Voters steer Europe to the right by Geezer

Quote:
Originally Posted by KPO:
Yeah ok, capitalism could be called 'more natural' - in the sense I described.

Right so maybe Kwicko, JKiddo and I weren't just making it all up because we're crazy extremists who hate centrists?

But the point remains, I reject any idea that an Economy is, or should be, like a natural system. Natural systems by definition, aren't controlled by Human minds, and no matter what way you cut it economies are. Even completely Laissez faire ones.

And analogy or not, it's still an appeal to nature to say "letting the tree grow naturally is better than putting it in a glass jar".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:27 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I reject any idea that an Economy is, or should be, like a natural system. Natural systems by definition,

Forget about strict definition because it's an analogy - we're looking at similarities in the mechanisms.

You are rejecting the idea that an economy is like a natural system, but then every time I draw a comparison you are saying it's an 'appeal to nature' and crying fallacy. So it seems to me like I can't win, but I'll have a think anyway to think of some more 'natural' comparisons as well as competition.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO_ when three reasonably intelligent people "misunderstand" your posts all pretty much the same way, I suggest the problem is not with the readers.

And despite all the following clarification, I'm still confused by what you're trying to say. You say that capitalism is either natural or like a natural system, then you say it's a natural "solution". You also say that it's "natural" because it includes competition... but not "dog-eat-dog" competition.

So, can you clarify for us?

In WHAT ASPECT is capitalism more natural (or like natural) than any other system (eg tribalism, fuedalism, socialism etc.)

If capitalism is a "solution", what PROBLEM is capitalism trying to solve?

IF the essence of capitalism's "naturalness" rests in its outgrowth from previous systems (as an "evolutionary step" in economic development), how do you know that FURTHER evolution would not create something even better?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 6:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
innovation excluding things like socialism, which is not drawn from the problem at hand

For a guy who's arguing for economic evolution, you seem to be making pretty un-natural, arbitrary exclusions.

FYI- socialism is trying to solve the economic problems of capitalism. The BIGGEST problem in capitalism is the regular "boom and bust" created by over-concentration of wealth and the creation of monopolies. This leads to a destruction of productive capacity and a LOSS of wealth. The second problem is the focus of production for exchange value rather than use value, leading to a distortion in resource use. The third problem (which I don't think Marx envisioned) is the stagnation of innovation due to treating ideas as property. The fourth is, of course, the trajectory towards grossly unequal distribution of wealth, which is an economic problem for the vast majority who don't see the fruits of their labor.

It seems to me that there is a certain amount of mythology built up about nature, evolution, capitalism, socialism, and economics, which doesn't have a solid foundation in reality.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Forget about strict definition because it's an analogy - we're looking at similarities in the mechanisms.

I get that, but even so it would seem wrong or irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You are rejecting the idea that an economy is like a natural system, but then every time I draw a comparison you are saying it's an 'appeal to nature' and crying fallacy. So it seems to me like I can't win, but I'll have a think anyway to think of some more 'natural' comparisons as well as competition.

Really? I thought I dealt with your comparison as to why it is nature, and said "appeal to nature" was where you at least seemed to say it was good because it was natural.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:26 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But by that logic, isn't every innovation a natural innovation? Because it's a conclusion drawn from a problem or situation at hand?

Every innovation excluding things like socialism, which is not drawn from the problem at hand, ie. generating wealth. It tries to solve another problem (social justice?) by imposing on the wealth-generating system.

Heads should roll

Signy already addressed this, but I see the same contradiction. Generating wealth was not the only problem at hand around the time that socialism was developed as a concept. The generated wealth was concentrated in a starkly heterogenic way, with a growing mass of extremely poor people with bad political representation.

Why is socialism not a "natural" innovation to deal with that problem at hand?

ETA: As an observer, I enjoyed this discussion more when it was less about who said "natural" first, and more about country statistics and money to "take home". If any of you felt inspired to get back to that, this RWED voyeur would be very happy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 8:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

While this discussion is way out of my own competence zone, lemme toss a fireball into the pool just cause I wanna see what happens.

So how exactly, would one who actually knows something about this stuff, go about fitting the concepts expressed in Kropotkins Mutual Aid within this framework, as it seems to me simple cooperation is what is most "natural" right up till you add currency to the process...

And maybe even then.

-F

Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents
.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 9:00 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Lemme add a relevant bit from Chapter 7.
And remind you this was written in 1902.

The absorption of all social functions by the State necessarily favoured the development of an unbridled, narrow-minded individualism. In proportion as the obligations towards the State grew in numbers the citizens were evidently relieved from their obligations towards each other. In the guild -- and in medieval times every man belonged to some guild or fraternity two "brothers" were bound to watch in turns a brother who had fallen ill; it would be sufficient now to give one's neighbour the address of the next paupers' hospital. In barbarian society, to assist at a fight between two men, arisen from a quarrel, and not to prevent it from taking a fatal issue, meant to be oneself treated as a murderer; but under the theory of the all-protecting State the bystander need not intrude: it is the policeman's business to interfere, or not. And while in a savage land, among the Hottentots, it would be scandalous to eat without having loudly called out thrice whether there is not somebody wanting to share the food, all that a respectable citizen has to do now is to pay the poor tax and to let the starving starve. The result is, that the theory which maintains that men can, and must, seek their own happiness in a disregard of other people's wants is now triumphant all round in law, in science, in religion. It is the religion of the day, and to doubt of its efficacy is to be a dangerous Utopian. Science loudly proclaims that the struggle of each against all is the leading principle of nature, and of human societies as well. To that struggle Biology ascribes the progressive evolution of the animal world. History takes the same line of argument; and political economists, in their naive ignorance, trace all progress of modern industry and machinery to the "wonderful" effects of the same principle. The very religion of the pulpit is a religion of individualism, slightly mitigated by more or less charitable relations to one's neighbours, chiefly on Sundays. "Practical" men and theorists, men of science and religious preachers, lawyers and politicians, all agree upon one thing -- that individualism may be more or less softened in its harshest effects by charity, but that it is the only secure basis for the maintenance of society and its ulterior progress.

It seems, therefore, hopeless to look for mutual-aid institutions and practices in modern society. What could remain of them? And yet, as soon as we try to ascertain how the millions of human beings live, and begin to study their everyday relations, we are struck with the immense part which the mutual-aid and mutual-support principles play even now-a-days in human life. Although the destruction of mutual-aid institutions has been going on in practice and theory, for full three or four hundred years, hundreds of millions of men continue to live under such institutions; they piously maintain them and endeavour to reconstitute them where they have ceased to exist. In our mutual relations every one of us has his moments of revolt against the fashionable individualistic creed of the day, and actions in which men are guided by their mutual aid inclinations constitute so great a part of our daily intercourse that if a stop to such actions could be put all further ethical progress would be stopped at once. Human society itself could not be maintained for even so much as the lifetime of one single generation. These facts, mostly neglected by sociologists and yet of the first importance for the life and further elevation of mankind, we are now going to analyze, beginning with the standing institutions of mutual support, and passing next to those acts of mutual aid which have their origin in personal or social sympathies.

Human nature is not, and never was, the font of wickedness those wishing to control it "for your own good" have always told you - and it is this lie upon which abject capitalism is based, for without that control, he who does not share receives the rightful due for his behavior - what good does being wealthy do you if no one will trade with you, speak to you, or help you ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
What's interesting about that list to me, is that all the countries above the US are small countries (and some of them oil rich states/tax havens) - but basically I think it must be an advantage being a small country. Big European countries like the UK, France, Germany are quite a bit further down the list.

I finally got back here today and saw that list and of course saw the immediate truth of the data, but you beat me to it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:27 AM

double post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think we've all come to the conclusion that you don't believe you have to back up anything you say.

Alas, there you go again speaking for the community.

I think you came to that conclusion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I finally got back here today and saw that list and of course saw the immediate truth of the data, but you beat me to it.

I'll bet the Cayman Islands are up there, too! (Luxemburg is the Cayman Isles of the EU)

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'll bet the Cayman Islands are up there, too! (Luxemburg is the Cayman Isles of the EU)

You have not answered my question from 2 days ago signy.

What is in a Marxist society for me?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Alas, there you go again speaking for the community.

I think you came to that conclusion.

And there you go again, ignoring all the on topic posts to troll.

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
You have not answered my question from 2 days ago signy.

What is in a Marxist society for me?

And considering you've not answered any question put to you throughout the thread, you have no right to complain.

So you admit you haven't got even the slightest ability to support your paper thin rhetoric, or are you happy to just prove it without admitting it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What is in a Marxist society for me?

I did, but under a different login, so the header name was jkiddo and the answer was "freedom". Not meaning to be confusing but I'm changing my emailer and the system won't let me use "someone else's" (ie my) name.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 12:51 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Generating wealth was not the only problem at hand around the time that socialism was developed as a concept. The generated wealth was concentrated in a starkly heterogenic way, with a growing mass of extremely poor people with bad political representation.

Why is socialism not a "natural" innovation to deal with that problem at hand?

I laid out two problems to be solved: one to generate maximum wealth and two to ensure society as a whole benefits from it to the maximum extent. Any invention that improves the situation in either of these problems is welcome to my mind.

I get the feeling 'innovation' is the wrong word to describe Marx's philosophies but sure, they came naturally, and I'm sure with good intentions. My problem with marxism/socialism is that it aims to solve the second problem by completely overhauling the system that has been evolving for centuries towards the goal of solving the first - this seems reckless to me. It may be an 'innovation', but not towards solving the problem of making money - so it is kind of 'unnatural' when applied to that system (the one for making money).

Really I think I'm just defending conventional wisdom: capitalism is the accepted method of generating wealth, and social welfare is the accepted system of making sure society is fair and healthy (note my distinction between social welfare and socialism - I don't think socialists should have the monopoly on social welfare). I personally think and have already stated in this thread that US society seems to me quite unfair (relative to others) and unhealthy in parts, and that more could be done towards fixing this.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:12 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
FYI- socialism is trying to solve the economic problems of capitalism. The BIGGEST problem in capitalism is the regular "boom and bust" created by over-concentration of wealth and the creation of monopolies. This leads to a destruction of productive capacity and a LOSS of wealth. The second problem is the focus of production for exchange value rather than use value, leading to a distortion in resource use. The third problem (which I don't think Marx envisioned) is the stagnation of innovation due to treating ideas as property. The fourth is, of course, the trajectory towards grossly unequal distribution of wealth, which is an economic problem for the vast majority who don't see the fruits of their labor.

Even if all this is true, then you can just treat a capitalist economy as a natural system that is in some ways unstable, and so interfere with it just to keep it as steady as you can, through government regulation etc. Maybe it's impossible to dampen the boom and bust cycles of capitalism completely but at least there's an upwards trend of economic growth, so I personally can live with the cycles. Lax regulation is unforgivable though, of course. Marxism to me seems to want to overhaul the 'naturally evolved' system from the outside, with its own arbitrary (albeit idealistic) ordering of things. It doesn't surprise me that it's never worked.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 1:33 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I did, but under a different login, so the header name was jkiddo and the answer was "freedom".

Hmm. Maybe put that little fact in your signature, I might've responded more to your alias' posts.

Quote:
IF the essence of capitalism's "naturalness" rests in its outgrowth from previous systems (as an "evolutionary step" in economic development), how do you know that FURTHER evolution would not create something even better?

I'm hopeful that it will, and even is. First of all I'm looking for evolution not revolution, so bad luck marxists. Hmm I'll prolly have to do some research but I think I've heard such a term as an 'ideas based economy' - in a digitised world starting capital becomes less important, and 'ideas' (which anyone can have) become the most valuable thing.

It seems quite an encouraging thing to me, but I'll eagerly await all you guys' left-wing pessimism on the issue.

Quote:
You should try reading Man Against Myth. The myth of capitalism being "natural" is well-entrenched, but it's false. It's no more "natural" than Marxism, or communism, or feudalism.

I'm not going to read left wing text books in a hurry, but I'm interested, could you explode the myth a little for me? I said before that capitalism has never seemed unnatural to me in how it's developed/became adopted, but alas I'm no scholar, so I could be ignorant.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:21 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO- There are about a half- dozen flawed (IMHO) assumptions in your argument.

The first is that "natural" is inevitably better. I'm not sure what you base that on, but I'm assuming that's because you think evolution inevitably creates a superior result. I dispute that notion of evolution. Rather than heading towards a goal or developing something "better", it's a probabilistic/ random process: more like a piece of junk on the highway, which comes to equilibrium between the lanes not because that's where it "wants" to be but simply because it doesn't get kicked out of that spot very often. (And then a meteor comes along and knocks it back into traffic.)

The second problematic assumption is that ONLY competition is natural. In fact, nature creates all kinds of relationships: Primary producers, secondary producers, parasites, symbiotes, commensals, mutualists, and predators. Even the mitochondria which power every cell are thought to have been originally independent organisms which reached a symbiotic relationship with a host cell. Mulitcellular organisms themselves are an example of cooperation. Cooperation is part and parcel of the natural world.

Another problem is the assumption that wealth creation is somehow inherent in the human psyche. If by wealth you mean "money" then I can assure you that it is not.

Another is that wealth distribution is somehow NOT an economic problem. It is. There is literally NO POINT to generating more wealth UNLESS it can be distributed. Beyond that, the inevitable concentration of wealth under capitalism is not only unfair, its self-destructive. Marx's point (I believe) is that this process is the seed of capitalism's own destruction. So capitalism seems to have an inherent problem even beyond the philosophic sense.

I have several more but am out of time.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:27 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
KPO_ when three reasonably intelligent people "misunderstand" your posts all pretty much the same way, I suggest the problem is not with the readers.

It can be both. I post a somewhat ambiguous sentence that probably needs expounding, and you three who are pre-disposed to a certain view of pro-capitalists (or 'extremists' as citizen calls us) all jump to a shared, comfortable conclusion, with varying degrees of certainty. I don't know, either that particular dog-eat-dog view abounds among some capitalists, or it's what all of your left wing blogs tell you that pro-capitalists believe. Either way some of the direct responses I got to my quotes were bizarre and mystifying.

Quote:
You also say that it's "natural" because it includes competition... but not "dog-eat-dog" competition.

I would say competition and survival of the fittest for businesses, but not that same kind of ruthlessness towards people, that's just callous.

Quote:
If capitalism is a "solution", what PROBLEM is capitalism trying to solve?

Making money as effectively as possible, I've been saying - where do you think it came from?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I would say competition and survival of the fittest for businesses, but not that same kind of ruthlessness towards people, that's just callous.

But how do you suppose capitalism works???? You pay people the very least you can get away with-- less than starvation wages if you can-- so you can pocket the profit. And EVEN IF you're a capitalist with a heart of gold, those who take in higher profits will eventually either buy you out or simply out-compete you. There isn't any room for charity in capitalism, no matter how generous a business owner feels because he will simply be swamped by those less charitable, and go out of business.

Quote:
Making money as effectively as possible, I've been saying - where do you think it came from?

So, is capitalism all about "making money", and is THAT what you consider to be inherent in human nature? Or is capitalism about becoming more productive- making more goods with less effort. There's a difference.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO- Do you want to know where I think capitalism shines?

Enhancing productivity.

In the quest for ever-greater profits, capitalism has sought to remove humans from production as much as possible. The profits they acquire are inevitably bent towards making more stuff with less input. Sometimes it drives towards lower wages, but sometimes the result is automation. Wonderful, blessed automation that keeps our lives from being one of unending dawn-to-dusk toil.

HOWEVER.

It ties distribution with production, but squeezes more and more people out of the production system. You wind up with two economies: the dispossesed (people live on dumps, in shantytowns all around the world) and the lucky few who "get" to be exploited but also get to enjoy some of the benefits of an advanced system.

Surely, there is a better way to improve productivity.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 16, 2009 3:03 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Another is that wealth distribution is somehow NOT an economic problem. It is. There is literally NO POINT to generating more wealth UNLESS it can be distributed. Beyond that, the inevitable concentration of wealth under capitalism is not only unfair, its self-destructive.

Okay so it's an unstable natural system (perhaps politically as well as economically, as you claim), and some interference to distribute wealth (to some extent) is necessary? Just like regulation, I'm for it - can it be done in the form of social welfare, because I'm for that anyway?

Quote:
Marx's point (I believe) is that this process is the seed of capitalism's own destruction.

But not if we distribute wealth with social welfare, right? Phew. I guess social welfare is like the enemy of socialism then - citizen's not going to be happy about that, haha.

Quote:
Another problem is the assumption that wealth creation is somehow inherent in the human psyche. If by wealth you mean "money" then I can assure you that it is not.

Well I'm dubious, and I would prefer if we kept with the term 'wealth'. But affluence to me basically has the future promise of more harmonious, liberal societies around the world(better educated, and morality is a luxury), conquering of world hunger, and more resources for science/the arts.

With my first assumption I'm surprised to hear you knocking evolution, but maybe evolution sometimes produces dead ends? In any case remember that we're in the realms of analogy and perhaps here one can stretch the metaphor too far. With businesses I think even revolutionary (not evolutionary) things like socialism can still catch on if they are demonstrated to work at making money effectively - but that never seems to be the main purpose of it. I like the way you've prompted me to think here though.

As for my second assumption I'm not interested in recreating 'natural' for natural's sake, or because I think natural is best. Bottom line is what is best for humanity.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I post a somewhat ambiguous sentence that probably needs expounding, and you three who are pre-disposed to a certain view of pro-capitalists (or 'extremists' as citizen calls us)

In response to you calling me and everyone else who were disagreeing with you extremists, lest we want to forget that.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

But not if we distribute wealth with social welfare, right? Phew. I guess social welfare is like the enemy of socialism then - citizen's not going to be happy about that, haha.

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth and prescribing thoughts and ideas to me, when it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about in that regard? Perhaps you have to prescribe this hard line attitude to someone so that you can feel justified with your own?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[I did, but under a different login, so the header name was jkiddo and the answer was "freedom".

Freedom?

*BSCM stares blankly at screen*

In one word you've demonstrated a gulf between us that can never be spanned. I see you now as the Alliance. Not a force for freedom, but as absolute control packaged with a pretty bow. You value no freedom for the indivudual economically and yet you'd use that very word in answer. In your world I'd not wish to comply. I'd insist upon living my life as I see fit and then your society would be forced to aggress upon me. The words Freedom and Liberty are centric to the fibre of my being. You're using them as a punchline.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:53 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
In response to you calling me and everyone else who were disagreeing with you extremists

No I didn't.

Quote:
Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth and prescribing thoughts and ideas to me,

Lol, no just a swipe at you (and geezer in effect) and your rival definition of socialism that encompasses social welfare.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
No I didn't.

Just like you never said Capitalism is natural. Whatever.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Lol, no just a swipe at you (and geezer in effect) and your rival definition of socialism that encompasses social welfare.

As I said, please refrain from projecting thoughts and ideas on to me, because you clearly lack the ability to even get within an order of magnitude of reality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:58 AM

KPO, you waste your time talking with him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 6:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
KPO, you waste your time talking with him.

And you waste your time posting, since you've proven you can't back up word one of your crazy lies (beyond irreverent way off the mark insults). One question, since when has giving up personal freedoms so the government can keep us safe from the bad people been a libertarian goal, you deluded Authoritarian troll?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
In one word you've demonstrated a gulf between us that can never be spanned. I see you now as the Alliance. Not a force for freedom, but as absolute control packaged with a pretty bow. You value no freedom for the indivudual economically and yet you'd use that very word in answer. In your world I'd not wish to comply. I'd insist upon living my life as I see fit and then your society would be forced to aggress upon me. The words Freedom and Liberty are centric to the fibre of my being. You're using them as a punchline.

Despite that fact that you think we can't span the gulf, I think it would be interesting to explore it.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:15 AM

Signy, you waste your time talking with him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yanno what? I honestly don't think so. BlueSun's views are heartfelt, and he's honest.

BlueSun... what's say we continue?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Yanno what? I honestly don't think so. BlueSun's views are heartfelt, and he's honest.

They're really not, and he really isn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BlueSun... what does "freedom" mean to you? What do you think can/ will happen under capitalism that can't/ won't happen under Marxism?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 10:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
BlueSun... what's say we continue?

With you I can agree to it. Alas tho, if the troll tries to address my conversation with you as it attempted several previous times, there will be no answer. Citizen can hang on the edge of thunderdome and jeer all he wants, but in the end he is still outside.

If you wish to start you can further expound upon your one word answer. Tell me why a marxist society will give me freedom.

*Edit* sorry I didn't read down 2 further posts to see your Q to me. For the moment tho I'd like you to further make the case for marxism. I've read a lot of your rebuttals to other peoples posts but not much orginal work. How can a marxist society make me free?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
With you I can agree to it. Alas tho, if the troll tries to address my conversation with you as it attempted several previous times, there will be no answer. Citizen can hang on the edge of thunderdome and jeer all he wants, but in the end he is still outside.

You're the only troll here, as you prove with every post. All the time you continue to always act like a troll, the only people who'll even read your posts are other delusional trolls, and people like Sig who for reasons known only to themselves like to try to talk to trolls as if they were people.

On the outside? Hardly anyone takes your nonsense seriously. Probably because you've failed to back up your crazy talk, and now laughably try to blame me for your short comings. I guess it really is the only way a low life troll with nothing to add here can live with it self...

Go back to claiming you're a libertarian, while calling for less personal freedoms to stop the baddies, you pathetic authoritarian delusional nut.

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
*Edit* sorry I didn't read down 2 further posts to see your Q to me. For the moment tho I'd like you to further make the case for marxism. I've read a lot of your rebuttals to other peoples posts but not much orginal work. How can a marxist society make me free?

Translation:
BSCM can't answer the question, YET AGAIN. Why can you never answer a simple direct question? Are you just too stupid?

So much for honesty Sig, it can't even honestly answer a simple question. When has it once said or added anything honestly in this thread? If you were honest Sig, you'd have to admit it hasn't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BlueSun... it all depends on what one means by "freedom". Someone (from Britain, if that makes any difference) told me a long time ago that Americans have a different definition of freedom than Europeans. Americans think of freedom as "freedom to..." while europeans think of freedom as "freedom from...". Although that comment didn't make any sense to me, it stuck with me for more than 25 years, and the more I talk to Americans and Europeans the more it makes sense.

It also depends on what you mean by Marxism. Most people think that Stalinist Russia exemplifies Marxism. I've never read Marx but I know people who have, and they tell me (quite often!) that Marx never really fleshed out what the future would bring. His major work, after all, was about capitalism (Das Kapital) not communism.

So I would say that "marxism" brings you freedom from corporate exploitation. Ideally, it would also mean the whithering away of the state (the state being an oppressing arm in favor of the monied interests)- although I'm not sure that would happen as humans will STILL need to resolve conflicts and decide on what is fair/ unfair in the future. So let's say that Marxism would bring a state which fairly represents the interests of its citizens.

There.

Did I answer your question?
Now.

Will you answer mine?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
and people like Sig who for reasons known only to themselves like to try to talk to trolls as if they were people

I try to talk to everyone as a person. Sometimes I fail. But if I find the conversation unproductive, I simply don't talk to them at all.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:48 PM

JKIDDO

Well...?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:53 AM

JKIDDO

Oh, that's me BTW-

Jkiddo, aka SignyM.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:02 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Capitalism is natural

There's some truth in that, but it's a bit of a blanket statement, which is why I didn't say it.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So Bluesun- are you interested in a discussion?

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I guess I have my answer.

So much for honesty.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:11 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
the more I talk to Americans and Europeans the more it makes sense.

Do you think Americans with their more acute sense of personal freedom are more suited to marxism then?

Quote:
So I would say that "marxism" brings you freedom from corporate exploitation. Ideally, it would also mean the whithering away of the state (the state

Wasn't marx's idea that socialism was just the step on the way to communism, ie. state controlled everything? Which do you personally favour signy?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Wasn't marx's idea that socialism was just the step on the way to communism, ie. state controlled everything? Which do you personally favour signy?

Communism was supposed to be the first step to the withering of the state and social class hierarchy altogether.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:42 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

What, does the communist state implement that withering of the social class hierarchy, and then dismantle itself?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In theory, a "communist state" is an oxymoron.

----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy

Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:35 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say competition and survival of the fittest for businesses, but not that same kind of ruthlessness towards people, that's just callous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But how do you suppose capitalism works???? You pay people the very least you can get away with-- less than starvation wages if you can-- so you can pocket the profit. And EVEN IF you're a capitalist with a heart of gold, those who take in higher profits will eventually either buy you out or simply out-compete you. There isn't any room for charity in capitalism, no matter how generous a business owner feels because he will simply be swamped by those less charitable, and go out of business.

Good argument - so again I believe there's a role for government intervention to ensure that every individual has the freedom of opportunity to reach their potential - there needs to be equal opportunity for everyone (decent standard of education, healthcare etc., for all ). But signy you have to ask yourself if there would really be opportunity in a marxist society that is economically uncompetitive?

Would the wage-slaves in these developing capitalist economies be better off in a marxist country, even if that country's industry loses out, and becomes slowly more and more uncompetitive? What about in ten years, thirty years, fifty years...? Seems to me if you want to be a tiger economy that will lift your people out of grinding poverty, capitalism is your best bet. You have to acquire the wealth before you can spread it around - and it seems to me that wealth is needed to create opportunity, through decent schooling for all, etc. The more wealth you acquire the more you can invest it in your people.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:07 PM