Layoffs coming...

Carthoris said:
If socialism worked as well as a ant colony we would all be socialists by now. Everyone works towards the common goal. The queen isn't really a queen, is she? She doesn't do anything but lay eggs - her job. The ants are free to leave, the colony doesn't force them to stay. They could simply walk away. They are there because it is their place and they know it. There is no where to walk to in our society to get away from the dictates of society.
Click to expand...

Iirc the queen does much more ... she lays down the pheromonic shackles of absolute dominance. When the queen dies (and the pheromones dissipate), there is often the most amazing insurrection among the hormonally liberated workers. After a week or three of "no - I I I I I am the Queen, bitch!!" infighting, the colony tends to die. cn
 
Dr Kynes said:
your "libertarian socialism" talk is just a bad joke. its the same old "Stalinist Authoritarian Socialism" in a new frock.
Click to expand...

This is all you do.

There are many things other than cannabis that can obviate demand for the products which have been coercively monopolized. By obviating demand, there is absolutely no violent redistribution, in essence, you would be free to do what ever you want. Since you need a master and someone to make your decisions for you, you can't imagine such a world. It is a foreign concept to you that you could determine for yourself. Essentially what I am saying is that the only way that it really differs from anarchocapitalism, is that oil barons won't have private armies to defend their consolidated control of finite natural resources.
 
Carthoris said:
socialism cannot be mandated by the government, because then it is oppression.
Click to expand...

Let us be free to oppress each other? Let us be free to consolidate, defend, own and hereditarily control finite natural resources? Let those owners eventually consolidate all power? Or liberate the masses by any means necessary?

Notice that I reduced your entire argument to one premise, this statement is just incorrect. This statement is backwards. Allowing a few to continue to own everything is oppression. Defending them in their quest to continue to consolidate ownership of everything to give to their children and not yours, that is oppression.
 
abandonconflict said:
This is all you do.
Click to expand...

i stopped reading right here.

mainly because i dont care what you have to say on the virtues of socialism, since its all lies.

yes. LIES. you have shown yourself to be well versed in the socialist and communist political hypotheses, yet you deliberately misrepresent them at every opportunity.

you even admit to shilling for obama even though you were voting for some other pinko, thus making you a liar, and a political whore.

all your bullshit about how people who planned to vote for romney were just voting AGAINST obama, and voting against obama was no reason to support anybody else. and yet you lied over and over, and voted for some socialist no-hoper.

your entire campaign in favour of obama was nothing but a sham, it was just an agitprop campaign AGAINST romney and not FOR obama.

all of your rhetoric urging everyone to vote FOR somebody rather than against obama was nothing but hot air.
 
Dr Kynes said:
i stopped reading right here.

mainly because i dont care what you have to say on the virtues of socialism, since its all lies.

yes. LIES. you have shown yourself to be well versed in the socialist and communist political hypotheses, yet you deliberately misrepresent them at every opportunity.

you even admit to shilling for obama even though you were voting for some other pinko, thus making you a liar, and a political whore.

all your bullshit about how people who planned to vote for romney were just voting AGAINST obama, and voting against obama was no reason to support anybody else. and yet you lied over and over, and voted for some socialist no-hoper.

your entire campaign in favour of obama was nothing but a sham, it was just an agitprop campaign AGAINST romney and not FOR obama.

all of your rhetoric urging everyone to vote FOR somebody rather than against obama was nothing but hot air.
Click to expand...
27988651.jpg
 
abandonconflict said:
Let us be free to oppress each other? Let us be free to consolidate, defend, own and hereditarily control finite natural resources? Let those owners eventually consolidate all power? Or liberate the masses by any means necessary?

Notice that I reduced your entire argument to one premise, this statement is just incorrect. This statement is backwards. Allowing a few to continue to own everything is oppression. Defending them in their quest to continue to consolidate ownership of everything to give to their children and not yours, that is oppression.
Click to expand...

Saying you did something and doing something are different things. You didn't reduce my argument, you just asked questions, sidestepped, and refused to meet my statement. If I own something, then I should get to keep it. If I want to give it to my children, that is my right. Oppression is oppression. If you take away someones private property rights forcefully, then you only have only accomplished government control and little else. Living in socialism is like an animal living inside a zoo. Sure, they can do whatever they want inside the confines of their prison and no one is going to eat them, but to pretend they aren't restricted to whatever the zoo wants them to do is pretty asinine.

They own what they built - why should you or anyone else be able to dictate what they do with it unless they are directly attacking/harming someone? Like I said, this is a difference in ideology and it really just depends on how you feel about it. It doesn't have a math equation to point out right and wrong. We are faced with unanswerable question of : Society or the Individual?
 
Carthoris said:
Saying you did something and doing something are different things. You didn't reduce my argument, you just asked questions, sidestepped, and refused to meet my statement. If I own something, then I should get to keep it. If I want to give it to my children, that is my right. Oppression is oppression. If you take away someones private property rights forcefully, then you only have only accomplished government control and little else. Living in socialism is like an animal living inside a zoo. Sure, they can do whatever they want inside the confines of their prison and no one is going to eat them, but to pretend they aren't restricted to whatever the zoo wants them to do is pretty asinine.

They own what they built - why should you or anyone else be able to dictate what they do with it unless they are directly attacking/harming someone? Like I said, this is a difference in ideology and it really just depends on how you feel about it. It doesn't have a math equation to point out right and wrong. We are faced with unanswerable question of : Society or the Individual?
Click to expand...

It doesn't suggest you share your toothbrush or that you cannot give your children the possessions you have earned and created. It limits that to the resources which are common heritage of humanity. For example, Gina Rinehart inherited most of Australia's rare earth mines. The miners who extract the resources from this mine own no part of it. They are paid well, but they will never, nor will their children ever live the kind of life this woman inherited, she did not earn it. The aboriginal people who were removed in order to give her family control of it do not own it. The miners are now taking pay cuts because she is not satisfied with her profit margin, although she takes no part in the operation of the mine. She simply can't compete with African miners, who undercut her because they are practically enslaved.
 
Harrekin said:
That's Guinness bro...

We call it "the black stuff", but on account of the potential of some liberals on here to get super butt-hurt and call me a racist, I'll leave it out.
Click to expand...

It was obvious what was IN the glass - a stout poured with mixed gas. My question is what is ON the glass? See the raised design? It isn't a regular Guinness pint glass.
 
abandonconflict said:
It doesn't suggest you share your toothbrush or that you cannot give your children the possessions you have earned and created. It limits that to the resources which are common heritage of humanity. For example, Gina Rinehart inherited most of Australia's rare earth mines. The miners who extract the resources from this mine own no part of it. They are paid well, but they will never, nor will their children ever live the kind of life this woman inherited, she did not earn it. The aboriginal people who were removed in order to give her family control of it do not own it. The miners are now taking pay cuts because she is not satisfied with her profit margin, although she takes no part in the operation of the mine. She simply can't compete with African miners, who undercut her because they are practically enslaved.
Click to expand...

You have to have a black and white line of where private property starts and ends. If I buy land and find oil on it, do I then lose the land because it becomes productive? If I grow a lemon tree, I own it. If I then start selling the lemons, does the state take my tree and maybe property too? Protecting the rights of the rich protects our own rights too. Why is a business not private property? If I build a giant 500 billion a year business and die, leaving it to my kids, shouldn't they be able to own it since I wanted them to have it?
 
Carthoris said:
It was obvious what was IN the glass - a stout poured with mixed gas. My question is what is ON the glass? See the raised design? It isn't a regular Guinness pint glass.
Click to expand...
Regular Guinness glass?! There's about a million different kinds, even the same pub will have different types of Guinness glasses.

Don't assume it's Guinness because its black, there are many stouts just that was Guinness, you can tell by the way the head is.
 
Carthoris said:
You have to have a black and white line of where private property starts and ends. If I buy land and find oil on it, do I then lose the land because it becomes productive? If I grow a lemon tree, I own it. If I then start selling the lemons, does the state take my tree and maybe property too? Protecting the rights of the rich protects our own rights too. Why is a business not private property? If I build a giant 500 billion a year business and die, leaving it to my kids, shouldn't they be able to own it since I wanted them to have it?
Click to expand...
If I fly a plane over your house do I own the air above it?
 
Carthoris said:
If I build a giant 500 billion a year business
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;YKjPI6no5ng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng[/video]

I agree though, black and white, well defined parameters should work in most cases and courts can handle the rest. I agree with protecting property, but where is the line drawn? This is a great point you made, and I'm glad you made it, because the current system needs to be fixed. That is actually the point of this whole rant. Now the debate can make progress, the way I see it, we are on the same page, even if our views aren't parallel. That just means contrasting views can produce real ideas.

The way I see it, if you have employees who toil more than you do making you rich and building your half trillion dollar enterprise, should their children not get something when they die? If you control a significant market share, should you be able to continually acquire more and keep it in your family? Should someone inherit such power? That isn't exactly being created equal, that is being created more powerful than others and certainly more wealthy. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think a lot of progress can be made in this direction.
 
abandonconflict said:
[video=youtube;YKjPI6no5ng]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng[/video]

I agree though, black and white, well defined parameters should work in most cases and courts can handle the rest. I agree with protecting property, but where is the line drawn? This is a great point you made, and I'm glad you made it, because the current system needs to be fixed. That is actually the point of this whole rant. Now the debate can make progress, the way I see it, we are on the same page, even if our views aren't parallel. That just means contrasting views can produce real ideas.

The way I see it, if you have employees who toil more than you do making you rich and building your half trillion dollar enterprise, should their children not get something when they die? If you control a significant market share, should you be able to continually acquire more and keep it in your family? Should someone inherit such power? That isn't exactly being created equal, that is being created more powerful than others and certainly more wealthy. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think a lot of progress can be made in this direction.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the highlighted. the "being created equal" concept is about rights and not wealth. I think you're misapplying it here.
As to the question of "should anyone have such power?" my almost reflexive response is "why not?" That's not a flippant response but literal. Why should one not be allowed such power? Which universally-acknowledged principle is being violated that trumps rights of possession? cn
 
cannabineer said:
I disagree with the highlighted. the "being created equal" concept is about rights and not wealth. I think you're misapplying it here.
As to the question of "should anyone have such power?" my almost reflexive response is "why not?" That's not a flippant response but literal. Why should one not be allowed such power? Which universally-acknowledged principle is being violated that trumps rights of possession? cn
Click to expand...

To your disagreement about my definition of equality, what right does someone who does not own something have to acquire that, if it is already monopolized and/or controlled? How does the system effectively protect those rights? How about the ways in which they are acquired in the first place? In many cases there is dispute against corporations acquiring and consistently, someone get's lawyer'd in the ass so the big guys can profit.

As for such power being wielded, come on, really? 3 US corporations decimated Borneo's and Sumatra's biodiversity for palm oil and Indonesia did not benefit nearly as much as several wealthy Americans did. Indonesia couldn't stop them and America didn't try to. That is just one example, I'm sure a few more could be drummed up. Some very prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates have contended that global warming is the biggest threat to our planet and that blame can be rested squarely on several US corporations for it. That is some serious power being handled by people who didn't earn it, they were simply born.
 
abandonconflict said:
To your disagreement about my definition of equality, what right does someone who does not own something have to acquire that, if it is already monopolized and/or controlled? How does the system effectively protect those rights? How about the ways in which they are acquired in the first place? In many cases there is dispute against corporations acquiring and consistently, someone get's lawyer'd in the ass so the big guys can profit.

As for such power being wielded, come on, really? 3 US corporations decimated Borneo's and Sumatra's biodiversity for palm oil and Indonesia did not benefit nearly as much as several wealthy Americans did. Indonesia couldn't stop them and America didn't try to. That is just one example, I'm sure a few more could be drummed up. Some very prominent scientists, including Nobel laureates have contended that global warming is the biggest threat to our planet and that blame can be rested squarely on several US corporations for it. That is some serious power being handled by people who didn't earn it, they were simply born.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's pretty. But "it's unjust!" simply isn't a good enough reason for revolution, even on the smallest scale. the only reason would be "there is better". I don't see how to do it better. cn
 
cannabineer said:
I'm not saying it's pretty. But "it's unjust!" simply isn't a good enough reason for revolution, even on the smallest scale. the only reason would be "there is better". I don't see how to do it better. cn
Click to expand...

Revolution is rapid, progress is OK. This wealth redistribution trend has to be reversed. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I would settle for a New Deal.
 
abandonconflict said:
Revolution is rapid, progress is OK. This wealth redistribution trend has to be reversed. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I would settle for a New Deal.
Click to expand...

and one more phrase is co-opted by the left and taken as their own.

amazing how redefining and re-interpreting things is just groovy if your on the lefty side, but attempting to translate lefty moonspeak into real english is hurtful and meanspirited.

and you still havent responded to this well phrased and logical question, shit he was even polite which is amazing when somebody is talking with you.

Carthoris said:
You have to have a black and white line of where private property starts and ends. If I buy land and find oil on it, do I then lose the land because it becomes productive? If I grow a lemon tree, I own it. If I then start selling the lemons, does the state take my tree and maybe property too? Protecting the rights of the rich protects our own rights too. Why is a business not private property? If I build a giant 500 billion a year business and die, leaving it to my kids, shouldn't they be able to own it since I wanted them to have it?
Click to expand...

though to be fair (ha ha ha ha ) you did edit out a few words and then post a video of obama gibbering about how society built everyone's success so success should be dismantled and its valuable parts given to "society" and by society he means liberal politicians and bureaucrats, who happen to be "The Collective" that manages the "Means of Production" when its not seeds, or plants.

to ensure "Fairness" and "Income Equality" everyone over the "Maximum Federally Approved Income Rate" must be taxed at 90%, and all their property must be "collectivized" and "shared" with the "collective"

but thats totally not socialism. thats libertarianism.

its also not "Wealth Redistribution" either, it's "Wealth Re-Redistribution" which is a good thing.
 
Dr Kynes said:
and one more phrase is co-opted by the left and taken as their own.
Click to expand...

I did, knowingly and purposefully do just that, there is nothing dishonest about it. I stopped reading here, because you're a shill.

Then I saw the word Libertarian in your thoughtless diatribe and noticed that you ended your BS by doing the same thing, except there is nothing honest about yours. Libertarians were socialist a century and a half ago, the new version has tried to distance itself from the correct usage, and fooled many people. It must really bug you, that they derived the best part of their philosophy from a form of socialism. No matter how many times you call me a Marxist (you liar) you can't conceal where the libertarian philosophy began.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top