeniable that religion has done a lot of good, but we live in a time where doing good is not dependent on religion anymore. However, the religions are still very easy to abuse for extremism... after all, almost all religions proclaim the killing of some groups. So, the following needs to be done: 1. Children can not belong to a religion through their parents. They must have reached a certain age, maybe 15, before they can officially enter a religious group. The children should choose their religion, not their parents. 2. Religion is a private matter; religious imagery or clothing has nothing to do in public institutions such as schools or parliament and are therefore to be banned from it. 3. In school, children are to be given a overview over all religions, as well as an introduction into humanism, before they reach 15 due to 1. While religion does have huge roots in a lot of cultures, the practice of said religion is seperate. What I'm talking about is when 2 cultures collide and it directly conflicts and it's something that doesn't conflict with laws, is it more important to integrate and have them change into ur culture or is it more important for them to keep their culture (their identity) and it is ur culture that has to change/integrate to fit theirs? These are immigrants in your country to clarify. Well, I mean Europe is a pot full of dozens of cultures anyway. And amongst the cultures we hold so dearly there are several slave societies, tyrannical monarchs, brutal dictatorships. And we celebrate it anyway. No I don't think they need to adapt to our culture, and to be honest, I wouldn't even know which culture they should adapt to... there is no "European culture".

Here's the thing, the Arabian culture was ahead of us for centuries. I don't see anything wrong with importing that... heck, as long as people live according to our laws, they can follow whatever culture they want. Religion is different. We've come a long way, and they'll need to adapt the our secular lifestyle. I am not about excluding specifically Islam, I am about excluding religion as a whole, making it a private decision. Society as a whole needs to be secular. It is undeniable that religion has done a lot of good, but we live in a time where doing good is not dependent on religion anymore. However, the religions are still very easy to abuse for extremism... after all, almost all religions proclaim the killing of some groups. So, the following needs to be done: 1. Children can not belong to a religion through their parents. They must have reached a certain age, maybe 15, before they can officially enter a religious group. The children should choose their religion, not their parents. 2. Religion is a private matter; religious imagery or clothing has nothing to do in public institutions such as schools or parliament and are therefore to be banned from it. 3. In school, children are to be given a overview over all religions, as well as an introduction into humanism, before they reach 15 due to 1.

They fight for you in combat Quite useful at times

Does the same apply for government?

I think you completely misunderstand me. I'm not a liberal, I consider myself a socialist. I'm not "trying to turn Marx into a liberal". I'm arguing purely from a historical view here. Why he wrote it doesn't change what he wrote. It is irrelevant for the theory. It is interesting purely from a biographical standpoint. And obviously outlining a communist society outside of abolishing private property would be utopian, but interesting nether the less and, in retrospective, perhaps also quite useful.

Isn't a company just any business participant and a cooperation several companies under one flag? I don't know, I'm not native for gods sake, after all I'm just an underage teen putting out his opinions because why not? Okay, how about we say "firm"? This is a very general discussion by nature, it's about an idea rather than the concrete measure. And when discussing an idea, let's not get hooked up on words.

And this is demonstrably false as shown by my previous point on the actual content of the Manifesto and Marx's reflections on it. It's bizarre you are so pressed to present the later Marx as being nothing more than a desperate effort to justify the early Marx. As if its unthinkable he'd have the audacity to actually believe the things he wrote. He did believe what he wrote, and he sought to prove it in front of the scientific community, and he did so in form of the capital. Scrap "justify", replace it with "prove". In 1848, Marx wrote under great political pressure, which lead him to make hasty announcements from which it was difficult to escape. This lead him to base his entire work not of data but of these early ideas. This poses a few limitations, for example he totally neglected the possibility of durable technological progress and steadily increased productivity. He also advocated for a society without private property, without ever refining how it should be organised politically and economically. Now, those limitations aside, he still offers very valuable insight. But those limitations are there, and they should be recognised.

How am I being short sighted? You speak as if the Communist Manifesto represents the foundation of Marx's writings. Although an important historical document it is, in comparison to the rest of Marx's body of work, a footnote. It was quite literally little more than a political pamphlet which, although alluding to the greater project of a stateless, classless society, was primarily concerned with the immediate objectives of the mid nineteenth century working class (better working conditions, children's education etc). Marx himself considered much of its content outdated decades later. Marx' entire work is essentially a scientific justification of the claims he made earlier in his lie (EDIT: I meant "life", but I find this typo so amusing I'll leave it ), represented best in the manifesto. And while he certainly is outdated in some ways, he remains very relevant... Adam Smith is outdated as well, yet his works remain highly influential. Marx is one of the fathers of sociology, and his observations remain highly valued among sociologists. Some things, for example the effect of alienation, are more or less undisputed, and remain observable in today's world.

First of all, yes, you excellently point out why the owners of a company should and need to have equal say over the company:-it's their creation, thus there's sort of an "inherent right to govern" to it (though this is a rather weak argument when you think about it) -they bring expertise (very important) -they think for the best of the company, thus work towards more profits -if someone puts money into something, he should be able to have a say in where that money goes -after all, it's their property I agree with all of that. However, the employees, at least those of huge companies like Cargill that you mentioned (though that's an extreme example... let's say we talk about companies with 2000+ employees), should have an equal say over the fate of the company they work for. Let me make my case... So, I see two main reasons why this should be this way. The first is the concept of what is sometimes called primitive accumulation. Lemme explain what I mean... Generally speaking, a good is worth its production value. This is true for any good but one-human labour. You see, the "production value" of humans (essentially the price of maintaining a living) is less than what they are able to produce. So, this is where profit is created: The exploitation of that gap (essentially the gap between my wage and the value of my labour). And that is not a bad thing-profit is created this way, that's what fuels the world. But it lies in the nature of this process that the workers do not own the same of what they produce, and that difference goes to the firm. In other words, the firm exploits the workers (think of the word "exploitation" without its negative connotation, for now), and the firm needs to do so in order to survive in competition. So the firm is dependent on the workers. Therefore, if the workers can not get the value of what they produce, they should at least have a say in how that value is used. It is kind of like with the share holders-the share holders invest money into the company, so they should get a say in where the money goes. Well the workers give the profit they produce to the company, so they should equally get a say in how the company should be run. It is also to stop the company from overexploiting their workers... do you think there would be sweatshops if half of for example Nikes board was elected by the workers? Now, that is obviously fairly theoretical. There's also a more practical argument: Huge companies like Cargill create a situation where thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people become dependent on that company, the company becomes a, as I said, social institution. I find it unreasonable not to give the people dependent on that institution a say over how the institution is to be run.

Sure. But are you saying that every time a gun enters a private hand it results in violence? We are all apes to you that starts shooting each other the second we have a gun? Is that what you say?Essentially yes. If you give people weapons, they will use them.

Worth quoting since you see yourself as a pupil of old Groucho Don't be short sighted... Marx had some great insights, but he also was very limited because he always tried to justify the claims he made in the communist manifesto, including of course violence. Overall, this mindset let to him also say quite a bunch of crap. Of course, his sociological contributions are still amongst the most important and highly respected, heavily influencing even non Marxist literature. Every sociologist, marxist or not, will tell you that say his (Marx) observations on for example alienation are still very important and relevant. But then again he also said such crap as violent revolution or anarchy.

Well do you think companies should be organised in that way, Guard Dog, and why?

Whatever we come up with could be turned into a law. I believe in Germany it even is a law, so...

I'm a democratic socialist, not a Nazi, but we're getting there my friend

I think big companies are more than their owners property, they are an social and economic institution. And as such, the people dependent on said institution should be able to have some saying. At the same time, the people who own the institution should also be able to use their own institution, so I think the split board is the best solution.

You're right, it should be made legal, I agree.Newsflash... there is such a thing as a LEGAL immigration. You are advocating for inventing a wheel here.What I'm advocating is open borders. Totally open. For anyone.That's insane, we'd be getting 30+ million people per year that way.I highly doubt that the population of entire countries will move into yours every year. And even if, why is that bad?

I agree, viewing humans as a mere mean of production is degrading, dehumanising and wrong. But if the refugees boost the economy, that deserves to be mentioned. First you agree with me and then you re-enforce your earlier point which directly contradicts what you agreed upon. You're drunk, go back to bed. Thanks for the laugh though. Look, morality and what is right or wrong is completely arbitrary, and wether taking in refugees is morally right everyone will tell you something different. I think it is right. Other don't. Some say to an extent. And so on. But the economy offers us an objective indication of how the refugees affect us. It's useful in that sense.

I agree, viewing humans as a mere mean of production is degrading, dehumanising and wrong. But if the refugees boost the economy, that deserves to be mentioned.

And the refugees helped out a great deal here. A sudden boost of hundreds of thousands of new consumers and workers as well as a situation that initiates a program that creates new jobs. Great!

http://dradiowissen.de/nachrichten/deutschland-staat-mit-19-milliarden-im-plus Government ended up with a surplus of 19 billion. Say what you want, but the refugees are economically nothing but good. EDIT: according to government, one of the main reasons for this is the fast growing economy. So....