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.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

jcgadfly wrote:

aiia wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yes but it seems that only in conservatism is criminality considered a virtue.

What "seems" and what "is" are distinct. Conservatism clearly does not envelope criminal behavior any more than liberalism does.

 

 

This is going to confuse anyone who actually goes by the real definition of these words.

 

Conservatism being status quo and tradition, and progressivism being changing that. Those two are opposing ideologies.

 

The only part that could be said of conservatism that is opposing to liberalism, is social conservatism (In the United States).


There are no purely conservative people any more then there are purely progressive people.

Part of the definition of conservative is "to limit change". There are ironically progressive conservatives.

 

Then why are the current crop of conservatives not interested in the status quo but regression?

 

Look at the age demographic of most conservatives.

They want to return to the "good old days" which in their minds is tradition, and the status quo.

 

As for me, I was born in the 80s so what they want would be a radical change for me, growing up with the internet and therefore being exposed to a lot more a lot earlier. I don't understand social conservatives that usually tout the bible as tradition. In their minds it is the status quo, but not in mine. 

 

Conservatives didn't want interracial marriage, too. Oh, and they didn't want an end to slavery. Every subject that has had change, people that were conservative over the issue wanted it to stay the same.

 

From one generation to the next, conservatism will reshape itself entirely based on what they consider "tradition" and the "status quo". This also applies from one region to the next, as what in one country is conservative may be incredibly progressive to the next, and vice versa.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 An example is this: Gay marriage in the U.S. is something the ideology of liberalism supports. It is also something progressivism supports.

 

However, if gay marriage has been legal for hundreds of years here, then changing that would be progressive. Keeping it the same woud be conservative.

 

It would still be something liberalism supported, as it supports personal freedom that doesn't impose on others.

 

Constant misuse of terms in pop-politics gives me headaches.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
As the Captain might say,

As the Captain might say, ORLY?

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."


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

Thomathy wrote:

As the Captain might say, ORLY?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: An example

ClockCat wrote:

 An example is this: Gay marriage in the U.S. is something the ideology of liberalism supports. It is also something progressivism supports.

 

However, if gay marriage has been legal for hundreds of years here, then changing that would be progressive. Keeping it the same woud be conservative.

 

It would still be something liberalism supported, as it supports personal freedom that doesn't impose on others.

 

Constant misuse of terms in pop-politics gives me headaches.

Perhaps the way you're misusing status quo? It does not mean the way things were (as you claim trying to pass off regressive policies because of the age of the claimant).

It's the way things are now (which is what the current crop of neo-conservatives want to retreat from)

"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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

jcgadfly wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 An example is this: Gay marriage in the U.S. is something the ideology of liberalism supports. It is also something progressivism supports.

 

However, if gay marriage has been legal for hundreds of years here, then changing that would be progressive. Keeping it the same woud be conservative.

 

It would still be something liberalism supported, as it supports personal freedom that doesn't impose on others.

 

Constant misuse of terms in pop-politics gives me headaches.

Perhaps the way you're misusing status quo? It does not mean the way things were (as you claim trying to pass off regressive policies because of the age of the claimant).

It's the way things are now (which is what the current crop of neo-conservatives want to retreat from)

 

I'm not misusing it, I'm saying THEY THINK of the status quo as that. It is tradition to them. They want to regress to what they think, feel, or remember things were. In their minds, they are doing this to keep the status quo, to keep tradition.

 

In the same fashion I was born with abortion being legal, and don't see why it should be changed. This is a conservative stance for me, but to someone alive 60 or more years it is a progressive one because they think of it being illegal as the tradition. It has only been legal for like what, 30 years or something? They look at it as an everyday "attack", that they seek to reverse.

 

I don't feel that the legality of abortion needs any change or reform. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I'm not saying that it is in truth conservative to want to change something back to the way it was before, just that the proponents of that will always see it that way.

 

Tradition changes along with society, and with it what is conservative.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Still lying. My

Vastet wrote:

Still lying. My words are all over tne forum, you just aren't willing to read them.

When you repeat socialist propaganda like "The workers would own the means of production", this means nothing of substance. You have to translate this into 'what are the men with the guns(MWTGs) going to force people to do and not do?' This would tell us exactly what you have in mind. So please translate your propaganda into what this means in the real world.

 

Vastet wrote:
Yet neither are there laws requiring that workers own the resources and means of production.

OK. So now translate this "laws requiring" into my language. Does the sherriff or military come out and take the property of the business owners and investors, then give it to "the workers"? Do the MWTGs force all the workers to have the same share? If a business wants to hire a new worker, are they force to give this person an equal share? Do the MWTGs come and arrest you if you hire workers and pay them in cash? Do they continually come into your home and office to make sure there are not investors owning a business.

And if a worker wants to sell his share or be compensated in cash instead of ownership. Do the MWTGs prevent him from doing this?

Just tell in plain English what the MWTGs are going to do.

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


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

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Still lying. My words are all over tne forum, you just aren't willing to read them.

When you repeat socialist propaganda like "The workers would own the means of production", this means nothing of substance. You have to translate this into 'what are the men with the guns(MWTGs) going to force people to do and not do?' This would tell us exactly what you have in mind. So please translate your propaganda into what this means in the real world.

 

Vastet wrote:
Yet neither are there laws requiring that workers own the resources and means of production.

OK. So now translate this "laws requiring" into my language. Does the sherriff or military come out and take the property of the business owners and investors, then give it to "the workers"? Do the MWTGs force all the workers to have the same share? If a business wants to hire a new worker, are they force to give this person an equal share? Do the MWTGs come and arrest you if you hire workers and pay them in cash? Do they continually come into your home and office to make sure there are not investors owning a business.

And if a worker wants to sell his share or be compensated in cash instead of ownership. Do the MWTGs prevent him from doing this?

Just tell in plain English what the MWTGs are going to do.

I love your terminology. It is hard to keep from laughing right now.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Except you I

Vastet wrote:
Except you I guess, since I've told you at least a dozen times that the Socialism I speak of is voluntary. No guns to heads, just help society or society won't help you.

Well what the hell are we arguing about then? You have the same position as any libertarian I know of. We want you to come to the USA and be free to start a Canadian style health care co-op. Start any kind of charity or social program you want. We don't have a problem with any of it.

The problem is only when socialists or their surrogates put a gun to our head and force us to pay for something we don't want or need. So you don't want the MWTGs to force things on people, great this is all us libertarians want. Get together with your fellow socialist and have what ever kind of business and welfare arrangements you want among yourselves. Just leave me out of it and keep the MWTGs away from me.

 

“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: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"When you repeat socialist

"When you repeat socialist propaganda like "The workers would own the means of production", this means nothing of substance."

Ridiculous. It is a statement of fact. It is simple and basic English with perfect spelling and grammar. Your incapacity to understand it is your own choice.

"You have to translate this into 'what are the men with the guns(MWTGs) going to force people to do and not do?' This would tell us exactly what you have in mind. So please translate your propaganda into what this means in the real world."

I have already done so in other threads on the same topic. You never responded. The words are still there for you to read, and considering the recent restructuring should be easier than ever to find. I'm not going to repeat myself word for word just to have you ignore it again.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"OK. So now translate this

"OK. So now translate this "laws requiring" into my language. Does the sherriff or military come out and take the property of the business owners and investors, then give it to "the workers"? Do the MWTGs force all the workers to have the same share? If a business wants to hire a new worker, are they force to give this person an equal share? Do the MWTGs come and arrest you if you hire workers and pay them in cash? Do they continually come into your home and office to make sure there are not investors owning a business."

*Facepalm*

Why do you always need to assert there must be violence? Sigh. The governing body, democratic, owns all business, all land, all resources, which are within its jurisdiction. You get your pay from the government. You buy groceries from the government. The government ensures that groceries are available for use by encouraging people to farm, paying for the education and then work effort of the farmer, so that farmers grow crops. The more successful the farmer is,

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
based on achievement rather

based on achievement rather than fortune, the more land he will be able to farm, and the more money he'll make for more production. The government effectively buys his product from him. Then at resale, like has always been done, costs of transport and production are added, so there is no loss. Perhaps a few cents more are added to actually gain profit, so the government not only doesn't lose money but gains it. Things like roads, healthcare, policing, etc. are factored into wages from the getgo. There's no need to tax after the fact.

And here I said I wasn't going to repeat myself...

"Just tell in plain English what the MWTGs are going to do."

Not much more than they already do, and more likely less.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Well what the hell are we

"Well what the hell are we arguing about then? You have the same position as any libertarian I know of. We want you to come to the USA and be free to start a Canadian style health care co-op. Start any kind of charity or social program you want. We don't have a problem with any of it.The problem is only when socialists or their surrogates put a gun to our head and force us to pay for something we don't want or need. So you don't want the MWTGs to force things on people, great this is all us libertarians want. Get together with your fellow socialist and have what ever kind of business and welfare arrangements you want among yourselves. Just leave me out of it and keep the MWTGs away from me."

As long as you don't leech off of us, noone will come after you. But of course we're a long way from what is inevitable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:ZuS wrote:You

aiia wrote:

ZuS wrote:

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

A capitalist is a person who believes in an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Distinctly different. There are criminal socialists also.

I find it curious though that the only part of the post you answer is a technicality. I would much rather hear your opinion on the statements of the economist quoted on that website you posted a link to - he does say that trouble in Iceland started with privatization of the banking system, doesn't he?

In my post I should have written unbridled and extremely wealthy capitalist firms and individuals. Those are the ones running the world at the moment, while the capitalists you talk about just play by the rules thinking they can be a winner "like that guy" if they try hard enough. Naturally, they ignore the fact those are the house rules. And the house always wins.

 

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"When you

Vastet wrote:
"When you repeat socialist propaganda like "The workers would own the means of production", this means nothing of substance." Ridiculous. It is a statement of fact. It is simple and basic English with perfect spelling and grammar. Your incapacity to understand it is your own choice.

How does it translate into: What will the men with guns force people to do? Sorry but this is the only way I can understand things.

 

Vastet wrote:
"You have to translate this into 'what are the men with the guns(MWTGs) going to force people to do and not do?' This would tell us exactly what you have in mind. So please translate your propaganda into what this means in the real world." I have already done so in other threads on the same topic. You never responded. The words are still there for you to read, and considering the recent restructuring should be easier than ever to find. I'm not going to repeat myself word for word just to have you ignore it again.

Show me a single post where I can know what the MWTGs will force on people. What will they arrest people for doing or not doing?

If I buy some equipment for my business then hire a worker to maintain this equipment, will you send MWTGs out to arrest me?

“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: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: As long as you

Vastet wrote:
As long as you don't leech off of us, noone will come after you. But of course we're a long way from what is inevitable.

Another thing you don't want to define is how anyone is "leaching" off of you. Am I advocating anyone take something you earned? Do I want to take away any of you liberty? I want the MWTGs to leave you alone.

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


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote: As

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
As long as you don't leech off of us, noone will come after you. But of course we're a long way from what is inevitable.

Another thing you don't want to define is how anyone is "leaching" off of you. Am I advocating anyone take something you earned? Do I want to take away any of you liberty? I want the MWTGs to leave you alone.

Of course, it's only unfortunate that the real exising MWTG are working for Lockheed Martin, Chikita, Halliburton, IMF, World Bank and the like. It's also unfortunate that they made the whole US army their bitch for the past, oh 200 years or so. Ask the indians who the MWTG are. Ask Mexicans what happened to nearly 50% of their people and teritorry and who the MWTG that did that were. Ask people of Louisiana, while you're down south, who the MWTG are taking over their homes to build hotels and golf courts in the wake of a tragedy. Ask Iraqis and Afghanis who the MWTG are. Ask 130 countries with US military bases made-in-Corporatistan with tax payer money on their soil who the real MWTG are. Ask Argentinians, Guatemalans, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Chileans and the whole South America who the real MWTG are. Ask Palestinian 2 million concentration camp prisoners who the MWTG are and who supplies the weapons that kill their kids. Ask African farmers who the ral MWTG are and why they are not producing food for their own market, but are forced to grow tobaco. Ask around about the NAFTA agreements and decide whether those are trade, or weapons for the economic MWTG moving capital in and out of the national banks as they see fit. Ask indiginous and local populations about the oil fields, corporate instalations and waste that is destroying their land for no benefit to themselves, ask them who the MWTG are that protect the company grounds and shoot on sight. Ask who kills religious, workforce and other comunity leaders in their areas. Look to the history of American labor organising and look who the MWTG are that shoot, beat, terrorised and marginalised people and still are.

I think you will find a pretty unanimous answer across the board, at least with the people who's pockets do not depend on lieing for corporate or political benefit. While I acknowledge the need for capital, I do not acknowledge the need for this sort of capitalist corporatism. And I can't be satisfied with my own life being spared of their immediate wrath, because I know its a temporary and revocable arrangement.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10510
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Show me a single post where

"Show me a single post where I can know what the MWTGs will force on people. What will they arrest people for doing or not doing?"

You want me to compile an entire book of law for you? Just how desperate are you? You go and ask a lawyer how long it would take just to copy all of US law by keyboard. What a ridiculous request.

"How does it translate into: What will the men with guns force people to do? Sorry but this is the only way I can understand things."

That is apparent. It means you lose the argument. You cannot attack what you do not know and are unwilling to understand.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

aiia wrote:

ZuS wrote:

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

A capitalist is a person who believes in an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Distinctly different.

I think Zus was going for highlighting the similarity between the two. Namely, that both, by creed, honor personal gain above the principles and purpose of law.

 


 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:aiia wrote:ZuS

Eloise wrote:

aiia wrote:

ZuS wrote:

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

A capitalist is a person who believes in an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Distinctly different.

I think Zus was going for highlighting the similarity between the two. Namely, that both, by creed, honor personal gain above the principles and purpose of law.

 

How did you miss my last sentence: "There are criminal socialists also."?

If it can be demonstrated that there is a simularity between criminal behavior and capitalism, it can be demonstrated that there is a simularity between criminal behavior and socialism also.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:I find it curious

ZuS wrote:

I find it curious though that the only part of the post you answer is a technicality. I would much rather hear your opinion on the statements of the economist quoted on that website you posted a link to - he does say that trouble in Iceland started with privatization of the banking system, doesn't he?

In my post I should have written unbridled and extremely wealthy capitalist firms and individuals. Those are the ones running the world at the moment, while the capitalists you talk about just play by the rules thinking they can be a winner "like that guy" if they try hard enough. Naturally, they ignore the fact those are the house rules. And the house always wins.

Why didn't you include the next sentence? "Iceland got its regulations from the EU, which was basically sound," he says. "But the government had no understanding of the dangers of banks or how to supervise them. They got into the hands of people who took risks to the highest possible degree."

Basically what he is saying is that the people running the banks were inexperienced and not competent. The reason they were incompetent was because the government baby-sat every move they made until the 1990's. Then when the government left the play ground leaving the banks all alone, the people running the banks climbed to the top of the sliding board and fell off. And another thing, the government allowing the privatization of the banks before establishing whether the management of Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir were qualified to handle international transactions points to the government as being the root of the problem in my opinion. If the banks were privately owned in the first place this probably wouldn't have happened because then the management would have had the experience and aptitude to deal with the financial situations that got them into trouble.


Fraud expert damns EU, IMF over Icelandic collapse

" the Icelandic authorities, whose responsibility in all this is clearly not insignificant. The previous government had even been dissolved due to public dissent over cronyism and the clannish running of institutions, which were seen as the cause of all of its problems."

Further criticism of government (read socialist) ineptitude: "The irresponsible attitude of certain countries, the EU and the IMF to the collapse of the Icelandic economy demonstrates their inability to learn from the dramatic undermining of the model that it embodied: one of excessive deregulation of markets, particularly financial markets, that the majority of those same key players contributed to shaping."

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


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

EXC wrote:

Government is just whatever rules the men with the guns decide to enforce.

That's not a rational statement EXC, government has a lot of faces.

In some nations,even, governments operate, close to what most consider ideal, as democratic people's representation (would you believe?) and then there is a veritable spectrum of types of government in the world reaching all the way past Men with Guns to Men with "God's" Authority.

EXC wrote:

If you went to Somalia, the local warlord would tell you he's in charge and you need to pay him to operate in his territory.

Yes, EXC but WHY is he in charge? That's the question you need to ask, that's the point that we've been circling in this thread.

He's in charge because he is at liberty to purchase that power, as ownership, with money.

He can purchase it, with money, because it's not held in any kind of trust by any kind of social contract for any kind of purpose.

It's for sale, and all he needs to get it, is some money which he is at full and free liberty to earn in whichever manner and to whatever unlimited amount the market allows. There are no laws restricting the means by which he might make his money and no taxes restricting the amount he can make.

Everything you've been saying will make the world perfect EXC, IS WHY the warlord is in charge in Somalia.

Nobody restricting his freedom to do the business the market demands, nobody taking a proportion of his profits to upkeep the community which is the market that he exploits.

Perfect.

 

EXC wrote:

Somalia would be a great place to do business and live if you didn't have armies of men with guns telling you they are in charge all the time.

 

There are armies of men with guns saying they're in charge of Somalia because: (and listen carefully this is important) Guns are/were the backbone of the MARKET in Somalia, civil wars were created by gun supply for the explicit purpose of creating gun demand (capitalism at it's finest).

 

EXC wrote:

The Somalia pirates view themselves as toll collectors and not criminals.

Yes EXC. That's what I have been saying over and again.

These people consider themselves good honest capitalists making the most of their liberty to make a profit unimpeded.

And in their country they aren't wrong to say that. Our laws, standards and expectations do not technically apply to their activities since we have, and can have, no standing social contract with them in the form of a peoples representative state.

Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.

 

EXC wrote:

A mafia boss does the same thing, he has his territory he shakes down the people with money and gives to poor and charity so he'll stay popular with the people. This is what democrats and socialist do, what's the difference?

A mafia boss does not shake down the people with money. WTF?

And democrats/ socialists who do this sort of thing have failed at democracy because the purpose of democratic delegation is not popularity, it is representation. Taking money from the wealth class, in a democracy, should be done with the proper measure of objective justification.

A democrat is supposed to stand for equity and social justice, for everybody, wealthy and poor. It's an ambitious ideal, yes somewhat extremely so, but it is absolutely nothing, whatsoever, like the straw man you're attempting to construct with this mafia analogy, EXC.

 

EXC wrote:

And wasn't George Washington a warlord too? He became the official government when no one challenged him military anymore.

 

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I have been indoctrinated into the cult of mass glorification of bloody American history EXC, I'm an Australian.

America was established however it was established, I don't have any particular reverence for it's birth that you can emotionally attack, you've proceeded from false premise.

 

EXC wrote:

OK so you are for 'voluntary' socialism? So am I. You socialists can form co-ops to provide yourselves with health insurance. You can have a business where the workers own and run it. Who is stopping you? I just don't want you to have your cop and tax collector surrogates put a gun to my head, take my earned money and force something on me that I don't want.

 

Oh EXC, you don't have that high ground, capitalism does not have the high ground on the issue of forcing on other people what they do not want, you are sorely mistaken.

The example I already mentioned a few paragraphs above, ie the fact that the gun trade in Somalia was created BY free market capitalism to force upon Somalian's a WAR that they did not want in order to drive up their demand for guns - I'll let that be enough for now.

Capitalism - get down off your high horse, you are not so innocent of THAT.

 

EXC wrote:

The bottom line with politics is this:

What do you want the men with the guns to force people to do and not do?

The problem with you and Vasset is you never explain this.

 

Well for a start, I'd have them get people in general give up on this damnable obsession with guns FFS. What a crock. I find your typically American style paranoia and superstitious belief in the 'godliness' of arms sick to the taste EXC, frankly. 

It's not all about guns and money in the rest of the world, did you know that? Did you know that there are places in this world where guns and money aren't demigods? I wonder if you actually know that?

 

EXC wrote:

You only talk in general terms from socialist theory(aka propaganda). But you never get into the nasty details of how exactly it is implemented.

That's a lie. Just last week you and I were discussing the rationale for taxation in this very thread. Details are continuously forthcoming, you're just strawmanning again.

 

EXC wrote:

What the men with the guns decide to enforce is the only thing that matters. For instance, you're angry that so many people hide their income illegally from the tax man.

 

I'm not angry about this EXC, I believe it illustrates how capitalism: a.  promotes personal gain over the principles of law and b. fails it's social contract by taking significantly more from society than it ever delivers.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

aiia wrote:

Eloise wrote:

aiia wrote:

ZuS wrote:

You call them criminals. I call them capitalists. Same thing.

A criminal is a person who breaks the law.

A capitalist is a person who believes in an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

Distinctly different.

I think Zus was going for highlighting the similarity between the two. Namely, that both, by creed, honor personal gain above the principles and purpose of law.

 

How did you miss my last sentence: "There are criminal socialists also."?

If it can be demonstrated that there is a simularity between criminal behavior and capitalism, it can be demonstrated that there is a simularity between criminal behavior and socialism also.

If criminality was not valued in capitalism, the criminals would be stopped, not rewarded/promoted.

The only counterexample might be Madoff - but he was only stopped because he stole from the rich so he could join them.

It's similar to the way the Catholic hierarchy values pedophilia by not punishing the priests/nuns who commit it.

"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: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You want me to

Vastet wrote:
You want me to compile an entire book of law for you?

You want to make changes to the current laws to have your socialist utopia. How can I go to a lawyer to know what's in your mind? And changing laws really doesn't matter because if you do things like raise taxes, people will just hide more of their income unless the MWTGs invade everyone's privacy.

You're the one proposing a change, so you tell us the bottom line of how this change is forced on people. What new things will the MWTGs force on people?

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


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If

jcgadfly wrote:

If criminality was not valued in capitalism, the criminals would be stopped, not rewarded/promoted.

Criminal behavior is not a value of capitalism

A crime is when someone steals anther's property, right?

So in that sense, socialism can be more closely linked to criminal behavior than capitalism.

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


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

aiia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

If criminality was not valued in capitalism, the criminals would be stopped, not rewarded/promoted.

Criminal behavior is not a value of capitalism

A crime is when someone steals anther's property, right?

So in that sense, socialism can be more closely linked to criminal behavior than capitalism.

 

Except that in socialism, the person that "lost" the property still owns it (along with others).

 

 

"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


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:Why didn't you

aiia wrote:

Why didn't you include the next sentence? "Iceland got its regulations from the EU, which was basically sound," he says. "But the government had no understanding of the dangers of banks or how to supervise them. They got into the hands of people who took risks to the highest possible degree."

Because 90% of what he said was bullshit, ignoring financial facts on the ground. I wanted to hear what you had to say about it, just to hear if I am chatting with an informed citizen or a technicality-raping loudmouth.

aiia wrote:

Basically what he is saying is that the people running the banks were inexperienced and not competent.

That is what he is saying, but it's wrong. Just like he is wrong that "it all started with privatization of banks".

aiia wrote:
 

The reason they were incompetent was because the government baby-sat every move they made until the 1990's. Then when the government left the play ground leaving the banks all alone, the people running the banks climbed to the top of the sliding board and fell off. And another thing, the government allowing the privatization of the banks before establishing whether the management of Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir were qualified to handle international transactions points to the government as being the root of the problem in my opinion. If the banks were privately owned in the first place this probably wouldn't have happened because then the management would have had the experience and aptitude to deal with the financial situations that got them into trouble.

Nope. While the whole thing was a bit of a gamble, it was a carefully planned and executed assassination of real industry in Iceland and draining of assets to foreign bank accounts lasted for as long as they could keep hopes of investment from abroad (even Russia was considered with 32bil) alive.

aiia wrote:

Fraud expert damns EU, IMF over Icelandic collapse

" the Icelandic authorities, whose responsibility in all this is clearly not insignificant. The previous government had even been dissolved due to public dissent over cronyism and the clannish running of institutions, which were seen as the cause of all of its problems."

Further criticism of government (read socialist) ineptitude: "The irresponsible attitude of certain countries, the EU and the IMF to the collapse of the Icelandic economy demonstrates their inability to learn from the dramatic undermining of the model that it embodied: one of excessive deregulation of markets, particularly financial markets, that the majority of those same key players contributed to shaping."

A small part of this is much closer to the truth. Not many people were incompetent in this affair, and NONE had anything to do with socialism OR capitalism by your definition. Did you just call EU and IMF inexperienced and socialist in your last post? I suppose you haven't understood by now that economic warfare is the business of IMF, an indispensable political tool for EU and a significant reason for existance of ECB and WB? Technicality-raping loudmouth is probably the case.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:In some

Eloise wrote:

In some nations,even, governments operate, close to what most consider ideal, as democratic people's representation (would you believe?) and then there is a veritable spectrum of types of government in the world reaching all the way past Men with Guns to Men with "God's" Authority.

But if you get out of line, MWGs come and take you away and force you to get back in line. So we're all ultimately ruled by the gun.

Eloise wrote:

Yes, EXC but WHY is he in charge? That's the question you need to ask, that's the point that we've been circling in this thread.

He's in charge because he is at liberty to purchase that power, as ownership, with money.

He can purchase it, with money, because it's not held in any kind of trust by any kind of social contract for any kind of purpose.

He's in charge because no one is challenging him militarily. He's got more people loyal to him. He shakedowns whoever has money but no army to oppose him, then gives it to his supporters. How would your version of socialism be any different?

He takes what he wants, money or property. But, he does have to practice wealth redistribution and socialism to stay in power. He must take good care of his soldiers. He has to do something to help the poor citizens, otherwise they may rebel and convince the soldiers or join up with other warlords.

And how do the politicians take care of the money under our system? We gas pay taxes for roads, the politicians can move the money around and spend it on whatever they like to stay in power. You have this view that a socialist politician is going to be more honest than a warlord, why? He's going to take from who he can and give it to whoever he need to give it to stay in power.

Eloise wrote:

There are armies of men with guns saying they're in charge of Somalia because: (and listen carefully this is important) Guns are/were the backbone of the MARKET in Somalia, civil wars were created by gun supply for the explicit purpose of creating gun demand (capitalism at it's finest).

The anthropologists find tons of spears and shields dating back millions of years in this cradle of humanity. So probably the early humans that invented the first spears got rich trading it to all the warring tribes millions of years ago. The gun is just an advance in technology, but it's the same old story for millions of years. War and conflict is inevitable given our situation that we live on a planet with limited resource while we can reproduce with exponential growth rates. So the conflicts that create war have been there with or without guns.

But we could change this cycle with a rational system for equitable usage of natural resources and mandatory birth control. But no one seems ready for that so the gun will rule until we are.

Eloise wrote:

Why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.

Because the only social contract that could work is equitable sharing of natural resources, allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and investments, paying for just the product and services you use, conditional benefits to the poor such as use of birth control and mandatory completion of job training.

But the socialist like yourself don't seem to find this acceptable. You want to shakedown anyone with money and give it unconditionally to those that keep the powerful in power. That's why your system is more like Somalia.

Eloise wrote:

A mafia boss does not shake down the people with money. WTF?

http://people.howstuffworks.com/mafia.htm

Socialist/communist governments essential act as a mafia. That's why the Soviet Union went from communism to being ruled by the Russian mafia. This change in the form of government was pretty much in name only. The communist bosses shakedown anyone with a business or money, the keep a lot for themselves and give enough to the poor to keep them from revolting.

Eloise wrote:

And democrats/ socialists who do this sort of thing have failed at democracy because the purpose of democratic delegation is not popularity, it is representation. Taking money from the wealth class, in a democracy, should be done with the proper measure of objective justification.

It's inevitable that it will be done to keep those in power in power. So you have 90% of the people supporting higher taxes on the other 10%. An unsustainable system.

Eloise wrote:

A democrat is supposed to stand for equity and social justice, for everybody, wealthy and poor.

The problem is equity and justice are relative terms. With wealth redistribution, one man's just equity is another man's theft of his property. So the system is unsustainable.

If you made the goals maximize everyone's opportunity to happy, allow everyone to benefit from natural resources equally and prevent peoples bad choices from becoming societies burden. There are things that can be done that would benefit everyone. A win-win for everyone. But wealth redistribution is win-lose, so it will lead to conflict and wars.

 

Eloise wrote:

Oh EXC, you don't have that high ground, capitalism does not have the high ground on the issue of forcing on other people what they do not want, you are sorely mistaken.

I actually agree with you to the extent to which we allow capitalist to buy up natural resources and monopolize them. Because of this, we are forced to work for capitalists and buy capitalist products to survive. So fix this problem. But just taxing the shit out of anyone with money is not the answer. Taxing for use of natural resources is the answer.

Eloise wrote:

Well for a start, I'd have them get people in general give up on this damnable obsession with guns FFS.

So you're going to have the MWGs try to take all the citizen's guns? So you're just showing them that the gun rules.

Eloise wrote:

What a crock. I find your typically American style paranoia and superstitious belief in the 'godliness' of arms sick to the taste EXC, frankly.

I'd like to see rationality rule the world rather than the gun. But take health care for example, the socialist that are committed to this should start a voluntary co-op and show us how wonderful non-profit health care can be, show us with evidence that your system is better and everyone will join. But they don't do this, they want to force it on people (via the gun) because their real motive is stealing from whoever got more money.

Eloise wrote:

It's not all about guns and money in the rest of the world, did you know that? Did you know that there are places in this world where guns and money aren't demigods? I wonder if you actually know that?

Where in Denmark? If one gets out of line and says I'm not pay 60% income tax, I'm sure MWGs show up at your door and tell you yes you are. Where is there a place where MWGs don't show up if you get out of line?

Eloise wrote:

That's a lie. Just last week you and I were discussing the rationale for taxation in this very thread. Details are continuously forthcoming, you're just strawmanning again.

It is a law for highly progressive income tax for unconditional wealth redistribution, right? You already complain about how people hide their income and wealth to avoid the tax man. So do you want the MWGs to invade everyone's privacy so their can be no hidden wealth or income? Do you invade the privacy of the poor to prove they are really poor and not disguising their poverty just to get freebies?

If we had a system where the government only collected taxes for natural resource usage and use of service. We wouldn't need to invade everyone's privacy. We wouldn't be punishing hard work and innovation.

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


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"No Libertarian

Vastet wrote:
"No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily." Except you I guess, since I've told you at least a dozen times that the Socialism I speak of is voluntary. No guns to heads, just help society or society won't help you.

ZuS wrote:

Direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production is only a fact if the laws on the books MANDATE worker ownership and administration AND society institutions IN PRACTICE SECURE this relation.

I think that ZuS's mandated, choice-free and voluntary cooperation-free version of socialism is a guns to the head kind of deal. I can not imagine a government that "IN PRACTICE SECURE[s]" a total ban on the private ownership and management of businesses that isn't extremely oppressive. On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, Vastet's socialism is a voluntary "help each other out" kind of deal. Which is it socialists? Will I be up against the wall if there is some kind of socialist revolution? If I started a private business that lacked worker ownership or management would the police raid my home and imprison me? Or will I merely have the choice to cooperate with this socialist future society and have the choice to refuse to cooperate and engage in private business with others who refuse to cooperate with the socialist arrangement?

Some people here seem to be 'gun to the head' and 'I wish that there was a government ban on private enterprise' kind of socialsts and some seem to be happy, friendly 'let's all voluntarily work together for everyone's benefit' socialists. So which would a socialist future be: USSR-style worker counsels mandating actions or smurfs-style everyone helping out the community?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: On the

Jormungander wrote:

 On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, Vastet's socialism is a voluntary "help each other out" kind of deal.

But it is pretty strange then that Vasset supports the Canadian system over the American system for health care. In the USA, the socialists are free to start a co-op with whatever rules they want for benefits and premiums for their voluntary socialist organization. They just can force others to join and pay for it. Whereas in Canada, if you have any income, MWGs will force you to pay for the health care system whether you want it or not.

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


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Vastet

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"No Libertarian I know of has a problems with people entering into these socialist economic organizations voluntarily." Except you I guess, since I've told you at least a dozen times that the Socialism I speak of is voluntary. No guns to heads, just help society or society won't help you.

ZuS wrote:

Direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production is only a fact if the laws on the books MANDATE worker ownership and administration AND society institutions IN PRACTICE SECURE this relation.

I think that ZuS's mandated, choice-free and voluntary cooperation-free version of socialism is a guns to the head kind of deal. I can not imagine a government that "IN PRACTICE SECURE[s]" a total ban on the private ownership and management of businesses that isn't extremely oppressive. On the exact opposite side of the spectrum, Vastet's socialism is a voluntary "help each other out" kind of deal. Which is it socialists? Will I be up against the wall if there is some kind of socialist revolution? If I started a private business that lacked worker ownership or management would the police raid my home and imprison me? Or will I merely have the choice to cooperate with this socialist future society and have the choice to refuse to cooperate and engage in private business with others who refuse to cooperate with the socialist arrangement?

Some people here seem to be 'gun to the head' and 'I wish that there was a government ban on private enterprise' kind of socialsts and some seem to be happy, friendly 'let's all voluntarily work together for everyone's benefit' socialists. So which would a socialist future be: USSR-style worker counsels mandating actions or smurfs-style everyone helping out the community?

I am not a socialist, buddy. What you quoted there is taken out of context - I was responding to a post and about a very specific issue, you ought to go back and check what that was about.

But to give an answer to your distress about guns-to-the-head for private ownership, that you have the temmerity to pull that argument, while supporting a political system that does nothing other than align guns with the heads economically and physically, domestically and abroad, is really no surprise at all. This kind of ignorance is what makes us an-par with the worst of the religious crowd.

As far as USSR-style goes, they are basically end game unbridled capitalism, have always been that way straight out of a monarchy. A couple of decades ago they just tossed away the pretenses - did you notice KGB is still running the government, business and everything else? THAT is the real face of people hiding behind ideologies - not all of them, but the ones that swim to the top and fight to stay there. Love to break it to you - this includes capitalism.

If you find time in your busy schedule to draw parallels between the USSR and the US system, once you run out of space on your computer writing instances in which they acted exactly the same, maybe then we can talk about what kind of society we really want to work for.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Whereas in Canada,

EXC wrote:
Whereas in Canada, if you have any income, MWGs will force you to pay for the health care system whether you want it or not.
No one gets shot for not paying taxes or is forced to pay by men with guns.  What is it with this caricature of yours?  Besides, we all know that people eventually get strongly worded letters.  There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

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:MWGs will force

EXC wrote:

MWGs will force you to pay for the health care system whether you want it or not.

ACTUALLY... I'm pretty sure it will be the snooty lil jewish accountants that force you...

 

What Would Kharn Do?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:No one gets

Thomathy wrote:

No one gets shot for not paying taxes or is forced to pay by men with guns.  What is it with this caricature of yours?  Besides, we all know that people eventually get strongly worded letters.  There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

OK then what happens. Someone in Canada starts a business and decides not to pay income or profit taxes? Does just a "snooty Jewish accountant" show up and tell them they have to pay. Or does eventually the sherriff show up and arrest you? And if you resist arrest, he pulls out one of his weapons on you.

Because our social progams in the USA like Social security and medicaid taxes must be paid or federal agents show up to arrest you.

Face it, all politics all boils down to what you want the men with the guns(your surrogates) to force people to do. No matter how polite or non-violent people pretend to be, this is the bottom line.

 

“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:OK then what

EXC wrote:

OK then what happens. Someone in Canada starts a business and decides not to pay income or profit taxes? Does just a "snooty Jewish accountant" show up and tell them they have to pay. Or does eventually the sherriff show up and arrest you? And if you resist arrest, he pulls out one of his weapons on you.

Because our social progams in the USA like Social security and medicaid taxes must be paid or federal agents show up to arrest you.

Face it, all politics all boils down to what you want the men with the guns(your surrogates) to force people to do. No matter how polite or non-violent people pretend to be, this is the bottom line.

EXC are you familiar with the IRS?

How about wage garnishing?

Freezing of Assests?

etc

 

Accountants can do things to you that would make you WISH a cop arrested you and tossed you in the slammer!

But then again, i do so love the use of force...

What Would Kharn Do?


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC writes words wrote:Of

EXC writes words wrote:
[words]

 


Of course, you totally failed to address what I had written:

There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

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."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Again, there is only one place in the world we come back to.

 

Somalia.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: Again,

ClockCat wrote:

 Again, there is only one place in the world we come back to.

 

Somalia.

You still gotta pay to be in society there.  And when I say 'pay' I don't just mean money.  There's a lot of things that people pay to be a part of society.


 

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."


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

Thomathy wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 Again, there is only one place in the world we come back to.

 

Somalia.

You still gotta pay to be in society there.  And when I say 'pay' I don't just mean money.  There's a lot of things that people pay to be a part of society.

 

 

Less than Somalia?

 

So the ideal place for EXC is no society at all then. Living in isolation, with no government, country, and no one else to interact with? Basically, a hermit.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:EXC

The Doomed Soul wrote:

EXC are you familiar with the IRS?

How about wage garnishing?

Freezing of Assests?

etc

 

If you do your money transfers through a bank, then the MWGs go just go the bank and force them. People go to the Caymen Islands banks cause the MWGs from North America and Europe are not allow in. If you do cash or barter, then the MWGs come to your home or business.

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Accountants can do things to you that would make you WISH a cop arrested you and tossed you in the slammer!

But then again, i do so love the use of force...

Bring em on. But when you tell them to get lost, they call the MWGs.

“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: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:There's a

Thomathy wrote:

There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

What are you talking about? Socialism says there is no price to pay. If you can't pay, we'll force someone else to pay for you. Socialist don't don't tell the poor to go live somewhere else if they can't pay the price. I'm willing to pay for whatever natural resource and services I use. I'm just not interested in paying for people that have no intention of ever paying.

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


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Thomathy

EXC wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

What are you talking about? Socialism says there is no price to pay. If you can't pay, we'll force someone else to pay for you. Socialist don't don't tell the poor to go live somewhere else if they can't pay the price. I'm willing to pay for whatever natural resource and services I use. I'm just not interested in paying for people that have no intention of ever paying.

Nice dodge, EXC.  I am not impressed by your exaggerations or caricatures.  I'll just repeat myself like you're so good at doing:

There's a price for living in society.  If you don't want to pay it, go live somewhere where being in society doesn't have a price.  Write us when you find your utopia.

(Maybe you'll even get the point eventually.)

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."


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Public goods that are privatized only hurt societies.

 

I stand by this. No one has said anything to disprove this to date, and all evidence seems to lead to support this statement.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

In some nations,even, governments operate, close to what most consider ideal, as democratic people's representation (would you believe?) and then there is a veritable spectrum of types of government in the world reaching all the way past Men with Guns to Men with "God's" Authority.

But if you get out of line, MWGs come and take you away and force you to get back in line. So we're all ultimately ruled by the gun.

This is getting really silly, EXC. No we are not ultimately ruled by the gun, huge strides have been taken, in philosophy and political constitution over human history, toward the ideal of a society that isn't ruled, but instead built on cooperation and agreement, communities which are collectively guided and determined according to a basic framework of consonant premises.

Now we may not have achieved this lofty ideal in toto just yet, but just because you feel, personally, that the only thing keeping you agreeable to societal norms is the armory of your elected state, doesn't mean that everybody feels that way. It doesn't mean that we have endeavoured no further toward the aspiration of a cooperative amicable human collective than the dark ages.

 

EXC wrote:

He's in charge because no one is challenging him militarily.

Why does someone need to challenge him militarily?

Because he has established himself as a military force.

How and why did he establish himself as a military force?

Because it was in the interests of securing and protecting his capital gain, just as you've been espousing EXC, he's enjoying his unlimited freedom to be armed (with a militia armed to the teeth) to enforce his rights to his bought property and interests.

EXC wrote:

He's got more people loyal to him. He shakedowns whoever has money but no army to oppose him, then gives it to his supporters.

Actually Somalia is technically a bit further along than this. The transitional government backed by the UN has established itself as a military player in the Somali civil war now. But at any rate, I do believe you are wrong to say that a warlords (African or Mafia) by systematic practice "shakedown" those who have money, when its obviously easier and less messy to do business with them instead. I'm sure they always prefer a clean, profitable and repeatable transaction when it comes to those who can supply them with resources such as money.

EXC wrote:

How would your version of socialism be any different?

I've told you EXC. It's very simple. I advocate a natural progression into amicable collective direction for communal states. I've given you the basic framework of principles, and the rationale already, but again:

a. There is a bottommost, foundational standard of living assured for all participants in the community. This would include guaranteed access to the three basic needs of humanity (food shelter clothing) and extend up to guaranteed access to the basic needs of the community in order to insure for its collective well-being (health care, education and a system of justice). Thus assurance that every member of the society is free to eat and clothe themselves, and every member of the community is free to access services to improve/maintain their health and knowledge. The flip-side of this is that every other member of the community is also assured they are not unnecessarily exposed to the dangers of illness, extreme ignorance or desperation.

b. a foundation of public wealth and ownership of resources (other than humans who are established in principle a) is established and held in perpetual trust. All activities within the state enter into social agreement with that trust. Exploitation of any and all public wealth or resources (including humans and the established trust) must be duly compensated by reimbursing the state administration responsible for the upkeep of the public standard.

c. The state unites under a banner of Collective Aspiration which serves as the state's patron identity. A representative body is established, by election and appropriately meritocractic means, to convene on progressive issues. More than one state can be established this way and freedom for mature adults to move between states according to their affinity with collective ambitions would be ideal, of course.

Okay? Satisfied that you have been told now?

 

EXC wrote:


It is a law for highly progressive income tax for unconditional wealth redistribution, right?

I explained to you already that this is because of a compromise that both sides of the political fence are willing to live with for their own reasons. Again: The left wants fair and just compensation for the engulfment of public resources by "wealth creators", the right doesn't really want it at all but will let it exist if administered in such a way that it is manipulable for their interests.

What ends up out of the compromise of theses two conflicting notions is the poorly aimed relatively useless, but sometimes almost substantial for the purpose, progressive income tax.

Yes! it is for Wealth redistribution. It is for wealth redistribution for the simple reason that Wealth "Creation" is mostly purposeless, frivolous and a severe burden on the public good. Wealth redistribution is well justified by social contract EXC, OK.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.


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

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

Or is arguing for libertarians being the men with guns.

"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


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

jcgadfly wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

Or is arguing for libertarians being the men with guns.

 

Back to Somalia.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Public goods

ClockCat wrote:

Public goods that are privatized only hurt societies.

 

What public goods?

Are you talking about water, air, parks, wild game, ice, ...what? What "public good" has been privatized?

 

Quote:
I stand by this. No one has said anything to disprove this to date, and all evidence seems to lead to support this statement.

 

lol This sounds familiar.

Do you remember, "No one has disproved "god" to date, and all the evidence seems to lead to support it"? 

Which fallacy is being made here, clock? Do you even know? Do you even care?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I think EXC

ClockCat wrote:

 I think EXC is arguing for a gun ban.

I think you're trolling