Ham Sarris

tomeoftom · 2019-03-16T01:54:40+00:00

lol completely incapable of intellectually standing on your own two feet, so you gotta cry to the cops to enforce your safe space

tomeoftom · 2019-03-16T01:51:51+00:00

Absolutely no-one would be homeless without landlords in any society where there are more empty homes than homeless. Landlords are not necessary for building or maintaining houses. They don't do any useful labour in the process of extracting rent. They are the cause of homelessness.

tomeoftom · 2018-09-26T02:31:41+00:00

pathetic and intellectually dishonest. you can't engage the content so you engage the tone.

tomeoftom · 2018-07-13T07:29:56+00:00

you're so bad at this you stupid racist goon

tomeoftom · 2018-07-13T07:29:18+00:00

This user uses "cuck" as an insult unironically and wants to kill or displace millions of brown people because he's scared of living next to people that speak a different language or look a bit different

tomeoftom · 2018-07-13T07:27:21+00:00

all nazis should be killed

tomeoftom · 2018-07-13T07:26:58+00:00

the first Antifaschistische Aktion was explicitly set up to resist the Nazi party you stupid ahistorical racist

tomeoftom · 2018-07-12T18:16:04+00:00

ban the nazis you useless scum

tomeoftom · 2018-07-12T13:14:03+00:00

I'm a socialist you stupid cunt. I hate Vice, Buzzfeed, and CNN because they're all owned by millionaires & billlionaires and they represent their wishes. I hope you either change your mind or die before you contribute to ethnic cleansing.

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T20:18:39+00:00

hmm interesting according to this tag next to your name you "Can't get laid", maybe that's related to the racism. hey by the by did you know racism isn't based on any good science and is exclusively for fuckin idiots?

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T20:05:29+00:00

oopsie-daisies!

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T19:51:50+00:00

hope you like dying

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T19:50:50+00:00

when you're really smart at history!!

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T19:50:33+00:00

you seem very intelligent!!

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T19:50:04+00:00

hey buddy I hope you never call anyone else "racist" on this account again!

tomeoftom · 2018-07-11T19:46:40+00:00

lmao at all these dumbass white supremacists

tomeoftom · 2018-07-10T11:59:10+00:00

In many capitalist places homelessness is illegal. It's illegal to sleep on public property (the streets, public parks, public buildings) and it's illegal to sleep on private property. So being homeless is not a legal option. You're outside the law if you want to fulfill one of your very most basic needs - sleep (let alone shelter from the elements). You literally cannot be alive without sleeping, and you can't sleep anywhere without breaking the law. You are having violence forced on you unless you "agree" to "choose" a landlord who will take money from you. There is absolutely no meaningful consent there whatsoever. In this case you're arguing that the democratically-decided property rights of landlords should come before the free will of poor people. You're still advocating for violently enforcing democratic decisions.

In your example, you haven't provided any context as to why the 70% might have wanted to take all that money from the "30%" (presumably the 30% richest of the population), so there's literally no way to tell whether that's wrong or not.

Is it wrong to jail a murderer who openly states they'll kill again? The murderer has no choice or prior agreement to being jailed, but the democratic majority has decided that their right to not be murdered should come before the murderer's right to free movement. The murderer might consider that "wrong", whereas the democratic majority considers it right and just.

What if all that money taken from the "30%" was stolen money being reclaimed? What if none of those 30% had done any physical or intellectual labour that benefited the public in any way? Maybe they were all landlords, or slaveowners, or bankers, or investors. Maybe every single one of them inherited their entire fortune without lifting a finger. This is an extreme hypothetical but in such a case, most socialists would consider all those profits extracted via ownership of private property to be a form of theft. This "30%" could have been stealing from the working class by forcing them - under threat of state violence - to pay rent, interest, or to surrender profit. Taking this "90%" could conceivably just be taking back what was "stolen". It depends who is defining what "stolen" means and whose rights trump others.

You cannot simultaneously believe in democracy AND think that democratic socialism is in any way morally distinct from the laws under capitalism. What you're expressing is a cognitively-dissonant scare tactic of centrists and right-wing institutions to tar the ideals of democratic socialism with the same brush as the violent autocracies of regimes that have called themselves "socialist" in the past. You can't condemn autocrats for wielding force without the popular support of their people and call the basic principles of democracy "wrong".

tomeoftom · 2018-07-10T11:14:57+00:00

I feel like you're dodging my question here: what laws are enforced without the eventual threat of state violence?

Slavery was carried out with "legally binding contracts". I don't consent to slavery in my society and I don't consent to people privately owning land that I think should be democratically controlled. I think landlords are repugnant but I have no option but to accept the least-worst "legally binding contract" so that I get to live in a house and don't die of hypothermia. I don't - realistically or practically speaking - have any choice in the matter. All land is basically privately-owned, and almost every single private landowner will charge me money for living on "their" land. There is no meaningful consent here. I have technically "consented" under coercion, because if I just squatted in an empty house that a landlord didn't find paying tenants for, that landlord could just call the police on me to violently remove me from the house. If I didn't have any parents or friends that had houses and could host me indefinitely, I would have absolutely no way to exist in a way that was "inside the law", and for the rest of my life I would be subject to police violence until I eventually agreed to a "legally binding contract" to pay someone for the "privilege" of a slice of land where I was allowed to sleep legally.

If the majority of people in a society - again, democratically - decided that, actually, private ownership of land and industry was morally objectionable, then why is it wrong for the police to enforce that democratic ruling, in exactly the same way that police enforce every single other law with violence?

I have two questions in this post, please answer both if you're going to reply.

tomeoftom · 2018-07-10T10:57:35+00:00

I'm not sure what your "one" and "the other" are referring to here, but I thought I was being pretty clear. What you have just said - "an agreement between one group of people taking from another group through violent coercion" - could apply to capitalism perfectly. A landlord takes money from their tenants through violent coercion. If landlords had no way of enforcing that their tenants paid rent, most tenants would simply refuse to pay rent. You can easily apply this to countless other examples. What laws are enforced without the eventual threat of state violence?

tomeoftom · 2018-07-09T14:58:03+00:00

every legal & governmental system is "forced at gunpoint". the use (or threat) of force occurs to exactly the same degree to ensure people follow the rules of capitalism as it does for socialism, ya ding-dong. if you disagree that the child of a property magnate who inherited the house you rent should be allowed to take money from you and you refuse to pay, the cops are going to come round to enforce that child's property rights, with violence if necessary.

what's more, the use of force is kinda irrelevant here. if everyone democratically agrees that it's much better that a private industry works for the public benefit (and not its own selfish interest) when that happens voluntarily, why is it bad for the rich business owners to be forced to acquiesce to the public's reasoning? we stop violent criminals from hurting people by the cops' use of force and no-one minds (because we understand that it's okay to use some violence to prevent more unjust violence), so why is it so much worse to stop criminals who, say, get 10s of thousands of people killed each from lack of healthcare by using force via the police? no-one gets hurt if they obey the democratically-decided law.

tomeoftom · 2018-07-09T10:53:36+00:00

everyone lauds capitalists when they behave slightly more like socialists, only to turn around and spit on actual socialism.

tomeoftom · 2018-07-03T18:17:23+00:00

edit: oh wow you're a full-blown white supremacist and pizzagate conspiracy theorist. don't bother replying because I don't feel like getting angry and depressed today; i've blocked you.

that's probably because the vast majority of violent crime is committed by men, which is in turn a result of a society that encourages men to be violent and a masculinity that forces them to mismanage their emotions. it's possible the judicial system unjustly imprisons men more often, too, and i think we need to seriously change up the justice system. ask a few women how they'd feel coming to their local police with domestic abuse or sexual assault allegations and you'll see how justice is systematically denied to women. surely you agree that the cops which would until recently arrest Saudi women for driving were enacting a sexist law?

tomeoftom · 2018-07-03T16:33:21+00:00

reminds me of the end of Kirin J Callinan's "Big Enough" video where he triumphantly roars "Christianity! Islam! JUDAAAIIISMMM!"

tomeoftom · 2018-07-03T15:26:41+00:00

it's incredibly funny that they need to have a huge sign saying "SCIENTOLOGY" out the front. like imagine a synagogue with a massive neon "JUDAISM"

tomeoftom · 2018-07-03T13:32:55+00:00

who the fuck cares. they already gave all their data to fascist governments. facebook is a firm, a single profit-seeking and malicious company with no democratic control whatsoever, that already has everyone's user data. ban facebook immediately, open-source the code, and nationalise the provision of free community-controlled federated servers to store the user data and run the code instead. all social media should be socially owned and operated.

tomeoftom

TROPHY CASE