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

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

What is the lesson to be learned here?

  We learn in day that the kid that whines the loudest get the most attention and toys. We know the most violent kid hordes all the toy to themselves. The rational kid gets nothing, eveything it take by the vioent and the loud. So he either reforms or get a gun and take them down.

CC, Doomy and the other socialist want government to treat them like they're a helpless bunch of babies.

 

 

So you support guns for kids?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Got a question for ya EXC,

Got a question for ya EXC, what form of governance do YOU want to (for lack of a better term) "live under" , and what system would you impose if YOU had the power?

What Would Kharn Do?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:So you

ClockCat wrote:

So you support guns for kids?

I would teach them about a real never never land freedom ships.

Freedom is a more powerful weapon than any gun.

 

“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:ClockCat wrote:So

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

So you support guns for kids?

I would teach them about a real never never land freedom ships.

Freedom is a more powerful weapon than any gun.

 

 

...ooooookay.... now i know you're dellusional

What Would Kharn Do?


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

 No Doomy, I'm inclined to agree. Look at the devastation "freedom" inflicted on Iraq.

 

Between freedombombs, freedomguns, freedomgenocide, and freedomcamps like Gitmo, I'd say it's pretty dangerous.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

 

This is what freedom may look like. 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: No Doomy,

ClockCat wrote:

 No Doomy, I'm inclined to agree. Look at the devastation "freedom" inflicted on Iraq.

 

Between freedombombs, freedomguns, freedomgenocide, and freedomcamps like Gitmo, I'd say it's pretty dangerous.

 

Im quite sure that the history of mankind is on myside with this one...

 

How many times has "freedom" been suppressed by the spear? the sword? the AK?

This amurican concept of "freedom" is but a blip in the course of history... so far >.>

 

(edit; and i have no idea why i even took what you said with any notion of seriousness Clock)

What Would Kharn Do?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:EXC

The Doomed Soul wrote:

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

So you support guns for kids?

I would teach them about a real never never land freedom ships.

Freedom is a more powerful weapon than any gun.

 

 

...ooooookay.... now i know you're dellusional

Oh really. How are any of your guns going to reach the Freedom ships once they are built?

 

http://www.freedomship.com/

 

 

“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: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:and furthermore

Eloise wrote:

and furthermore it's true that you can't just ignore a problem such as criminal behaviour in the hope that it will go away, if crime is unchecked in the unsecured neighbourhoods it will grow and eventually spill over borders anyway.

*your model appears to be assuming that this group are all 'small business owners' - that is unlikely. What about employees? How do they figure in your equation?

But you just ignore whether a system can be funded and is sustainable. So I believe you are the one hoping problems just goes away on their own. I'm not against having police solve all security problems. I just don't see anything sacred about them working directly for the government. If you have people pay for the security risk their activities pose(banking, driving, shopping) then you'll ensure it's properly funded. You don't end up with a bankrupt state from too many entitlements like California.

You pay according to the security risk you pose. So if employees would pay or they could have their employer pay according to their employment contract. Kind of like parking, sometimes your employer provides it, sometime you pay.

Eloise wrote:

I believe the distinction has traditionally been made between protecting the public and protecting private interests.

But the public police protect private property rights. They try to prevent and respond to crimes that occur on private property. Even though the property owner is not required to pay according to his risk. So I still don't see a difference. If there's a bunch liquor stores getting robbed in a poor neighborhood, the police are supposed to take care of the increased security and patrol more. But if a bunch of banks get robbed, the bank's own security and the FBI are supposed to solve the problem. Why the difference?

Eloise wrote:

I strongly object EXC, you couldn't possibly have that more backward. If a politic stands to put rights above money isn't it by design the very antithesis of making money important?

No. because in order for the right to be granted, the money must be there first. You can't put the cart before the horse when it comes to 'rights' that require a payment be made. I on the other hand don't place what money can buy(expensive health care and security) first. I'd rather risk death than be a working slave to these industries.

Eloise wrote:

And how, pray tell, do rights "cost money" if not for those who hold money dear and want it in return for services and provision? Rights don't cost money, they cost resources and labour we've had this discussion already in this thread. Money only enters the equation because we want to use it as a great big societal abacus for distribution, it's supposed to be a counting tool, not a means unto itself (the main, central and most pervading problem I have with capitalism is that it institutes otherwise).

Trying getting a doctor or policeman to work without paying them lots of money. Then tell me "Rights don't cost money".

Eloise wrote:

Then why FFS! are you calling yourself a capitalist.

I'm not a capitalist!!! Most capitalists demands rights over access to natural resources. Some thing I'm against. I want you to come to America and start a socialist commune so you can show us how wonderful it would be. I want Vasset to come to America and start a Canadian style health care system. So how can I be a capitalist?

I just don't want you putting a gun to people's heads to force things one people they don't want or need. So I'm for freedom and doing what you want, I believe that capitalism and socialism could co-exist if we had a rational method for use of natural resources and population growth control.

Eloise wrote:

What do you think increased profit is if it's not requiring a lot of money to have things? You don't honestly believe capitalism will stop being driven by the pursuit of greater and greater amounts of money from the consumer at some point do you? You have to be joking, right?

I don't see how people making and spending money necessarily harms you in any way. If capitalists lived on planet Kolob and made and spent lots of money how does this affect you in any way? That money is used to buy up or limited natural resources here on earth, then it a problem. That people here on earth can have unlimited numbers of children that require limited resources then that's a problem for everyone.

The current system is designed perfectly to produce the observed results.

If you want to get rich how do you do it? Well you can buy up land and hold, then sell it later at high price cause they ain't making any more of it. You can start a business that enables one to take advantage of cheap labor, there's no mandatory birth control, so there's no end to the supply of cheap labor. So that's how to get rich.

If I decided I want to invent and implement a technology that can grow double the amount of food grown using an equal amount of land and water. I must spend years studying this technology at an expensive college. I must work my ass off, hope that someone will invest. Then if it works and I make money, I must pay massive taxes on income and anything I might buy. So for me and my investors, the reward is a higher tax bracket to subsidize the greedy rich and the greedy poor. Why bother?

It pisses you off that the rich get richer by exploiting natural resources and cheap labor instead of hard work and innovation, but how does high income and sales tax change the equation in any way?

Eloise wrote:

I'm just gonna pretend you didn't just make a statement that contends strongly for the title of most bigoted arrogance I have ever read.

You're the one telling me money isn't the most important things. So then it's possible to be poor but happy? You just don't get expensive things like healthcare and great security.

But now you're going broke and people are wondering what happened to their birthright to live in paradise.

Eloise wrote:

Que?

Australia is doing rather well actually, we're not broke, we've actually recorded our first quarter of growth since the GFC already. And yes thanks does go to some socialist policies which helped the country stave of the worst.

You just told us Queensland is being overrun with poor people from other areas that can't afford to live there anymore. That everyone has a lot less money than they used to and the population continues to increase.

Eloise wrote:

A little draconian don't you think? How do you propose they enforce it?

I think you need to prove you are using it(i.e. a note from a medical clinic) in order to continue receiving benefits. If you loose your benefits and you start comiting offences, you go to a work camp.

Eloise wrote:

Who says they can't? And what good does it do to starve people anyway?

Why would anyone starve if they could go to a social worker for temporary help? And if they started stealing food after telling the social worker to fuck off, they'd be sent to a work camp, if they didn't cooperate with them, then prison. So everyone would still be fed unless you went on a hunger strike.

Eloise wrote:

There are good reasons why doing that would be nothing short of a seamless return to imperialism and race oppression, EXC. We are both settled in countries with spotty histories that haven't properly made amends yet, now's not the time to resurrect the old crimes of history's religious supremacists.

Besides, gaols are just another type of expensive welfare.... unless.... hmmm..... I don't know whether to put it past you, frankly.

It seems you're the backdoor racist. Can't people of non-white races when properly educated take care of themselves in a modern society? Must whitey subsidize them continuously? You can only support this theory of yours unless you have some white supremacist attitudes that minorities are incapable of supporting themselves and being equally educated, and protecting themselves.

Also isn't forcing on aboriginals a western style police and healthcare as their "right" in fact destroying their native culture and values?

Eloise wrote:

Where do you get this lack of infrastructure problem from?

You're the one telling me there is affordable housing shortages and high prices for everything in Australia.

Eloise wrote:

And moreover, capitalism does not provide universal infrastructure, so if you think it's important then I think you are starting to sway left with me.

Well when I see construction crews working. There equipment always has the mark of a capitalist enterprise on it, not a hammer and sickle.

Eloise wrote:

You must be mistaken EXC. I never wrote anything about electricity being subsidised or free in Queensland. Show me where.

"the electricity companies already have means to extend concessions to those who need it."

Please translate that into something I can understand if it's not subsidized(aka free) electricity.

 

“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
:3

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 No Doomy, I'm inclined to agree. Look at the devastation "freedom" inflicted on Iraq.

 

Between freedombombs, freedomguns, freedomgenocide, and freedomcamps like Gitmo, I'd say it's pretty dangerous.

 

Im quite sure that the history of mankind is on myside with this one...

 

How many times has "freedom" been suppressed by the spear? the sword? the AK?

This amurican concept of "freedom" is but a blip in the course of history... so far >.>

 

(edit; and i have no idea why i even took what you said with any notion of seriousness Clock)

 

Because my arguments are so sarcastic they are convincing. Laughing out loud

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

EXC wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

So you support guns for kids?

I would teach them about a real never never land freedom ships.

Freedom is a more powerful weapon than any gun.

 

 

...ooooookay.... now i know you're dellusional

Oh really. How are any of your guns going to reach the Freedom ships once they are built?

 

http://www.freedomship.com/

 

 

 

You have to pay money to live there. it isn't free. (Assuming it isn't a hoax since nothing has progressed in 10 years)

 

In the rest of the world, that is called a tax. Since the only people that could afford to be there are going to large companies and wealthy individuals, I suppose that makes it a tax on the rich.

 

 

Why do you want to punish success EXC?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC. For the last time. I am

EXC. For the last time. I am not going to repeat myself over and over again to you. I'm quitting this discussion if you fail again to progress beyond "What is your idea of socialism?" in your next reply. Got that? .... good.

 

EXC wrote:

But you just ignore whether a system can be funded and is sustainable.

Bullshit. If you recall, and obviously you don't. The 'tax on resource use' line you keep spouting at me, you got that from a post I made to you some weeks ago, I introduced you to that concept. You keep throwing it like a match at the strawman you're building of my argument like it should carry some weight against me. It doesn't. It only compounds the demonstration of baldfaced ignorance and propagandist lies that has been a running theme throughout your argument in this thread.

 

EXC wrote:

 I just don't see anything sacred about them working directly for the government.

Exhibit A.

When did I argue for any sacredness of public policing? Answer: I didn't. In fact argued the opposite. That I didn't necessarily think that public policing was best in practice.  And repeatedly I have tried to steer this back on topic only to have you throw up another red herring in reply.

The ONLY argument I have made is that public policing and private policing are different in principle. Public police funded by public money perform a different function to private security guards. To wit, public police are not guards at all they are law enforcers. Their duty is to the law of the people, not to the property or possessions of the payer.

I'm resting on this. If you want to discuss opinions on practice, very well, go ahead. But you'll find there's not much debate between us on it, and if you make one up, again, I will just quit talking to you about it.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I strongly object EXC, you couldn't possibly have that more backward. If a politic stands to put rights above money isn't it by design the very antithesis of making money important?

No. because in order for the right to be granted, the money must be there first. You can't put the cart before the horse when it comes to 'rights' that require a payment be made. I on the other hand don't place what money can buy(expensive health care and security) first. I'd rather risk death than be a working slave to these industries.

Oh damn. I can't believe I let you slip that damnable word in, EXC. I shouldn't even be arguing this "rights" bullshit cause it's not my argument, it's another strawman. I don't believe health care is a right. Never did. In my politic Health Care is a public good worth holding in trust by the people for the people.

If you can manage to remember that this time (as I am quite sure I have told you before) we'll restart.....

 

EXC wrote:

No. because in order for the right to be granted, the money must be there first.

No. Holding a public good in trust requires that resources and labour are set aside for the purpose. Money is just a method of distributing them. This is the principle behind a planned economy. 

 

 

EXC wrote:

Trying getting a doctor or policeman to work without paying them lots of money. Then tell me "Rights don't cost money".

What do they want the money for, EXC? Cause one way or another they can have "what they want the money for" without a cent exchanging hands, you do know that, don't you?

Ultimately getting a doctor or policeman to work simply means ensuring that they are distributed a proportionally larger or more prestigious share of the state's available resources and labour for their efforts, you can use money to do this, sure, or vouchers, or whatever, it's all the same thing, it's just a method of distribution. Just like your economic model except that the minimum level of promissory resources and labour per capita is nominal according to the mandate of the society trust, rather than zero.

 

Eloise wrote:

I want you to come to America and start a socialist commune so you can show us how wonderful it would be.

Or maybe America can look beyond it's nose at the other countries that have rationally incorporated socialist politics into their lifestyles instead. See how nice it is that way. Typically you are so insular-minded that you want me to come there and get beat down by the fucked up American system. Nice attitude.

EXC wrote:

 So how can I be a capitalist?

1.You have claimed to believe that the market self-regulates via competition. 2. You have claimed believe that free market enterprise is the key to liberty and justice, the perfect economy. 3. You have argued that socialism is slavery to industry.

To name a few reasons why you are clearly standing as a capitalist here.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

What do you think increased profit is if it's not requiring a lot of money to have things? You don't honestly believe capitalism will stop being driven by the pursuit of greater and greater amounts of money from the consumer at some point do you? You have to be joking, right?

I don't see how people making and spending money necessarily harms you in any way. If capitalists lived on planet Kolob and made and spent lots of money how does this affect you in any way?

Capitalists don't live on planet Kolob, EXC. They live here, monopolising the limited resources and imposing demands for greater and greater resources and labour from the majority people in exchange for access to them. And they aren't spending their money, they are hoarding it while they live off freebies and kickbacks (alright for the mega rich to get free lunches but the poor and middle classes can't?)

EXC wrote:

It pisses you off that the rich get richer by exploiting natural resources and cheap labor instead of hard work and innovation,

Yes, EXC. That's what is wrong with capitalism, it institutes this behaviour.

EXC wrote:

but how does high income and sales tax change the equation in any way?

Exhibit B.

Do you remember I told you I think high income tax is poorly aimed and virtually useless?

It was about the same time as I first explained to you how my idea system was one of social contract between capitalism and the public resources it gobbles up for the frivolous sake of "wealth creation".

 

EXC wrote:

 

Eloise wrote:

Que?

Australia is doing rather well actually, we're not broke, we've actually recorded our first quarter of growth since the GFC already. And yes thanks does go to some socialist policies which helped the country stave of the worst.

You just told us Queensland is being overrun with poor people from other areas that can't afford to live there anymore. That everyone has a lot less money than they used to and the population continues to increase.

Oh for petes sake, EXC. The country is reporting growth, Queensland is just one state, and it has been overrun in recent days, mass migration from the southern states and all. The greedy rush on property investment since the 1990s has caused no end of problems for individuals, yes. It's a nasty business, but it's not breaking us exactly, just an unpleasant feeling in the stomachs of most that it is/was all a big rort.

Also, I said Queenslander's found their pockets emptier due to rising prices but the state is adjusting. How do you manage to completely misconstrue almost everything you read?

 

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

There are good reasons why doing that would be nothing short of a seamless return to imperialism and race oppression, EXC. We are both settled in countries with spotty histories that haven't properly made amends yet, now's not the time to resurrect the old crimes of history's religious supremacists.

Besides, gaols are just another type of expensive welfare.... unless.... hmmm..... I don't know whether to put it past you, frankly.

It seems you're the backdoor racist. Can't people of non-white races when properly educated take care of themselves in a modern society? Must whitey subsidize them continuously? You can only support this theory of yours unless you have some white supremacist attitudes that minorities are incapable of supporting themselves and being equally educated, and protecting themselves.

Also isn't forcing on aboriginals a western style police and healthcare as their "right" in fact destroying their native culture and values?

"Whitey" has long been forcing a whole integrated and developed culture on the rest of the world and shouldn't be expecting other cultures (especially those which existed in peace and comfort for centuries and otherwise would have no reason to change) to even want to accept the idea that white western culture is good and should be normal for everyone, let alone adapt to it. That's just bad manners.

If Australian Aboriginals, for example, have defiantly resisted white western culture for two centuries of our settlement, and suffered in the name of their own beliefs that what white settlement has introduced is wrong or unhealthy or against their religion you can only respect them for that. Westerners have matured since and acknowledged there was nothing inherently savage or wrong about the culture and lifestyle of the natives, and that the west was arrogant to force themselves wholesale on the country.

So the next logical step is to accept that what disadvantage, to the native people and our society, has come from the resistance they have necessarily demonstrated against the push for westernising of their world, is par for the course it would be wrong to punish anyone for it. It's not right to penalise poverty that is a result of such a long ongoing injustice and the only fair response is to commit long term to supporting a mutual resolution.

But you can call that whatever makes you feel superior, if that's what you need, EXC.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

And moreover, capitalism does not provide universal infrastructure, so if you think it's important then I think you are starting to sway left with me.

Well when I see construction crews working. There equipment always has the mark of a capitalist enterprise on it, not a hammer and sickle.

Capitalism goes where the money is. What infrastructure it builds is lopsided and it never goes where there is need and not money. Somalia is the perfect example of how broad is the scope of capitalist built infrastructure, take another look.

 

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

"the electricity companies already have means to extend concessions to those who need it."

Please translate that into something I can understand if it's not subsidized(aka free) electricity

That's all over the country. Old age pensioners and disabled pensioners get a small subsidy <$10 off their quarterly bill (since they can't run out and get a couple of days extra work if they are strapped), and for anyone that is in hardship there can be more time to pay granted where they need it, or payment plans arranged. The point I was trying to make is that it was a new system introduced and the government put it on the electricity bill to save on the costs of establishing a big new administration department for it.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I'm going to

ClockCat wrote:

I'm going to make a statement now that might make some libertarians upset.

 

 

No service the public needs should be privatised.

 

 

It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear, of personal gain vs public welfare.

Completely wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

The government is not there to cater to and pamper people and coddle them from cradle to grave. I find it almost aggrevating at how people misconstrue or just completely don't understand the free market.

If you think the government should be in charge of the public needs, then you've just let them run as a corporation serve their needs.  The free market is as simple as supply and demand. As long as there is a demand there will be someone to supply it, and when it comes to personal gain vs. public welfare, they go hand in hand. Someone will be there to serve the public and make a personal gain at the same time. With a competing market, they would be forced to supply greater goods at a cheaper cost, so it works out for the best for both sides.


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
It appears that, from what

It appears that, from what I've read,  Jormangunder is the only one that truly understands the Libertarian platform and philosophy. I will never understand why people would want the government to make all of the decisions that effect their lives, having such little control over it themselves. Well, maybe aside from the fact that it's a lot easier when somebody makes difficult decisions for you, and your left to be less responsible for your own life. Libertarianism is the last real hope for this country. I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:So you

ClockCat wrote:

So you support guns for kids?

Sure, why not ?  My 21 month old infant son sleeps with a .44 Magnum in a shoulder holster.  What's wrong with that ?

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

So you support guns for kids?

Sure, why not ?  My 21 month old infant son sleeps with a .44 Magnum in a shoulder holster.  What's wrong with that ?

 

Nothing at all as long as you've taught him proper gun handling and safety.


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

Big E wrote:

I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.

 

So, why are large amounts of personal & economic freedom a GOOD thing, again? i keep forgetting

What Would Kharn Do?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Big E

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.

 

So, why are large amounts of personal & economic freedom a GOOD thing, again? i keep forgetting

*loud snort*

Laughing out loud

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No. Holding a

Eloise wrote:

No. Holding a public good in trust requires that resources and labour are set aside for the purpose. Money is just a method of distributing them. This is the principle behind a planned economy.  

No. In practise any governmental or private institution must come up with a budget and have money in the bank before and work or investment may commence. This is simple a fact due to people not wanting to work for free or give up their property for free. So you either have private capitalism or state capitalism or some mix. An economy will not function in any other way.

 

Eloise wrote:

What do they want the money for, EXC? Cause one way or another they can have "what they want the money for" without a cent exchanging hands, you do know that, don't you?

Are you talking about a barter system? Any barter system will eventually evolve into a system with a common currency. This is the only way people can measure value and cost. We only really care about ourselves, so everyone translates it into what's in it for me?

 

Eloise wrote:
re

Ultimately getting a doctor or policeman to work simply means ensuring that they are distributed a proportionally larger or more prestigious share of the state's available resources and labour for their efforts, you can use money to do this, sure, or vouchers, or whatever, it's all the same thing, it's just a method of distribution. Just like your economic model except that the minimum level of promissory resources and labour per capita is nominal according to the mandate of the society trust, rather than zero. 

But anyone that works or trades their property wants to know what the value of what they are receiving. So the compensation will always amount to money. If you passed out vouchers, People would say "Oh that's the equivalent an ounce of gold or 10 barrels of oil". People need to translate things into what they really mean instead of what a government tells them it means.

Eloise wrote:

EXC wrote:

I want you to come to America and start a socialist commune so you can show us how wonderful it would be.

Or maybe America can look beyond it's nose at the other countries that have rationally incorporated socialist politics into their lifestyles instead. See how nice it is that way. Typically you are so insular-minded that you want me to come there and get beat down by the fucked up American system. Nice attitude.

If you claimed you had a cure for cancer, I'd say great go do some small clinical trials present the evidence, demonstrate there an no adverse secondary effects over the long haul. That the scientific method. That's the rational way. Then and only then will I take your 'cure'.

What do socialist and communists want to do? They must force the whole world to take your 'cure' at the point of gun. So you don't have to beat down anyone. Just start a commune with these rules and show us evidence that disincentivism and overpopulation are not going to destroy the commune over time.

Eloise wrote:

1.You have claimed to believe that the market self-regulates via competition.

Only if monopolization of natural resources is not allowed to occur. Obviously if one entity owns all the land to grow food, there can be no competition with current technology. But you believe those greedy rich folks with do anything to get richer. So if one greed rich guy is getting richer, why wouldn't another join in on all the easy money and compete?

Another problem is that human population growth doesn't self-regulate except via poverty, disease, crime and war. So there is always an endless supply of unskilled labor. This could change with competition in the education field and some mandatory birth controls.

Eloise wrote:

2. You have claimed believe that free market enterprise is the key to liberty and justice, the perfect economy.

More like they go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. There can't be "a perfect economy" without perfect technology, we're a long way from that. Sounds like you're doing the strawmaning here.

Eloise wrote:

 3. You have argued that socialism is slavery to industry.

Depends on the definition of "socialism". I'm a socialist because I believe you should be able to form voluntary groups to implement your ideal economic and social structure. I just don't think you should point a gun at people's heads and force it on them or monopolize all natural resources on earth for your utopia. So I'm for socialism proven to work through evidence rather than forced by the gun. Whenever something must be force on people with violent threats(i.e. religion and economic systems)rather than hard evidence it amounts to slavery in my book. 

Eloise wrote:

Capitalists don't live on planet Kolob, EXC. They live here, monopolising the limited resources and imposing demands for greater and greater resources and labour from the majority people in exchange for access to them.

I agree about monopolizing resources. But the propaganda we get from your leftist brethren seems like if capitalism or wealthy people exist anywhere in the universe they are ruining everyone else's life. So it seems you should be setting them all strait instead of attacking anyone that invests or earns a good income.

Eloise wrote:

Yes, EXC. That's what is wrong with capitalism, it institutes this behaviour.

So tax this behavior then, not income and merely having some wealth, right? Can we get people some on the left to agree that 60%+ income tax and VAT is ridiculous because it doesn't directly tax "this behaviour"?

Eloise wrote:

"Whitey" has long been forcing a whole integrated and developed culture on the rest of the world and shouldn't be expecting other cultures (especially those which existed in peace and comfort for centuries and otherwise would have no reason to change) to even want to accept the idea that white western culture is good and should be normal for everyone, let alone adapt to it. That's just bad manners.

But when you force western style policing and healthcare on people this too is cultural imperialism. Everyone eventually becomes slaves to the expensive justice, policing and health care systems because no one has an individual choice.

So now the aboriginals have the idea that healthcare is a right rather than an expensive and complex technological service that must be paid for with a lot of money.

Eloise wrote:

Capitalism goes where the money is.

 

And socialism(as now implemented) doesn't??? It's tax whoever got money as much as possible and give the money to whoever keeps the politicos in power.

 

 

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


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Big E

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.

 

So, why are large amounts of personal & economic freedom a GOOD thing, again? i keep forgetting

I wish I could tell you, I guess I don't know the answer to that, because it doesn't make sense to me either.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"The government is not there

"The government is not there to cater to and pamper people and coddle them from cradle to grave."

Uh, yes it is actually. Though obviously it does much more than that.

"If you think the government should be in charge of the public needs, then you've just let them run as a corporation serve their needs."

No. Democracy.

"With a competing market, they would be forced to supply greater goods at a cheaper cost, so it works out for the best for both sides."

No defense against monopoly.

"I will never understand why people would want the government to make all of the decisions that effect their lives, having such little control over it themselves."

Strawman. We have control of the government in democracy. It might tell us what to do, but we tell it what to do first and foremost.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"I challenge anybody to show

"I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously."

Socialism is far superior, more free, more efficient, and more effective.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Big E wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.

 

So, why are large amounts of personal & economic freedom a GOOD thing, again? i keep forgetting

I wish I could tell you, I guess I don't know the answer to that, because it doesn't make sense to me either.

Then you have no reason to support libertarianism?

 

Glad we cleared that up!

What Would Kharn Do?


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"The government

Vastet wrote:
"The government is not there to cater to and pamper people and coddle them from cradle to grave." Uh, yes it is actually. Though obviously it does much more than that. "If you think the government should be in charge of the public needs, then you've just let them run as a corporation serve their needs." No. Democracy. "With a competing market, they would be forced to supply greater goods at a cheaper cost, so it works out for the best for both sides." No defense against monopoly. "I will never understand why people would want the government to make all of the decisions that effect their lives, having such little control over it themselves." Strawman. We have control of the government in democracy. It might tell us what to do, but we tell it what to do first and foremost.

 

Uh, no, the government is not there to coddle anybody, our government was not formed for that purpose, EVER. Democracy? Our country was set up as a Republic, not a democracy, how easily that's been forgotten over the years. We are a democratic republic. A democracy means mob rule, so someone will always be oppressed, just look at the gays. And if you really think we have control of our government you are out of your mind. Think back to the bailouts, when every poll taken said that 96% plus were against them and yet they passed them anyway. Lots of control there. Patriot act..even more control, cmon, what a joke. Not to mention that you are a proud Canadian. Your country is ruled by a queen that resides in another country. You people are ok with that?Having a government that controls everything is easy for lazy people, but some of us want to strive and earn our living.


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Socialism is

Vastet wrote:
Socialism is far superior, more free, more efficient, and more effective.

 

That's just disgusting. More free? How do you figure that? It's only more free to the people that aren't paying for it, but somebody has to pay. So you're telling me that the people that work hard and struggle and fight and finally make it in this world should pay for the lazy pricks that don't want to work hard? Why would you even want to work hard if you know that somebody else is going to foot the bill? I don't like busting my ass so that some lazy asshole can collect a welfare check. And you can't honestly say that it's more effective because we haven't had a Libertarian free market system. You have nothing to compare it to. And it's certainly not more efficient. Big government is never more efficient. I'm taken aback right now honestly, I never really thought I hear somebody advocate socialism. I say that the further we get down the road of socialism, we should all just stop working and see how well that system works. I would love to see 300 million Americans stop working and make the remaining 4 million people have to support them. Efficient..lol


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Big E

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

I challenge anybody to show me a political/governmental system that makes any more sense while allowing for maximum personal and economic freedoms. Seriously.

 

So, why are large amounts of personal & economic freedom a GOOD thing, again? i keep forgetting

I wish I could tell you, I guess I don't know the answer to that, because it doesn't make sense to me either.

Then you have no reason to support libertarianism?

 

Glad we cleared that up!

 

Of course I do. I was being facetious. I didn't think that was a serious statement asking why civil liberties and economic freedom were good things. I wouldn't think that anybody would ever seriously ask that question.Hopefully I'm missing the sarcasm here.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Of course I do.

Big E wrote:

Of course I do. I was being facetious. I didn't think that was a serious statement asking why civil liberties and economic freedom were good things. I wouldn't think that anybody would ever seriously ask that question.Hopefully I'm missing the sarcasm here.

There wasnt really any sarcasm... It was semi-serious.

The plebeians constantly shout for more freedom, yet they never know what that truely entails...

Thus i ask the question

"So, why is LARGE amounts of personal & economic freedom, a good thing? "

 The answer still eludes me...

(answer if you can... its bound to be an amusing attempt at the least)

What Would Kharn Do?


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Big E

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

Of course I do. I was being facetious. I didn't think that was a serious statement asking why civil liberties and economic freedom were good things. I wouldn't think that anybody would ever seriously ask that question.Hopefully I'm missing the sarcasm here.

There wasnt really any sarcasm... It was semi-serious.

The plebeians constantly shout for more freedom, yet they never know what that truely entails...

Thus i ask the question

"So, why is LARGE amounts of personal & economic freedom, a good thing? "

 The answer still eludes me...

(answer if you can... its bound to be an amusing attempt at the least)

Because if you're not hurting anybody else or their property, why shouldn't you be free to do what you want? You are your own sovereign individual. Who else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body? Or your own money? Be amused by that answer all you want, but anybody who thinks that somebody else should decide what you should or can and can't do with your own life isn't deserving of freedom at all.  As a society people have been systematically programmed to think that they need somebody else to tell them what is good for them, without taking into account that the people making these decisions are people themselves. You can be a liberal leftist and tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to have a gun, why not? I've been fully trained in weaponry and fought in war, but I shouldn't have a gun to defend my home? Those on the right will say that I shouldn't be allowed to smoke weed, yet I can drink all the alcohol I want and smoke cigarettes packs a day? Why as a responsible adult, and a sovereign individual, should I not be allowed to make those decisions for myself? I have to go eat, but I'll finish this later if I haven't made my point. I just can't believe that I would have to explain why being free is a problem.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Because if

Big E wrote:

Because if you're not hurting anybody else or their property, why shouldn't you be free to do what you want? You are your own sovereign individual. Who else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body? Or your own money? Be amused by that answer all you want, but anybody who thinks that somebody else should decide what you should or can and can't do with your own life isn't deserving of freedom at all.  As a society people have been systematically programmed to think that they need somebody else to tell them what is good for them, without taking into account that the people making these decisions are people themselves.

Highly ironic coming from a military man, no?  see! amusing already ^_^

 

Big E wrote:

Because if you're not hurting anybody else or their property, why shouldn't you be free to do what you want?

 

Now, why SHOULDN'T we be allowed to hurt anyone, or their property?

 

 

(im slowly leading you down a path with these questions... might lead to self-realization, or it might lead to me actually having to type out a few paragraphs... we'll see which comes first)

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Big E

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Big E wrote:

Because if you're not hurting anybody else or their property, why shouldn't you be free to do what you want? You are your own sovereign individual. Who else has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body? Or your own money? Be amused by that answer all you want, but anybody who thinks that somebody else should decide what you should or can and can't do with your own life isn't deserving of freedom at all.  As a society people have been systematically programmed to think that they need somebody else to tell them what is good for them, without taking into account that the people making these decisions are people themselves.

Highly ironic coming from a military man, no?  see! amusing already ^_^

 

Big E wrote:

Because if you're not hurting anybody else or their property, why shouldn't you be free to do what you want?

 

Now, why SHOULDN'T we be allowed to hurt anyone, or their property?

 

 

(im slowly leading you down a path with these questions... might lead to self-realization, or it might lead to me actually having to type out a few paragraphs... we'll see which comes first)

 

 

2 Things. If you're going to make a mockery of my military service you can kiss my ass. I didn't come close to death to have asshole make a joke of it. And I'm not even going to entertain your question of why shouldn't we be allowed to hurt anyone or their property because that question is just STUPID.

You can type your paragraph now, because I've already had my "self-realization". And don't expect any type of response from me because frankly, I don't like you.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Not to mention

Big E wrote:
Not to mention that you are a proud Canadian. Your country is ruled by a queen that resides in another country. You people are ok with that?

The Queen doesn't rule Canada. She doesn't even rule her own country. They have an elected parliament, the Westminster System.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Big E wrote:Not

Eloise wrote:

Big E wrote:
Not to mention that you are a proud Canadian. Your country is ruled by a queen that resides in another country. You people are ok with that?

The Queen doesn't rule Canada. She doesn't even rule her own country. They have an elected parliament, the Westminster System.

Fair enough. But it really had little to do with the argument. But I'll let you have it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada


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

Big E wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Big E wrote:
Not to mention that you are a proud Canadian. Your country is ruled by a queen that resides in another country. You people are ok with that?

The Queen doesn't rule Canada. She doesn't even rule her own country. They have an elected parliament, the Westminster System.

Fair enough. But it really had little to do with the argument. But I'll let you have it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

It's a Constitutional Monarchy, E, which means, basically, dressed up like a monarchy but not one. I know this cause I live in one of the other constitutional monarchies. We aren't ruled by the Royals of England, they wield zero actual power over the affairs of our countries.

Mostly the Queen and her Royal family are Icons, sustained by their people for the sake of morale. She has representatives who can talk to the other heads of state on her behalf, but they don't press any agendas, they're basically a personification of respect and unity between the Tradition and the Federations that have spawned from it, as is fighting in her name. She doesn't rule us, we rule ourselves.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Overstood Eloise, thanks for

Overstood Eloise, thanks for the explanation.


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

EXC wrote:

In practise any governmental or private institution must come up with a budget and have money in the bank before and work or investment may commence. This is simple a fact due to people not wanting to work for free or give up their property for free.


eh. I'd say it's due to having money already distributed throughout existing systems, people will object to a sudden change in the value of what they already have, of course. However, in principle, money is just a tool for apportioning the value of real exchange, explicitly of labour, resources or some combination of the two, so an economy must figure around and approximate the real exchange if it is to be sustainable.

exc wrote:


So you either have private capitalism or state capitalism or some mix. An economy will not function in any other way.



?? :s ??

Yes it will. I will concede any drastic change from using a market with money facility for distribution is likely to be a pain in the proverbial, and even probably not at all necessary, but that doesn't mean it is the only functional way. W.T.F.

EXC wrote:


Eloise wrote:


What do they want the money for, EXC? Cause one way or another they can have "what they want the money for" without a cent exchanging hands, you do know that, don't you?



Are you talking about a barter system?



not specifically, no. but if you can understand the concept of barter then you can see that money is not the essence of the exchange.

exc wrote:


Any barter system will eventually evolve into a system with a common currency. This is the only way people can measure value and cost. We only really care about ourselves, so everyone translates it into what's in it for me?



it is not the only way, it is simply a very convenient and impersonal system which makes it adaptation to it more comfortable. I'll grant you that barter, for example, is neither impersonal nor convenient for wide distribution thus barter systems tend to morph into promissory systems too, Yep, Though, an alternate system which was just as convenient wouldn't. I personally haven't got any ideas what that would be but I'm not ruling it out.

At any rate, my argument was not what the system of distribution could be, the use of money for distribution is not incompatible with my personal conception of a socialist state, I was simply trying to point out to you that money is not the essence of the exchange. Money does not come before the resources and labour that imparts it with value.

 
EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:


EXC wrote:


I want you to come to America and start a socialist commune so you can show us how wonderful it would be.



Or maybe America can look beyond it's nose at the other countries that have rationally incorporated socialist politics into their lifestyles instead. See how nice it is that way. Typically you are so insular-minded that you want me to come there and get beat down by the fucked up American system. Nice attitude.



If you claimed you had a cure for cancer, I'd say great go do some small clinical trials present the evidence, demonstrate there an no adverse secondary effects over the long haul. That the scientific method. That's the rational way. Then and only then will I take your 'cure'.


That's a poor analogy EXC. But, regardless, ultimately all you're saying is that youll believe it when you've seen it. Yet, you've reportedly never seen a "libertarian utopia" either so why does it get the pass on "lab testing" prior to getting the go ahead from you? How can you be so sure libertarianism doesn't have 'long haul' harmful effects without first applying proper scientific rigour?

Short answer - Your argument is just pure hypocrisy, and doesn't deserve the diginity of a response.


EXC wrote:



Eloise wrote:


Yes, EXC. That's what is wrong with capitalism, it institutes this behaviour.



So tax this behavior then, not income and merely having some wealth, right?


ROFPMSLMFAO!!!!
YOU tax it EXC! Go on, I dare you, offer up your perfect tax idea to your libertarian, capitalist, brethren. I'll bring popcorn and watch.

Again we've had this conversation before. The tax is where it is because the right! doesn't want it where it should be. The RIGHT, EXC. Not the Left. The left wants, and has always wanted, tax aimed hard core at resource hogging and inequitable exploitation of labour, but who will let us?


EXC wrote:


Can we get people some on the left to agree that 60%+ income tax and VAT is ridiculous because it doesn't directly tax "this behaviour"?

Can we get some people on the right to agree that it's fair compensation for not being able to tax resource hogging and inequitable exploitation of labour?

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:


"Whitey" has long been forcing a whole integrated and developed culture on the rest of the world and shouldn't be expecting other cultures (especially those which existed in peace and comfort for centuries and otherwise would have no reason to change) to even want to accept the idea that white western culture is good and should be normal for everyone, let alone adapt to it. That's just bad manners.



But when you force western style policing and healthcare on people this too is cultural imperialism. Everyone eventually becomes slaves to the expensive justice, policing and health care systems because no one has an individual choice.


It's too late to back out now, the face of the land has been drastically altered and millions of new people now call it home. The forcing has been done and can't be undone, we can only compensate with a long commitment to supporting adaptation.

EXC wrote:

So now the aboriginals have the idea that healthcare is a right rather than an expensive and complex technological service that must be paid for with a lot of money.

That's why a long commitment is necessary. It can take generations before the greatest positive effects of education manifest in a community. Not understanding the logistics of modern Australian society is one of those disadvantages it would be wrong to punish, those, to whom it is a mystery how healthcare systems exist, are still a part of the community and their wellbeing has a rippling effect on the greater community, thus their ignorance is not a reason to deny them healthcare.

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:


Capitalism goes where the money is.

 


And socialism(as now implemented) doesn't??? It's tax whoever got money as much as possible and give the money to whoever keeps the politicos in power.

 

 


No. Socialism builds infrastructure where there is a need established by the deliberations of the government. There doesn't need to be money in it. If you have a reasonably democratic government then you will get broad scope infrastructure designed with intent to service the greatest number of public needs. If you have lassez faire capitalism then the majority of competing infrastructure needs will tend to lose out in favour of the one with the most lucrative market. Infrastructure needs that aren't backed by a cashed up market lose out altogether.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"More free? How do you

"More free? How do you figure that?"

How do you figure otherwise? Capitalism is merely free for the rich, 1-10% of the population. Socialism is free for all, 100% of the population.

"It's only more free to the people that aren't paying for it, but somebody has to pay."

Strawman. Everyone "pays" in Socialism, by definition.

"So you're telling me that the people that work hard and struggle and fight and finally make it in this world should pay for the lazy pricks that don't want to work hard?"

Not at all. I'm saying put everyone to work, and give them shelter, food, healthcare, protection, and other necessities in return. Those who don't want to work can depend on charity or starve.

"And you can't honestly say that it's more effective because we haven't had a Libertarian free market system."

Neither have we ever had a true Socialist market system. But I can still say it's better. Getting rid of wasteful strategies and pointless competition between equal opponents in favour of efficient strategies...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10736
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
and cooperative

and cooperative competition.

"Big government is never more efficient."

It doesn't have to be big, but you're also wrong. Big capitalist governments are inefficient sure, but you have no reference to say the same applies to Socialism.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

Big E wrote:

2 Things. If you're going to make a mockery of my military service you can kiss my ass. I didn't come close to death to have asshole make a joke of it. And I'm not even going to entertain your question of why shouldn't we be allowed to hurt anyone or their property because that question is just STUPID.

You can type your paragraph now, because I've already had my "self-realization". And don't expect any type of response from me because frankly, I don't like you.

 

What is special about working in the U.S. military? What exactly is sacred about it?

 

It is just a job. It isn't in defence of America or the United States last I checked though. 

 

If it was I could believe it to be something respectable. 

 

Working in the U.S. military gets as much respect from me as working for Blackwater or any other mercenary group that kills people for money. It is work, nothing more. You are compensated with what you agreed on when you signed up.

 

 

Also, I find your response to Doomy juvenile. That fact that -I- am saying that should say something. Grow some skin.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Big E wrote:2

ClockCat wrote:

Big E wrote:

2 Things. If you're going to make a mockery of my military service you can kiss my ass. I didn't come close to death to have asshole make a joke of it. And I'm not even going to entertain your question of why shouldn't we be allowed to hurt anyone or their property because that question is just STUPID.

You can type your paragraph now, because I've already had my "self-realization". And don't expect any type of response from me because frankly, I don't like you.

 

What is special about working in the U.S. military? What exactly is sacred about it?

 

It is just a job. It isn't in defence of America or the United States last I checked though. 

 

If it was I could believe it to be something respectable. 

 

Working in the U.S. military gets as much respect from me as working for Blackwater or any other mercenary group that kills people for money. It is work, nothing more. You are compensated with what you agreed on when you signed up.

 

 

Also, I find your response to Doomy juvenile. That fact that -I- am saying that should say something. Grow some skin.

You know what? I don't know you and you don't know me so you're opinion of me and "my skin" doesn't mean shit. I'll voice my opinion no matter how "juvenile" you think it is. And I don't care what yuou think about those that serve in the military, or how sacred it is or isn't. I'm getting out in 2 weeks because I know more than I used to, but you making a mockery out of it is bullshit. You have 18 year old kids dying because they don't know any better about the politics involved and then you want to be smug and shit on their service. I don't think it's sacred, and I don't think we should automatically be treated as heroes or whatnot. You know what, now that I re-read your post, I don't give a fuck what you think. Stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours. And as for skin, I've been trained to have some of the thickest skin the military has to offer, but I'm also not going to deal with bullshit.


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

Big E wrote:

You know what? I don't know you and you don't know me so you're opinion of me and "my skin" doesn't mean shit. I'll voice my opinion no matter how "juvenile" you think it is. And I don't care what yuou think about those that serve in the military, or how sacred it is or isn't. I'm getting out in 2 weeks because I know more than I used to, but you making a mockery out of it is bullshit. You have 18 year old kids dying because they don't know any better about the politics involved and then you want to be smug and shit on their service. I don't think it's sacred, and I don't think we should automatically be treated as heroes or whatnot. You know what, now that I re-read your post, I don't give a fuck what you think. Stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours. And as for skin, I've been trained to have some of the thickest skin the military has to offer, but I'm also not going to deal with bullshit.

 

With skin that thin it must be painful to sit down. You are always going to end up butthurt.

 

Seriously.

 

You are projecting a lot of anger and assumptions. Not to mention that there isn't much "getting in anyone's way" on an internet message board.

 

 

 

Apparently your training for thick skin is shit, because you seem to be taking this all kinds of personally. I stand by what I said: Grow some skin.

 

Talk or don't, but don't bitch and get offended over everything personally. I saw you react to really nothing from Doomy with all kinds of batshit crazy and I'm calling you on it.

 

If everyone did what you seem to suggest no one would talk to anyone on these forums.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  ClockCat and Big E, 

  ClockCat and Big E,  thank you for again demonstrating that, apart from no belief in the supernatural, there is no such thing as an atheist world view.  No matter how many times theists use that phrase there still remains no such thing as a unified vision for what's best for the world simply because we lack "god belief".

  We disagree about virtually everything.

 

         ( carry on....)

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


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

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  ClockCat and Big E,  thank you for again demonstrating that, apart from no belief in the supernatural, there is no such thing as an atheist world view.  No matter how many times theists use that phrase there still remains no such thing as a unified vision for what's best for the world simply because we lack "god belief".

  We disagree about virtually everything.

 

         ( carry on....)

 

I would agree with this. In fact, I would say that it would be impossible to find anyone on these forums that agree on everything.

 

Which, if they all stopped talking to the other after that, this message board would become quite inactive. You have to have thick skin.

 

Just not as thick as EXC I hope. :3

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: You have to

ClockCat wrote:

 You have to have thick skin.

 

Just not as thick as EXC I hope. :3

 

... SKIN, not SKULL

 

 

What Would Kharn Do?


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

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 You have to have thick skin.

 

Just not as thick as EXC I hope. :3

 

... SKIN, not SKULL

 

 

 

That was the joke. Thanks Doomy.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

 I'm still awaiting anyone who can explain to me why privatizing a public good, is a good thing...especially since it creates an immediate conflict of interest for that private entity, between personal profits and public welfare.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

Big E wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

I'm going to make a statement now that might make some libertarians upset.

 

 

No service the public needs should be privatised.

 

 

It creates a situation that demands a conflict of interest will appear, of personal gain vs public welfare.

Completely wrong. Wrong, wrong wrong.

The government is not there to cater to and pamper people and coddle them from cradle to grave. I find it almost aggrevating at how people misconstrue or just completely don't understand the free market.

If you think the government should be in charge of the public needs, then you've just let them run as a corporation serve their needs.  The free market is as simple as supply and demand. As long as there is a demand there will be someone to supply it, and when it comes to personal gain vs. public welfare, they go hand in hand. Someone will be there to serve the public and make a personal gain at the same time. With a competing market, they would be forced to supply greater goods at a cheaper cost, so it works out for the best for both sides.

 

If you rephrase that in english we might have an argument.

 

"If you think the government should be in charge of the public needs, then you've just let them run as a corporation serve their needs."

 

I do not understand this. What exactly are you saying?

 

"The free market is as simple as supply and demand. As long as there is a demand there will be someone to supply it, and when it comes to personal gain vs. public welfare, they go hand in hand."

 

What? How do they go hand in hand? They are out for private gain. In order to maximize profits, they have to take as much as possible from public welfare. That is the whole point.

 

"Someone will be there to serve the public and make a personal gain at the same time. With a competing market, they would be forced to supply greater goods at a cheaper cost, so it works out for the best for both sides."

 

Competing market being what exactly? A monopoly? The free market has no competing market. It creates monopolies and oligopolies. They then can crush any upstart competitor because they dominate the market and can cut price below costs where needed to kill off competition. 

 

Then they will try and maximize profits. In doing so, they have to take as much from public welfare as possible, either by cutting what the public can gain or by increasing prices to the public, thereby restricting access only to some who can afford it. It creates an unnecessary drain on society as well as creating another class level. For example, "those who can afford to go to the park, and those who can't" or "those who can afford to go to the beach, and those who can't". Maybe even "those who can afford the police, and those who can't" or "those who afford the fire department, and those who can't". Libraries, roads, schools, all public goods are involved here. Do you see where it breaks down yet? The private companies will raise prices to maximize profits, and all things have a certain elasticity of their price...however by making it a for-profit venture it changes the entire dynamic. It restricts part of society, and depending on how many use those public services, may eliminate them altogether as not "profitable" enough.

 

If you restricted say education from a large portion of the population because of costs, you have a largely ill-equipped workforce in the country. If you restrict health care, you have a large portion of the workforce unable to participate. Restricting public goods from the population only hurts society as a whole, because there are many people that couldn't pay for something that society as a whole needs. 

 

I believe that internet is a public good for example. There needs to be publicly available broadband in this time period..I am sad there is not. It is mandatory today as a standard of communication and information. I consider it of higher importance for that than libraries. Some countries have already delegated it a public good, for example in Finland everyone is guaranteed 100meg/s connections by 2014.

 

Think about this: there has to be a base standard. How low do you want it to go? If you privatize things, it drops that standard to nothing in that area. Private companies will not give things for free, they want to make profits. They are not interested in public welfare, they are interested in profits. By allowing them control over a public resource, are they suddenly going to be looking out for public welfare? No. They are going to be looking out for profits. They have to appease shareholders, and once they dominate the market they can dictate terms to the public.

 

That is what the issue is. If anyone doesn't understand the free market, it is you. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: I'm still

ClockCat wrote:

 I'm still awaiting anyone who can explain to me why privatizing a public good, is a good thing...especially since it creates an immediate conflict of interest for that private entity, between personal profits and public welfare.

Maybe you can explain to us ignorant ones who works for "the public good"? The police officers work for themselves and their union represents their private interests. Security officers work for themselves and their company represents them.

Politicians are private entities. The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities. Teachers unions are private entities. They represent the interests of their members. No one works for "the public good". That's why they go on strike on continually demand more benefits and pensions even if it bankrupts society. Do any of the government labor unions care if the governments go bankrupt paying their pensions? No, they are private interests.

You have to get over this ridiculous idea that their is such a thing as unselfishness. We all only care about ourselves, that is why you don't start a charity to take care of those in need, but instead insist on others do it for you. You only really care about yourself.

“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:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I'm still awaiting anyone who can explain to me why privatizing a public good, is a good thing...especially since it creates an immediate conflict of interest for that private entity, between personal profits and public welfare.

Maybe you can explain to us ignorant ones who works for "the public good"? The police officers work for themselves and their union represents their private interests. Security officers work for themselves and their company represents them.

Politicians are private entities. The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities. Teachers unions are private entities. They represent the interests of their members. No one works for "the public good". That's why they go on strike on continually demand more benefits and pensions even if it bankrupts society. Do any of the government labor unions care if the governments go bankrupt paying their pensions? No, they are private interests.

You have to get over this ridiculous idea that their is such a thing as unselfishness. We all only care about ourselves, that is why you don't start a charity to take care of those in need, but instead insist on others do it for you. You only really care about yourself.

The police enforce the laws of the society solely for themselves?

Firefighters risk their necks going into burning buildings for themselves?

Wow, you don't get out of the house much, do 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


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

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

 I'm still awaiting anyone who can explain to me why privatizing a public good, is a good thing...especially since it creates an immediate conflict of interest for that private entity, between personal profits and public welfare.

Maybe you can explain to us ignorant ones who works for "the public good"? The police officers work for themselves and their union represents their private interests. Security officers work for themselves and their company represents them.

Politicians are private entities. The Republican and Democratic parties are private entities. Teachers unions are private entities. They represent the interests of their members. No one works for "the public good". That's why they go on strike on continually demand more benefits and pensions even if it bankrupts society. Do any of the government labor unions care if the governments go bankrupt paying their pensions? No, they are private interests.

You have to get over this ridiculous idea that their is such a thing as unselfishness. We all only care about ourselves, that is why you don't start a charity to take care of those in need, but instead insist on others do it for you. You only really care about yourself.

 

Where did I say anything about selfishness or unselfishness? Where did that even come from?

 

Everyone is selfish to a degree. It is the base nature of survival for life. I understand and accept that. The point is how much you are willing to feed into that and allow greed to run roughshod over other people's lives. By pitting money versus the public welfare (privatizing public goods) you end up creating a conflict between two things that will obviously lead to the entity taking as much in the way of profits at the expensive of public welfare.

 

When it is non-profit that issue clears up. That is the whole point of what taxes are for you seem to miss. Everyone in society then owns the public park, the roads, etc. You say it is "government" but government IS the people. You elect your representatives. You say "start a non-profit". That is exactly what the government is.

 

When parts of society are denied public goods it hurts all of society by reducing the base level of living. I'm not talking about extravagance, I'm talking about ability to function normally in society.

 

Some things when taken from a few people hurt everyone. You can no longer make plans that everyone has access to that thing. It makes a large difference.

 

Police, Fire Departments, roads, schools, health care, libraries...take access to these things away from a portion of the public by requiring it to be "bought" from private corporations, and watch society suffer as a result.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The police

jcgadfly wrote:

The police enforce the laws of the society solely for themselves?

Firefighters risk their necks going into burning buildings for themselves?

Wow, you don't get out of the house much, do you?

A private security guard or fire fighter only protects his own life and property?

Explain how a private security guard is fundamentally any different that a cop? If you don't pay them, they don't work. They have a beat and a boss that tells them what to do. They often have a union to represent them.

CC argument seems to be that if someone's employment contract is "public" that somehow they will be 'unselfish'. And anyone that works for a 'private' security firm is 'selfish'. They're both just guys that show up to work because someone pays them so they can pay their bills and feed their families. There is nothing magical or unselfish about 'public' employees.

So if a city decides to dump a police union and hire a private firm to do it's policing, are these workers now 'selfish' as opposed to the police union that is 100% unselfish and just working for the public interest?

It's just a BS concept, like churches and church leaders saying they are 'non-profit'.

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