How can you have socialism with the business owners not giving up their businesses completely? Everything is gray. You have to draw a line somewhere and say "this must not be crossed." Unfortunately, we are on a teeter totter. The further socialists and tardos move towards statism the further we have to move towards anarchy because if you let 3/4 of the population get past center then the jig is up.
eCONOMIC THEORY
- Thread starter lifegoesonbrah
- Start date
Pay is simply an accounting of your physical actions. If it weren't for money, then you would have to hunt to get food, or do something valuable. Money is simply a piece of paper that states that "The owner of this paper has hunted this much." that you can trade for other peoples skills. Whoever wrote that was probably 15.
He sounds like an angry teenager that refused to answer questions about his beliefs and instead goes ballistic when he is backed into a corner by logic. Is this what I have to look forward too if I have a kid when they become a teenager? :/ "Dad, I have decided to become a libertarian capitalist socialistical expoentiality dosus. You are dumb and I am soooo much better than you because I see the light." haha.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I never even said do away with rich people.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You have to pay for everything, if they could make you pay for air they would. Tambien La Lluvia.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Not steam. Pneumatic. And while the design is known, there's no evidence that it was actually constructed.
The Industrial Revolution needed one other thing: energy in the form of abundant fuel. Coal was recognized as such by a cultural accident: The English, who had obvious surface deposits, discovered that it would burn and heat cities ... the ancients used wood and charcoal as fuels. These ran out before a real <cough!> head of steam could build. cn
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If you're really interested in what Libertarian Socialism is, read one of Noam Chomsky's books. I'm not here to educate you. You're simply looking for straw men to set up and attack by misinterpreting it so you can call it Marxism and therefore dismiss me as a Marxist. This isn't debate. Libertarian Socialism is a well defined political philosophy, internationally recognized and a century and a half old. It isn't "my philosophy" it is Libertarian Socialism.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
You have done no such logical cornering, you have repeatedly ascribed views to me that I do not espouse.
I am paraphrasing here, but you said "We will take away businesses from the people who own them because they make the workers wage slaves, workers will then own equal shares of the business. Maybe land too." I assume that the entire purpose of all that would be to transfer wealth from the rich(owners) to the poor(workers). My point was that all the money the rich have when split up equally among the working class wouldn't give them much more. This makes me question what is really wanted. Even at our current levels of government assistance in America if you taxed the rich 100% you couldn't pay for what is going on. Are you more interested in disposing the rich or raising up the poor?
You had to work for everything before money, civilization, and society were created. If they had to move the air for you to give it to you then they would charge you like they do with water. Your point is lost on me.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Exactly, you paraphrase (incorrectly) then assume. Your point, in turn is false (top 1% owns wealth equal to bottom 40%), then you follow this up with some complete bull shit about taxing at 100% (look up the laffer curve).
You are just trying to paint me as a member of some mob from the French Revolution.
If you don't understand Libertarian Socialism, which I have indicated is the political philosophy which I currently identify most closely with, and you do wish to understand it, then go look it up. I understand other political philosophies and I don't incorrectly ascribe views to anyone who identifies with a political philosophy I don't understand. If I want to understand a well defined political philosophy, that is internationally well known and recognized and over a century and a half old, I read about that philosophy. I don't call a goose a duck.
Are you interested in understanding or spreading disinformation?
We don't know if Heron built it, I am sure the point is not lost on you of what I was saying. It would take one person with vision to really see what the steam engine can do and demonstrate it. The Chinese used coal in the BC and the Greeks knew about it. The point was that was only a short time ago when that happened compared to human history and you must admit that we progressed quickly from the discovery of steam to the steam engine in terms of the human time line. It was thousands of years ago we invented the wheel, yet it was a long time before it moved to the next level. Our time between spurts is less.
If you don't want to discuss your positions then why bother coming to a politics board and talking about them?
If I wanted to just make fun of you I would just act like Chesus Monkey or Uncle Shitshispants. My questions are legitimate, and if you can't answer them then why do you bother espousing the virtues of a position you obviously haven't thought through?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
My positions can be found within the philosophy of Libertarian Socialism. Are you here to tell me what that is when you have no idea what it is?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If you're really interested in what Libertarian Socialism is, read one of Noam Chomsky's books. I'm not here to educate you. You're simply looking for straw men to set up and attack by misinterpreting it so you can call it Marxism and therefore dismiss me as a Marxist. This isn't debate. Libertarian Socialism is a well defined political philosophy, internationally recognized and a century and a half old. It isn't "my philosophy" it is Libertarian Socialism.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Have you noticed I have never once asked you to define your philosophy?
Have you noticed I have never asked you to tell me what Ayn Rand wrote about?
Have you noticed I have never asked you what Rawn Pawl was pushing?
Have you noticed I have never once asked you to tell me what Gary Johnosn was pushing?
Have you noticed I have never once asked you to define Anarchocapitalist, Voluntaryist, "free-market" libertarianism, or any of the similar philosophies to the Austrian School of Economics?
Why are you asking me to define a philosophy that is older and more established than all of them?
Have you noticed I have never asked you to tell me what Ayn Rand wrote about?
Have you noticed I have never asked you what Rawn Pawl was pushing?
Have you noticed I have never once asked you to tell me what Gary Johnosn was pushing?
Have you noticed I have never once asked you to define Anarchocapitalist, Voluntaryist, "free-market" libertarianism, or any of the similar philosophies to the Austrian School of Economics?
Why are you asking me to define a philosophy that is older and more established than all of them?
It sounds like you are ashamed to me.
