Political Hypocrisy

Zero
Website Admin
Zero's picture
Posts: 52
Joined: 2006-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Political Hypocrisy

To start out this section of the forum with something meaty, I'm going to ask a pretty serious question:

Why do people that say they believe in liberty and freedom think it's ok to steal money and coerce others for "the greater good?" I"m talking about today's "liberals" in particular: Why do they hate the idea of Republicans abridging their personal freedoms like freedom of speech...but have no problem with the state abridging their economic freedoms, like a right to privacy and a right to own and trade goods without government intrusion?

I'm honestly flabergasted that people think that it is sometimes ok to steal and enslave. Can some liberals help me understand how you are able to RATIONALLY justify this hypocritical behavior?

..zero..
href="http://www.doubledoh.com" title="DoubleDoh Shirts" alt="DoubleDoh Shirts">DoubleDoh


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:"I don't

MattShizzle wrote:
"I don't support stealing a fish to feed a poor man for a day. I'd rather donate my time to teach the poor man to fish."

Didn't you ever hear that saying whoever said "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat forever" must have never gone fishing?

Didn't you ever here that stealing the fisherman's fish to feed people who cannot or will not fish is no fair way to treat the fisherman or give him incentive to keep fishing? Will you counter this with "A a bad day at fishing is better than a good day at work" even though the job in question is fishing?

How far can we pervert this ridiculous metapor? Laughing out loud

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:How

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
How far can we pervert this ridiculous metapor? :lol:

Don't ask. You might find out.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I know I could never change

I know I could never change any of your minds. I know that your doctrine is "sound", and it has proven the test of time. Ever since the first manifest-destined, motherfucker drew an imaginary line around a plot of earth and said, "This is mine!", "Fuck the rest of you, I don't know what the rest of you are gonna do, but this land is mine. Everything on it is mine. Fuck the rest of all the creatures that are currently living here. It's not part of any ecosystem anymore. This land was given to human's by god, and this plot, It's mine!" Then someone else said, "That's a good idea. Hey, this lot is mine."
"And this one's mine." Until it was all claimed, and the only way to grow your own food was to work for someone else on their land.
Yeah, Feudalism!
Then, hey, look, we found more land. A new world. People live there, but they have no concept of land ownership. Let's trick them into "selling" the land to us. Make them play by our rules, the savages. Until finally, pretty much everything was owned by someone.
This phenomenon is cutural, and not universally human.
Capitalism is the newest evolutionary step in a dynasty of Feudalism. Something that a majority of the Native American's (just one ethnic example out of many), resisted until they were almost annhilated. Capitalism is a strong culture. Stronger than any religion could ever be. Noone could ever dispute it's dominance. I may have to live under it, but I don't have to accept it as the way things ought to be. Nor do I think it's the way things have to be. I will forever at least question it's foundations and seek alternatives.
I can completely agree that under Capitalism, capital maybe a little more accessable to the average person than it was under feudalism, but the whole idea is broken. Capitalism is a baby step in the right direction, but really just a cop-out. I prefer socalism as an 'attempt' to return to a prefeudal system. I realize that I'm breaking it down to just land, but agriculture is where it all started. It should really go beyond that now.
And, as long as there are people who are willing to claim a majority of the earth and it's resourses, through whatever system you want to justify it with, there will always be a group of people that advocate "theft". Even though the entire idea of possession (beyond the territorial behaviors of several species) is completely a human invention. Just a bunch of monkees fighting over the dogma of ownership.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:I know I

ShadowOfMan wrote:
I know I could never change any of your minds. I know that your doctrine is "sound", and it has proven the test of time. Ever since the first manifest-destined, motherfucker drew an imaginary line around a plot of earth and said, "This is mine!", "Fuck the rest of you, I don't know what the rest of you are gonna do, but this land is mine. Everything on it is mine. Fuck the rest of all the creatures that are currently living here. It's not part of any ecosystem anymore. This land was given to human's by god, and this plot, It's mine!" Then someone else said, "That's a good idea. Hey, this lot is mine."
"And this one's mine." Until it was all claimed, and the only way to grow your own food was to work for someone else on their land.
Yeah, Feudalism!

Claiming land by nations is feudalism.

Claiming land by individuals is necessary for industrialized society. Read about the "tragedy of the commons". It's essentially that when people do not own land, they have no reason to take care of it. Hence, land is overfarmed, over grazed, overdeforested, et cetera, with no attempts made to preserve or restore the land.

Quote:
Then, hey, look, we found more land. A new world. People live there, but they have no concept of land ownership. Let's trick them into "selling" the land to us. Make them play by our rules, the savages. Until finally, pretty much everything was owned by someone.

Ownership of land was not necessary because resources were not scarce enough. The human population was low enough that even if the land was left uncaredfor as much as necessary to sustain the population, it would have no effect.

Quote:
This phenomenon is cutural, and not universally human.

The phenomenon of land ownership correlates with culture only so far as culture corellates with industry and only so far as industry leads to consumption so far as increased consumption leads to scarcity and thus it becomes necessary to have control over land to ensure avoidance of the tragedy of the commons.

Quote:
Capitalism is the newest evolutionary step in a dynasty of Feudalism. Something that a majority of the Native American's (just one ethnic example out of many), resisted until they were almost annhilated.

I am not saying that the natives deserved near annihilation for their beliefs about land ownership, but they were wrong to believe they could hold onto a system of no land ownership and that it would be preferable to land ownership.

Quote:
Capitalism is a strong culture. Stronger than any religion could ever be.

Wrong, capitalism is an economic system which is conductive to industry, high standards of living, and relative comfort.

Quote:
Noone could ever dispute it's dominance.

Capitalism in terms of the practice of land ownership, yes. Capitalism in terms of the free market (which is what I am talking about when I say capitalism), no. Capitalism is essentailly nonexistant today, and so cannot be said to be dominant.

Quote:
I may have to live under it, but I don't have to accept it as the way things ought to be. Nor do I think it's the way things have to be. I will forever at least question it's foundations and seek alternatives.

I assume you mean capitalism in the sense of private ownership of land. You do not have to live under it. You are only required to live under it so long as it forces you to, and the only way it forces you to is via national ownership of territory, which I am opposed to as well. You should be free, in my opinion, to join with a thousand others, buy land, then collectivize it among yourselves and abolish ownership in it. Within your sphere, which you would not have to interact with the outside world to maintain, as you would today with property taxes, you would be free to attempt any economic or ownership system you believe is best. Fight for my definition of capitalism, and you will be able to escape your definition of capitalism. Ironic, but true.

Quote:
I can completely agree that under Capitalism, capital maybe a little more accessable to the average person than it was under feudalism, but the whole idea is broken. Capitalism is a baby step in the right direction, but really just a cop-out.

Please provide evidence supporting these assertions of it being broken or a cop-out.

Quote:
I prefer socalism as an 'attempt' to return to a prefeudal system.

Insofar as feudalism is ownership of land, you can only escape from feudalism under georgism (see Henry George) or left-anarchism.

Quote:
I realize that I'm breaking it down to just land, but agriculture is where it all started. It should really go beyond that now.

Ownership of land is prerequisite to moving beyond agrarian society and into industralized society. And industrialized society is prerequisite to a world population of greater than several million. Abolition of ownership of land would reduce us inevitably back to a population of millions.

Quote:
And, as long as there are people who are willing to claim a majority of the earth and it's resourses, through whatever system you want to justify it with, there will always be a group of people that advocate "theft".

This is a nonsequitur. You haven't mentioned theft at all before this point and then somehow try to connect it to justify it.

Quote:
Even though the entire idea of possession (beyond the territorial behaviors of several species) is completely a human invention. Just a bunch of monkees fighting over the dogma of ownership.

This is actually false.
First I have to make a distinction. "Possession" is momentary control. "Ownership" extends beyond momentary. So for example, when you pick an apple, you are said to "possess" it. It is in your control. Should you put it down, it is no longer in your possession. However, you can retain ownership as long as you do not abandon it or give it away. For example, if you and a friend are in the woods and you pick an apple, put it down, go do something else, and come back to find you apple has been eaten, you might be somewhat mad at them, as you owned the apple, though it was not in your possession.

Dolphins have been observed to practice posession and ownership. For example, if one dolphin is playing with a toy, other dolphins will not try to take that toy from the dolphin that possesses it. Should the dolphin abandon it, other dolphins may take possession of the toy. In an experiment I read about, three dolphins in one tank were each given their own individual food sources. Push a button, a fish pops out. Well each dolphin only ate food out of it's particular source, and didn't get food out of the others. When experimenters deactivated two of the buttons, two of the dolphins went hungry for a while until the third dolphin, realizing the others were hungry, gave it's fish to the other dolphins.

Thus, possession and ownership cannot be said to be exclusively human.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Claiming land by

Quote:
Claiming land by nations is feudalism.

I completely, whole-heartedly disagree with this statement, because it ignores the wide varieties of 'nations' or governments. Fuedalism is the private ownership of land, whether it is by government officials, e.i. kings, lords, ect., or civilians.
When the government is a true democracy, and is by the people, for the people, ect., than government land is publicly owned by all, like a national park.
Quote:
It's essentially that when people do not own land, they have no reason to take care of it. Hence, land is overfarmed, over grazed, overdeforested, et cetera, with no attempts made to preserve or restore the land.

There are policies in place to keep people from doing all these things to public land, and rangers to enforce these laws. Some people just like to fuck things up, but you can't say that everyone would. And you also can't say that private ownership protects land from these environmentally destructive practices. They are going on on private properties all over the world, across America (except in public parks).
Quote:
Ownership of land was not necessary because resources were not scarce enough. The human population was low enough that even if the land was left uncaredfor as much as necessary to sustain the population, it would have no effect.

I have no idea what you just said!
Humans culturally moved from nomads, to territorial tribes, to a convienient cultural idea of ownership. We organize this through a system of titles and reciepts, written in a common language, and protected by a government. The problem is that there is no limit to the amount that one can own. And we are talking about land. The earth. No one owns it. The dinosaurs didn't own it, and neither does a bunch of monkeys. The Native Americans understood this. Land ownership was a stupid idea to them. Just like the Bolivians thought it was stupid when a private company, Bechtel, 'bought' all the water in Bolivia. They were actually fining people for collecting rain water as an alternative to paying for there product. VIVA Evo Morales!
Quote:
Wrong, capitalism is an economic system which is conductive to industry, high standards of living, and relative comfort.

Ok, capitalism is strong economic system. An economic system, literaly 'house management system' that is chosen by a culture organize the distibution of wealth.
Quote:
I assume you mean capitalism in the sense of private ownership of land. You do not have to live under it. You are only required to live under it so long as it forces you to, and the only way it forces you to is via national ownership of territory, which I am opposed to as well. You should be free, in my opinion, to join with a thousand others, buy land, then collectivize it among yourselves and abolish ownership in it.
Yes, capitalism concerning land ownership is my biggest complaint. And , yes, I do have to live under it, unless I want to be homeless. My landlord owns my house. So I have to pay a private feudal lord in order to live in a house. Or I have to His property taxes are an attempt to return to the public what he legally stoled from us through the economic system of capitalism. You should be free, in my opinion, to individually take a reasonable lot of land (maybe up to 5 acres), preferably from someone with too much of it, and live tax free on that land.
Quote:
Please provide evidence supporting these assertions of it being broken or a cop-out.

I'm trying. I'm trying.
Quote:
Insofar as feudalism is ownership of land, you can only escape from feudalism under georgism (see Henry George) or left-anarchism.

Does this fit into you liberatarian ideas? Land belongs equally to all humanity?
Quote:
Ownership of land is prerequisite to moving beyond agrarian society and into industralized society. And industrialized society is prerequisite to a world population of greater than several million. Abolition of ownership of land would reduce us inevitably back to a population of millions.

Sweet Evil Jesus, a boy can dream! Overpopulation is in my opinion the root of all evil when it comes to enviromental destruction, the spread of disease, ect, ect. Maybe even SOME war and crime issues. The Christians love it. so that really makes me weary.
Quote:
This is a nonsequitur. You haven't mentioned theft at all before this point and then somehow try to connect it to justify it.

Well, isn't this the main topic of this thread? Tax being theft?
What have I misunderstood?
Quote:
"Possession" is momentary control. "Ownership" extends beyond momentary.

I agree with this completely. Though I would argue that while you could own the land through title, you can't really possess the land more than what you could territorily defend by pissing on it or something. Same for the tank you may be swimming in. The dolphins in your example are showing extraordinary behavior, no doubt! It was only three of them though. It's pretty easy to get along like that in such a small group.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone watched or read

Has anyone watched or read anything by Bill Still, the conspiracy theorist? Just wondering what you thought about his interpretations of the Fed and the gold standard, globalization, and the consolidation of powers. The Rothchild Family! Google video search for "The Money Masters". Interesting perspective I think.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Has anyone

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Has anyone watched or read anything by Bill Still, the conspiracy theorist? Just wondering what you thought about his interpretations of the Fed and the gold standard, globalization, and the consolidation of powers. The Rothchild Family! Google video search for "The Money Masters". Interesting perspective I think.

Nope. Only big-name conspiracy theorist I know the name of is Alex Jones. Most conspiracy theorists are full of shit taken out of context. There is one, and only one thing I will grant to conspiracy theorists, and that's Operation Northwoods. Beyond that they stink of bullshit.

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Quote:
Claiming land by nations is feudalism.

I completely, whole-heartedly disagree with this statement, because it ignores the wide varieties of 'nations' or governments. Fuedalism is the private ownership of land, whether it is by government officials, e.i. kings, lords, ect., or civilians.
When the government is a true democracy, and is by the people, for the people, ect., than government land is publicly owned by all, like a national park.

Then everything is publicly owned by all, and you have absolutely no property. If someone steals something from you, no matter if they are rich or poor, you didn't own it in the first place, the public owned it collectively, thus you can't legitemately defend your property because it was never yours to defend, and all others have as much claim to your property, and indeed, your body, as you do. That would create a geographically limited nihilist culture where might is right. Are you a nihilist?

Quote:
There are policies in place to keep people from doing all these things to public land, and rangers to enforce these laws.

The government leases it's forests to timber companies. Lease, not sell. Problem here is the timber company wants to get in, cut as many trees as possible before the lease is up, then get out. If they owned the land, they would have to take care of it and replant it. Renters do not care for property. Owners do.

Quote:
Some people just like to fuck things up, but you can't say that everyone would.

People that just like the fuck things up should do it on their own land. If they wanna clear-cut a forest and abandon it, they should buy the forest. Then they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

Quote:
And you also can't say that private ownership protects land from these environmentally destructive practices.

Private ownership doesn't protect it. The private owner protects it. If he doesn't, he ends up with barren, unsellable land. And nobody wants to do that.

Quote:
They are going on on private properties all over the world, across America (except in public parks).

Examples? Show me an example of a privately owned forest where timber companies are just clear-cutting the entire thing.

For fuck's sake, look at the owner of anyplace that's full of litter or in bad environmental shape. The roadsides are littered with trash, and who owns the roadsides? The government. The only reason they're not worse than they are is the slave labor of convicts picking up trash.

Quote:
I have no idea what you just said!

Economic progress creates realization of scarcity. Scarcity creates ownership and exchange to allocate resources best.

Quote:
Humans culturally moved from nomads, to territorial tribes, to a convienient cultural idea of ownership. We organize this through a system of titles and reciepts, written in a common language, and protected by a government.

The government isn't needed to protect ownership of land. All I need to defend a farm is a shotgun and a fence.

Quote:
The problem is that there is no limit to the amount that one can own.

If there was a limit to the amount that one could own, it could either be arbitary, and thus invalid, or it could be zero, and nobody could own anything.

Quote:
And we are talking about land. The earth.

All things come from the earth. If we cannot own the earth, we cannot own anything. Our bodies are made of matter that came out of the ground at some point. If we cannot own the earth we cannot own crops and we cannot own food from animals and thus we can not own ouselves.

Quote:
No one owns it.

Arbitrary statement. Anything is ownable if it is scarce and valuable.

Quote:
The dinosaurs didn't own it, and neither does a bunch of monkeys.

Nonsequitur.

Quote:
The Native Americans understood this. Land ownership was a stupid idea to them.

The native american economic system had no scarcity of land. That's why it was a stupid idea. There was too much land and too few people for it to be scarce.

Quote:
Just like the Bolivians thought it was stupid when a private company, Bechtel, 'bought' all the water in Bolivia. They were actually fining people for collecting rain water as an alternative to paying for there product. VIVA Evo Morales!

Bought from the government? Fined by who, the government acting on behalf of Bechtel?

Quote:
Ok, capitalism is strong economic system. An economic system, literaly 'house management system' that is chosen by a culture organize the distibution of wealth.

No, it is not chosen by a culture to distribute wealth. It is chosen by individuals. Capitalism is economic individualism. It does not act in respect to cultures, collectives, nations, or anything, it acts in respect to individuals. A "culture" insofar as it is a collective group cannot choose capitalism. The very organization of a culture as a collective is inherently anticapitalist.

Quote:
Yes, capitalism concerning land ownership is my biggest complaint. And , yes, I do have to live under it, unless I want to be homeless.

You do not have to live under it. You can buy land and then practice an economic system in which ownership of land is abolished. It is still technically your land, but you can live as if you did not own it.

Quote:
My landlord owns my house. So I have to pay a private feudal lord in order to live in a house.

No you don't, dumbass, buy the house from him, buy the land. Feudal land ownership and Capitalist land ownership are different because under Feudalism, land was not sellable or transferable except from Lord to eldest son of the Lord or in case of theft. Under capitalism you can buy and sell land. Under capitalism it is not true that living on land owned by someone else is inevitable, as was true under feudalism. Sorta like NATIONS.

Quote:
His property taxes are an attempt to return to the public what he legally stoled from us through the economic system of capitalism.

Theft implies ownership. If you did not own the land, then he did not steal it from you, he homesteaded it or purchased it from a homesteader. And "stoled" isn't a word.

Quote:
You should be free, in my opinion, to individually take a reasonable lot of land (maybe up to 5 acres), preferably from someone with too much of it, and live tax free on that land.

That is absolutely arbitrary. Your definition of "reasonable" is arbitrary, your definition of "too much" is inherently arbitrary, and if your opinion is arbitary, it is by it's very nature invalid.

Quote:
Quote:
Insofar as feudalism is ownership of land, you can only escape from feudalism under georgism (see Henry George) or left-anarchism.

Does this fit into you liberatarian ideas? Land belongs equally to all humanity?

I have met a georgist left-anarchist calling himself a "libertarian", but he was a fucking idiot. Land doesn't belong equally to all humanity.

Quote:
Sweet Evil Jesus, a boy can dream! Overpopulation is in my opinion the root of all evil when it comes to enviromental destruction, the spread of disease, ect, ect. Maybe even SOME war and crime issues. The Christians love it. so that really makes me weary.

Overpopulation is not the cause of environmental problems. I'd also like you to define, in no arbitrary terms (i.e. not pulling a number out of your ass), how many people is too many people.

Do you want to reduce human suffering? Do you want to reduce the population? These are mutually exclusive. The population will only be reduced through suffering. Through war, disease, famine, et cetera.

Quote:
Well, isn't this the main topic of this thread? Tax being theft?
What have I misunderstood?

It was a nonsequitur because you mentioned it as if something you had said before supported it, when nothing did.

Quote:
"Possession" is momentary control. "Ownership" extends beyond momentary.

I agree with this completely. Though I would argue that while you could own the land through title, you can't really possess the land more than what you could territorily defend by pissing on it or something.

Your ownership of something is limited by your ability to control it. If you hire other people to control your land for you (though being responsible to you), you can still own more land than you can control singlehandedly.

Quote:
Same for the tank you may be swimming in. The dolphins in your example are showing extraordinary behavior, no doubt! It was only three of them though. It's pretty easy to get along like that in such a small group.

The principle is what is important. It would work with four, with five, and so on unto infinity.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:I know I

ShadowOfMan wrote:
I know I could never change any of your minds.

Sure you could. Present a cogent argument. Seems you enjoy taking cheap shots and bitching more than you care to present your own views.

I won't dignify the rest of your post with a response, as it is a disgusting perverted strawman and you and I both know it.

If you wish to have a rational discussion and are willing to leave your unfounded and misplaced hate and preconcieved notions at the door, let me know. Till then, kindly fuck off.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Sure you could.

Quote:
Sure you could. Present a cogent argument. Seems you enjoy taking cheap shots and bitching more than you care to present your own views.

I'm really, really sorry if I offended anyone at all. That is not my intent here. I thought I was mostly doing a good job of presenting my views. Maybe I'm wrong. And while I will admit I have taken a cheap shot once or twice, I've been put in my place for doing so, and I've learned some lessons. But, hey. We are all bitching. And isn't this the place for it?

Quote:
I won't dignify the rest of your post with a response, as it is a disgusting perverted strawman and you and I both know it.

I don't know it. How is it disgusting? How is it perverted? How is it a strawman?

Quote:
If you wish to have a rational discussion and are willing to leave your unfounded and misplaced hate and preconcieved notions at the door, let me know. Till then, kindly fuck off.

I certainly don't hate anyone here. What exactly are my preconcieved notions?

Again, I apologies to anyone that I may have offended. I will lay off the cheap shots. And I will do my best to present my arguments with fact instead of emotion. You have to make mistakes in order to learn, right?

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm not offended, but you

I'm not offended, but you did seem to be attacking capitalism more than trying to tell us what you believe and why you believe it and why we are wrong.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't even know how to

I don't even know how to attack capitalism without telling you what and why I believe, and why you are wrong. I mean, you have to give me at least a little more credit than:
"Capitalism is wrong, because it is!"
I'm trying here!

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
An attempt at a systematic

An attempt at a systematic refutal of capitalism isn't bad. Just saying "It's like feudalism" proves absolutely nothing and I can't fathom a reason to say something like that other than with intent to defame it.

I'm not here calling socialism "communism for halfasses" even though I think it is. I'm attempting to refute it with rational arguement.

A comparison does not affirm or refute anything. You might say it's like feudalism, if we assume that it is, then so what? Perhaps feudalism wasn't the worst thing to ever happen. I certainly believe communism to have been much worse.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Most conspiracy

Quote:
Most conspiracy theorists are full of shit taken out of context.

I TOTALLY agree, but you should really watch his movie. He's more of an economic historian than a conspiracy theorist. I think he may be very Liberatarian too. I don't know.
Again, it's The Money Masters, if you have the time.
Quote:
Then everything is publicly owned by all, and you have absolutely no property. If someone steals something from you, no matter if they are rich or poor, you didn't own it in the first place, the public owned it collectively, thus you can't legitemately defend your property because it was never yours to defend, and all others have as much claim to your property, and indeed, your body, as you do. That would create a geographically limited nihilist culture where might is right. Are you a nihilist?

Your vision is correct, and also why I'm not against all private property, just limits on the total amount that one can have.
Quote:
The government leases it's forests to timber companies. Lease, not sell. Problem here is the timber company wants to get in, cut as many trees as possible before the lease is up, then get out. If they owned the land, they would have to take care of it and replant it. Renters do not care for property. Owners do.

Easily fixed by either making the company replace anything they take, or starting a nonprofit, government run lumber company. Whatever the voters want I guess.
Quote:
People that just like the fuck things up should do it on their own land. If they wanna clear-cut a forest and abandon it, they should buy the forest. Then they can do whatever the fuck they want with it.

But remember the environment. What you may do to your own land could fuck up water and air for the rest of us.
Quote:
Private ownership doesn't protect it. The private owner protects it. If he doesn't, he ends up with barren, unsellable land. And nobody wants to do that.

After its barren, he could always strip-mine it, then turn it into a dump of some sort. Most people don't think like Ted Turner.
Quote:
Examples? Show me an example of a privately owned forest where timber companies are just clear-cutting the entire thing.
For fuck's sake, look at the owner of anyplace that's full of litter or in bad environmental shape. The roadsides are littered with trash, and who owns the roadsides? The government. The only reason they're not worse than they are is the slave labor of convicts picking up trash.

The moutains of West Virginia are being raped for coal by private companies like Arch Coal. I accept your argument under certain conditions. That the owner actually lives there. That the private owner has high environmentalist values. And that the owner is more concerned with longterm value of the property, than the short term potential profits. Maybe more.
It's not that your ideas aren't sound. It's just that private ownership isn't the BEST way of protecting something. People would litter on a private road just as much.
Quote:
Economic progress creates realization of scarcity. Scarcity creates ownership and exchange to allocate resources best.

I think I see what your saying here now, but I just don't believe it for a few reasons.
I think economic progress could take several forms.
I don't think resources are scarce, YET. Population is booming though, so it could be soon.
Ownership and exchange allocating resources best is opinion. My opinion is that equal distribution is the BEST way to allocate resources.
Quote:
The government isn't needed to protect ownership of land. All I need to defend a farm is a shotgun and a fence.

I don't know how much land you have, but if you had thousands of acres. Well, you'd need more than a shotgun to prevent hundreds of people from just moving onto it.
Quote:
If there was a limit to the amount that one could own, it could either be arbitary, and thus invalid, or it could be zero, and nobody could own anything.

It could be, but it doesn't have to be.
If it were up to me?....
The entire United States could be divided into 19 acre plots for all 300 million of us. I would go lower than that though because we have the ability to build up, rather than out, and to make room for public areas (national parks). Maybe 5 acres, tax free. Anything more should be taxed at least.
Quote:
All things come from the earth. If we cannot own the earth, we cannot own anything. Our bodies are made of matter that came out of the ground at some point. If we cannot own the earth we cannot own crops and we cannot own food from animals and thus we can not own ouselves.

Now your just making fun. I said that we should all own it. Like we all own the air. We all own the water. We should all own the soil. We should all own the oil in the ground. Possession being different than ownership of course.
Quote:
Anything is ownable if it is scarce and valuable.

I don't think land is that scarce, yet. Not scarce like water in Bolivia.
Quote:
The native american economic system had no scarcity of land. That's why it was a stupid idea. There was too much land and too few people for it to be scarce.

This is true and somthing I hadn't takin into concideration when I wrote that. BUT, I still think we should draw the line before population makes land even more scarce. Don't forget, we can always build vertically.
Quote:
Bought from the government? Fined by who, the government acting on behalf of Bechtel?

Oh the government was definately at fault. That doesn't mean Bechtel had any interest in "helping the most people" like you say the markets work. Private ownership has an interest in making the most profits, not "helping the most people".
Quote:
You do not have to live under it. You can buy land and then practice an economic system in which ownership of land is abolished. It is still technically your land, but you can live as if you did not own it. No you don't, dumbass, buy the house from him, buy the land. Feudal land ownership and Capitalist land ownership are different because under Feudalism, land was not sellable or transferable except from Lord to eldest son of the Lord or in case of theft. Under capitalism you can buy and sell land. Under capitalism it is not true that living on land owned by someone else is inevitable, as was true under feudalism. Sorta like NATIONS.

I will give you the fact that land is more accessable now than under classical feudalism, but still very, very unaccessable to a poor person today. Especially for a low-wage majority, who has to beg the high wage minority to borrow money. Like I said before, it's a positive step in the right direction. It just doesn't go far enough to fix the mess of feudalism.
Quote:
Theft implies ownership. If you did not own the land, then he did not steal it from you, he homesteaded it or purchased it from a homesteader. And "stoled" isn't a word.

That's what I'm saying. The homesteader STOLE the land from all humanity. All humanity owned it. Not just humanity, but all life on earth owned it.
Quote:
That is absolutely arbitrary. Your definition of "reasonable" is arbitrary, your definition of "too much" is inherently arbitrary, and if your opinion is arbitary, it is by it's very nature invalid.

It's not at all arbitrary if it's decided by democratically.
Quote:
Land doesn't belong equally to all humanity.

Opinion or fact?
Quote:
Do you want to reduce human suffering? Do you want to reduce the population? These are mutually exclusive. The population will only be reduced through suffering. Through war, disease, famine, et cetera.

What about equal access to birthcontrol, abortion, education, ect. I won't even call you a dumbass for that!
Quote:
Your ownership of something is limited by your ability to control it. If you hire other people to control your land for you (though being responsible to you), you can still own more land than you can control singlehandedly.

I though that was your definition of feudalism? I asked you if that idea was liberatarian and you said no.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: An attempt at a

Quote:
An attempt at a systematic refutal of capitalism isn't bad. Just saying "It's like feudalism" proves absolutely nothing and I can't fathom a reason to say something like that other than with intent to defame it.
I'm not here calling socialism "communism for halfasses" even though I think it is. I'm attempting to refute it with rational arguement.
A comparison does not affirm or refute anything. You might say it's like feudalism, if we assume that it is, then so what? Perhaps feudalism wasn't the worst thing to ever happen. I certainly believe communism to have been much worse.

Then let me please clearify some things.
I didn't just say "Capitalism is like Feudalism".
I said that Capitalism is a meager attempt to fix the problems of Feudalism. Not to defame, but to demystify. Unrestricted captialism is just as bad a total communism with no private property at all. Socialism is half-assed MARXISM. I agree. I'm looking for the best of a combination of socialism and capitalism. And I believe that Feudalism is way worse than Communism.
I sincerely hope when all welfare is stopped and the prisons and police are no longer publicly funded you are all very far away from the ghettos. If you think the poor are dangerous now (I do, and I'm one of them), not only will you need those guns, but your gonna need a lot of bullets.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Then let

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Then let me please clearify some things.
I didn't just say "Capitalism is like Feudalism".

My intent was to say that you compared them as if they were similar, when they're not. The only major similarity between them is that there is privately owned property. Beyond that, they are not alike. Feudalism has more in common with fascism than capitalism.

Quote:
I said that Capitalism is a meager attempt to fix the problems of Feudalism. Not to defame, but to demystify.

How so? How is it meager and how is it a derivative of feudalism?

Quote:
Unrestricted captialism is just as bad a total communism with no private property at all.

Arbitrary statement. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Quote:
I'm looking for the best of a combination of socialism and capitalism.

That combination would be 100% capitalism, 0% socialism. Socialism has been refuted for a long time. Ludwig von Mises wrote a book about it titled "Socialism". Mises.org might have a copy of it online.

Quote:
And I believe that Feudalism is way worse than Communism.

I think they are both injustices, but I believe feudalism would be superior for the simple reason that under fedualism, the lord takes part of the product of your labor, under communism, the government takes all of it.

Quote:
I sincerely hope when all welfare is stopped and the prisons and police are no longer publicly funded you are all very far away from the ghettos. If you think the poor are dangerous now (I do, and I'm one of them), not only will you need those guns, but your gonna need a lot of bullets.

I'm in a ghetto right now, I know. I don't think the world should be just dropped directly into my ideal system, that would result in chaos because of people's dependency upon the system. I think it best that they be waned off it over about 20 years. I would certainly like it to happen faster than that, but I don't think it would go well if it did.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The only major

Quote:
The only major similarity between them is that there is privately owned property. Beyond that, they are not alike. Feudalism has more in common with fascism than capitalism.

I agree with you that fascism is more like feudalism than plain old capitalism because it requires private control of the government (specifically military force).
With everyone labeling others fascist, the term is almost abitrary these days, but Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. That puts us both against. I'll stop likening capitalism to feudalism, if you stop calling socialism, fascism.
Quote:
How so? How is it meager and how is it a derivative of feudalism?

I believe that it all stems from the land ownership thing. From nomadic life (economic equality), to agricultural settlement and the exploitation of the serf, to industrialization and the exploitation of the worker. It's all the same dynesty. It's meager because it attempts to create some economic equality without taking the steps that would be concidered substantial by the majority.
Quote:
Quote:
Unrestricted captialism is just as bad a total communism with no private property at all.

Arbitrary statement. Do you have any evidence to back this up?


It's my opinion, and a response to your previous arbitrary statement. I'm just commenting on the extremes. Just like you are here.
Quote:
I think they are both injustices, but I believe feudalism would be superior for the simple reason that under fedualism, the lord takes part of the product of your labor, under communism, the government takes all of it.

Except that the government in this case should be by the people, for the people, yadda, yadda. Communal ownership.
Quote:
I'm in a ghetto right now, I know. I don't think the world should be just dropped directly into my ideal system, that would result in chaos because of people's dependency upon the system. I think it best that they be waned off it over about 20 years. I would certainly like it to happen faster than that, but I don't think it would go well if it did.

In that case, I hope you would agree that corperate welfare needs to be taken out first. Concidering the majority of welfare money doesn't go to the ghetto.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Quote:

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Quote:
Sure you could. Present a cogent argument. Seems you enjoy taking cheap shots and bitching more than you care to present your own views.

I'm really, really sorry if I offended anyone at all.

You haven't. We disagree idealogically, not personally. In fact, if you look at what I've been saying we are essentially in agreement as far as end goals are concerned. I simply hate being called greedy or insensitive or people alluding to such (as you seemed to do) because of my views and or the grosse misconception of them many, like yourself, seem to hold.

Quote:
That is not my intent here. I thought I was mostly doing a good job of presenting my views. Maybe I'm wrong. And while I will admit I have taken a cheap shot once or twice, I've been put in my place for doing so, and I've learned some lessons. But, hey. We are all bitching. And isn't this the place for it?

There's nothing wrong with bitching, but this entire thread has basically been myself and one or two others on the defensive. I've not been given much to argue against, save for misrepresentations of what you and others think I believe.

Quote:
Quote:
I won't dignify the rest of your post with a response, as it is a disgusting perverted strawman and you and I both know it.

I don't know it. How is it disgusting? How is it perverted? How is it a strawman?

Let's see:

You said:

“Ever since the first manifest-destined, motherfucker drew an imaginary line around a plot of earth and said, "This is mine!", "Fuck the rest of you, I don't know what the rest of you are gonna do, but this land is mine. Everything on it is mine. Fuck the rest of all the creatures that are currently living here. It's not part of any ecosystem anymore. This land was given to human's by god, and this plot, It's mine!" Then someone else said, "That's a good idea. Hey, this lot is mine."”

While you are correct that libertines value very dearly private ownership, you imply that it is a sort of “I’ve got mine, so fuck you” sort of mentality. It isn’t, at least it certainly isn’t mine. I advocate a system where people take care of one another of their own volition and are not forced to do so by theft. I’ve said several times in this thread that if humans won’t help one another without being forced to, that we are indeed in a very poor and precarious situation as a species. That is no kind of way to live, and ultimately if that is really the case we’re doing little more than putting off our inevitable destruction by our own hand. I think we’re better than that, and would be, if given the opportunity. You also fail to see that I believe what I advocate leads to globalization, democracy (and if you’ve noticed democracy and capitalism tend to go hand in hand - I won’t pontificate on why that is just now) and a better standard of living world wide. Feel free to tell me reasoning is fucked up, but please don’t chastize my motivation or mentality.

You also said:

“Then, hey, look, we found more land. A new world. People live there, but they have no concept of land ownership. Let's trick them into "selling" the land to us. Make them play by our rules, the savages. Until finally, pretty much everything was owned by someone.
This phenomenon is cutural, and not universally human.
Capitalism is the newest evolutionary step in a dynasty of Feudalism. “

That’s not only demonstrably not true, it’s insulting. Imperialism and capitalism have fuck-all to do with one another, ask any militaristic communist nation that has ever existed. You again equate capitalism with oppression and greed, and that is what I find a straw-man and insulting. All capitalism is is the crazy idea that ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth should be maintained by private individuals or companies. There is nothing nefarious about this. Libertines value individualism and self-determination; hence we apprieciate free trade and capitalism, and do so for principled and honorable reasons.

I could go on, but see no real point in it. What I want from you is the recognition that we both have the best interests of the individual and ultimately the world at heart. I know that is why you advocate whatever position you hold, so please simply do me the same courtesy.

Quote:
Quote:
If you wish to have a rational discussion and are willing to leave your unfounded and misplaced hate and preconceived notions at the door, let me know. Till then, kindly fuck off.

I certainly don't hate anyone here. What exactly are my preconcieved notions?

I think I’ve hit on some of them above.

Quote:
Again, I apologies to anyone that I may have offended. I will lay off the cheap shots. And I will do my best to present my arguments with fact instead of emotion. You have to make mistakes in order to learn, right?

I simply ask that if you are going to argue against my position, that you represent my position accurately in your argument - you’ve largely failed to do that. I don’t take politics personally, I never have, because I know enough to know that there are no cut and dried answers. I do start to get a bit upset when people doubt my motivation or question my sincerity.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:I believe

ShadowOfMan wrote:
I believe that it all stems from the land ownership thing. From nomadic life (economic equality), to agricultural settlement and the exploitation of the serf, to industrialization and the exploitation of the worker. It's all the same dynesty. It's meager because it attempts to create some economic equality without taking the steps that would be concidered substantial by the majority.

Nomadic life had economic equality because there were only two states, you either had enough to keep living, or you died and were excluded from the pool of potential people to test for equality. Agriculture did not originate in feudalism. It pre-existed feudalism by ages. The exploitation of the serf is one of the few instances where I will grant that exploitation has taken place, because serfs were effectively slaves. Partial slaves, but nontheless slaves. Industrialization greatly increased the standard of living across the board. Factory workers were not exploited in my opinion. They left the agrarian rural areas because they thought factory life would be better, I can hardly consider offering people a job better than what they had before to be exploitation. Also, Capitalism does not attempt to create economic equality. In comparison to feudalism, it simply does not enforce economic inequality.

Quote:
Except that the government in this case should be by the people, for the people, yadda, yadda. Communal ownership.

You are focusing on distribution and not production (which necessarily precedes distribution). A serf that produced twice as well as another serf still got more than the other serf under feudalism. A worker that produced twice as much as another worker gets exactly as much as the other worker under communism. That destroys incentive to produce well, reduces the amount that is produced, resulting in less stuff for everyone.

Quote:
In that case, I hope you would agree that corperate welfare needs to be taken out first. Concidering the majority of welfare money doesn't go to the ghetto.

The majority of welfare money goes to the middle-class bureaucrats that administrate the system. And I don't just think corporate welfare should be rid of. The limited liability corporation itself should be rid of as well.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Now I see the problem. I

Now I see the problem. I want to make this very, very clear. I'm not saying that anyone that accepts capitalism is greedy. I trust that you believe capitalism is the best way of creating economic fairness, keeping productivity high, and increasing the standard of living for all. That is where we disagree. I never called all capitalists greedy. Meerly that unrestricted capitalism does little to protect people from the greed of others.

Quote:
I’ve said several times in this thread that if humans won’t help one another without being forced to, that we are indeed in a very poor and precarious situation as a species.

That is precisely my point. SOME people are being helped through force and that's still not enough. If we can't make sure that ALL people have at least the nessessities of life, we are in a sorry state. We could disagree on what the nessessities are, but I know we all want people to live.
Quote:
Capitalism is the newest evolutionary step in a dynasty of Feudalism. “
That’s not only demonstrably not true, it’s insulting. Imperialism and capitalism have fuck-all to do with one another, ask any militaristic communist nation that has ever existed.

I was unfair in my description here, just picking on Capitalism.
Imperialism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism,...they are all new improved forms of Feudalism.
Imperialism obviously, but any ideology can be imperial. Communism, as has been attempted, includes much despotism.
Capitalism accepts the ideas of unlimited property that the kings of old created, though it CAN be 100% democratic.
Democratic Socialism, IN MY OPINION, is the best way of leaving all that behind, though not a cure all. Common ownership of most, democratically maintained. Private ownership of some, regulated democratically.

I'm sorry if I was using all the harsh language (fucks, and what not). Non of this was intended to insult, just to express ideas.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan

ShadowOfMan wrote:
...unrestricted capitalism does little to protect people from the greed of others.

How can greed be harmful? The only problem I can possibly concieve anyone having with greed is that it's a threat to altruism.

Quote:
That is precisely my point. SOME people are being helped through force and that's still not enough. If we can't make sure that ALL people have at least the nessessities of life, we are in a sorry state. We could disagree on what the nessessities are, but I know we all want people to live.

Those SOME people should stop being helped by force and help their own fucking selves.

Quote:
Democratic Socialism, IN MY OPINION, is the best way of leaving all that behind, though not a cure all. Common ownership of most, democratically maintained. Private ownership of some, regulated democratically.

Democracy is slavery by the majority.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Industrialization

Quote:
Industrialization greatly increased the standard of living across the board. Factory workers were not exploited in my opinion. They left the agrarian rural areas because they thought factory life would be better, I can hardly consider offering people a job better than what they had before to be exploitation.

But what if they went to the factory because they had no land of there own to work? What if the factory was paying a little bit more than the plantation owners were? The standard of living may have increase slightly for the laborers, but it increased SOOOOO much more for the factory owners. If you were to concider the standard of living as the average of the two (which I would), the laborers are getting shafted.
Quote:
You are focusing on distribution and not production (which necessarily precedes distribution). A serf that produced twice as well as another serf still got more than the other serf under feudalism. A worker that produced twice as much as another worker gets exactly as much as the other worker under communism. That destroys incentive to produce well, reduces the amount that is produced, resulting in less stuff for everyone.

I understand your concern here, though I don't think it has to be this way. It's just not as much of a concern for me, I guess.
Quote:
The majority of welfare money goes to the middle-class bureaucrats that administrate the system. And I don't just think corporate welfare should be rid of. The limited liability corporation itself should be rid of as well.

I accept your extreme libertarian views as something that SHOULD be tested somewhere. I have doubts that it would truely be fair, because, as you've said, people are too egocentric.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:That is

ShadowOfMan wrote:
That is precisely my point. SOME people are being helped through force and that's still not enough. If we can't make sure that ALL people have at least the nessessities of life, we are in a sorry state. We could disagree on what the nessessities are, but I know we all want people to live.

You misunderstood him.
He said that if we have to be forced to help others, then we're just pretending we're kind and compassionate.
What's the point if it's all just make-believe?


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:But what

ShadowOfMan wrote:
But what if they went to the factory because they had no land of there own to work? What if the factory was paying a little bit more than the plantation owners were?

Then they were smart to choose a higher standard of living.

Quote:
The standard of living may have increase slightly for the laborers, but it increased SOOOOO much more for the factory owners. If you were to concider the standard of living as the average of the two (which I would), the laborers are getting shafted.

I am so much wealthier than a king of 300 years ago it's not funny. I can talk to people thousands of miles away instantly with a little thing I carry around in my pocket. I have hot running water. I have a computer that nobody could even have concieved 300 years ago. Granted, I don't have a band of soldiers at my disposal, but in a couple days I can order 70 year old weapon which would almost assure me victory over his entire army. They didn't have machineguns or semiautomatic rifles, they didn't have supressors, their sights were rudimentary, the rifles' effective ranges was like 300 yards and their accuracy pretty dismal, their firing rates so low they still actually used bayonets. I can buy body armor that would make their rifles appear ineffective. They could shoot me in the chest and knock me over and crack a rib. But in a few seconds I'd be right back up shooting at them. My shorts are better camo than their whole uniforms. I don't have a fleet of ships, but such a fleet would look like a bunch of toy boats in comparison to the oil tanker that brings me gasoline. I don't have a stockpile of gold, but a king would give half his gold for something I take for granted.

Quote:
I accept your extreme libertarian views as something that SHOULD be tested somewhere. I have doubts that it would truely be fair, because, as you've said, people are too egocentric.

I see nothing fundamentally wrong with egocentrism and greed.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
It goes without saying that

It goes without saying that our tax dollar are by far not being put to good use. That to me is the biggest problem with socialism. A more democratic government should fix that though.
There still isn't any proof that private charities would help more people than forced social programs COULD. I just doubt they WOULD.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Then they were smart

Quote:
Then they were smart to choose a higher standard of living.

Yes, they made a choice that increased their standard of living. They went from possible stavation and homelessness to having their labor exploited.

Quote:
I am so much wealthier than a king of 300 years ago it's not funny.

It's true, but the standard of living should be a sliding scale.
When technology is invented, it should be improving the lives of everyone. Forget wealth. It's the gap between rich and poor.

Quote:
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with egocentrism and greed.

Than you should see nothing wrong with mass theft through taxation democratically instituted. Don't you think that cancels out free market egocentrism and greed? To some extent at least.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You misunderstood

Quote:
You misunderstood him.
He said that if we have to be forced to help others, then we're just pretending we're kind and compassionate.
What's the point if it's all just make-believe?

Because people will die! We aren't that compassionate. Humans are zenophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, elitist, in-group, out-group, super-tribal monkies.
(Attention: I'm not calling anyone here, any of these names!)

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Ivan_Ivanov
Ivan_Ivanov's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:It's true,

ShadowOfMan wrote:
It's true, but the standard of living should be a sliding scale. When technology is invented, it should be improving the lives of everyone.

It does.
Zhwazi just explained how his standard of living is higher then that of a king a few centuries ago.
The standard of living of everyone increased dramatically.

Quote:
Forget wealth. It's the gap between rich and poor.

Please explain this to me.
Why is the gap between rich and poor a bad thing?

Quote:
Because people will die!

And the point is, if we're really so bad, then we're just delaying the inevetible. People will die anyway, and we'll just pretending we're better then we really are.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
In the absence of a god,

In the absence of a god, there is no good and no evil. No right and no wrong. Morality is for us humans to determine. How do we want to treat each other? I can't tell you what your morals should be. That is up to you and your culture to decide. It is my decision to think that a gap between rich and poor is an immoral means to an end, just as it may be your decision to think that the gap is vital to the progress of humanity. You may think that it's an immoral to steal from the rich to achieve an equality. I really do think that both points are valid. These are the questions that will define our future as a species. Maybe in the near future, we will all be jacked into a collective neural network, without the ability to disagree.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Yes, they

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Yes, they made a choice that increased their standard of living. They went from possible stavation and homelessness to having their labor exploited.

Those selfish workers! How could they exploit the factory owner to increase their own standard of living?

Quote:
It's true, but the standard of living should be a sliding scale.
When technology is invented, it should be improving the lives of everyone. Forget wealth. It's the gap between rich and poor.

When something is introduced, it's introduced for the rich. Then the free market drives down prices like crazy until it becomes available to the common man. 60" plasma TVs were not invented with the poor man in mind, yet a lot of poor people have 60" plasmas (thanks to Rent-A-Center). Computers were never intended for the poor. The head of IBM would have laughed at you if you suggested they make computers for Joe Six Pack. Yet we have them now for $500 or less.

Quote:
Than you should see nothing wrong with mass theft through taxation democratically instituted. Don't you think that cancels out free market egocentrism and greed? To some extent at least.

There are two classes of things. Objective and subjective.

Egocentrism and greed are subjective. They're not real, they're just ideas. They only effect the egocentric greedy person.

Theft is objective. It effects real things. You can't use objective laws to enforce subjective morality.

ShadowOfMan wrote:
In the absence of a god, there is no good and no evil. No right and no wrong. Morality is for us humans to determine. How do we want to treat each other? I can't tell you what your morals should be. That is up to you and your culture to decide.

Incorrect. Good and evil are subjective determinations of objective phenomena. Right and wrong are subjective determinations of objective phenomena. What is right and wrong should be determined objectively, not subjectively. You are the master of your subjective sphere. I'm the master of mine. We have to interact in the objective sphere, and that's where the rules of interaction have to be set. We can't set the rules of interaction according to subjective values such as heterosexuality, economic equality, and the collective good. We can only set the rules of interaction according to objective phenomena like force.

Quote:
It is my decision to think that a gap between rich and poor is an immoral means to an end, just as it may be your decision to think that the gap is vital to the progress of humanity.

That's all fine and well, those are our subjective beliefs. But I'm not going to objectively enforce my subjective beliefs on you. I don't advocate that someone pick up a gun and rob all the poor to benefit the rich. You do advocate that someone pick up a gun and rob the rich to benefit the poor.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Those selfish

Quote:
Those selfish workers! How could they exploit the factory owner to increase their own standard of living?

Point is, those selfish workers exploited the factory owner to increase there standard of living much.
The factory worker exploited the workers labor to increase his standard much.
Quote:
When something is introduced, it's introduced for the rich.

Under capitalism yes, but it doesn't have to be this way.
Quote:
There are two classes of things. Objective and subjective.
Egocentrism and greed are subjective. They're not real, they're just ideas. They only effect the egocentric greedy person.
Theft is objective. It effects real things. You can't use objective laws to enforce subjective morality.

I disagree, egocentric and greedy actions are objective and can subjectively define a person.
Quote:
Incorrect. Good and evil are subjective determinations of objective phenomena. Right and wrong are subjective determinations of objective phenomena.

Sounds good to me.
Quote:
What is right and wrong should be determined objectively, not subjectively.

Keyword determined, but how?
Quote:
You are the master of your subjective sphere. I'm the master of mine. We have to interact in the objective sphere, and that's where the rules of interaction have to be set. We can't set the rules of interaction according to subjective values such as heterosexuality, economic equality, and the collective good. We can only set the rules of interaction according to objective phenomena like force.

Heterosexuality, economic equality, and the collective good are objective, though the degrees of each are determined subjectively. Same thing with force. We interact on the objective sphere by democratically compromising our subjectivity.
Quote:
That's all fine and well, those are our subjective beliefs. But I'm not going to objectively enforce my subjective beliefs on you. I don't advocate that someone pick up a gun and rob all the poor to benefit the rich. You do advocate that someone pick up a gun and rob the rich to benefit the poor.

You do objectively stand by and let the rich withhold profits from laborers based on your subjective beliefs that they are not exploiting. You belong to a large group of people with the same beliefs. I belong to a large group of people with the same beliefs (advocates of tax). Some people are in both camps at once. That is the reason that all of the above exists the way it does.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Point is,

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Point is, those selfish workers exploited the factory owner to increase there standard of living much.
The factory worker exploited the workers labor to increase his standard much.

Don't use greater and less than signs. HTML for dummies - Web browsers think anything between those two symbols is formatting code.

How about this.

You can take a red pill or a blue pill.

If you take the red pill, your wages will double in the next 5 years. Your neighbor's wages will dodectuple in the next 5 years.

If you take the blue pill, your wages will remain the same for the next 5 years. So will your neighbor's.

Which would you take?

Quote:
Under capitalism yes, but it doesn't have to be this way.

IBM didn't make computers or research computer technology expecting everyone to have one someday. If such a revolutionary new technology were being developed today and had to be developed at first cheap enough for the average consumer to buy, no great new technologies like computers would continue to be developed. The experience that comes from the high-priced, exclusive hardware teaches them how to make it cheaper and better until everyone can get them. If you take away that experience, they'll never become cheaper or better because they'll never be researched.

Quote:
I disagree, egocentric and greedy actions are objective and can subjectively define a person.

I said egocentrism and greed. Not egocentric and greedy actions. An action is not changed in any way by it's motivation. A trade is perfectly legitemate irrelevant of what motivates it. It might be altruism, greed, deperation, that doesn't change the action at all. There are no egocentric or greedy actions. Only actions motivated by egocentrism and greed. And egocentism and greed ARE SUBJECTIVE.

Quote:
Quote:
What is right and wrong should be determined objectively, not subjectively.

Keyword determined, but how?

Objectively. I kinda said that. That's what the -ly suffix indicates.

Quote:
Heterosexuality, economic equality, and the collective good are objective,

I quite CLEARLY specified that I was referring to them as values that people hold. And collective good is not objective. The collective is definitionally subjective and hence not objective, and hence not real.

Quote:
We interact on the objective sphere by democratically compromising our subjectivity.

Involuntary compromise (democracy) is a process by which everybody loses. Voluntary compromise (free trade) is a process by which everybody wins.

Quote:
You do objectively stand by and let the rich withhold profits from laborers based on your subjective beliefs that they are not exploiting. You belong to a large group of people with the same beliefs. I belong to a large group of people with the same beliefs (advocates of tax). Some people are in both camps at once. That is the reason that all of the above exists the way it does.

They are not exploiting because exploitation is not real. It is subjective, not objective. Whether or not they are exploiting rests on the assumption that exploitation is real.

Individuals are real. Classes, groups, and collectives are not. As far as I see it words like "Capitalist" and "Worker" are referring to individuals performing certain function. The capitalist and the worker are both individuals. They are both equal. Neither has the right to steal from the other for any reason. They can only choose to interact voluntarily and agree on the terms, or not interact at all.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the tip. Just so

Thanks for the tip.
Just so you get the effect....
workers exploit thiis much
employers exploit thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much.

Your computer example is a valid point, but I'm not interested in socializing the production of computers. I think the workers making the computers should get more rewards from the profits though.

Everyone takes the red pill everytime.

I'm tired of working the same arguement on two threads.
Sorry.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:That is

ShadowOfMan wrote:

That is precisely my point. SOME people are being helped through force and that's still not enough.

Then we're fucked, in no uncertain terms.

Quote:
If we can't make sure that ALL people have at least the nessessities of life, we are in a sorry state. We could disagree on what the nessessities are, but I know we all want people to live.

And, well, that's what it comes down to, I guess. It does not take a "living wage" to live. Which is exactly why I asked why you called it that in the first place.

Quote:
Quote:
Capitalism is the newest evolutionary step in a dynasty of Feudalism. “
That’s not only demonstrably not true, it’s insulting. Imperialism and capitalism have fuck-all to do with one another, ask any militaristic communist nation that has ever existed.

I was unfair in my description here, just picking on Capitalism.
Imperialism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism,...they are all new improved forms of Feudalism.
Imperialism obviously, but any ideology can be imperial. Communism, as has been attempted, includes much despotism.

Wrong. Feudalism was based on a system in which the ruling party (king, duke, vassal, whatever) held or leased or watched over land and those who tended that land were conscripts when it came to defending it.

Quote:
Capitalism accepts the ideas of unlimited property that the kings of old created, though it CAN be 100% democratic.
Democratic Socialism, IN MY OPINION, is the best way of leaving all that behind, though not a cure all. Common ownership of most, democratically maintained. Private ownership of some, regulated democratically.

Well, let's simply say feudalism has fuck-all to do with any of this. Oh, and btw, I have NO problem with common ownership, so long as the people who own the thing purchased it and worked out a usage scale of thier own volition. This CAN be maintained, democratally even if you consider those who pay for the service or feature voters, without the government ever being involved.

Quote:
I'm sorry if I was using all the harsh language (fucks, and what not). Non of this was intended to insult, just to express ideas.

Fucks don't fucking bother me.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Quote:

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Quote:
Industrialization greatly increased the standard of living across the board. Factory workers were not exploited in my opinion. They left the agrarian rural areas because they thought factory life would be better, I can hardly consider offering people a job better than what they had before to be exploitation.

But what if they went to the factory because they had no land of there own to work?

Could they not have joined and formed their own collective? Does one require land to make a living - most do not. Did they not gain access to vaccines and drugs cultivated in labs built to make profit? Did the drive to make production easier, more streamlined and not deadly to workers benefit them? In the end, it is very hard to deny that globalization, brought mainly via capitalism, has improved the lives of billions.

Yes, you may work on an assembly line in Hong Kong for what may be a harsh wage in comparison to the rest ot the world - but you don't have malaria, you probably have a TV, you have clean water and you have a roof over your head. That's more than luxury in parts of the world where globalization and industrialism has yet to gain a foothold.

In the end, if they had no place else to work, as you suggest, you can hardly blame industry for employing them. All a business does is offer a job. They don't force you to do it. People accept dangerous jobs on their own volition every day. How do you think you get coal and oil and jewlery?

Quote:
What if the factory was paying a little bit more than the plantation owners were? The standard of living may have increase slightly for the laborers, but it increased SOOOOO much more for the factory owners.

So? Not everyone can be the boss. Are you not better off? Is this not fair? You agreed to do a job for a certain amount of money - oh, the horror, oh the exploitation!

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote: I think

ShadowOfMan wrote:
I think the workers making the computers should get more rewards from the profits though.

Why?

They agreed to do the job for a certain wage. Why, exactly, do they deserve more than what they agreed to work for, and why should you be allowed to steal from me to give them what you think they deserve?

Don't pretend that simply forcing the employer to raise thier wage does not impact me. It does. Raise the wage of the guys who build computers, and you raise the price of computers. Goes without saying.

Oh, but those greedy companies can cut thier profit margins to make us all happy, let's force them too with no regard to what the rest of the world is doing or charging - it isn't like this is a competitive business or anything. Shit, when you think of it, why should they be making a profit at all.

Quote:
Everyone takes the red pill everytime.

And yet, on occasion, somebody wakes up.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Raise the wage of the

Quote:
Raise the wage of the guys who build computers, and you raise the price of computers. Goes without saying.

Only because the boss wants to get back to the level of wealth he was accustomed too. He could leave the price alone and take a pay cut. That's why I like the 5X wage rule and let the market determine the prices.

A daughter of hope and fear, religion explains to Ignorance the nature of the unknowable. -Ambrose Bierce


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:Quote:

ShadowOfMan wrote:
Quote:
Raise the wage of the guys who build computers, and you raise the price of computers. Goes without saying.

Only because the boss wants to get back to the level of wealth he was accustomed too. He could leave the price alone and take a pay cut.

And like I asked, why should he? Tell me that. Why the fuck would he take a pay cut or reduce his profit margin if people are willing to pay what he asks?

His price for goods and therefore his profit margin is based upon what his competitors charge and what you are willing to pay for the most part. He wants to offer a similar product for just a bit less - that's how he gets your business. Jack up the wage, and you simply jack everything up across the board. The competitor raises prices, and so will our friend. Like I said, learn to understand the difference between worth and price.

Quote:
That's why I like the 5X wage rule and let the market determine the prices.

And that's why you are pretty much naieve on what actually determines worth, price and cost.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


ShadowOfMan
atheist
ShadowOfMan's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2006-10-12
User is offlineOffline
I disagree.

I disagree.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
ShadowOfMan wrote:I

ShadowOfMan wrote:
I disagree.

No shit.

If you care to continue the discussion, let me know.