Layoffs coming...

Dr Kynes said:
ORLY?

you got my genealogy have you?

must be fascinating reading.

maternal line:
grandmother 100% cheyenne all the way back
grand father 100% irish all the way back since his parents left the old country in 1900's

paternal line:
grandfather 50% scots 50% irish since his parents left the old country in the early 1800's
grandmother german and dutch, from pennsylvania amish country after that its kinda fuzzy (yay rumspringa)

dont see much angle or saxony blood in there...

but hey. i guess you must be right, since you were there. every step of the way.

man your fictions get shakier every day.
Click to expand...

I'm still not leaving bro, sorry to disappoint you, I like it here.
 
Dr Kynes said:
still not talking about whether you "collectivized" your buds.

but then "collectivization" is only for people who have more than you right?

yeah. thought as much.
Click to expand...

I share. I actually went out in the rain yesterday and gave away 7 hoodie sweaters with 100 peso notes in the pockets. I walk the talk.
 
abandonconflict said:
I share. I actually went out in the rain yesterday and gave away 7 hoodie sweaters with 100 peso notes in the pockets. I walk the talk.
Click to expand...
Oh wow... "He did descend from heaven and appeared to 7...in the rain."

You should write a book, people believe in Scientology so there's obviously a market for bullshit sky-daddies.
 
Harrekin said:
Oh wow... "He did descend from heaven and appeared to 7...in the rain."

You should write a book, people believe in Scientology so there's obviously a market for bullshit sky-daddies.
Click to expand...

All I would write is that I felt much more of a sense of warmth from giving sweaters away than I could from wearing one. I wish I could share that, but I can't, it is something that must be experienced to know.
 
abandonconflict said:
All I would write is that I felt much more of a sense of warmth from giving sweaters away than I could from wearing one. I wish I could share that, but I can't, it is something that must be experienced to know.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it's really charity if you use it to pontificate how much better you are than everyone else.

I give to charity privately and don't feel the need to disclose the exact details online looking for kudos.

But cool story bro.
 
"True libertarians must embrace discrimination ... Indeed, private property means discrimination. I, not you, own such and such. I am entitled to exclude you from my property. I may attach conditions to your using my property, and I may expel you from my property."
~Hans-Hermann Hoppe

"Therefore we must conclude that we are not really anarchists"
~Murray Rothbard
 
abandonconflict said:
I had to reduce this, honestly, the rest of what you said in the post was uneducated and not worthy of reply. Sorry to sound that way, but that just didn't make sense. You approach the philosophy of libertarian socialism with the persistent misconception that the state will control means of production (and therefore power). This is simply incorrect but I understand where this misconception comes from and why it is so pervasive. It has been ingrained into your generation by cold war fears. You simply need to understand that it is incorrect.

As for these two statements I quoted, I disagree with both Marx and Rand. Marx believed the state could be trusted not to become corrupt with power, Rand was just a selfish cunt.

As for your idea of the libertarian party and that I should adhere to it. I voted green party, Jill Stein. Aside from an Obama vote in 08, I have always voted this way, Nader.
Click to expand...

You must of misread my statement. My statement said there are 2 ways to get to society taking care of itself without government interference as a current state: 1) Libertarian government in which people are allowed to decide what they want and the people decide to live as socialists. IE: the owners give up their ownership to society without coercion. and 2) Socialist government which force implements socialism and then the decide that they want to be socialists and remove the forceful part and continue as socialists. IE: the owners have their ownership forcefully taken and then come to accept that it was for the best.(Or alternatively they are simply murdered and everyone accepts this) It seems to me that if you espouse freedom, dignity, and the the like that the second is not an acceptable way.

Unless you can explain a different way to get to stateless socialism that I haven't listed.
 
abandonconflict said:
Expound please.
Click to expand...

Capitalism isn't the government granted monopolies and abuse that you see today - you seem to equate the two. If you can accept that socialism as an economy isn't socialism as a government then you must accept capitalism in the same way. If everyone miraculously agreed to be socialists without government force, then it would work. Capitalism would work in the same way. The ideology you are talking about has more to do with everyone working towards the same goal than it does anything else.

In Libertarian Socialism is there still welfare and the like? If your labor is your private property, which seems to be what you suggest, and taking it from you is wrong(when the boss does it to make a profit), then it must also be wrong to take your labor to give it to other people without your consent. What would be the consequences for not giving up parts of your labor to people who didn't have jobs or who weren't as good at their jobs? Does everyone make the same wages?
 
abandonconflict said:
I share. I actually went out in the rain yesterday and gave away 7 hoodie sweaters with 100 peso notes in the pockets. I walk the talk.
Click to expand...

those pesos were minted by the mexican central bank, you certainly cant claim any lefty charity credit for sharing the wealth of nations with the people who's nation it already is. shit, since you had those pesos, you probably stole them from some hard working peasant by hoarding your dirty gringo wealth which you gained as a participant of the most greedy and selfish corrupt racist economic regime in history.

and those sweaters were already the rightful property of the "collective" anyhow.

Unless you grew the cotton yourself, harvested it with your own hands, turned it into yarn on a treadle powered spinning wheel, then knitted those hoodies yourself, "You didnt build that"
 
abandonconflict said:
You see Carthoris, he just can't move past the persistent view that socialism is defined as state control of everything. This is his basic premise and the hinge of all of his arguments. It is rather cute actually.
Click to expand...

He is stating how it would be in real life. I understand your theory, I just don't see everyone willingly being part of the society. Do you see the big business people giving up their businesses to society willingly?
 
cannabineer said:
That is a bit like saying "the car goes down the road because the transmission is doing its job". Labor, management, officers, legal, consumers ... they're all necessary but not sufficient. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...

Agreed. You know the difference between driving a car that has a good transmission and a eh one? Driving a car with a 6 speed automatic vs a 3 speed automatic for instance. You pay more for the 6 speed, but your car performs better. Labor, Management, ect are the same way. If you do your research, get a transmission that seems to be doing good on the market, and pay the price to get it, you can have a superior car. CEOs are the same way.
 
Please go on about Marxism kynes. This interesting stuff you're pushing. Any other ideas you want to assign to me? Or are you just going to insist another 20 times that I am something I say I'm not? Who is paying you to follow me around and troll me?
 
abandonconflict said:
Please go on about Marxism kynes. This interesting stuff you're pushing. Any other ideas you want to assign to me? Or are you just going to insist another 20 times that I am something I say I'm not? Who is paying you to follow me around and troll me?
Click to expand...

really, im following you?

most of the threads you start are the same old crap, anarcho-_____ism will save the world... anarcho-__________ism is the only way... anarcho-___________ism will destroy monopolies...

your lurking this thread and GETTING POUNDED by your own reluctance to examine your own "philosophy".
youre not getting trolled youre getting schooled.

again i say, read the communist manifesto and das kapital. youll shit yourself, or you already know what they say and your lying trying to sell marxism light, new marxism,, crystal marxism and caffeine free diet marxism. next up: cherry marxism or marxism Zero.
 
Dr Kynes said:
really, im following you?

most of the threads you start are the same old crap, anarcho-_____ism will save the world... anarcho-__________ism is the only way... anarcho-___________ism will destroy monopolies...

your lurking this thread and GETTING POUNDED by your own reluctance to examine your own "philosophy".
youre not getting trolled youre getting schooled.

again i say, read the communist manifesto and das kapital. youll shit yourself, or you already know what they say and your lying trying to sell marxism light, new marxism,, crystal marxism and caffeine free diet marxism. next up: cherry marxism or marxism Zero.
Click to expand...

Kynes, I have explained my philosophy, you misinterpret my arguments and come back with strawmen and red herrings and falsely attribute views to me which I repeatedly denounce. I link wikipedia of my philosophy, even in my sig and you come back insisting wikipedia is faulty. I have explained it Kynes, repeatedly, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. I reported you for harassment. I'm not a Marxist. I am not pushing state socialism. Get it through your head. You have ruined this site for me, instead of coming here to debate, like I was with carthoris, I have you repeating the same shit over and over. You have presented not a single cogent argument. You have relied on distortions and have attributed views falsely to me in order to give the appearance that I have been "pounded". Nobody is fooled Kynes, you are foaming at the mouth because the word socialist isn't popular.

Let's see how long your philosophy lasts. I won't have to resort to any of those tactics to expose you for the idiot you are.
 
abandonconflict said:
Kynes, I have explained my philosophy, you misinterpret my arguments and come back with strawmen and red herrings and falsely attribute views to me which I repeatedly denounce. I link wikipedia of my philosophy, even in my sig and you come back insisting wikipedia is faulty. I have explained it Kynes, repeatedly, just because you don't get it doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. I reported you for harassment. I'm not a Marxist. I am not pushing state socialism. Get it through your head. You have ruined this site for me, instead of coming here to debate, like I was with carthoris, I have you repeating the same shit over and over. You have presented not a single cogent argument. You have relied on distortions and have attributed views falsely to me in order to give the appearance that I have been "pounded". Nobody is fooled Kynes, you are foaming at the mouth because the word socialist isn't popular.

Let's see how long your philosophy lasts. I won't have to resort to any of those tactics to expose you for the idiot you are.
Click to expand...

wikipedia is not a source nor does that page define "libertarian socialism" it simply describes what "libertarian socialism" is NOT. you know this, anyone who wasted half an hour reading that garbage knows it, and even the other proponents of this "philosphy" know it. it is not a philosophy, its a delusional fantasy with no framework, no logic and no internal consistency.

even the mighty Noam Chomsky doesnt define the ideals or the systems of this sad little reject from the lysander spooner collection of first drafts and rough outlines. picking through the rubbish bin of a failed and nearly forgotten 19th century fringe kook doesnt make for a philosophy, any more than changing the color of the dust jacket on Mao's little red book of "Quotations From The Chairman" to blue makes maoism a hot new idea.
 
Carthoris said:
Agreed. You know the difference between driving a car that has a good transmission and a eh one? Driving a car with a 6 speed automatic vs a 3 speed automatic for instance. You pay more for the 6 speed, but your car performs better. Labor, Management, ect are the same way. If you do your research, get a transmission that seems to be doing good on the market, and pay the price to get it, you can have a superior car. CEOs are the same way.
Click to expand...

but not employees, right? If I get you right you believe in a continual arc here - so if I pay 20k for a car it is a better car, if I pay 40k it is better yet, if I pay 100k better still and so on. So If I pay 90 million a year I should get a CEO that is twice as good as the one I got for 45 million right? It doesn't work that way. There is a limit and that limit is established by a current market and that current market is maintained by board of directors - that friends of the CEOs are on, in fact the CEOs are on different boards who all give themselves raises over and over again - it has little any more to do with performance at all.
 
abandonconflict said:
Please go on about Marxism kynes. This interesting stuff you're pushing. Any other ideas you want to assign to me? Or are you just going to insist another 20 times that I am something I say I'm not? Who is paying you to follow me around and troll me?
Click to expand...

I've stayed out of this argument because i really don't know...

But if you could clear something up for me I would appreciate it. Can you describe the difference between Marx's endgame utopia and the Libertarian-Socialism endgame utopia? I'm just not seeing any.
 
canndo said:
but not employees, right? If I get you right you believe in a continual arc here - so if I pay 20k for a car it is a better car, if I pay 40k it is better yet, if I pay 100k better still and so on. So If I pay 90 million a year I should get a CEO that is twice as good as the one I got for 45 million right? It doesn't work that way. There is a limit and that limit is established by a current market and that current market is maintained by board of directors - that friends of the CEOs are on, in fact the CEOs are on different boards who all give themselves raises over and over again - it has little any more to do with performance at all.
Click to expand...

Absolutely this includes the employees too. Look at any business that isn't run by unions and you will see that the more productive, experiences, and better workers get raises and promotions over the others. If the owners(stockholders) of the companies are happy with the performance and cost of the CEO, then what does anyone else's opinion matter? If the workers aren't forced to work there, and the consumers aren't forced to buy the products the company makes, and the company isn't forced to give the people jobs then I would have to say everyone is accepting the situation and what they get out of it. If you don't like it, move on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top