Why libertarianism FAILS.

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Why libertarianism FAILS.

 Quite simply, it ignores that everyone is part of a society and that they are responsible to eachother to make the society work.

 

The only libertarian utopia in the world right now is Somalia.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Well, aren't

Eloise wrote:

Well, aren't you just a fluffy ball of humanity, then. Wow.

I take it you prefer phony compassion over sincere rationality.

The fact is I believe my values would lead to less overall suffering of poor. But to be morally good, all that matters is pretending to care. That's why morality and compassion are such BS concepts.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure how "If people

I'm not sure how "If people can't compete with the large corporations they should form small corporations so they can compete" leads to less overall suffering.

I'll grant you, "I got mine - screw you" is easier. Not better, just easier.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"OK then. Why don't you

"OK then. Why don't you explain to us the socialist rational for unconditional entitlements?"

I don't support unconditional entitlements, and I never have. But no matter how many times I tell you this, you never even acknowledge it, let alone test or accept it. Next time you post you'll again bring out this long dead strawman. So much for you being rational, at least in this context.

"Our biology and evolutionary history is such that we have been in continual competition since the beginning of life. How can a system work where people are required to take care of those they compete against be sustained? How can all this competition be ended just by passing a law against it?"

Never watched a sporting event? Hear the crowd cheer an OPPOSING team member with a standing ovation when he gets back on his feet after injury? We have the capacity to care and compete at the same time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't support

Vastet wrote:

I don't support unconditional entitlements, and I never have. But no matter how many times I tell you this, you never even acknowledge it, let alone test or accept it.

OK then, you support a Canadian style healthcare system. What is the condition under which someone could loose this entitlement? Same with food stamps, housing supplements, education aid. Is there any condition under which someone could loose these entitlements? What are the conditions on continually receiving minimum wage?

They're all implemented as unconditional entitlements, so you say one thing but the reality is all these socialist programs are what they are.

Vastet wrote:

Hear the crowd cheer an OPPOSING team member with a standing ovation when he gets back on his feet after injury?

Another example of compassion without any sacrifice and proof that we really only care about ourselves. This example is about as compassionate as prayer. Seems that if one were concerned about injured players, one would sacrifice the pleasure of watching sports. But the fans only really care about the 'high' they can get from watching sports.

But sports is a good analogy for what I'm talking about. Your solution to uneven competition is to take points from the team ahead and give them to the team behind.  You would take prize money from the winners and give it to the losers. So what happens? Neither team tries hard, there is no reward for excellence

What do sports leagues do to reduce uneven competition? The give the poorer teams better draft choices. But the still have to be careful not to have an incentive to loose(NBA draft lottery). They have to prevent the rich teams from buying up all the best players(resources) and monopolizing the sport.

 

Vastet wrote:

We have the capacity to care and compete at the same time.

We have the capacity to cooperate and compete at the same time.

Caring and compassion are false concepts. We are incabable of 'caring' without strings attached. Socialists exhibit phony compassion and moral indignation as a strategy to get something for nothing. This is because they are trying to gain an advantage against those they compete against.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Let's keep the sports

Let's keep the sports analogies going.

The current system we have is a football game where one official is trying to call the game. Even if he were not taking bribes from the team with the larger payroll, he can't see everything happening on the field.

Your solution seems to be to let the team with the larger payroll not only interpret and enforce the rules but to call plays for their opponents.

As for your strawman of socialism - let's just say if you were the one in need I don't think I'd be hearing about how false the concepts of caring and compassion are.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"OK then, you support a

"OK then, you support a Canadian style healthcare system."

Only in the face of a lack of better alternatives. If I had my way, the whole country would be socialist, though not the "socialism" you and I both abhor.

"What is the condition under which someone could loose this entitlement?"

Refusal to contribute to society. ie: work.

"Same with food stamps, housing supplements, education aid."

Food stamps and housing supplements would not exist, as there would be no need for them. Education is an investment, one that would more than pay itself off.

"They're all implemented as unconditional entitlements, so you say one thing but the reality is all these socialist programs are what they are."

Just because they are entitlements in our capitalist societies does not mean they would remain so in a socialist one. You just don't get it. There'd be no need for ANY socialist program running today. They'd all be scrapped. The only reason they exist at all is to protect people from the excesses of capitalism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Another example of

"Another example of compassion without any sacrifice and proof that we really only care about ourselves."

On the contrary. It takes effort to invest ones emotions in an opponent. A lot of effort.

"Seems that if one were concerned about injured players, one would sacrifice the pleasure of watching sports. But the fans only really care about the 'high' they can get from watching sports."

Ridiculous. Whether you participate or not, the teams will still play. People will still get hurt. Not watching only hides it from you, which would be where the selfishness comes in, as you protect only yourself by not watching.

"But sports is a good analogy for what I'm talking about. Your solution to uneven competition is to take points from the team ahead and give them to the team behind.  You would take prize money from the winners and give it to the losers. So what happens? Neither team tries hard, there is no reward for excellence"

I love it when my predictions come true.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"What do sports leagues do

"What do sports leagues do to reduce uneven competition? The give the poorer teams better draft choices. But the still have to be careful not to have an incentive to loose(NBA draft lottery). They have to prevent the rich teams from buying up all the best players(resources) and monopolizing the sport."

Yet the solution is so much simpler: cap the funding that any team would be willing to pay out. Better yet, assign each team the exact same amount of money they have to spend, adjusted for different tax rates and other local costs, and the playing board is even.

"We have the capacity to cooperate and compete at the same time."

Same difference. The terms are interchangeable for the purposes of my argument.

"Caring and compassion are false concepts. We are incabable of 'caring' without strings attached. Socialists exhibit phony compassion and moral indignation as a strategy to get something for nothing. This is because they are trying to gain an advantage against those they compete against."

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
In the socialism I envision,

In the socialism I envision, competition would not mean win or starve. It would mean win or try again. It's selfishness en masse. Hence, whether you're right about compassion or not is irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:In the

Vastet wrote:
In the socialism I envision, competition would not mean win or starve. It would mean win or try again. It's selfishness en masse. Hence, whether you're right about compassion or not is irrelevant.

Vastet, you sound like you would follow a political system I read about once.

The creator gave it the name "SHEFocracy" where SHEF stood for what he believed the government should guarantee all its citizens:

Shelter, Health, Education, Food. The rest the citizen gets on his own.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Add protection and

Add protection and allowances for basic entertainment and I could go for that, as long as it was democratic.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: On the

Vastet wrote:
On the contrary. It takes effort to invest ones emotions in an opponent. A lot of effort.

To just stand an applaud for a few seconds. BFD. And they feel sooo good when show 'compassion'. They do it for themselves not the player. Compassion is a drug and it's best when it doesn't cost anything.

 Seems that if one were concerned about injured players, one would sacrifice the pleasure of watching sports. But the fans only really care about the 'high' they can get from watching sports."

 

Vastet wrote:
Ridiculous. Whether you participate or not, the teams will still play. People will still get hurt. Not watching only hides it from you, which would be where the selfishness comes in, as you protect only yourself by not watching.

If there is no fans then it is just recreation for the players, so they're not going to risk injury as much for free. If you pay to go to a football game you're encouraging hard play which leads to injury right? So if one is concerned and compassionate about injured players, it seems one would sacrifice watching the games. But no one has any real compassion, just excuses.

It's like the Christians that pray for no injuries and pray after a player get injured. Why even play the game if you have to keep asking Mr. Invisible to keep everyone safe?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Vastet

jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
In the socialism I envision, competition would not mean win or starve. It would mean win or try again. It's selfishness en masse. Hence, whether you're right about compassion or not is irrelevant.

Vastet, you sound like you would follow a political system I read about once.

The creator gave it the name "SHEFocracy" where SHEF stood for what he believed the government should guarantee all its citizens:

Shelter, Health, Education, Food. The rest the citizen gets on his own.

Sounds like a great system if the government has a magic wand and everyone limits themselves to less than 2.1 children per couple.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:In the

Vastet wrote:
In the socialism I envision, competition would not mean win or starve. It would mean win or try again. It's selfishness en masse. Hence, whether you're right about compassion or not is irrelevant.

You don't control nature or human reproduction. Passing laws to this effect doesn't grow food or stop people from fucking. The laws of nature will trump laws based on an idealist fantasy.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Vastet wrote:
In the socialism I envision, competition would not mean win or starve. It would mean win or try again. It's selfishness en masse. Hence, whether you're right about compassion or not is irrelevant.

Vastet, you sound like you would follow a political system I read about once.

The creator gave it the name "SHEFocracy" where SHEF stood for what he believed the government should guarantee all its citizens:

Shelter, Health, Education, Food. The rest the citizen gets on his own.

Sounds like a great system if the government has a magic wand and everyone limits themselves to less than 2.1 children per couple.

 

No - when you invoke magic you're talking about the oligarchy you espouse. The company with the biggest payroll and profit margin gets the magic wands.

Socialism - everybody gets a little magic.

Your system - Private contractors keep the magic boxed away and extorts protection money from everyone else. "Hey wouldn't it be terrible if something bad happened to you because you didn't buy from us?"

A more even playing field vs. organized crime - your call.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No - when you

jcgadfly wrote:

No - when you invoke magic you're talking about the oligarchy you espouse. The company with the biggest payroll and profit margin gets the magic wands.

What exactly are the "magic wands" as you define them. I'm for making everyone pay for the government services they use and the resources they require. Otherwise freedom. You want a system where people can vote themselves freebies from the government all the time.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Socialism - everybody gets a little magic.

And when there's not enough 'magic' to go around? And when people stop working because the magic is delivered by the government, then what?

jcgadfly wrote:

Your system - Private contractors keep the magic boxed away and extorts protection money from everyone else. "Hey wouldn't it be terrible if something bad happened to you because you didn't buy from us?"

Can you give an example of where this happens and I support it?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:No

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No - when you invoke magic you're talking about the oligarchy you espouse. The company with the biggest payroll and profit margin gets the magic wands.

What exactly are the "magic wands" as you define them. I'm for making everyone pay for the government services they use and the resources they require. Otherwise freedom. You want a system where people can vote themselves freebies from the government all the time.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Socialism - everybody gets a little magic.

And when there's not enough 'magic' to go around? And when people stop working because the magic is delivered by the government, then what?

jcgadfly wrote:

Your system - Private contractors keep the magic boxed away and extorts protection money from everyone else. "Hey wouldn't it be terrible if something bad happened to you because you didn't buy from us?"

Can you give an example of where this happens and I support it?

 

I'm using your terms - you tell me why you use them.

As for examples of where it happens - America for one. Rich people (I include corporations in this as they have been given legal personhood by our court system) who don't pay much in taxes to begin with get their taxes caught by the government in the hopes that that money (magic) will make it to the rest of the economy. Instead it gets stored in offshore holdings (boxed away) so that it doesn't make it into the economy. They also control the means of production and the items produced telling us how bad off we'll be if we don't use their products (extortion)

How do you support it? You advocate unregulated markets - don't you read what you post?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"To just stand an applaud

"To just stand an applaud for a few seconds. BFD."

They don't have to stand or applaud at all. Hell, if they were truly selfish, they'd boo. Taking out opposing players increases the likelyhood that your team will win.
I already responded to the next segment. Repitition is not refutation.

"If there is no fans then it is just recreation for the players, so they're not going to risk injury as much for free."

Says you. Evidence is to the contrary. I'll use hockey, because it's the only sport that matters. 70 years ago, players got a fraction of the money they do now. Even adjusting for inflation. Players needed an actual job to survive. Yet padding was nonexistant. Helmets as well. Fights were both more common and allowed to continue for longer. The stands and ice were of significantly lower quality than today. Crowds were a fraction of the size. Medical technology was nothing compared to today, many injuries were career or life threatening. Yet there was no shortage of players, nor injuries.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I played hockey. Not only

I played hockey. Not only did I not get paid for it, I had to pay for it. There was no chance to ever get paid for it. IF I'd started playing when I was 6 instead of 14, I may have been good enough to get into a minor league or even the NHL, but I knew that wasn't going to happen. But I still played. I got hurt, and came back for more. Most of my team was in a similar boat, though there were a couple of exceptions. You're living in a dream world.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"You don't control nature or

"You don't control nature or human reproduction. Passing laws to this effect doesn't grow food or stop people from fucking. The laws of nature will trump laws based on an idealist fantasy."

You don't have to control either. Fact is that the more educated and secure a person is, the less likely they are to spawn a dozen kids. Even ignoring the fact that we have the technology and knowledge to sustain the entire population of Earth for a significant period of time, if not indefinitely (or as indefinitely as we could with the mineral resources available in the solar system). That we do not use this knowledge and technology to its maximum benefit is another fault of capitalism. There is no motivation to cooperate on such a level.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:As for

jcgadfly wrote:

As for examples of where it happens - America for one. Rich people (I include corporations in this as they have been given legal personhood by our court system) who don't pay much in taxes to begin with get their taxes caught by the government in the hopes that that money (magic) will make it to the rest of the economy.

 

OK so their is a problem with people buying off judges and politicians. Your solution is make the government bigger instead of fixing this problem. So if the government runs more things, won't their be even more corruption. At least if a corporation is corrupt, you can decide not to buy their overpriced products. If a politician is taking bribes, I still have to pay for his crappy health care.

jcgadfly wrote:

Instead it gets stored in offshore holdings (boxed away) so that it doesn't make it into the economy. They also control the means of production and the items produced telling us how bad off we'll be if we don't use their products (extortion)

 

Because the whole concept of income and profit tax is irrational. People can hide their wealth and income. Why doesn't WalMart, Hilton hotels or Texaco have a problem getting people to pay for their service. Because they've set it up as pay as you go. Imagine if Hilton hotels based your room rate on how much income you made or how profitable your business was. Everyone would lie and try to conceal how much money they made.

I'm with you that the rich and corporations often don't pay their fair share. But you can not defend a system that penalizes hard work, innovation, risk and efficiency. Tax people based on the government services and natural resources they use. And let people buy their services from private companies rather than require them to pay for government services they don't need or want.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

How do you support it? You advocate unregulated markets - don't you read what you post?

It depends on the definition of regulation. You equate deregulation with allowing theft, bribery, coercion and fraud. My definition is don't penalize an activity if it does not negatively impact other people. I don't believe natural resources should be a commodity that can be bought and sold. I believe the government should educate people to help people get jobs and prevent labor shortages.

There are also a few commodities which are natural monopolies. For example water where it's impractical to have two or more sets of pipes to deliver the water. But their is no reason a private company competing against other private companies can't run the service but still  managed by a small government. But if I want to use technology to eliminate the need to use a government service, why do I still have to pay for crappy overpriced service I don't want?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Fact is that

Vastet wrote:
Fact is that the more educated and secure a person is, the less likely they are to spawn a dozen kids.

 

And where is the requirement in the Canadian healthcare and welfare system that one become an educated person? One gets more freebies from the government for spawning a dozen kids, while one gets a higher tax bracket for becoming educated.

Vastet wrote:
Even ignoring the fact that we have the technology and knowledge to sustain the entire population of Earth for a significant period of time, if not indefinitely (or as indefinitely as we could with the mineral resources available in the solar system). That we do not use this knowledge and technology to its maximum benefit is another fault of capitalism. There is no motivation to cooperate on such a level.

I agree technology could be used to improve living standards. So why do you support a tax system that penalizes innovation and efficiency? If someone adopts technology to grow twice the food using the same resources, they go into a higher tax bracket and this extra profit is taxed for entitlements.

Also without population controls, humans will overpopulate to negate any gains technology produce.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Wal-Mart combines the "pay

Wal-Mart combines the "pay as you go" method you're so enamored of by screwing smaller stores out of business. they have a policy of going to small towns (under 50k people) expressly for that purpose.

Again, the point of claiming they hide their wealth is that it doesn't help the economy of the country they're operating in. If it was taxed (even at the current paltry level) it would have a chance to aid the economy of the country where they milk their consumers. I have a problem with penalizing hard work - the problem is that corporations don't do any.

Why reward them for doing nothing?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:And when people

EXC wrote:
And when people stop working because the magic is delivered by the government, then what?

Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

The role of the government is simply to distribute a vital proportion of those goods within the society in a manner the constituents see fit to approve, generally that approval would be based on the standard of basic freedom and assurances that they want pro rata to their membership in the society.

So Socialist welfare is, no more than, the goal of assuring all citizens equally a basic means of survival and well being, a lowest possible standard of living that one should expect within the community.

From there, contributions to the system above and beyond the basic contribution everyone makes simply by being a a consumer, processer and an individual mind (ie: a cog in the basic system of civil advancement) could be justly rewarded with the means to more freedom of expression and stature for the individual. (means of exchange notwithstanding as it could equally be money or barter or whatever works).

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Wal-Mart

jcgadfly wrote:

Wal-Mart combines the "pay as you go" method you're so enamored of by screwing smaller stores out of business. they have a policy of going to small towns (under 50k people) expressly for that purpose.

What do you want? A system that rewards inefficiency and does not take advantage of economies of scale? So we pay more for food and other consumer goods. How does that help the poor? What about the jobs they created, like in the computer industry by automating distribution. The small business were dinosaurs that never took advantage of technology. That's just the nature of a competative world.

jcgadfly wrote:
Again, the point of claiming they hide their wealth is that it doesn't help the economy of the country they're operating in. If it was taxed (even at the current paltry level) it would have a chance to aid the economy of the country where they milk their consumers.

So why not support pay as you go for services and resources instead of taxing profits? Wouldn't this force corporations to help the economies where they make their money?

jcgadfly wrote:
 I have a problem with penalizing hard work - the problem is that corporations don't do any.

Why reward them for doing nothing?

Then why are people buying their products? Why don't they buy from the small business that competes against WalMart? It seems like the consumer is rewarding them for delivering what they want at a good price.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Incidentally,

Eloise wrote:

Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

What are you talking about? Wherever it is practiced, it amounts to the government providing the need. If you make health care a right, the government is providing it. If you have food stamps, the government is providing the need.

Eloise wrote:

The role of the government is simply to distribute a vital proportion of those goods within the society in a manner the constituents see fit to approve, generally that approval would be based on the standard of basic freedom and assurances that they want pro rata to their membership in the society.

Government doesn't produce any goods only individuals and businesses motivated by personal gain to do that, so how can government ever distribute goods. All government can do is redistribute wealth.

Eloise wrote:

So Socialist welfare is, no more than, the goal of assuring all citizens equally a basic means of survival and well being, a lowest possible standard of living that one should expect within the community.

Even if this goal could be met, the laws of biology tell us that any species including humans will multiply until a lack of resources is the limiting factor, so a government can not meet this goal without population controls. The communist system in China is the only society that has ever attempted addressed this dillema.

Eloise wrote:

From there, contributions to the system above and beyond the basic contribution everyone makes simply by being a a consumer, processer and an individual mind (ie: a cog in the basic system of civil advancement) could be justly rewarded with the means to more freedom of expression and stature for the individual. (means of exchange notwithstanding as it could equally be money or barter or whatever works).

Humans are not motivated by "the means to more freedom of expression and stature". People are motivated by sex, reproduction and money to buy nice things like big houses, cars, clothes, electronics, vacations, etc... Socialism takes people's disposable income thereby destroying their motivations.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And now you jump back to a

And now you jump back to a capitalist nation, when I was speaking of a socialist one. I already established that handouts would be eliminated in a socialist nation. And our current system is designed to protect our people from the debacle South of the border. It's also half the price.
Amusingly, you're dead wrong on welfare too. In order to get on welfare at all you have to be job hunting, and prove it. If your education is insufficient, then you ALSO have to go to school. In fact, they generally will make you take extra courses even if you've gone through University. On top of looking for a job.

"So why do you support a tax system that penalizes innovation and efficiency? If someone adopts technology to grow twice the food using the same resources, they go into a higher tax bracket and this extra profit is taxed for entitlements."

And yet again with your strawman. One of these days I'm going to go through all of your posts and count up how many times you've proven your stupidity and irrational thinking.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Incidentally,

Eloise wrote:
Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

I don't think anyone is actually claiming that socialism encourages people not to work, but that it can't offer the same motivation to work that capitalism provides. People do work for their needs, but in socialism, they don't reap the rewards as individuals, right? Instead, resources produced are pooled together and redistributed evenly.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eloise

butterbattle wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

I don't think anyone is actually claiming that socialism encourages people not to work, but that it can't offer the same motivation to work that capitalism provides. People do work for their needs, but in socialism, they don't reap the rewards as individuals, right? Instead, resources produced are pooled together and redistributed evenly.

Yes that is one posible model of socialism, but it doesn't represent anymore than that. Socialism can be implemented in a number of ways and on varying levels all with a view to preserving individualism and liberty, to say differently is a, sad and tragic, misrepresentation of what socialism is.

And for the record Capitalism's claim to being the system with the superior motivation for people to work has been methodologically demonstrated to be flawed in a number of ways, for one it fails to address lukewarm to low work attitudes among employed people*, and secondly the notion of disutility of work, which is necessarily assumed by that argument can't really be supported**.

* Boas Shamir @ H.U Israel

** Robert Lane @ Yale

see also if you can get access:

Love's Labor's Lost? the Disutility of Work and Work Avoidance in the Economic Analysis of Labor Supplyby David Spencer

M. Weber's concept of capitalism and labor motivation by  Al'bert Ivanovich Kravchenko

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

butterbattle wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

I don't think anyone is actually claiming that socialism encourages people not to work, but that it can't offer the same motivation to work that capitalism provides. People do work for their needs, but in socialism, they don't reap the rewards as individuals, right? Instead, resources produced are pooled together and redistributed evenly.

 

No, that isn't true. They may not reap AS MUCH of the rewards as individuals, but they still reap the rewards. Socialism is NOT mutually exclusive to capitalism, also.

 

Simply because workers own and administer the means of the production or allocation of resources, does not mean that people go uncompensated for what they do, or their innovation, which EXC so often assumes.

 

 

 

Basic needs SHOULD BE PROVIDED for everyone in the society. It should be a right for everyone in a developed nation. Rights are, contrary to what some may think, provided by other people in your society. No one would really have a right to free speech if someone would shoot you the moment you said something they didn't like. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Simply

ClockCat wrote:

Simply because workers own and administer the means of the production or allocation of resources, does not mean that people go uncompensated for what they do, or their innovation,

QFT. Socialism doesn't demand uniform monotonous distribution of resources per capita of population beyond an official and agreed fundamental standard of basic provision. An economy can be planned to converge toward that degree of parity, or it can be given an entirely different face where the sense of parity is not based on material rights to use and consume at all.

Seems to me the biggest problem in the right wing is the extreme lack of imagination.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Eloise

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

What are you talking about? Wherever it is practiced, it amounts to the government providing the need. If you make health care a right, the government is providing it. If you have food stamps, the government is providing the need.

Please don't pretend to be dense, EXC. If health care is a right, a doctor (read: person) will provide it for you. No amount worth of food stamps from the government is going to satisfy your need for potatoes if there isn't a long line of People growing, packing, wholesaling and retailing them for you to access with your food stamps.

The governent is not providing the need. As it always will be, the people are providing the need. The government, ideally, is just a mechanism by which they can collectively plan how, and to what aspiration as a collective.

 

EXC wrote:

 

Eloise wrote:

So Socialist welfare is, no more than, the goal of assuring all citizens equally a basic means of survival and well being, a lowest possible standard of living that one should expect within the community.

Even if this goal could be met, the laws of biology tell us that any species including humans will multiply until a lack of resources is the limiting factor,

 

It's true that the logistic growth equation tested against biology in reality holds rather well, but not in all cases as you seem to be implying.

And note also, despite its efficacy, the model proceeds from some really heavily simplistic instructions, not least of all that the relationship between the points (0, r0) and (K, 0) is linear. Be aware you're making a strong claim from pretty shaky ground there.

 

EXC wrote:

a government can not meet this goal without population controls. The communist system in China is the only society that has ever attempted addressed this dillema.

 

We have population controls. We have contraception, pioneers of childless personal fulfillment, and we've recently discovered a ball park figure for the global K. These are pretty good existing controls for population, all a government needs to do is educate people about them.

BTW, China is such a comparitively denser population because its civilisation is older and practiced medicine and hygeine earlier than the west, it has nothing to do with communism. In case there was any implication in that.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Humans are not motivated by "the means to more freedom of expression and stature". People are motivated by sex, reproduction and money to buy nice things like big houses, cars, clothes, electronics, vacations, etc...

EXC, the definition of {Sex, reproduction and money to buy nice things like big houses, cars, clothes, electronics, vacations etc..} IS "a means to more freedom of expression".

Means - sexual availability, fertility, and money

Freedom of expression - Sex, reproduction, nice things like house cars, clothes, electronics, vacations

You missed stature.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Eloise

butterbattle wrote:

Eloise wrote:
Incidentally, this is a myth. Socialism doesn't encourage people not to work, it never has in reality. The people don't and can't stop working for one because the government does not provide their needs, they do.

I don't think anyone is actually claiming that socialism encourages people not to work, but that it can't offer the same motivation to work that capitalism provides. People do work for their needs, but in socialism, they don't reap the rewards as individuals, right? Instead, resources produced are pooled together and redistributed evenly.

Not necessarily. There's nothing preventing a reward system. I've said as much before. The goal is removing the massive discrepancy between people who sit on their asses all day thanks to mom and dad being rich, while the average Joe does all the work and gets peanuts for it. That doesn't mean a doctor and someone working at McD's will be paid the same per hour.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Amusingly,

Vastet wrote:
Amusingly, you're dead wrong on welfare too. In order to get on welfare at all you have to be job hunting, and prove it. If your education is insufficient, then you ALSO have to go to school. In fact, they generally will make you take extra courses even if you've gone through University. On top of looking for a job.

And if you don't, do you loose free healthcare and other welfare? I don't think so, so people just do the minimum required to keep their benefits. At some point you have to cut people off if they simple want to take advantage of the system. Does any socialist system do this? Cut of the benefits if an individual refuses to get with the program?

 

 

Vastet wrote:
"So why do you support a tax system that penalizes innovation and efficiency? If someone adopts technology to grow twice the food using the same resources, they go into a higher tax bracket and this extra profit is taxed for entitlements." And yet again with your strawman. One of these days I'm going to go through all of your posts and count up how many times you've proven your stupidity and irrational thinking.

On the Canadian income tax form, does it care how you made your money? Does it matter how much natural resouses you required to make your profit? Does it ever matter how innovative and effiecient your business operates? Does it matter if your busness requires a lot of government services? No. It's just if you made money send it in. Pretty much like a mafia shake down.

The effect of progressive income tax and unconditional entitlements is to punish sucess and reward failure. You can try to deny this reality by calling it other names, but it is what it is.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Simply

CC, Vaset and Eloise,

I want to understand how you think. I have a problem for you I'd like to see what your solution would be:

 

Suppose you were put in charge of a large national park. You were given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease. What would be your plan for achieving this goal?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:CC, Vaset and

EXC wrote:

CC, Vaset and Eloise,

I want to understand how you think. I have a problem for you I'd like to see what your solution would be:

 

Suppose you were put in charge of a large national park. You were given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease. What would be your plan for achieving this goal?

Compare apples to oranges much?

Knocking a natural system out of balance (your park analogy) is not the same as restoring balance to an unbalanced artificial system.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:EXC wrote:CC,

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

CC, Vaset and Eloise,

I want to understand how you think. I have a problem for you I'd like to see what your solution would be:

 

Suppose you were put in charge of a large national park. You were given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease. What would be your plan for achieving this goal?

Compare apples to oranges much?

Knocking a natural system out of balance (your park analogy) is not the same as restoring balance to an unbalanced artificial system.

Please explain how and why the analogy fails. Why isn't human sociology natural? I thought we were all atheists that believed humans were just another animal, the product of natural selection and other natural processes. At what moment during human evolution did we switch from being "natural" to being "artificial"? How does one determine what is "natural" and what is "artificial"?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly wrote:EXC

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

EXC wrote:

CC, Vaset and Eloise,

I want to understand how you think. I have a problem for you I'd like to see what your solution would be:

 

Suppose you were put in charge of a large national park. You were given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease. What would be your plan for achieving this goal?

Compare apples to oranges much?

Knocking a natural system out of balance (your park analogy) is not the same as restoring balance to an unbalanced artificial system.

Please explain how and why the analogy fails. Why isn't human sociology natural? I thought we were all atheists that believed humans were just another animal, the product of natural selection and other natural processes. At what moment during human evolution did we switch from being "natural" to being "artificial"? How does one determine what is "natural" and what is "artificial"?

Societies are natural - economies aren't.

You're wanting to compare imposing human will on a natural system to imposing human will on a human made system. Since you know that human imposition to a natural system (guaranteeing that the bears don't go hungry or contract disease) will work to the system's detriment, you want us to believe that correcting a broken man-made system will make that system worse.

Apples and oranges.

Are you're advocating the dissolution of all economic systems?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"And if you don't, do you

"And if you don't, do you loose free healthcare and other welfare?"

Healthcare and welfare are two completely seperate systems that have nothing to do with each other. Healthcare requires you to live in a province of Canada. Nothing more, nothing less. This has already been explained to you. Pay attention for once.
And yes, if you don't go to school and look for a job, they cut you off welfare instantly. Regardless of what you think, which is just a load of make believe.

"On the Canadian income tax form, does it care how you made your money?"

To an extent. They distinguish between employment (T4), pension (T4a), workers compensation or social services (T5007), etc.

The rest is more strawman in the face of arguments you have never been able to refute.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Suppose you were put in

"Suppose you were put in charge of a large national park. You were given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease. What would be your plan for achieving this goal?"

Unless those bears have jobs I don't see how I'd care.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Societies are

jcgadfly wrote:

Societies are natural - economies aren't.

I think you should define natural for me. Isn't the development of any economomy a natural process?

jcgadfly wrote:

You're wanting to compare imposing human will on a natural system to imposing human will on a human made system.

I thought humans were the product of natural selection.

jcgadfly wrote:

Since you know that human imposition to a natural system (guaranteeing that the bears don't go hungry or contract disease) will work to the system's detriment, you want us to believe that correcting a broken man-made system will make that system worse.

When was the "broken man-made system" ever functioning correctly? Seems like we've always had lack of resources and misery(war, famine, disease) as the limiting factors to our population growth. Aren't all economic systems the result of an evolutionary process?

jcgadfly wrote:

Are you're advocating the dissolution of all economic systems? 

No. I'm just saying that any economic system must conform to the laws of how nature works. There is nothing magical about humans, we're bound by the same laws of nature as any other species. So you can't just say we're different from bears and therefore we'd be immune to the same problems you'd have if you guaranteed food and healthcare to all bears. What distinguishes us from bears is our cognative ablitly to understand how things work and design tools and systems to meet specified goals. But our biology is the same, so you can't just say bears are natural and humans are artificial.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Societies are natural - economies aren't.

I think you should define natural for me. Isn't the development of any economomy a natural process?

jcgadfly wrote:

You're wanting to compare imposing human will on a natural system to imposing human will on a human made system.

I thought humans were the product of natural selection.

jcgadfly wrote:

Since you know that human imposition to a natural system (guaranteeing that the bears don't go hungry or contract disease) will work to the system's detriment, you want us to believe that correcting a broken man-made system will make that system worse.

When was the "broken man-made system" ever functioning correctly? Seems like we've always had lack of resources and misery(war, famine, disease) as the limiting factors to our population growth. Aren't all economic systems the result of an evolutionary process?

jcgadfly wrote:

Are you're advocating the dissolution of all economic systems? 

No. I'm just saying that any economic system must conform to the laws of how nature works. There is nothing magical about humans, we're bound by the same laws of nature as any other species. So you can't just say we're different from bears and therefore we'd be immune to the same problems you'd have if you guaranteed food and healthcare to all bears. What distinguishes us from bears is our cognative ablitly to understand how things work and design tools and systems to meet specified goals. But our biology is the same, so you can't just say bears are natural and humans are artificial.

 

Please stop straw-manning. I never said humans were artificial (though I think you would enjoy that - one wouldn't need to pay automatons a living wage).

The systems they create (which economies are) are not natural systems.

The broken system has never functioned correctly - that's the point. Why is your solution to break it further instead of fixing it?

Again, economic systems need not conform to the laws of nature as the vast majority of them aren't natural.

There are only two systems that one would consider "natural" that I can think of:

1. the "If I want something I'll take it. Screw the owner - if he objects, I might have to kill him" system.

2. the "no one owns anything/we all own it in common" system.

I've a feeling you're a big fan of system #1 as the other would violate your belief that humans are all self-serving bastards. System #2 is too scary for you,

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Please stop

jcgadfly wrote:

Please stop straw-manning. I never said humans were artificial (though I think you would enjoy that - one wouldn't need to pay automatons a living wage).

The systems they create (which economies are) are not natural systems.

Again you're avoiding a rational definition of what is natural or artificial. If humans are natural, then why aren't all the economies and systems they developed natural? It seems to me that natural vs. artificial is another one of these concepts that have no real meaning, but are only propaganda tools to manipulate weak minded and irrational people.

Artificial vs. Natural

 

jcgadfly wrote:

The broken system has never functioned correctly - that's the point. Why is your solution to break it further instead of fixing it?

So evolution and nature produced a broken system. Is it broken because it doesn't make you happy and give you something for nothing? How is an unbroken system supposed to work? How are populations controlled and prevented from causes great harm to the environment? How do we keep everyone happy?

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, economic systems need not conform to the laws of nature as the vast majority of them aren't natural.

Even though nature and natural humans produced them, they are "artificial"?

jcgadfly wrote:

There are only two systems that one would consider "natural" that I can think of:

1. the "If I want something I'll take it. Screw the owner - if he objects, I might have to kill him" system.

2. the "no one owns anything/we all own it in common" system.

I've a feeling you're a big fan of system #1 as the other would violate your belief that humans are all self-serving bastards. System #2 is too scary for you,

It seems #2 encompasses #1, how can one be #2 unless you are #1 as well? Just substitute "we" for "I". I'm defending people's right to keep what they earn, I'm against owning natural resouces. How could I be #1 at all. As long as it's done by a group sanctioned by the government then #1 is OK?

I draw a sharp distinction between property which is earned via work and the ownership of natural resources. I don't support the concept land ownership or mining rights. The earth must be shared. But it is highly irrational to think the government can take the fruits of some people's labor and risk and give it to others on a large scale with little or no conditions.

I think you need to define a rational basis for deciding what can and should be owned.

BTW, why can't a "self-serving bastards" cooperate with other "self-serving bastards" for their common goals? When have you not been a "self-serving bastard"?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:jcgadfly

EXC wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Please stop straw-manning. I never said humans were artificial (though I think you would enjoy that - one wouldn't need to pay automatons a living wage).

The systems they create (which economies are) are not natural systems.

Again you're avoiding a rational definition of what is natural or artificial. If humans are natural, then why aren't all the economies and systems they developed natural? It seems to me that natural vs. artificial is another one of these concepts that have no real meaning, but are only propaganda tools to manipulate weak minded and irrational people.

Artificial vs. Natural

jcgadfly wrote:

The broken system has never functioned correctly - that's the point. Why is your solution to break it further instead of fixing it?

So evolution and nature produced a broken system. Is it broken because it doesn't make you happy and give you something for nothing? How is an unbroken system supposed to work? How are populations controlled and prevented from causes great harm to the environment? How do we keep everyone happy?

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, economic systems need not conform to the laws of nature as the vast majority of them aren't natural.

Even though nature and natural humans produced them, they are "artificial"?

 

Ugh... we've had this little discussion before, about Natural / Artificial

 

I shall sum this up with a brief example;

Doomy chops off his arm, and replaces it with a prostetic limb

Is the prostetic limb natural or artificial?

EXC's arguement is that the limb is natural because its composed by materials that are found in nature, and made by humans... which are techinically found in nature.

Doomy's arguement (and im going to assume Jcgadfly's) is that the prostetic limb is artificial... for obvious god-damn reasons!

 

"It seems to me that natural vs. artificial is another one of these concepts that have no real meaning, but are only propaganda tools to manipulate weak minded and irrational people"

 

It seems to Doomy that natural vs artificial is another one of these concepts that weak minded and inferior beings have trouble concieving... like evolution... and common sense!

 

What Would Kharn Do?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Again, economic systems need not conform to the laws of nature as the vast majority of them aren't natural.

Doomy's arguement (and im going to assume Jcgadfly's) is that the prostetic limb is artificial... for obvious god-damn reasons!

It seems to Doomy that natural vs artificial is another one of these concepts that weak minded and inferior beings have trouble concieving... like evolution... and common sense!

 

And therefore the limb is not bound by the laws of nature and physics? It's a magic arm that can lift any amount of weight and not break because it's artificial?

So when you go to the grocery store and you see "all-natural" on the label, what does this mean to you? Are some foods natural and others artificial? How do you decide this?

What if you're the product of artificial insemination and you ate artificial food your whole life. Then is your arm natural?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:And therefore the

EXC wrote:

And therefore the limb is not bound by the laws of nature and physics? It's a magic arm that can lift any amount of weight and not break because it's artificial?

  EXC i think you are failing to grasp the difference between natural/artificial/supernatural just as the link you supplied did (ya, i actually read it >.<  )

 

EXC wrote:

So when you go to the grocery store and you see "all-natural" on the label, what does this mean to you? Are some foods natural and others artificial? How do you decide this?

"Are some foods natural and others artificial"

...by the blood god... YES!

Natural food is a carrot

Artificial food is a gummybear

Truly this concept cannot be so hard to grasp

 

When i see "all-natural" on a label, i think... Oh! no Artificial coloring, no adatives... etc...

 

What do you see when you see the label

"Artificial Potatoes" ?

Hmm.... Supernatural spirit potatoes.... om nom nom!

 

Is any of this registering?

What Would Kharn Do?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
The distinction can be

The distinction can be appropriate and it can be useful.  EXC, you're engaging in a useless argument of semantics.  I think Doomed's meaning is quite clear.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:What if you're the

EXC wrote:

What if you're the product of artificial insemination and you ate artificial food your whole life. Then is your arm natural?

 

Indeed... a good question

I believe the last time we discussed such a thing, i had developed the idea of some form of "artificial" evolution, where humans had affected their environment, development rate, biology, to such an extent that i found it an interesting thought that i could actually divide evolution into natural and artificial versions... but it was nothing more than an interesting and passing thought, that i never really followed up, in any meaningful manner.

 

but to answer your question, Yes, the arm would be natural (as long as the genes of the human wasnt altered, pre-insemination... because that would make the human an "artificially generated life form" so to speak... an interesting discussion as well).

What Would Kharn Do?


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote: I think

Thomathy wrote:

 I think Doomed's meaning is quite clear.

 

Well thats a god-damn first! aha


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:EXC

The Doomed Soul wrote:

EXC wrote:

And therefore the limb is not bound by the laws of nature and physics? It's a magic arm that can lift any amount of weight and not break because it's artificial?

  EXC i think you are failing to grasp the difference between natural/artificial/supernatural just as the link you supplied did (ya, i actually read it >.<  )

I think the distiction needs to be man designed and engineered vs. product of an evolutionary process. Gadfly's argument seems to be that merely being "artifical" makes a socialist economy immune to the problems of a "natural" economy or system such as free market capitalism or bears in a natural ecosystem. If you design a artificial arm, your still bound by the same laws of nature. This seems to be the socialist mindset that they can just design an economic system that suspends the laws of nature without explaining how.

 

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Natural food is a carrot

What if it is genetically engineered or given fertilizer, pesticides, etc..? What if I cook it with other stuff or juice it? What is carrot cake?

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Artificial food is a gummybear

Give me a criterion as to why? Why do companies market "natural" gummy bears?

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Truly this concept cannot be so hard to grasp

Because you can't come up with a definition. It's kind of like deciding what is 'holy'? It's BS concept

The Doomed Soul wrote:

When i see "all-natural" on a label, i think... Oh! no Artificial coloring, no adatives... etc... 

They add high fructose corn syrup and call it natural. Why is that natural?

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Is any of this registering?

Yes. People call something natural when it's convienient or profitable. They call it artifical when it's convenient or profitable.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca