Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I doggedly defend Democracy, but miss the point of it
Fine. And I live in a democracy that allows me to express the opinion that socialism is a really bad idea.
Get it?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- capitalism- is it working
capitalism- is it workingFollow
#102
Jun 14 2007 at 5:05 PM
I live in a democracy that allows me to vote out the leadership that fails to meet my requirements.
Fine. And I live in a democracy that allows me to express the opinion that socialism is a really bad idea.
Get it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#103
Jun 14 2007 at 5:50 PM
Fine. And I live in a democracy that allows me to express the opinion that socialism is a really bad idea.
Indeed, and even as hackneyed and horrible you are at doing it, even though you blatantly lie, misrepresent and clearly don't even have a two year old child's understanding of the subject matter, no one here would advocate for you being unable to do so. Neither would anyone practicing socialism.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#104
Jun 14 2007 at 6:13 PM
Smasharoo wrote:
Fine. And I live in a democracy that allows me to express the opinion that socialism is a really bad idea.
Indeed, and even as hackneyed and horrible you are at doing it, even though you blatantly lie, misrepresent and clearly don't even have a two year old child's understanding of the subject matter, no one here would advocate for you being unable to do so. Neither would anyone practicing socialism.
Sure. Right up until that socialistic process puts enough power in the hand of the government that some leader decides to abolish the legistlature and just run things directly (to be more efficient I'm sure!).
But then we wont be in a democracy anymore, now will we?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#105
Jun 14 2007 at 6:43 PM
Wow, lots of discussion all of a sudden! I'd better try to keep up.
That's the whole concept of democracy, though.
I disagree, Monsieur Red. ^.^ I think the government's a very handy thing to have around when you want to make someone stop doing something wrong, like polluting your stream or stealing your car. But I think it would be wrong for me to put a gun to your head and make you give more money to charity, and I don't think that would change if all my friends told me I should. Or even if they voted on it.
That is what I call stealing -- taking your money and giving it to someone else, when I wouldn't feel right doing it in person.
Incidentally, the royals of time past did this whole "taking other people's money" thing too. They just kept it all for themselves. And then sent their armies out to take things from people in other COUNTRIES! Robin Hood may have felt justified in stealing from them, because they got rich by stealing to begin with. ^.^
Quote:
Quote:
I think that what he -- or at least I -- was trying to say, however, is that yes, we know what our money is being spent on. That is what we object to. I personally do not believe that just because the majority voted for something, that that makes it okay.
That's the whole concept of democracy, though.
I disagree, Monsieur Red. ^.^ I think the government's a very handy thing to have around when you want to make someone stop doing something wrong, like polluting your stream or stealing your car. But I think it would be wrong for me to put a gun to your head and make you give more money to charity, and I don't think that would change if all my friends told me I should. Or even if they voted on it.
That is what I call stealing -- taking your money and giving it to someone else, when I wouldn't feel right doing it in person.
Incidentally, the royals of time past did this whole "taking other people's money" thing too. They just kept it all for themselves. And then sent their armies out to take things from people in other COUNTRIES! Robin Hood may have felt justified in stealing from them, because they got rich by stealing to begin with. ^.^
#106
Jun 15 2007 at 3:23 AM
Murrquan wrote:
I disagree, Monsieur Red.
You disagree with what exactly? With the right of an elected government to choose how to govern?
Quote:
I think the government's a very handy thing to have around when you want to make someone stop doing something wrong, like polluting your stream or stealing your car. But I think it would be wrong for me to put a gun to your head and make you give more money to charity, and I don't think that would change if all my friends told me I should.
Then vote for a government that will spend your money on nukes and a missile defense system instead.
What's the problem? That sometimes Republicans don't win?
#107
Jun 15 2007 at 3:27 AM
Nothing to see here...
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 11:28am by RedPhoenixxx
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 11:28am by RedPhoenixxx
#108
Jun 15 2007 at 11:00 AM
Quote:
You disagree with what exactly? With the right of an elected government to choose how to govern?
I think we are talking past each other!
If I am not mistaken, we both believe it'd be wrong for me to rob someone blind and then spend the money on charity. The difference, I think, is that you believe it works differently if the government's doing it, and are probably offended by my calling it stealing.
I think there isn't a difference, because if I vote for someone in a representative government -- where the leaders represent the people -- I don't feel I can give him any authority I don't already possess. I don't have the right to rob you or anyone else, and I don't feel it'd be right for me to ask someone to do so on my behalf.
Quote:
Then vote for a government that will spend your money on nukes and a missile defense system instead.
What's the problem? That sometimes Republicans don't win?
What's the problem? That sometimes Republicans don't win?
I sense a great deal of animosity, sir. I'm sorry if I've offended you. {/bow}
#109
Jun 15 2007 at 11:07 AM
Murrquan wrote:
I think there isn't a difference, because if I vote for someone in a representative government -- where the leaders represent the people -- I don't feel I can give him any authority I don't already possess.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110
Jun 15 2007 at 11:12 AM
Quote:
If I am not mistaken, we both believe it'd be wrong for me to rob someone blind and then spend the money on charity. The difference, I think, is that you believe it works differently if the government's doing it, and are probably offended by my calling it stealing.
I think there isn't a difference, because if I vote for someone in a representative government -- where the leaders represent the people -- I don't feel I can give him any authority I don't already possess. I don't have the right to rob you or anyone else, and I don't feel it'd be right for me to ask someone to do so on my behalf.
I think there isn't a difference, because if I vote for someone in a representative government -- where the leaders represent the people -- I don't feel I can give him any authority I don't already possess. I don't have the right to rob you or anyone else, and I don't feel it'd be right for me to ask someone to do so on my behalf.
Scratch a libertarian, find a well-heeled anarchist.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
#111
Jun 15 2007 at 11:25 AM
Jophiel wrote:
Murrquan wrote:
I think there isn't a difference, because if I vote for someone in a representative government -- where the leaders represent the people -- I don't feel I can give him any authority I don't already possess.
Sure. But to many people there are powers that a government shouldn't have either.
Read Lockes writings on the duties and responsibilities of government sometime. His philosophies on this subject are largely what the founding fathers based our nation on. He specifically states that there's a relatively small number of things that government "must do", and it should be prevented from acting in any other area because that will ultimately reduce the freedom/liberty of the citizens as a result.
So for those of us who actually ascribe to that philosophy there *is* a huge distinction between those things. Government *must* act as a head of state. It *must* create laws. It *must* protect borders and defend against foreign powers. It *must* do those things because if it doesn't then there is no structure within which "the people" can live and prosper. Everything else should be treated cautiously.
Capitalism can create negative effects. Thus, it's sensible to empower the government to act to prevent/reduce those negative effects. But that should never be seen as a green light to go ahead and use the government to "tinker" with the society/economy. Socialism's goal is to "create" positive effects. But it does so though just such tinkering. It also does so by appealing to the wants and needs of the masses (and hence works very well in democracy). But the things that "the people" will demand in such situations often (very often) violate the guidelines Locke and other liberalist thinkers set forth with regard to government power. Those guidelines exist for very good reasons...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112
Jun 15 2007 at 11:37 AM
Read Lockes writings on the duties and responsibilities of government sometime.
You've either never read Locke or preposterously misunderstood it. Honestly, it's really fairly difficult to figure which is more likely as your proclivity for outright lying is about equal to your lack of reading comprehension.
As a gambler, it's an interesting question really. I'd have to set the line at 60/40 you're lying and have never read it.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#113
Jun 15 2007 at 3:08 PM
I did recieve a classical education Smash. You'd lose that bet.
Unfortunately, it's *incredibly* difficult to simply pluck a quote from Locke's writings, due in part to language changes and also due to the way he layers assumption and logic. You can't just read a section and get a feel for what he means.
I did find this posting on a board dedicated to the subject. It's a decent analysis of Locke's writings even though he doesn't actually go too specifically into the subject:
He doesn't continue with a greater analysis of what it means to protect all three aspects (instead of just life as Hobbes primarily focused on), but it's significant. The key point is that we must always start with *only* the natural state (no government), and then add government only to the extent that it protects those three things. Later philosophers elaborate on the specific things that government can and should do in this context, but Locke was the first to really put forth the idea that government should be limited to only doing those things it's actually needed to do. Even Hobbes didn't go that far.
It's been a long time since I've read his work, but I do remember what it was about. How about you?
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 4:09pm by gbaji
Unfortunately, it's *incredibly* difficult to simply pluck a quote from Locke's writings, due in part to language changes and also due to the way he layers assumption and logic. You can't just read a section and get a feel for what he means.
I did find this posting on a board dedicated to the subject. It's a decent analysis of Locke's writings even though he doesn't actually go too specifically into the subject:
Quote:
I've noticed some confusion and misunderstanding of Locke's political philosophy, and I thought I'd take a moment to give a quick explanation of Locke's ideas.
Firstly, Locke considers the source of political power to be the social contract. This is an unwritten, unspoken idea that the civil government is granted political power to govern by the people. The people are not necessarily actively supporting the government, but by simply remaining under the government's rule citizens give their consent to the government to rule. The social contract goes both ways, however: the government is obligated to be just toward the people if the people are to support the government.
The "State of Nature" to which Locke refers is the basis of this social contract and his theory of government: the State of Nature is simply an idea to be used as a tool to explain the purpose of civil government. Locke thought that in order to define a just government, one must define a just government's duties, and in order to define a just government's duties one should look at a situation in which there is no civil government at all and reason as to why it was first created. Hobbes actually used this idea before Locke, but drew different conclusions from it: Hobbes said that the State of Nature was, in effect, a State of War between all men, and due to the fact that all men's selfishness reigned supreme, civil government was necessary to civilize man into not being so cutthroat and savage toward each other. Locke, instead, came up with a set of Natural Rights to which all men are entitled: life, liberty, and property. These are rights that are inalienable, and since everyone has a right to them they must be protected. However, since not everyone's rights could always be protected in the State of Nature, civil government was instituted to protect these natural rights, and this is the purpose of civil government.
Thus, Locke's social contract, and thus the tie-in to America's political dogma of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (In case you're wondering why happiness instead of property, Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, thought that property was merely a means toward happiness, and decided that "the pursuit of happiness" would be more inclusive.)
Finally, one more important point in Locke's philosophy needs mentioning: that of just rebellion. Locke believed that, if the social contract was violated, and that the government did not uphold its duty to protect the citizens' natural rights, then it was the people's right, or even duty, to rebel against the unjust magistrate. This was what America's founding fathers found key in their struggle for independence: that what they were doing was right and necessary.
I hope this synopsis of Locke's political theories helps. Please respond if you have any questions, or even if you don't, because I don't like posting if no one responds (even if you just say what i wrote was interesting).
Dustin
Firstly, Locke considers the source of political power to be the social contract. This is an unwritten, unspoken idea that the civil government is granted political power to govern by the people. The people are not necessarily actively supporting the government, but by simply remaining under the government's rule citizens give their consent to the government to rule. The social contract goes both ways, however: the government is obligated to be just toward the people if the people are to support the government.
The "State of Nature" to which Locke refers is the basis of this social contract and his theory of government: the State of Nature is simply an idea to be used as a tool to explain the purpose of civil government. Locke thought that in order to define a just government, one must define a just government's duties, and in order to define a just government's duties one should look at a situation in which there is no civil government at all and reason as to why it was first created. Hobbes actually used this idea before Locke, but drew different conclusions from it: Hobbes said that the State of Nature was, in effect, a State of War between all men, and due to the fact that all men's selfishness reigned supreme, civil government was necessary to civilize man into not being so cutthroat and savage toward each other. Locke, instead, came up with a set of Natural Rights to which all men are entitled: life, liberty, and property. These are rights that are inalienable, and since everyone has a right to them they must be protected. However, since not everyone's rights could always be protected in the State of Nature, civil government was instituted to protect these natural rights, and this is the purpose of civil government.
Thus, Locke's social contract, and thus the tie-in to America's political dogma of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (In case you're wondering why happiness instead of property, Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, thought that property was merely a means toward happiness, and decided that "the pursuit of happiness" would be more inclusive.)
Finally, one more important point in Locke's philosophy needs mentioning: that of just rebellion. Locke believed that, if the social contract was violated, and that the government did not uphold its duty to protect the citizens' natural rights, then it was the people's right, or even duty, to rebel against the unjust magistrate. This was what America's founding fathers found key in their struggle for independence: that what they were doing was right and necessary.
I hope this synopsis of Locke's political theories helps. Please respond if you have any questions, or even if you don't, because I don't like posting if no one responds (even if you just say what i wrote was interesting).
Dustin
He doesn't continue with a greater analysis of what it means to protect all three aspects (instead of just life as Hobbes primarily focused on), but it's significant. The key point is that we must always start with *only* the natural state (no government), and then add government only to the extent that it protects those three things. Later philosophers elaborate on the specific things that government can and should do in this context, but Locke was the first to really put forth the idea that government should be limited to only doing those things it's actually needed to do. Even Hobbes didn't go that far.
It's been a long time since I've read his work, but I do remember what it was about. How about you?
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 4:09pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114
Jun 15 2007 at 3:24 PM
gbaji wrote:
Read Lockes writings on the duties and responsibilities of government sometime.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#115
Jun 15 2007 at 3:25 PM
Hah! I knew there was a reason I though of Locke during this whole exchange.
Not sure if Murrquan meant to make the reference or not, but check it out:
Recall that the bolded sentence is specifically what Red disagreed with and what I then commented on and mentioned Locke. In case you think I made it up:
Nice...
Not sure if Murrquan meant to make the reference or not, but check it out:
Murrquan wrote:
I think there isn't a difference, because if I vote for someone in a representative government -- where the leaders represent the people -- I don't feel I can give him any authority I don't already possess. I don't have the right to rob you or anyone else, and I don't feel it'd be right for me to ask someone to do so on my behalf.
Recall that the bolded sentence is specifically what Red disagreed with and what I then commented on and mentioned Locke. In case you think I made it up:
John Locke wrote:
First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. A man, as has been proved, cannot subject himself to the arbitrary power of another; and having in the state of nature no arbitrary power over the life, liberty, or possession of another, but only so much as the law of nature gave him for the preservation of himself, and the rest of mankind; this is all he doth, or can give up to the common-wealth, and by it to the legislative power, so that the legislative can have no more than this. Their power, in the utmost bounds of it, is limited to the public good of the society. It is a power, that hath no other end but preservation, and therefore can never* have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects. The obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, but only in many cases are drawn closer, and have by human laws known penalties annexed to them, to inforce their observation. Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions, must, as well as their own and other men's actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.
Nice...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116
Jun 15 2007 at 4:16 PM
And just in case anyone is still confused how this ties into my earlier statements about how preventing a negative effect is "ok", but creating a positive is "not ok", let me explain a bit more.
Locke's theories talk about a state of nature. Within that state are actions (actions of men) that may infringe upon the "natural rights" of other men. A government should act to prevent those infringements (if and when "the people" decide it should of course). Note. It's about preventing actions of one man from infringing upon the natural rights (life, liberty, property) of another.
Thus, it is "ok" for the government to regulate negative aspects of capitalism within this context. In the example of the tire companies generating pollution, that's affecting the "life" of other men (and altering the natural state which would not include us being made sick due to pollution from tire manufacturing). Thus, the government *may* regulate that and be in keeping with Lockes theories.
Creating a positive is *not* ok within those theories. For example, creating a universal health care system. Becoming sick "naturally" is not a violation of the state of nature. You didn't become sick as a result of the actions of another, so there's no need for the government to provide care for you. That's not to say that individuals within the system cannot pursue and obtain health care, but it's *not* something the government should be involved with since it's not something caused by man within the natural state that infringes upon life, liberty, or property. This assumes we're just talking about providing health care for all. Obviously, if one person is injured as a result of actions of another, that person can and should expect his government to support his right for recompense. But that's still "preventing a negative" in this context.
Additionally, in the case of universal health care, since we must tax people to pay for it (removal of property) we are actually violating the natural rights of the citizens in order to affect something that isn't itself a violation of those natural rights. Thus, in Locke's view state funded health care is a violation of rights and represents a reduction of civil liberties.
There most certainly is a *huge* difference between preventing a negative and creating a positive. I didn't just make this stuff up.
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 5:29pm by gbaji
Locke's theories talk about a state of nature. Within that state are actions (actions of men) that may infringe upon the "natural rights" of other men. A government should act to prevent those infringements (if and when "the people" decide it should of course). Note. It's about preventing actions of one man from infringing upon the natural rights (life, liberty, property) of another.
Thus, it is "ok" for the government to regulate negative aspects of capitalism within this context. In the example of the tire companies generating pollution, that's affecting the "life" of other men (and altering the natural state which would not include us being made sick due to pollution from tire manufacturing). Thus, the government *may* regulate that and be in keeping with Lockes theories.
Creating a positive is *not* ok within those theories. For example, creating a universal health care system. Becoming sick "naturally" is not a violation of the state of nature. You didn't become sick as a result of the actions of another, so there's no need for the government to provide care for you. That's not to say that individuals within the system cannot pursue and obtain health care, but it's *not* something the government should be involved with since it's not something caused by man within the natural state that infringes upon life, liberty, or property. This assumes we're just talking about providing health care for all. Obviously, if one person is injured as a result of actions of another, that person can and should expect his government to support his right for recompense. But that's still "preventing a negative" in this context.
Additionally, in the case of universal health care, since we must tax people to pay for it (removal of property) we are actually violating the natural rights of the citizens in order to affect something that isn't itself a violation of those natural rights. Thus, in Locke's view state funded health care is a violation of rights and represents a reduction of civil liberties.
There most certainly is a *huge* difference between preventing a negative and creating a positive. I didn't just make this stuff up.
Edited, Jun 15th 2007 5:29pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#117
Jun 15 2007 at 7:04 PM
gbaji wrote:
And just in case anyone is still confused...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#118
Jun 15 2007 at 7:50 PM
Quote:
Scratch a libertarian, find a well-heeled anarchist.
I'd never thought of myself that way, but the idea sounds intriguing ^.^
I'm really just saying what makes the most sense to me, to be honest. Many thanks to everyone for their perspectives as well. {/bow} I confess, though, much of this reminds me of the following sage advice:
Quote:
Name calling is an efficient way of pointing out your opponents' weaknesses and call into question the authority with which they dispute your position. By encouraging your opponents to doubt their competence, you can undermine a contrary argument from the inside. For example:
* You: "I believe all short people should be beaten with rocks until they bleed."
* Opponent: "I think that's a very horrible and malicious idea."
* You: "Well, you're fat! Fatty fat doo doo head!"
* You: "I believe all short people should be beaten with rocks until they bleed."
* Opponent: "I think that's a very horrible and malicious idea."
* You: "Well, you're fat! Fatty fat doo doo head!"
-- How to be Persuasive, www.rinkworks.com
#119
Jun 15 2007 at 8:53 PM
Name calling on an internet forum is new to you?
Well here's some more: the anime smilies and ffxi translator speak are insights into your sad, moogle-addled brain.
I'm sure the Unicorn forum is in need of some of your special brand of discourse.
#120
Jun 16 2007 at 4:15 PM
Upon further reflection (and a visit to Wikipedia), I'm pretty sure I'm neither an Anarchist nor a Libertarian, although I do like some of their ideas.
I'm sorry if I've upset you, sir. But is that what you tell yourself, when you consider expressing an unpopular point of view? If so, do you think you deserve such criticism? Or is it your "friends" who told you that you do?
I wish you all well in your MMOs. {/bow}
Edited, Jun 16th 2007 8:42pm by Murrquan
Quote:
Name calling on an internet forum is new to you?
Well here's some more: the anime smilies and ffxi translator speak are insights into your sad, moogle-addled brain.
I'm sure the Unicorn forum is in need of some of your special brand of discourse.
Well here's some more: the anime smilies and ffxi translator speak are insights into your sad, moogle-addled brain.
I'm sure the Unicorn forum is in need of some of your special brand of discourse.
I'm sorry if I've upset you, sir. But is that what you tell yourself, when you consider expressing an unpopular point of view? If so, do you think you deserve such criticism? Or is it your "friends" who told you that you do?
Quote:
The problem with public displays of contempt
is that you have to accept
the idea that
a person's value is based on how the public sees them.
And that's all well and good
but the moment you slip up
you're going to be ridiculed as well,
and you won't be able to tell them off.
is that you have to accept
the idea that
a person's value is based on how the public sees them.
And that's all well and good
but the moment you slip up
you're going to be ridiculed as well,
and you won't be able to tell them off.
I wish you all well in your MMOs. {/bow}
Edited, Jun 16th 2007 8:42pm by Murrquan
#122
Jun 18 2007 at 1:19 AM
Gbaji, please don't try to use Locke to justify your stupid distinction.
It's bound to end in tears.
It's bound to end in tears.
#123
Jun 18 2007 at 1:16 PM
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Gbaji, please don't try to use Locke to justify your stupid distinction.
It's bound to end in tears.
It's bound to end in tears.
Tears for whom?
Joph says it's too much too read. You claim I'm wrong, but aren't able or willing to say why. Smash challenged my education on the subject and got spanked.
You're free to wallow in your own ignorance, but don't try to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about here. I'm probably the only person on this forum who actually understands Locke's writings. Which is scary given that they are the foundation of western liberalist governments (which the US, UK, and France all have).
If you want to discuss this intelligently instead of namecalling, go ahead. Don't just sit there claiming you know what you're talking about, when it's abundantly clear that you don't...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#124
Jun 18 2007 at 1:19 PM
gbaji wrote:
Monsieur RedPhoenixxx wrote:
Gbaji, please don't try to use Locke to justify your stupid distinction.
It's bound to end in tears.
It's bound to end in tears.
Tears for whom?
The way he meant 'tears' - it rhymes with "where's", not "gears"
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#125
Jun 18 2007 at 2:04 PM
Smash challenged my education on the subject and got spanked.
Off all the insane wild eyed delusions you've had, that one is by far the most divorced from reality. Paraphrasing wikipedia entries (complete with mistakes mind you) just doesn't pass for knowledge here. Sorry. I'm sure it works with your friend and co workers or whatever, I'm sure your mother thinks you're a very bright boy, but really, you simply don't have the education to speak intelligently on the subject of political or social theory. You just look like a fool. What you should really do is start a thread about something you do know about, Unix or whatever, and we'll all post paraphrases of what we can google in five minutes and see how easy it is to spot the people who actually know something about it and the people who are googling and regurgitating. When you realize how ludicrously easy it is notice the posers, you'll have some inkling of what your posts are like for us.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
#126
Jun 18 2007 at 2:36 PM
Scholar
21 posts
Since this seems more philosophical than factual, I thought I'd throw some questions that I feel are worth pondering into the mix. First, can a system (i.e. capitalism, communism, socialism, whatever) in and of itself be greedy? I, purely speculatively, would say that humans are by nature greedy, and that capitalism meerly lays out rules/laws etc. governing the ways through which we can go about being our greedy selves. Perhaps greedy isn't the best word, as it carries a negative value judgment with it, but I thought I'd use it since the OP mentioned it. I would be more apt to call it hedonism after Hobbes' description of the human organism as a pleasure-seeking/pain-avoiding creature.
This idea that humans are inherently hedonistic might also explain why some (if not most ... I dunno, I'm not citing anything so I'm not going to put numbers to it) governments set up based on equal distribution of wealth fail. In such countries (i.e. communist China), human greed of a few persons close to power seems to gain control of all resources, causing a large gap between the upper and lower class with virtually no middle class (hardly the equal distribution of wealth that the philosophy endorses).
Sooo, if the above has any validity to it (which, I know, is a big jump ... but hey, we're just waxing philosophy, right?), is it better to have a government that regulates human greediness, or one that turns a blind eye to it?
This idea that humans are inherently hedonistic might also explain why some (if not most ... I dunno, I'm not citing anything so I'm not going to put numbers to it) governments set up based on equal distribution of wealth fail. In such countries (i.e. communist China), human greed of a few persons close to power seems to gain control of all resources, causing a large gap between the upper and lower class with virtually no middle class (hardly the equal distribution of wealth that the philosophy endorses).
Sooo, if the above has any validity to it (which, I know, is a big jump ... but hey, we're just waxing philosophy, right?), is it better to have a government that regulates human greediness, or one that turns a blind eye to it?
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 223
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (223)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- capitalism- is it working
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC