eCONOMIC THEORY

nontheist said:
I said world peace cannot be achieved
Click to expand...

Noted, that is a common opinion, I think otherwise but you're entitled to that opinion. I can see why that makes me seem crazy.

You did say you want peace though.

Everybody wants peace, but each man is afraid the next will break it.

Every man says, "I'm only one man, what can one man do?".
 
nontheist said:
I would go to war if necessary if it was to better my country AKA tribe. The majority think that way, we're a easy lot to manipulate it is what it is.

Also lion and gazelles were not meant as a straw man, I was just pointing out it is about as logical. What you envision will never come you want to strip that bad emotion from humanity while leaving the good.
Click to expand...

images
 
nontheist said:
Come on Abandoned I want to hear how to can achieve world peace without telling anyone how to think or altering humanity as a whole. As a country we can't even figure out immigration and you got world peace in the bank. Shit you're on the verge of a Nobel I am sure fundamentalist will rejoice.
Click to expand...

images
 
abandonconflict said:
No, I said it was probably inevitable. I oppose that and I oppose the conditions that would make that an option.
Click to expand...

Well, you need a horse before you can hook a cart to it. What would could you work towards where everyone was free to accept socialism without government forcing it on them. I would have to say Libertarianism is your best chance for the free choice to become socialists. Not that it would ever happen, but that it is probably the direction you would need to go if it could. Giving the state more control via Obama/Romney isn't going to get you there.
 
Carthoris said:
Well, you need a horse before you can hook a cart to it. What would could you work towards where everyone was free to accept socialism without government forcing it on them. I would have to say Libertarianism is your best chance for the free choice to become socialists. Not that it would ever happen, but that it is probably the direction you would need to go if it could. Giving the state more control via Obama/Romney isn't going to get you there.
Click to expand...

You demonstrate that you don't understand the philosophy, then say it is unworkable. It is actually completely compatible with the US constitution but the redistribution that is occuring would be reversed with surprisingly subtle measures. Unions play a big part, but I think the problem you're having understanding the philosophy is the persistent view that the state is required to control resources and for the 90 thousandth time, that is not what I or any other libertarian socialist suggests.
 
abandonconflict said:
You demonstrate that you don't understand the philosophy, then say it is unworkable. It is actually completely compatible with the US constitution but the redistribution that is occuring would be reversed with surprisingly subtle measures. Unions play a big part, but I think the problem you're having understanding the philosophy is the persistent view that the state is required to control resources and for the 90 thousandth time, that is not what I or any other libertarian socialist suggests.
Click to expand...

If the state doesn't control the resources, then the people who have them currently control them. In order for you to get control of resources to society in order to make Libertarian Socialism a fact you would require everyone to WANT to give up their property(businesses, ect.) to the collective. Then the collective runs the business. What is the difference between the collective and government? Somebody would still be the manager of the plant and make decisions. Even if everyone voted who worked there someone would still be in charge in the end. How do you transition between what we have now and Libertarian Socialism. Walk me down the path.

It is hard for anyone to understand a philosophy that cannot be pinned down. I understand the philosophy perfectly, it is how the philosophy can come to exist that we are discussing. I can understand the difference between Libertarian Socialism and regular Socialism. The sticking point is how do you get Libertarian Socialism without force. If Libertarian Socialism turns into regular Socialism every time because it requires force to implement then you end up with a philosophy that might as well be "can't we all just get along." I am asking you the path to get to where everyone involved can and does make the uncoerced choice to become socialists.

By the way: A vote for Obama was a vote for statist socialism and a vote for Romney was a vote for statist fascism. You picked voting for something you don't believe in vs throwing it away by voting for someone you could actually believe in.
 
Carthoris said:
If the state doesn't control the resources, then the people who have them currently control them. In order for you to get control of resources to society in order to make Libertarian Socialism a fact you would require everyone to WANT to give up their property(businesses, ect.) to the collective.
Click to expand...

Or unions could collectively bargain for workers to receive tradeable stock. Then they would own the means of production they operate and as a union, would democratically administer it.
397110_419753991429407_1309793351_n.jpg
 
abandonconflict said:
Or unions could collectively bargain for workers to receive tradeable stock. Then they would own the means of production they operate and as a union, would democratically administer it.
397110_419753991429407_1309793351_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, because workers can't currently buy publicly traded stocks or anything.

You were less of a Derp-machine when you were still hugging Obamas balls.
 
Harrekin said:
Yeah, because workers can't currently buy publicly traded stocks or anything.
Click to expand...

As if anyone who isn't on the executive board of any fucking company could afford to buy anything that wasn't essential for survival.
wage-slave-small.jpg


by the way, did anybody go to jail over the pensions that were looted in the Hostess debacle?
 
abandonconflict said:
You're an embarrassment to the UK, I don't even know why they let you stay.
Click to expand...
You're an embarrassment to the US education system if you think Ireland is part of the UK.

I guess you're just the typical fat, stupid motherfucker who gives a semblence of reality to the American stereotype.
 
Harrekin said:
You're an embarrassment to the US education system if you think Ireland is part of the UK.

I guess you're just the typical fat, stupid motherfucker who gives a semblence of reality to the American stereotype.
Click to expand...

You're an embarrassment to the crown of England, I don't know why they let Irish people live in the UK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top