Originally posted by monster truckWell, if we agree that "most of the time" people do not start off with the same opporunities, then why should I have to define it further? I could say that nobody starts off with exactly the same amount of opportunity as anyone else. Would that make you happier?
No, I was pointing out that the loose use of terms like "most of the time" when used in an argument don't mean jack shiite!
Originally posted by wedgehead2Pulling for humanity? Man you got some whacked out ideas.
What reason is there not to pull together, for the good of humanity. The modern world I, and many other socialists, see as a world of greed, inequality and ssuffering.
In a free society those that want to pull each other would be free to do so. You can get together with your mates and have pulling parties. Feel free, see what variations of pulling you can come up with, mutual or alternate pulling. But to live in a free society means that you must respect others wishes not to indulge in your perverted pulling pursuits. Hands off, invites only, and I'll grant you the same consideration.
Free people are not equal.
Equal people are not free.
I am an advocate for a free society, a society in which you are free to succumb to whatever irrationality you choose (i.e. socialism) just that you cannot force it on others.
On the subject of greed. That really is none of your business if a person is greedy, they have chosen their values and it is not your position to assign your ideas of values to others. Greed is an 'excessive desire' but excessive by whos standard? There are those that have an excessive desire to run a marathon faster than anyone else, we hold these people up as heroes, I would say that those that have a desire to build, develope, create should be held in higher esteem.
Originally posted by WajomaYou are saying that you can't have liberty with equality. I would argue that you can't have liberty without equality, at least at the start of someones life- which could only be acheved through a 100% "death" tax. That way people would live in a freee society- with equsal opportunities from the start of their lives.
Pulling for humanity? Man you got some whacked out ideas.
In a free society those that want to pull each other would be free to do so. You can get together with your mates and have pulling parties. Feel free, see what variations of pulling you can come up with, mutual or alternate pulling. But to live in a free society means that you must respect other ...[text shortened]... say that those that have a desire to build, develope, create should be held in higher esteem.
I don't really see how left wing forms of government are irrational, as they are based on reason and equality, whereas those on the right are based on irrational traditional ideas, such as religion, greed, and ignorance.
It is important to me if someone else is greedy, as they are taking more than they need- taking away from someone else who needs that money more.
Are you saying we should hold greedy people up as heroes- those who have the desire to use other people to further their ambitions of wealth?
Originally posted by kmax87Microsoft isn't in the business of making things better for all concerned, they're in the business of making things better for Microsoft. So Microsofts amelioratativisticated agglomerationaledness (transitive verbiage) is no bodies business but Microsofts and whom ever they are trading with.
Should Microsoft be allowed to ameliorate all of its competition into its own corporate structure?
Should Microsoft be able to claim that by agglomerating everything in sight into its corporate structure that it was 'making things better'
for all concerned. 'Ameliorate' was used as a transitive verb to describe the justification by which companies ...[text shortened]... ait till I am long over the hill racing to my dotage before I'll think about calming down.
Of course jobs go as companies grow, there's something called 'economy of scale' that comes into play aka operating more efficiently, this is a good thing. A shame guvamint couldn't take a lesson on this point. When two companies join or (horrors) one larger ones buy a smaller one or in other words - two companies join. It is found that some jobs are duplicated. Should a person be employed in pointless work for the sake of employing a person, their weeks work going from their desk into the trash can because it's exactly the same as what the guy at the next desk has just done.
We have not seen a truly free market operate in a large enough market to fully test the hypothesis that a few small canny operators would always surface to challenge the supremacy of the would be monopolists.
Oh dear kmax, fallen into something of a trap here, if the hypothesis has not been tested why is the regulation to supposedly stop uncontrolled monopolies neccessary?
How big a market do you need, how about the world automotive industry and the abundance of different makes available. Is every one of these companies capped? How did they decide on the cap? The number of cars each company is allowed to sell?
Originally posted by WajomaAre you also an advocate for anarchy? If you would not force anything on anyone, then you have nothing but the expressed will of billions of free individuals to contend with, which in short is some version of anarchy.
Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free...I am an advocate for a free society, a society in which you are free to succumb to whatever irrationality you choose (i.e. socialism) just that you cannot force it on others.
The minute you expect your property or rights or liberty to be protected by law then you have sold your absolute freedom for a limited form as taxes are levied from the citizenry to provide the means for a bureaucracy to administer that law and order.
Following your model of 'free' society, only advantages those that are willing to accept your way of thinking on the subject of personal enterprise and as such you have not really promoted a free society but instead you have promoted a society that will favor the relatively small minority within that tend to want to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits or would risk their own money in a business venture. Not exactly the vast majority in any society.
Considering that most western democracies, whether American or not, are by and large the representative will of the majority of their respective people's it would then follow that if those nations within which those democracies are manifest, constantly choose to embrace some form of social welfare as part of the programs they wish to see their governments implement, then who are we to claim that those mechanisms are false or would lead to a less free society.
It would seem that if freedom is a relative term(having rejected the notion of a society based on anarchy) then why should anyone value your version of free as being more relevant than anyone else's. And surely after 200 years of popular democracy have not people consistently demonstrated by their democratic choices that they would rather have societies that were inclusive where notions of equality were seen as being fundamental to the creation of a truly enduring free society.
You on the other hand by your seemingly rational appeal are actually trying to implement an agenda that more easily resonates with the policies of the 20th centuries other great free thinkers.
The fascism formerly known as national socialism. Give a mini zig heil to Adolf for me next time to salute his picture.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Fallen into the old left/right linear thinking? having trouble adding another dimension?
You are saying that you can't have liberty with equality. I would argue that you can't have liberty without equality, at least at the start of someones life- which could only be acheved through a 100% "death" tax. That way people would live in a freee society- with equsal opportunities from the start of their lives.
I don't really see how left wing fo ...[text shortened]... heroes- those who have the desire to use other people to further their ambitions of wealth?
Libertarians are neither left nor right wing.
Free people are not equal, like it or not there are those amongst us who work harder and smarter, there are those out to just cruise, and there are those that are just plum lazy. So how do we even all the worlds population out according to your socialist ideal, we can't make people work if they don't want to we can't just lift them up. So only one thing left, knock down the tall poppies, bring em down, put obstacles in their way, pile the free loaders and secondhanders on to their backs. "Hey you....too successful, place your ankles in these shackles."
A 100% death tax? Why not call it what it is "Envy tax" All that happens is that those who would like to secure the future for family or friends when they pass on protect their assest in trusts or hide their money in some other way or possibly collapse their businesses to stop the looters getting their thieving hands on it.
A person can be greedy without taking anything. Greed is no crime. A non-greedy person that takes (as in 'theft'😉 something is as guilty as a greedy person that takes something.
My employer is very wealthy (self made multi millionaire) he uses me and exploits me, and I'm grateful for that because I exploit his need for my skills, I hope he keeps growing the company, there'll be more work.
Originally posted by kmax87For about the 654th time, Libertarianism is not anarchism, there is a role for guvamint. Police, Defence and Justice.
Are you also an advocate for anarchy? If you would not force anything on anyone, then you have nothing but the expressed will of billions of free individuals to contend with, which in short is some version of anarchy.
The minute you expect your property or rights or liberty to be protected by law then you have sold your absolute freedom for a limited form ...[text shortened]... as national socialism. Give a mini zig heil to Adolf for me next time to salute his picture.
There is a corollary to being free, and that is the recognition of your neighbours right to freedom.
As I have also pointed out numerous times in a free society groups may form voluntarily there maybe the Labour Party Group whose members donate 49% of their income which is then redistributed by grey shoe wearing bureaucrats. The difference being they would not be able to take 49% of a persons income if they did not belong to their club.
Perhaps you'd like to join wedgeheads pulling club.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaHow do you propose to levy taxes from the populace to establish the laws that 'you' think are necessary, based on the individuals determination of what they consider is appropriate. This is beyond simply pulling ones pud. This describes a whole new level of mastery over the art of mass debating.
there is a role for guvamint. Police, Defence and Justice.
There is a corollary to being free, and that is the recognition of your neighbours right to freedom..like to join [a] pulling club?
Next you'll be saying we should put every decision of government to a referendum. The brilliance of your free ideology is only matched by the quality and volume of air that fills your head.
Originally posted by kmax87Putting every decision to a referendum is about the opposite to what I've been saying.
How do you propose to levy taxes from the populace to establish the laws that 'you' think are necessary, based on the individuals determination of what they consider is appropriate. This is beyond simply pulling ones pud. This describes a whole new level of mastery over the art of mass debating.
Next you'll be saying we should put every decision of governm ...[text shortened]... of your free ideology is only matched by the quality and volume of air that fills your head.
There is plenty of info available on basic Libertarianism, go away have a 2 minute study you'll triple your knowledge on the subject.
You appear to be only interested in the anti side, try googling "critiques of libertarianism" it'll take you too not a bad site from which you can cut and paste some semi-reasonable arguments.
Originally posted by WajomaAnswer the criticisms that I have already raised instead of hiding behind the ideology you say you subscribe to. I don't need to study other peoples opinions to see the glaring inconsistencies and incongruities of your basic stated arguments canvassed so far.
Putting every decision to a referendum is about the opposite to what I've been saying.
There is plenty of info available on basic Libertarianism, go away have a 2 minute study you'll triple your knowledge on the subject.
You appear to be only interested in the anti side, try googling "critiques of libertarianism" it'll take you too not a bad site from which you can cut and paste some semi-reasonable arguments.
Originally posted by kmax87OK then what are some of these decisions that referenda would be used to decide?
Answer the criticisms that I have already raised instead of hiding behind the ideology you say you subscribe to. I don't need to study other peoples opinions to see the glaring inconsistencies and incongruities of your basic stated arguments canvassed so far.
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajoma1). Why would competition survive in a free market economy?
OK then what are some of these decisions that referenda would be used to decide?
2). We have not seen a truly free market operate in a large enough market to fully test the hypothesis that a few small canny operators would always surface to challenge the supremacy of the would be monopolists.
3). Following your model of 'free' society, only advantages those that are willing to accept your way of thinking on the subject of personal enterprise and as such you have not really promoted a free society but instead you have promoted a society that will favor the relatively small minority within that tend to want to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits or would risk their own money in a business venture. Not exactly the vast majority in any society.
4). It would seem that if freedom is a relative term(having rejected the notion of a society based on anarchy) then why should anyone value your version of 'free' as being more relevant than anyone else's. And surely after 200 years of popular democracy have not people consistently demonstrated by their democratic choices that they would rather have societies that were inclusive where notions of equality were seen as being fundamental to the creation of a truly enduring free society.
5). How do you propose to levy taxes from the populace to establish the laws that 'you' think are necessary, based on the individuals determination of what they consider is appropriate?
These are 5 points I made which you ignored, choosing instead to play the man instead of the ball.
When you have nothing other than the sound bytes of other peoples ideas to cling to I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised you would not debate the points raised preferring to duck the specifics and weasel out of the debate by welshing on your right of reply.
Originally posted by kmax87Next you'll be saying we should put every decision of government to a referendum.
Answer the criticisms that I have already raised instead of hiding behind the ideology you say you subscribe to. I don't need to study other peoples opinions to see the glaring inconsistencies and incongruities of your basic stated arguments canvassed so far.
Are you also an advocate for anarchy?
The fascism formerly known as national socialism. Give a mini zig heil to Adolf for me next time to salute his picture.
companies such as Microsoft usually try and convince legislators that its actions in swallowing up its competitors are in the public interest and should not be obstructed.
Governmental interference actually insures competition.
These comments amongst others are not criticisms and show an underwhelming lack of knowledge on the subject you have chosen to debate.
Originally posted by Wajoma1). Why would competition survive in a free market economy?
These comments amongst others are not criticisms and show an underwhelming lack of knowledge on the subject you have chosen to debate.
2). We have not seen a truly free market operate in a large enough market to fully test the hypothesis that a few small canny operators would always surface to challenge the supremacy of the would be monopolists.
3). Following your model of 'free' society, only advantages those that are willing to accept your way of thinking on the subject of personal enterprise and as such you have not really promoted a free society but instead you have promoted a society that will favor the relatively small minority within that tend to want to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits or would risk their own money in a business venture. Not exactly the vast majority in any society.
4). It would seem that if freedom is a relative term(having rejected the notion of a society based on anarchy) then why should anyone value your version of 'free' as being more relevant than anyone else's. And surely after 200 years of popular democracy have not people consistently demonstrated by their democratic choices that they would rather have societies that were inclusive where notions of equality were seen as being fundamental to the creation of a truly enduring free society.
5). How do you propose to levy taxes from the populace to establish the laws that 'you' think are necessary, based on the individuals determination of what they consider is appropriate?
These are 5 points I made which you ignored, choosing instead to play the man instead of the ball.
When you have nothing other than the sound bytes of other peoples ideas to cling to I suppose I shouldn't really be surprised you would not debate the points raised preferring to duck the specifics and weasel out of the debate by welshing on your right of reply.
Just in case you missed this the first time.