Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centur

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Alright, somehow this has turned into a "can books on their own be dangerous" and it seems to be a lot of everyone restating the same points. But simply saying that a book can't be dangerous on it's own is a bit of a cop out in my opinion. A gun isn't dangerous on it's own, untill someone uses it. It's the same with books. Sure if read critically any book can be useful, but I think the intent of the list given in the original post was meant to convey that the use of these books combined with their content is what was harmful.

Hitler used Mein Kampf as a tool to further his agenda of hate. Could he have done this without the book? Sure he could have, but it was another tool. Mein Kampf could be used in a way that most other books could not. Could Dr. Seuss have been used for this purpose? Doubtfull.

Can a nuclear bomb be dangeros on it's own? No, not unless someone uses it. So what is more dangerous, a nuclear bomb, or a boquet or flowers? Mien Kampf, or Dr. Seuss? By your logic, they're all the same, but I see it differently.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Jun 9 2005, 05:38 PM
Can a nuclear bomb be dangeros on it's own? No, not unless someone uses it. So what is more dangerous, a nuclear bomb, or a boquet or flowers? Mien Kampf, or Dr. Seuss? By your logic, they're all the same, but I see it differently.

Rough parallel though. One can't resist a nuclear bomb. Meanwhile a book will only influence my ideas if I let it do so.

And as posters have pointed out in this thread, these books can be used in education against the very ideals they expouse.

I really don't see how you equate a book and a weapon. They aren't similar at all in method, result, usage, etc.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Capitalsim has selfishness as a core ideal.

? Where did you get that from? Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange of property rights. If I buy myself a lunch, am I selfish because I didnt buy the lunch for you? Who is out to lunch here?

Capitalism often ends up as a cloaked tyranny of the rich, is that good?

You would have to explain this one to me. How are rich people tyrannical to you? Can they force you do things you dont want to do? If they can, how?

Big profits are made at the expense of the lower eschelon working class, do you deny that?

Of course I deny that. Because it is marxist nonsense. But we have covered this one many times before. Maybe you can search this off topic forum, I think you and I had a discussion on this topic before (along with Mr. Agamemnon if memory serves).

It's pretty obvious it's the case. Capitalism has promoted sweatshops by it's very nature. With profit as the only ruling value, exploitation of workers and the environment is a natural conclusion.

What is obvious is that in capitalism, workers work for any wage they and their employers agree upon. How is that wrong? Where do you see exploitation in that?

Government who's goal is to look after the good of the people has become corrupted by corporate self-interest.

?

Earth to FOL, there's problems with every system. Capitalism is not the perfect ideal that you are attempting to make it out as.

Where did I say that capitalism is the perfect ideal? Nowhere. In fact, looking for a perfect system and perfect people is socialist mantra. I accept people as they are, and I say that pure capitalism is legitimate system because it is based on the non agression theorem and respecting property rights. No one has right to live at the expense of someone else. If it is too much for you to grasp, that is too bad.

As for DFF's "jab", it would appear you've misread his intent as per his post. Not sure how you got "jab" out of that, it was clearly a joke and a funny one IMO.

I said the "jab" was nice. I didnt have problem with it. Not sure why are you comenting on "jabs" between me and DFF though.

You seem to be the poster most consistently out of touch with reality on this board. Congratulations, that's a fine accomplishment.

Sounds great from you. You dont agree with me. Thats fine. How does your opinion mean that I am consistently out of touch with reality, I dont know.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Five-hole+Jun 9 2005, 04:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Five-hole @ Jun 9 2005, 04:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I'm sorry, but you're way out to lunch on this one. Have you READ the Communist Manifesto? It's pretty short, I think you could probably find the time in between your libertarian rants to give it another perusal. I'd like you to show me where, exactly, the oppression comes in. We ARE talking about the book here, you know, not Soviet Russia and its perversion of Marx's writings.

Furthermore I'd be surprised if communism at all spread even if the Manifesto was required reading in school. It's met with a certain degree of, I don't know, skepticism, when read these days.

<!--QuoteBegin-"Flame of Liberty"
Many people still believe that evil capitalists exploit laborers or that big profits are made at the expense of the poor. Of course, they behave accordingly (during the elections, for example), they demand socialization of the economy and whole society, because they believe socialism is at least partially right and we have to be "balanced". The result? Poverty, parasitisation and lack of freedom all over the world. Do I think that is harmful? You bet I do.

Yeah, many people do believe that. You know why? Because it's, you know, true. It happens. Read about the export processing zones in South East Asia and tell me how that is not exploitation of the poor by the rich. I'm really eager to see you jump through the hoops to try and justify that one.

I am a socialist, to a greater or lesser extent, and I wouldn't really consider that it leads to "poverty, parasitisation (I don't even know what that is), and lack of freedom" all over the world. In fact, I think socialism has the answers to a lot of capitalisms problems (though I admit it has many problems of its own). If capitalism is so freakin wonderful, as you seem to think, why is the world such a shinguard place? You'd think it'd be a bastion of affluence, freedom, and happiness, yet....it's not.

Care to explain? [/b][/quote]
Very shortly. Yes, I have read the communist manifesto. In fact, I commented on all of its points on this very board. If you dont see opression in marxism then you and I have nothing to talk about because there is no common ground between us. Marxism is all about sacrificing good of an individual for mythical good of the whole (society). Dont see opression in that? Good on you.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Looking at this list, seems the same as looking at my book list for a year at Uni. I guess I'm being tought alot of evil.

[MarchHare]

You would have to explain this one to me. How are rich people tyrannical to you? Can they force you do things you dont want to do? If they can, how?

I'm not going to reply to the rest of you points as they weren't aimed at me, but I will address this one.

I don't think you'll deny that money can (and frequently does) influence politics. As rich people by definition have more money than the poor, they are in a better position to influence the law.

As an example, look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This law is extremely anti-consumer, as it prevents you from breaking any kind of digital security, even for non-profit personal use. Under the DMCA, you're not permitted to take a CD you legally bought and rip it to MP3 format to play on your iPod if the CD comes with copy protection. The DMCA has also been used to prosecute an individual who cracked the copy protection scheme on DVDs just so he could watch his legally-purchased movies on his Linux computer.

Who does the DMCA benefit? Large media companies who own copyrights on movies and music. So while this may not be an example of rich people forcing me to do things I don't want to, it's definetely an example of rich corporations preventing me from doing things I do.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Jun 9 2005, 07:25 PM

I'm not going to reply to the rest of you points as they weren't aimed at me, but I will address this one.

I don't think you'll deny that money can (and frequently does) influence politics. As rich people by definition have more money than the poor, they are in a better position to influence the law.

As an example, look at the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. This law is extremely anti-consumer, as it prevents you from breaking any kind of digital security, even for non-profit personal use. Under the DMCA, you're not permitted to take a CD you legally bought and rip it to MP3 format to play on your iPod if the CD comes with copy protection. The DMCA has also been used to prosecute an individual who cracked the copy protection scheme on DVDs just so he could watch his legally-purchased movies on his Linux computer.

Who does the DMCA benefit? Large media companies who own copyrights on movies and music. So while this may not be an example of rich people forcing me to do things I don't want to, it's definetely an example of rich corporations preventing me from doing things I do.

Good points. I agree with you.

But the thing is, rich people can do it through politics, through the state. However, in my "perfect system" (sarcasm) state has no place. Therefore, rich people do not have means (the state) to carry out such tyrannical practices.

Shortly, it is the state who gives rich people power over other people.

In a pure capitalist society, contract details (ie what you are allowed to do with the CD) will be up to the producer and the buyer. You are fine with the contract status, you purchase the product. You are not fine with it, you dont purchase anything. No one has "power" over you, in any sense of the word.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:06 PM

? Where did you get that from? Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange of property rights. If I buy myself a lunch, am I selfish because I didnt buy the lunch for you? Who is out to lunch here?

Well you already know I think you are. No need to ask rhetorical questions.

The idea of owning property and goods is selfish. The idea of exchanging goods and services is selfish. I'll give you this, but only if you give me this. The profit motive is selfish. Being motivated to do something strictly because it profits you. The legal definition of a corporation is to make the most money for it's shareholders at the expense of all other concerns, that's selfish.

You are out to lunch if you can't see the selfish motivation in all aspects of capitalistic theory and reality.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Yeah, many people do believe that. You know why? Because it's, you know, true. It happens. Read about the export processing zones in South East Asia and tell me how that is not exploitation of the poor by the rich. I'm really eager to see you jump through the hoops to try and justify that one.

Once again. Those workers are there willingly. They dont have a better option. Is that crappy? Yes. Is that exploitation. No. Maybe you should ask yourself why there is no better option for them out there.

parasitisation (I don't even know what that is)

Thats too bad, o wise one. Maybe you should consult a dictionary.

and lack of freedom" all over the world. In fact, I think socialism has the answers to a lot of capitalisms problems (though I admit it has many problems of its own). If capitalism is so freakin wonderful, as you seem to think, why is the world such a shinguard place? You'd think it'd be a bastion of affluence, freedom, and happiness, yet....it's not.

Care to explain?

This world is lot more socialistic than capitalistic. Dont you think that it is the case? Even a country like the US is crippled by socialist (democrats and republicans alike). Not to mention the Africa, China, Russia and every 3rd world country. The only two countries in the world, where capitalism is prevealing, are Hong Kong and Singapore. There are few, where it is 50-50 (more or less, with both eyes closed) like the US, Australia, the UK, some new EU member countries. The rest of the world is hopelessly under socialism.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Jun 9 2005, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Jun 9 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:06 PM

? Where did you get that from? Capitalism is all about voluntary exchange of property rights. If I buy myself a lunch, am I selfish because I didnt buy the lunch for you? Who is out to lunch here?

Well you already know I think you are. No need to ask rhetorical questions.

The idea of owning property and goods is selfish. The idea of exchanging goods and services is selfish. I'll give you this, but only if you give me this. The profit motive is selfish. Being motivated to do something strictly because it profits you. The legal definition of a corporation is to make the most money for it's shareholders at the expense of all other concerns, that's selfish.

You are out to lunch if you can't see the selfish motivation in all aspects of capitalistic theory and reality. [/b][/quote]
Thats a peculiar definition of selfishness. Self interest (looking for myself) is selfishness? I am not sure...

selfishness

n : stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others

I think the "disregard of others" is the important part. I dont see how being a capitalist means that I have disregard for others. In fact, if I want to be filthy rich capitalist pig, I have to offer other people what they want. Otherwise I wont be successful on the market.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:06 PM

You would have to explain this one to me. How are rich people tyrannical to you? Can they force you do things you dont want to do? If they can, how?

Well it appears you've flip-flopped on this issue after MarchHare's reply but I'll still address it.

As was brought up, corporate interest has become very huge in current politics through funding of political campaigns and lobby groups.

How do rich people (corporate entities) get you to do things you don't really want or need to do? Advertising. Propaganda.

Why are cigarettes legal? Do they enhance society? Are they providing something positive for us? Or are they really an addictive substance that only serves to hurt our bodies and hurt us financially both through their price and their negative effect on our public heathcare?

Why do we allow companies to pollute out drinking water? Killing off fish, causing defects in humans.

Those are just a couple examples from countless ones available.

What percentage of the population owns 80+% of the stocks? If you haven't looked into it, you might be shocked. While we like to think this is an equal opportunity continent, the financial power of North America sits in the hands of a very small group of people. Money rules and that money is concentrated. We love to think we've made it out of the class system, that a select few don't reign anymore. Democracy gives us that illusion. But as long as politics is tainted by money and the self interest of the rich, that's all it is, an illusion.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:06 PM

Of course I deny that. Because it is marxist nonsense. But we have covered this one many times before. Maybe you can search this off topic forum, I think you and I had a discussion on this topic before (along with Mr. Agamemnon if memory serves).

Yeah and you were schooled then and probably will be again.

CEO's currently make about 400 to 500 times the average worker. Is that fair? If a company needs to help the bottom line, have they cut back CEO wages or is it the bottom eschelon of workers that get cut back? Do shareholders ever take a hit to make sure the workers are getting good wages? Typically only when unions are involved and they are forced to. If unions didn't exist, exploitation of workers would be far worse than it already is.

You obviously need to look at some actual case studies in the real world. Your "theories" don't amount to much when reality is proving them nonsensical all the time.

You think taking jobs away from North Americans and then giving the same job to a person in the 3rd world country for wages that they can barely live on working 12 hours a day is not exploitation? How on earth could you believe that? Enlighten us, please.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:06 PM

What is obvious is that in capitalism, workers work for any wage they and their employers agree upon. How is that wrong? Where do you see exploitation in that?

I see exploitation when the choice is between starving to death and barely surviving working every day for 12 hours a day. That's not a choice, that's like having a gun to your head and being forced to "agree" as you term it.

Obviously you aren't very informed about sweatshops, about 3rd world labour. Your theories are nice but you haven't spent enough time looking at reality and what's actually going on in the world.

[moon]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@Jun 9 2005, 12:26 PM


CEO's currently make about 400 to 500 times the average worker. Is that fair?

Why isn't it fair? If the CEO's are in the position to make a decision that they get that much more then that is fine by me. If the workers don;t lie it they can quit.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:06 PM

Where did I say that capitalism is the perfect ideal? Nowhere. In fact, looking for a perfect system and perfect people is socialist mantra. I accept people as they are, and I say that pure capitalism is legitimate system because it is based on the non agression theorem and respecting property rights. No one has right to live at the expense of someone else. If it is too much for you to grasp, that is too bad.

Funny, with that kind of philosophy you'd think you would actually be against sweatshops. Obviously your theories are a little conflicted.

The rich in this world are living at the expense of the poor and starving in this world RIGHT NOW. I thought you said you were against that?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 07:13 PM

Once again. Those workers are there willingly. They dont have a better option. Is that crappy? Yes. Is that exploitation. No. Maybe you should ask yourself why there is no better option for them out there.

Yeah, maybe YOU should ask YOURSELF.

The workers are there because the choice is between slave labour and starving to death. Which would you choose? You should thank the gods that you weren't born in that part of the world or you might have had to make the exact same choice.

[moon]

I have no problem with sweatshops either as long as people are not fored to work there then its fine by me. If the work conditions and wages are so bad then don't work there. If people think that working there is their best option then go ahead continue to work there.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 06:13 PM
If you dont see opression in marxism then you and I have nothing to talk about because there is no common ground between us. Marxism is all about sacrificing good of an individual for mythical good of the whole (society). Dont see opression in that? Good on you.

If you don't see the opression in capitalism, then you and I have nothing to talk about because there is no common round between us. Capitalism is all about sacrificing the good of the many for the mythical good of the individual (elite). Don't see opression in that? You're a Utopian.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon@Jun 9 2005, 07:33 PM
I have no problem with sweatshops either as long as people are not fored to work there then its fine by me. If the work conditions and wages are so bad then don't work there. If people think that working there is their best option then go ahead continue to work there.

What if that's their only option? What if it's work at the sweat-shop, or starve?

How can you not have a problem with these 'options'??? Do you honestly think these people are torn between whether to be a doctor, lawyer, or slave-wage labourer? Come on... options are for the wealthy (us).

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Jun 9 2005, 07:13 PM

This world is lot more socialistic than capitalistic. Dont you think that it is the case? Even a country like the US is crippled by socialist (democrats and republicans alike). Not to mention the Africa, China, Russia and every 3rd world country. The only two countries in the world, where capitalism is prevealing, are Hong Kong and Singapore. There are few, where it is 50-50 (more or less, with both eyes closed) like the US, Australia, the UK, some new EU member countries. The rest of the world is hopelessly under socialism.

I think you have a very misguided view of things. Capitalism is the dominant economic system of the world. You're denying reality by denying that.

Which brings me back to the point I made earlier in this thread. Out of all the posters on this board, you are the most out of touch with REALITY. What you seem to think is happening is not the same as what is actually happening.