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
:o

EXC wrote:

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.

 

Where did you get this idea from?

 

Seriously. I don't even see how you extrapolated it. I never said that or anything close to it.

 

Yes, PEOPLE work for an EMPLOYER. That is what makes them EMPLOYEES. I don't see how this is in any way relevant to anything being discussed. What is your point exactly? And why are you talking about "selfishness" and "unselfishness?"

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:

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?

 

I don't see where selfishness or unselfishness matters in this.

 

A private company hired to police an area will have to make profits. Those profits will come at the expense of public welfare. They have to reduce costs somewhere. Money doesn't appear out of thin air.

 

Whether it be by less activity, ignoring problem areas, only servicing certain locations, a smaller number of security guards than would be cops, not enforcing some laws, not investigate crimes....I could make lists and lists of things that would likely reduce their costs. Not to mention all the other issues that are likely to come up from privatizing a public good. 

 

It pits profits against public welfare. Why would you want a corporation admittingly out for it's own profits replacing public servants, and handling the public welfare?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

EXC wrote:

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.

EXC - this is the second time I agree with you this year. You are obviously doing something wrong.

EXC wrote:

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.

Ah, generalisation taken too far - that's better.

What you feel deep inside - this "I only percieve with my own senses, thus I ultimately only care for preservation and increased positive input to myself", while true, is understood by you in a misguided fashion. Increase in positive input to yourself is actually just a perception of reafirmation or betterment of your identity in social context. This can take any form, but common to pretty much all of us is the need to know you are needed, loved, respected for your ability and opinion. And this will not change for millions of years (evolution, remember?), no matter how visceral the society becomes.

What would you like most to be given to you tomorrow: a million $ in cool cash, or respect, love and a sense of dependability from anyone that comes in contact with you? If your answer is the $, you are just comfirming my point - you don't want the mil $, you want the things that in your perception come with it: love, respect, attention, dependability, the very definition of who you are. The reality is that you just see no way these can come true, while the $ (or raw power for that matter) at least have some imediate societal effect. Ultimately however, taking these shortcuts will be your prison as well. Losing money and power might at the very least make you feel positively worthless. And there will be some truth to this, simply because the social relations you have built depend on money and power. You would basically have to start all over, or put a bullet in your head.

What you really want to do is maximize the positive reinforcement of your identity, while minimizing this "prison" effect. Running away from reality is just a way to lock yourself deeper into your prison and I wouldn't recommend it. I have another way and I think you should have one too. May I suggest a course in Aristotelian ethics? Its in your private interest.

In conclusion, the theory of private interest in your head needs to be amended with a more clear definition of what this really means for the social individual. And its not so different for different people, remember that we all have 100% common DNA with humans.

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


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

EXC wrote:

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'.

Would you like to go back to the subject of my post? I brought up law enforcement - you brought up protection.

do you really not know the difference?

As for the fire fighter, If the firm who hired him out tells him not to enter the burning building of his client, guess who wins?

"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:

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.

 

While this is correct, and I agree, it is also entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

 

They are employees working for an employer. So what? They want more benefits as a group, because they feel they are treated unfairly, and so go on strike. Okay?

 

It doesn't have any bearing on the discussion still.

 

The issue has to do with a private COMPANY, in it's very nature, seeks profits. Public servants work for the GOVERNMENT, a nonprofit entity controlled and financed by the people for the benefit of the people.

 

The discussion is about the entity, not their employees. The employees are meaningless to the discussion. They are the same for all practical purposes.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

 


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

ClockCat wrote:

EXC wrote:

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.

 

While this is correct, and I agree, it is also entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

 

They are employees working for an employer. So what? They want more benefits as a group, because they feel they are treated unfairly, and so go on strike. Okay?

 

It doesn't have any bearing on the discussion still.

Except that it does. People in government are not "just" employees, they have influence on the rules applicable to all employers. Very often the border between "public employee" and "public chieftain" gets whisked out.

ClockCat wrote:
 

Public servants work for the GOVERNMENT, a nonprofit entity controlled and financed by the people for the benefit of the people.

That's not true. The carriers in the Gulf are not a non-profit enterprise. And what does non-profit mean anyway? Isn't being paid a form of profit? People in the organization profit by earning their wages with zero overall growth or surplus - that is a perfectly valid profit-based institution.

ClockCat wrote:

The discussion is about the entity, not their employees. The employees are meaningless to the discussion. They are the same for all practical purposes.

I don't think so. Employees are all there is, the entity is imaginary. This is the core of the misunderstanding in the discussion about for- and non-profit - the only real difference is that in for-profit organizations people that do no work both have the greatest say and profit, and consequently widely different interests than the rest of the population. Different interest and points of view can be good and in fact essential, but the ones developed through the human for-profit so far.

This is not to say that the majority of the population have an answer - they don't. They are largely uneducated and those that are educated are educated to be uneducated.

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


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

ClockCat wrote:

 

That is hilarious btw.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
"How many Libertarians does

"How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
 

"None. The Market will take care of it."

 

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


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
And socialism is great!!

And socialism is great!! Hey, you go bust your ass so I don't have to, and I'll just get paid from the state off of your back and labor!! Poor unfortunate people, I'm a person so I deserve something regardless of my own efforts. Entitlements dammit!!!! Why should I have to work? Let's all just quit working and live off the government, or we can all just work for the government...1984 was a great year..How brilliant!!


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
And why is it that people

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:And socialism is

Big E wrote:

And socialism is great!! Hey, you go bust your ass so I don't have to, and I'll just get paid from the state off of your back and labor!! Poor unfortunate people, I'm a person so I deserve something regardless of my own efforts. Entitlements dammit!!!! Why should I have to work? Let's all just quit working and live off the government, or we can all just work for the government...1984 was a great year..How brilliant!!

And another strawman goes down!


 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


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

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:

And socialism is great!! Hey, you go bust your ass so I don't have to, and I'll just get paid from the state off of your back and labor!! Poor unfortunate people, I'm a person so I deserve something regardless of my own efforts. Entitlements dammit!!!! Why should I have to work? Let's all just quit working and live off the government, or we can all just work for the government...1984 was a great year..How brilliant!!

And another strawman goes down!

 

 

Nice retort...Highly intellectual. I'm not sure I've ever even seen a decent argument from you. It's all baseless nonsense. I don't even take you seriously, could be why you have the sig you do. Strawman..I'll be dat!!

 


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Nice

Big E wrote:
Nice retort...Highly intellectual. I'm not sure I've ever even seen a decent argument from you. It's all baseless nonsense. I don't even take you seriously, could be why you have the sig you do. Strawman..I'll be dat!!
You kinda suck at the whole "I'm gonna ignore you now" thing, don't you?

 

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


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

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
Nice retort...Highly intellectual. I'm not sure I've ever even seen a decent argument from you. It's all baseless nonsense. I don't even take you seriously, could be why you have the sig you do. Strawman..I'll be dat!!
You kinda suck at the whole "I'm gonna ignore you now" thing, don't you?

 

 

You kinda suck at the whole "Life" thing, don't you?


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:You kinda suck

Big E wrote:
You kinda suck at the whole "Life" thing, don't you?
I metabolize better than you do! Sticking out tongue

 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


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

Deadly Fingergun wrote:

Big E wrote:
You kinda suck at the whole "Life" thing, don't you?
I metabolize better than you do! Sticking out tongue

 

I do alright.  Though I tend to cheat nature at times.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:And why is it

Big E wrote:

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.

But it seems you hold the position that each person is a community - "I'm doing fine so my community is also"

 

"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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Big E wrote:

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.

But it seems you hold the position that each person is a community - "I'm doing fine so my community is also"

 

I'M not sure if you're saying you as in ME or the party. I don't think I've ever said anything along those lines. I know that a community is a collective group and it's necessary that we function as such. Unfortunately in these times I don't think we really have that. I also think that Libertarianism supports that need. Socialism on the other hand get's rid of the need for community involvement because the state will handle everything and you don't need the community. Forgive me if this is blabber, I'm a bit under the weather, but I'm trying to make a point.


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

Big E wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Big E wrote:

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.

But it seems you hold the position that each person is a community - "I'm doing fine so my community is also"

 

I'M not sure if you're saying you as in ME or the party. I don't think I've ever said anything along those lines. I know that a community is a collective group and it's necessary that we function as such. Unfortunately in these times I don't think we really have that. I also think that Libertarianism supports that need. Socialism on the other hand get's rid of the need for community involvement because the state will handle everything and you don't need the community. Forgive me if this is blabber, I'm a bit under the weather, but I'm trying to make a point.

Not blabber at all. Doesn't socialism say that the state=the community? Sounds like your confusing socialism with totalitarianism.

"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


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

jcgadfly wrote:

Big E wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Big E wrote:

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.

But it seems you hold the position that each person is a community - "I'm doing fine so my community is also"

 

I'M not sure if you're saying you as in ME or the party. I don't think I've ever said anything along those lines. I know that a community is a collective group and it's necessary that we function as such. Unfortunately in these times I don't think we really have that. I also think that Libertarianism supports that need. Socialism on the other hand get's rid of the need for community involvement because the state will handle everything and you don't need the community. Forgive me if this is blabber, I'm a bit under the weather, but I'm trying to make a point.

Not blabber at all. Doesn't socialism say that the state=the community? Sounds like your confusing socialism with totalitarianism.

Maybe I'm kind of fusing the two. I just don't think that the state should be in charge of everything and I'm against nationalisation. Maybe I should look further into Libertarian socialism. One thing I know for sure is that I'm against government control and dispensary.


 


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Big E (duno what your views

Big E (duno what your views are but I just read your post above so sorry if I got you wrong) , EXC and others I have some questions If you don't mind. I know the situations where I live are differant to where you live but hey try picture things from a differant situation. Maybe you will come to the conclusion that maybe the government interfering isn't bad in all situations?

 

just so you know South Africa has a population of roughly 50 million I think

 

In south Africa we have minimum 7 million living shacks. That is a very conserative number. I couldn't find a number for totally homeless

About 50% of the country live below the poverty line.

we have an estimated HIV infection of 28% of the total population most are among the ages where you are ment to be working. There are also millions of aids orphans.

We have 20% unemployment rate... if you take away tempary employment you willl see why 50% are under the poverty line.

ooohh I almost for got only around 14% of the population pays tax.

We also have almost daily service delivery protests... they even protested the price of food... god know who they were protesting as we have laws preventing inflated prices of food. I think they were just protesting in general...

 

Should the south African government just get out of the way? Should they not build houses for those people? Should they not provide free healthcare... at least 50% of the populations wouldn't be able to get healthcare if everyone had to pay. Should the government let aids sort its self out? Should the governmentnot worry about the aids orphans, They should of had health insurance!? With so many people unemploied should the government not try create employment? Yes they have a very limited budget to deal with these problems but it is better than not dealing with them.

 

In America yeah maybe a small government would be good in places and bad in others but I think here government intervention is required to keep the country on its feet. This is where my views come from, the situation is differant in America so don't take this as me attacking you as differant situations require differant answers. But say you were in this situation would you want the government not to interfere?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:And why is it

Big E wrote:

And why is it that people think that Libertarians have no sense of community? It's quite the opposite. We expect community involvement and feel that it's absolutely necessary for a society to thrive.

How ironic that you complain about people who don't know how Libertarianism works only to do the exact same thing yourself with Socialism. That's what we call hypocrisy. Pot, meet kettle. At least EXC has arguments, even if 80% of them are strawmen. When you can explain why the USSR and China never used Socialism, you'll be in a better position to argue against it. Until then you should stick to defending Libertarianism without using Socialism to do so, because I'll call you out every time. I won't call you an arrogant prick either, at least not until you call me one. I'll let the last one slide, because you confuse confidence with arrogance.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Show me when I called you

Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick, it never happened so you can't. So go ahead and let the non existent slide. Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions. Forgive me for being crass, but I just don't care what a bunch of people I don't know think of me. Sure, I may not be as educated as some of you on certain topics, but I'm willing to learn. which isn't easy to do when people talk shit and talk down to you like you're a fucking idiot. So from here on, this will be my last post in this fucking place. Thanks for the hospitality, peace.


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

Big E wrote:

Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick, it never happened so you can't. So go ahead and let the non existent slide. Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions. Forgive me for being crass, but I just don't care what a bunch of people I don't know think of me. Sure, I may not be as educated as some of you on certain topics, but I'm willing to learn. which isn't easy to do when people talk shit and talk down to you like you're a fucking idiot. So from here on, this will be my last post in this fucking place. Thanks for the hospitality, peace.

 

I don't think anyone has called you an idiot. Some people have called you ignorant on topics, but thats about it.

 

If you change your mind you are always welcome to post here. I would suggest listening to others a lot more and researching things said before replying, because there is always more to learn. There is nothing wrong with that, but here if anyone makes a claim they are more than likely going to have to provide evidence for that claim. Saying "I don't care what you think" doesn't validate your arguments.

 

Sorry that no one here plays with kids gloves on. I wish you the best of luck wherever you decide to go to, but anywhere on the internet you are going to need thicker skin or you are going to find yourself without many places to talk freely without getting upset at something someone else said that disagrees with you.

 

Still, thanks for coming. Best of luck in your endeavors Mr. E. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It's not unusual for

 From CC's link in the other thread -

American Medical News wrote:

It's not unusual for executives to promise that profitability will take priority over membership growth. Some of Aetna's competitors are taking similar steps in 2010 and have done so in the past.

Angela Braly, WellPoint's president and CEO, told investors and analysts in 2008 that the company "would not sacrifice profitability for membership."

 

"Sense of community" as defined by capitalism. (emphasis is my own)

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Small story/analogy, since

Small story/analogy, since I've been burning the midnight candle (and am sick as a dog, doped-up on Advil liquid gels) working on an InDesign indie-RPG project for the night courses I'm taking:

During a collaborative workshop session when designing board games or role playing games, the three words you can most often expect to hear are, "Where's my system for that?"

Someone is either directly playtesting your early draft or proposing a hypothetical play situation and wants to perform a particular action, but can't find rules for it in your game. So, of course, you need to take notes and patch up the system in some way (either with new rules or, more commonly, by making already existing rules more broad).

 

...So (as a hypothetical), I'm living in Canada, or the United States, or Japan, or Germany, or Britain, or France, or... well, almost any industrialized country, really - and I am the absolute object of Libertarian enmity. I am lazy, I mostly enjoy sleeping and partying and I am so utterly disinterested in doing work or making money, though I am immensely interested in living.

So, where's my system for that?

Of course, there is no present system for that - and so the person is dehumanized (declared a "bum&quotEye-wink so that everyone can feel better about condemning them to starvation, ostracization and vagrancy. The average libertarian will probably tell me that the person in question 'should' go and get a job (naturally, without giving any explanation as to why their lifestyle is the one that must be adhered to), but that's not a solution. 

 

As a not so hypothetical, I live in Canada, and am pretty much the absolute object of libertarian enmity. I am lazy, I sleep in; I don't really party much (social anxiety), and am interested in doing productive things, but not anything that will produce anything more than superficial color & entertainment. 

So, where's my system for that?

Again, there isn't one. I imagine that libertarians are pretty okay with that. 

 

I don't get that.

 

It's not okay for anyone to tell Alison or EXC or Jormungander what the limits of the clout that their ambition & energy earns them, but it is definitely okay for them to drive the gavel down on anyone's skull that they feel isn't leading the life that they feel they ought to be leading. Not awarded much charisma, physical stamina or sense of urgency in the genetic lottery? Well, tough shit for you - go leech off of your parents, forage through city refuse or join a gang of predators to live our the rest of your miserable days.

I opted for the first option. 

Talk about fulfilling.

 

A broom closet, some wi-fi, some genic brand Cola and some fucking co-op Chicken Weiners. That'd be perfect, and I can't imagine how it would be 'too expensive' to provide (...and here I though Alison was so fond of numbers?). I love EXC's dramatization of the ensuing population explosion that would result, as though I'd somehow have girls rotating in and out of my shitty little apartment (Yeah. Chicks totally dig guys with no money, no car and no ambition!), and 'Big E's woes about how this would cheapen the value of everything he earns through work, as though driving around in whatever monstrous luxury vehicle he owns, lounging in whatever full-sized home he owns and spending his wages at the titty bar every Friday are somehow on equal grounds with being couped-up in an apartment with a mini-fridge full of hot dogs.

Of course, that's not how they want to frame the issue. They want to frame it as the lazy, inhuman bums stealing their money and living on Yachts, banging models and chomping on cuban cigars. And that damn gubmitt's their tool for doing it!

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
For the sake of being an

For the sake of being an asshole:

Vastet wrote:
I won't call you an arrogant prick either, at least not until you call me one. I'll let the last one slide, because you confuse confidence with arrogance.

Big E wrote:
Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick, it never happened so you can't. So go ahead and let the non existent slide.

Drum roll!

Big E wrote:
I'll take my drivel elsewhere, because frankly, I can't understand how people can tolerate half of you arrogant pricks.

I LOVE the fact that what gets written here stays around for a while.

Big E wrote:
Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions.
But you care enough to keep going on about it.

Quote:
Forgive me for being crass, but I just don't care what a bunch of people I don't know think of me.
That's crass?  What about your prodigious use of expletives?  There's far more crass things than announcing (again) that you don't care what we think of you, even if, from what I can tell, people have only responded to your words and said nothing about your person.

Quote:
Sure, I may not be as educated as some of you on certain topics, but I'm willing to learn. which isn't easy to do when people talk shit and talk down to you like you're a fucking idiot. So from here on, this will be my last post in this fucking place. Thanks for the hospitality, peace.
Really?  You're actually gone?  Just like that?  And were you really willing to learn?  That seems difficult to believe.  Bye bye.

(I bet he'd fit in better on Richard Dawkins' site.)

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."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote: "Sense of

Eloise wrote:

 "Sense of community" as defined by capitalism. (emphasis is my own)

But at least Aetna can pay their bills and make payroll on time with this approach.

Is the socialist sense of community then we all starve together? No thanks.

 

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


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

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

 "Sense of community" as defined by capitalism. (emphasis is my own)

But at least Aetna can pay their bills and make payroll on time with this approach.

Is the socialist sense of community then we all starve together? No thanks.

 

EXC, I'm not going to answer this silly propagandist rhetoric again so make sure you're listening carefully.

 

COSTS DO NOT COME OUT OF PROFIT!

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

EXC wrote:

Eloise wrote:

 "Sense of community" as defined by capitalism. (emphasis is my own)

But at least Aetna can pay their bills and make payroll on time with this approach.

Is the socialist sense of community then we all starve together? No thanks.

 

 

Wow. Failure at a most basic understanding of finance.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

EXC, I have a question for you (or anyone willing to argue for the sake of libertarians).

 

Could you do without any public services? 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:EXC, I have a

ClockCat wrote:

EXC, I have a question for you (or anyone willing to argue for the sake of libertarians).

 

Could you do without any public services? 

Just for clarity CC, do you mean any as in any one, which one or any as in any at all therefore none?

Or does it not matter.

just curious...

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

EXC, I have a question for you (or anyone willing to argue for the sake of libertarians).

 

Could you do without any public services? 

Just for clarity CC, do you mean any as in any one, which one or any as in any at all therefore none?

Or does it not matter.

just curious...

 

 

Any as in any at all. By removing public services they become optional, a luxury. I would have to assume that by arguing for libertarianism they are okay without any then, since they don't deem public services necessary for society. 

 

That is the reason I am asking.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

ClockCat wrote:

Eloise wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

EXC, I have a question for you (or anyone willing to argue for the sake of libertarians).

 

Could you do without any public services? 

Just for clarity CC, do you mean any as in any one, which one or any as in any at all therefore none?

Or does it not matter.

just curious...

 

 

Any as in any at all. By removing public services they become optional, a luxury. I would have to assume that by arguing for libertarianism they are okay without any then, since they don't deem public services necessary for society. 

 

That is the reason I am asking.

Ahh, so are they OK with tolling points at every single intersection to account for the maintenance needed on every street and pathway in existence, up to 90% of the population getting home-schooled by high school dropouts... are they OK with that world? Yeah I'd also like to know.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
With respect, this is a sort

With respect, this is a sort of silly argument: 90% of the population being home-schooled by high-school dropouts? You can do better than that mathematical inconsistency. You do make interesting points as concerns home-schooling, though. I had the misfortune to live in South Carolina for five years where the public educational system is a joke (don't worry, I paid exorbitant property taxes for a failed system during the years that I lived there). We had considered homeschooling our child for that time (which would have increased my workday to ~19hours), but instead found a private school that met our criteria. I am not attempting to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be enamored of public projects. Recognizing that you and I are separated by continents, do you believe that education should be the province of the government?

Looking forward to your reply,

UE.

 


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

Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:

With respect, this is a sort of silly argument: 90% of the population being home-schooled by high-school dropouts? You can do better than that mathematical inconsistency.

With respect, freely returned, UE, I'll point out that I said "up to" 90% which is mathematically consistent for the negative extreme over the long term. I did deliberately leave out a figure for the lower bound to increase the impact of the statement, so fair call on the 'silly' it was deliberately a little sensationalised.

UnrepentantElitist wrote:

You do make interesting points as concerns home-schooling, though. I had the misfortune to live in South Carolina for five years where the public educational system is a joke (don't worry, I paid exorbitant property taxes for a failed system during the years that I lived there).

I imagine that you did indeed, the PISA results of 2003 demonstrated well that education levels are not ordinate with the amount of money spent on education by the country. The US spent the most and ranked very low for it.

But PISA good news for both socialists and libertarians alike, I'd say, as it indicates good education outcomes correlating with interested governments and low to moderate spending.

UnrepentantElitist wrote:

Recognizing that you and I are separated by continents, do you believe that education should be the province of the government?

Yes I do, only for the fact that economic inequality exists and will continue to exist. If the public level of education is to be dictated by economic forces especially where economic inequality is a necessity and, moreover, a boon, then educational inequality is simply guaranteed, right?  So for parity in education another player is absolutely necessary, and I think I prefer educational parity (reinforced by so many tales I hear from your side of the pacific).

The fact that I live in Australia where the public are all fairly equally educated is probably a strong influence on my opinion, but I can't see how it can necessarily be a bad one. 

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:

...

 

So would you be okay living without any public services? If you are taking the stance to defend libertarianism, that is. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Wow. Failure

ClockCat wrote:

Wow. Failure at a most basic understanding of finance.

Yet we still fail to see CC or any other socialist start a non-profit co-op to provide health coverage they way they want it to work. Why is that? No one is putting a gun to your head to stop you. If you're all such finance geniuses, why can't you all get a voluntary socialist health care network started?

You have all this leftist propaganda about how things should be, yet none of you take the initiative to make it happen. The investors in Aetna put up their own money to get it started, so now they would like a payoff for putting their money at risk. There are not a charity.

If you have this strong sense of community, then start and donate to a charity that provides health coverage. You don't because we all know how phony your leftist 'compassion' really is.

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


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:EXC, I have a

ClockCat wrote:

EXC, I have a question for you (or anyone willing to argue for the sake of libertarians).

 

Could you do without any public services? 

Like I've explained, public services or public servant is pretty much a BS concept. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'public service' because something like the electric company is a regulated private enterprise. And every business must be regulated to the exent they don't commit fraud or pose a health danger.

I'm not an anarchist. There needs to be elected administrators that must answer to taxpayers and the public. But you've never explained why we can't just have a small group of elected and accountable administrators that hire and fire companies to provide services that everyone pays for as they go. There is nothing magical about a 'public' servant.

There's actually very few places that are 'public' as in anyone can visit there for free. If you go to any national or state park, you pay an entrance fee to pay for the 'public services' in the park. But the same is true if I visit an private amusement park, so I'm not sure what the real distiction is other than one is supposed to be non-profit.

If you live in a gated community and you pay for all it services, you have an administration and security to enforce it's rules. I have no problems being on a cruise ship with private services. The 'public' roads are usually OK because they are paid for in fees for using them(gas tax, registration), unless the politicans spend the money on other things.

The only places I have a problem with are 'public' areas where there is no fee to enter and use. If I go to the streets of San Francisco, I encounter a lot of homeless that urinate and deficate in the streets and create crime problems. Same is true if I visit a no-fee beach. The state had to make a lot of beaches have a fee entrance otherwise they'd be overrun with homeless that would do damage and never pay.

So what I'm in favor of is eliminating the few areas that are left that are free and not pay as you go. Raise taxes on land and other natural resource usage to pay for social services that get the homeless into jobs that can enable them to pay for what they use(like security, heathcare and a toilet).

 

“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
I honestly have no idea wtf

I honestly have no idea wtf EXC is on about, anymore


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Show me when I called you

"Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick"

Thomathy beat me to it. Smiling

"Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions."

Yeah, like you're the only one with problems. Here's a news flash for you: I couldn't care LESS about your uneducated opinions and hypocrisy wrapped in insults and conspiracy theories. Next time you want to discuss something with someone, I suggest you actually learn about the subject first. And when you're told you're wrong about something, instead of taking it personally, find out if you are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Just proving he doesn't

Just proving he doesn't understand and is unwilling to try. There are road blocks in his head.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:I

The Doomed Soul wrote:

I honestly have no idea wtf EXC is on about, anymore

Maybe you can explain to me then because I don't understand. I lived in a private community on a lake. The guards didn't let anyone in unless you owned property, paid the administration bill or you were a guest. We had 'public' areas and public facilities, but we still had 'private' property. Everyone paid for the services they used via the administration bill. The guards enforced the community rules. So were all these services public or private?''

Seems like the only difference between our community and those on the outside was that we didn't allow people to come and use the land, facilities and services without paying  the bill for them. That's why these communities are popular.

The distinction between public and private has become that one allows you to get free services, the other makes you pay for what you use. But then when the government goes broke, they force you to pay just like a private entity. That's why our broke governments raise public university tuition and charge user fees for parks and services now. Non pay as you go systems can't be maintained.

So how do I answer CC's question about what 'public' services could I live without when I lived in a private community? In this case what services were 'public' and what was 'private'?

Seems like the more important question is 'How can a system be maintained that allows those receiving the benefits of a service to be continually subsidized by those that receive little or no benefit?'

 

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


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

EXC wrote:

Seems like the more important question is 'How can a system be maintained that allows those receiving the benefits of a service to be continually subsidized by those that receive little or no benefit?'

 

You're assuming that it needs to be maintained in that state based on the inaccurate sociology I, already, called you out on several pages back in this thread.  So... for petes sake, read the links I gave you. This argument does not hold water, socialism does not breed, nor perpetuate, laziness.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Show me when I

Vastet wrote:
"Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick" Thomathy beat me to it. Smiling "Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions." Yeah, like you're the only one with problems. Here's a news flash for you: I couldn't care LESS about your uneducated opinions and hypocrisy wrapped in insults and conspiracy theories. Next time you want to discuss something with someone, I suggest you actually learn about the subject first. And when you're told you're wrong about something, instead of taking it personally, find out if you are.

 

I said to show where I called you specifically an arrogant prick. It never happened,  so the only thing Thomathy beat you to was showing a general statement I made. You can't show me because I NEVER said it. Just because my opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you right, it means we have a difference of opinion. I've seen very little fact about anything, just peoples own personal opinions. And just to add, though I shouldn't have to because I've said it once already, I don't take opinions or opposing views personally, I take personal attacks personally.


Big E
Big E's picture
Posts: 129
Joined: 2009-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:For the sake

Thomathy wrote:

For the sake of being an asshole:

Vastet wrote:
I won't call you an arrogant prick either, at least not until you call me one. I'll let the last one slide, because you confuse confidence with arrogance.

Big E wrote:
Show me when I called you specifically an arrogant prick, it never happened so you can't. So go ahead and let the non existent slide.

Drum roll!

Big E wrote:
I'll take my drivel elsewhere, because frankly, I can't understand how people can tolerate half of you arrogant pricks.

I LOVE the fact that what gets written here stays around for a while.

Big E wrote:
Furthermore, I have far too much more important shit going on in my life to give a FLYING FUCK what any of you perfect strangers think of me or my opinions.
But you care enough to keep going on about it.

Quote:
Forgive me for being crass, but I just don't care what a bunch of people I don't know think of me.
That's crass?  What about your prodigious use of expletives?  There's far more crass things than announcing (again) that you don't care what we think of you, even if, from what I can tell, people have only responded to your words and said nothing about your person.

Quote:
Sure, I may not be as educated as some of you on certain topics, but I'm willing to learn. which isn't easy to do when people talk shit and talk down to you like you're a fucking idiot. So from here on, this will be my last post in this fucking place. Thanks for the hospitality, peace.
Really?  You're actually gone?  Just like that?  And were you really willing to learn?  That seems difficult to believe.  Bye bye.

(I bet he'd fit in better on Richard Dawkins' site.)

Drum roll....I know you're not stupid, you've made that clear, but it is stupid to think that you've proven something when you haven't You quote me as calling Vastet an arrogant prick, when clearly I didn't, it was a general statement towards this board.

People calling me ignorant not only is a response to my posts, but also to my person.

And questioning my willingness to learn because I said I didn't want to stick around here really? The vast majority of what I've seen here is all based on opinion. Educated opinions sure, some more than others, and some just sound educated because of the language used. I've been atacked for not providing evidence for some of my opinions, even though I have, and it became clear to me that if the opinion of another doesn't jive, then members here don't even bother to look at the evidence provided. Furthermore, I've admitted when I lack education on something and then get attacked for that. This board is very unwelcoming and not deserving of the title friendly neighborhood atheist activists. It's not so friendly. Anyway, I know I'll catch shit for saying I wasn't posting anymore, and then posting, whatever. There are a few things about this place I like, so while I'll certainly refrain from posting for the most part, I'm still going to lurk.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Big E wrote:Drum roll....I

Big E wrote:
Drum roll....I know you're not stupid, you've made that clear, but it is stupid to think that you've proven something when you haven't You quote me as calling Vastet an arrogant prick, when clearly I didn't, it was a general statement towards this board.
Damn, you're still here.  So, you made a remark, intended generally for the board and it is not also directed at Vastet?  Look up the word contradictory and try to take it lightly.

Quote:
And just to add, though I shouldn't have to because I've said it once already, I don't take opinions or opposing views personally, I take personal attacks personally.
...and learn the difference between these two things.

You know what, you should stay around.  You really, really should.  I won't give you slack for saying that you weren't coming back.  I've been baited myself to post in threads I said I'd left.  Don't just stay and lurk either.  You ought to post, even if your posts get ripped up (and they haven't all, have they?).  Just try to actually rip up those responses too; don't just call your arrogant prick of an interlocutor names.  I very much doubt if you'd be worse at responding intelligently than EXC, and that really is high praise.  Stick around, because if there's anything you like, it's why you're still here letting us know about it.

Now, 'anyone know why debating politics FAILS?  (A: Read this thread.)

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."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10371
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"So the only thing Thomathy

"So the only thing Thomathy beat you to was showing a general statement I made."

A generalisation of the entire forum, of which I am a part. Whether or not I'm actually an arrogant prick, it's generally bad form to throw out generalisations. People here get called out on assertions, myself included. The standard assertion is from theists. But noone knows everything, and occasionally passion impedes logic, so I'm quite sure most of the posters have been called on a inaccuracy before. You're not supposed to take offense to it. Though if someone flat out calls you an idiot, you can take offense to that.

"Just because my opinion isn't the same as yours doesn't make me wrong, nor does it make you right, it means we have a difference of opinion."

True.

"And just to add, though I shouldn't have to because I've said it once already, I don't take opinions or opposing views personally, I take personal attacks personally."

You and me both.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.