My philosophy professor asks for examples of oxymorons

>A concerted country team effort should be made now to select civilian and military personnel for clandestine training in resistance operations in case they are needed later. This should be done with a view toward development of a civil and military structure for exploitation in the event the Colombian internal security system deteriorates further. This structure should be used to pressure toward reforms known to be needed, perform counter-agent and counter-propaganda functions and as necessary execute paramilitary, sabotage and/or terrorist activities against known communist proponents. It should be backed by the United States."

I'm a minarchist but I respect ancaps. Otherwise you need to get in the fucking helicopter along with the communists.

>philosophy
>Veeky Forums

go away. no one cares about your political ideology, or hers.

>Helicopter rides
Seems pretty coercive tbqh
>I'm an ist
You are a retard that focuses on doctrinal bullshit and nothing more

>taking issue with someone summarizing their political philosophy as ____ist
My apologies. You wanted a fucking essay about what I believe?
And yeah communists are thieves and so they should be killed. Unless they happen to be really good swimmers.

>Thieves should be killed
Barbaric
Don't include anarchy in anything you call yourself

Because "ethical" isn't a well defined term (neither is "people's possessions").

It's a pretty well defined term, you obviously haven't studied ethics.
I use possession sensu Proudhon, something occupied by someones person, very different from the legal notion of "private property"

because "capitalizing" isn't an unethical action

>barbaric
childish, emotional response
get an argument

No, it isn't and cannot be, because it's a philosophical term. Trying to apply any philosophical "findings" to real-world issues has always been the task of the brainlets of their respective time periods.

I'll take your bait.
Capitalization is performed on the possessions of the company and the labor done, willingly, for the company.

you have to be retarded to consider anarchy a viable universal system. It's about consistency. It' about starting with constructed beliefs and deriving logical rules to follow. Jesus.

Wew lad
I don't consider anarchy a system,its a state a system is in, that system most notably would be some kind of libertarian socialism, but I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with hierarchy and coercion not existing anymore. I'm not purposing any kind of social system, just getting the shit out of what we have now.

>Argue with you
Lol nope

another one bites the dust

...

>utilitarianism

what did pepe say when he saw the math class? Sci-pe!

SJWs are uneducated kids who read an article and learned their first 4-syllable word so now they feel super empowered about it.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4076244/Distressing-photos-1920s-Russian-famine-turned-hopeless-peasants-cannibals-five-million-people-starved-death.html
>Russian communist revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, better known as Lenin, had been in charge of the country since 1917. In a chilling disregard for the suffering of his fellow countrymen he instructed food to be seized from the poor.
>Lenin's Bolsheviks party believed peasants were actively trying to undermine the war effort and by taking their food away it reduced their strength.
>As Lenin declared ‘let the peasants starve’, the result was to force them to resort to trading human flesh on the black market.
Th-thanks, communism. Would hate to have some people not starving because they worked hard and were compensated for high performance during difficult times, that'd be unfair to all the people who don't contribute to society. It's not a fair system unless EVERYONE has to sell their dead children at cannibal meat markets to try to make up for the centralized economy having accidentally fucked up an entire multi-million population's food supply.

what kind of uni are you attending that your philosophy class needs to be reminded what an oxymoron is lmao

Depends on your ethics and what exactly is meant by capitalism. From most people's perspectives, it is indeed an oxymoron (even rapid defenders of capitalism, to claim it is ethical is to admit your hypocrisy or that you don't actually adhere/believe to/in the ethics that you claim you do - exploiting and dominating someone is still the same regardless of appearance and semantics). In any case, this is not science or mathematics. Saged and reported.

>participating in voluntary transactions is exploitation and domination
Classic strawman. Really textbook stuff right here. You're stupid.

>It's a pretty well defined term
My friend here would like a word with you.