[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173137]that's just flat out false. the entire basis of social security is that people are incapable of managing their own future financial security on their own.[/QUOTE]
And stupid if you think a person with disability or single parent can.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173253]i dont care what a bunch of third world barbarians think of me.[/QUOTE]
You don't know who they are do you?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29173258]And stupid if you think a person with disability or single parent can.[/QUOTE]
now you're retracing your own steps. go back a few pages in this thread if you're still pondering that issue.
Actually if you want to look at an ideal that removes individuality, look at Capitalism
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173284]now you're retracing your own steps. go back a few pages in this thread if you're still pondering that issue.[/QUOTE]
You mean that charity thing? I think I already went over that.
[QUOTE=amute;29173263]You don't know who they are do you?[/QUOTE]
the only one i know and care about is tarkovsky. i saw "stalker" a while back and thought it was a good movie, but youre completely missing the point of this discussion anyway because you have no grounds left to argue on.
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29173357]You mean that charity thing? I think I already went over that.[/QUOTE]
no, im referring to s0beit patiently explaining to your ignorant self on why your childish, overly-ambitious, altruistic views are wrong, because i simply refuse to do such to someone who is so stubborn and close-minded.
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=amute;29173289]Actually if you want to look at an ideal that removes individuality, look at Capitalism[/QUOTE]
capitalism isn't a philosophy or political system; it's an economic system. again, you completely missed the point.
if you want to discuss libertarianism or objectivism, or objectivist libertarianism, then they [b]do[/b] emphasize the importance of the individual.
[QUOTE=amute;29173136]Because two Wall Street sources said so? oklol[/quote]
... what? Did you ever read the content of those two articles or are you just being intentionally stupid? Even if you believe his policies were good for the economy, you already failed, since a good share of his policies died with him or were repealed after he died. Consequently the economy picked up shortly after.
[QUOTE=amute;29173136]Yeah, ensuring people have stable lives - WHAT A JOKE LOL[/quote]
I take it you didn't bother to take my advice and actually read the topic, if you could see my face right now I'm [b]so[/b] surprised.
[QUOTE=amute;29173136]It's basic human rights.[/quote]
No, they aren't. Rights are something that don't include people slaving for your well being.
[QUOTE=amute;29173136]Sure, it just magically improved. Like Capitalism always magically fixes its problems.[/quote]
Herp a derp most of his programs never lasted or were never enacted and in fact the freedom to trade increased dramatically after his administration.
[QUOTE=amute;29173136]Where he gets the ideas doesn't really matter. And it isn't 'totalitarian' control of trade. Using buzz words doesn't make your argument any more 'scarier'[/quote]
Yeah, it sort of does. You really need to read more about FDR and his policies, the history of the depression, how the economy works and you need to read that wikipedia article.
How can any progressive argue corporatism is a good thing? Fucking hypocrite jesus
[QUOTE=amute;29173136]The idea of a communist society is to remove borders.[/QUOTE]
You didn't really explain a lot about this, so, what? It would need to be enacted worldwide? or the country wouldn't have borders? What does this even mean, I'd like to know.
Finally: Stop degrading the quality of this topic, if you want to have a legitimate debate then present facts with evidence and don't make bullshit replies intended to start more heated arguments.
You say capitalism doesn't improve things, especially after the depression (or leading up to the depression, i suppose you blame capitalism for that too instead of you know, what actually happened) then cite some sources and provide some evidence and actually talk and debate like a normal person.
This topic doesn't need to devolve into what is was before, with baseless claims and sniping all over the place. Thank you.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173366]no, im referring to s0beit patiently explaining to your ignorant self on why your childish, overly-ambitious, altruistic views are wrong, because i simply refuse to do such to someone who is so stubborn and close-minded.[/QUOTE]
Oh no you showed me. Unlike sObeit though he likes to use real arguments instead of what your doing now. No use arguing with you if your resulting to this. That whole statement was a blanket statement which could be applied to anyone which strangely enough would work more as an insult against your ideas then anyone elses.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173366]the only one i know and care about is tarkovsky. i saw "stalker" a while back and thought it was a good movie, but youre completely missing the point of this discussion anyway because you have no grounds left to argue on.[/QUOTE]
He made more films then stalker
Point is, Communism removes the false profit motive that Capitalism props up. Which is the complete opposite of the arts. Most art out today is local, independent or low-key. Most of this lack of popularity is due to the fact the people involved don't care about the profit motive. If they do, they're not swimming in it.
The Soviet Union, though not communist, thought itself to be one. The idea of ridding capitalist thought and profit gain, and though it didn't work and there was so much deceit, you still had some of the greatest artistic minds. Like Andrei Tarkovsky.
What is art but the very definition of human individuality. If you're talking about actual legal individuality, communism isn't totalitarianism.
[quote]capitalism isn't a philosophy or political system; it's an economic system. again, you completely missed the point.[/quote]Humans aren't machines, money and other goods tie into our lives. Capitalism, regardless of the social intentions, always brings a society down to a social level. The act of purchasing things is a part of life, and involved socially. A lot more then you think. Capitalism replaces human emotion with the false idea that profit is exponentially important.
But being a capitalist Alucard, I doubt the human element matters at all to you. You're more concerned with poor people not stealing your tax money.
And even then, why bring up communism? Communism is an economic theory, and using your logic, shouldn't have a place here. So good job your arrogant fuck, you shot yourself in the foot.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29173423]Oh no you showed me. Unlike sObeit though he likes to use real arguments instead of what your doing now. No use arguing with you if your resulting to this. That whole statement was a blanket statement which could be applied to anyone which strangely enough would work more as an insult against your ideas then anyone elses.[/QUOTE]
i'm merely explaining to you the perpetual idiocy that occurs whenever you post.
even if s0beit is way more tolerant and patient than me to systematically disprove your points, it doesnt change the fact that you still don't fundamentally "get it".
[QUOTE=amute;29167891]Oh yeah, the whole getting the US out of the depression thing, the progressive stance he took, second bill of rights, and establishing social programmes that, y'know, help people. Yeah, he was a shit president and never did anything.[/QUOTE]
He actually made the depression worse. Recovery actually only started to occur after most of his initiatives were withdrawn. I would go into more detail, but somebody else already gave a good enough rebuttal to which you are doing a terrible job trying to counter.
[QUOTE=amute;29173592]He made more films then stalker[/quote]
i know, but that's completely irrelevant.
[quote]Point is, Communism removes the false profit motive that Capitalism props up.[/quote]
so people should have no reward or incentive for their work that benefits them in the long run, but the benefit of a collective group of people that live upon the same standard? sounds a bit like living in an inuit society. if you fail to understand how that idea eliminates the meaning of the individual, then i have little hope for you.
you're forgetting how the market works. you should read what adam smith wrote about the "invisible hand".
[quote]Which is the complete opposite of the arts. Most art out today is local, independent or low-key. Most of this lack of popularity is due to the fact the people involved don't care about the profit motive. If they do, they're not swimming in it.[/quote]
that is because the idea of art is inherently inapplicable to a profit motive since the reason for creating it is for entirely different purposes. that still doesn't stop people from selling their work to museums and collectors.
[quote]The Soviet Union, though not communist, thought itself to be one. The idea of ridding capitalist thought and profit gain, and though it didn't work and there was so much deceit, you still had some of the greatest artistic minds. Like Andrei Tarkovsky.[/quote]
what about people like andy warhol and ayn rand who both lived in a "Capitalist" nation and had great minds as well? you can't simply assume that a nation's system takes responsibility for the individuals it produces. the world doesn't work in a black-and-white fashion like that.
[quote]If you're talking about actual legal individuality, communism isn't totalitarianism.[/quote]
did i ever say it was? i said it is about collectivizing the general populace to work towards mutual benefit while eliminating self-interest.
[quote]Humans aren't machines, money and other goods tie into our lives. Capitalism, regardless of the social intentions, always brings a society down to a social level. The act of purchasing things is a part of life, and involved socially. A lot more then you think. Capitalism replaces human emotion with the false idea that profit is exponentially important.[/quote]
your idea of eliminating a social ladder or hierarchy goes against the fabric of human nature.
[quote]But being a capitalist Alucard, I doubt the human element matters at all to you. You're more concerned with poor people not stealing your tax money.[/quote]
that statement was so disgusting, ignorant, and unfounded that i could conclude you see me as a greedy, textbook conservative. that is simply not the case.
[quote]And even then, why bring up communism? Communism is an economic theory, and using your logic, shouldn't have a place here. So good job your arrogant fuck, you shot yourself in the foot.[/QUOTE]
i never brought it up. i was clearing up the OP's idiotic misconception of it. if you understand the idea of communism you would realize that it would be the base for a political or societal system much like a traditional economy.
[QUOTE=amute;29173592]He made more films then stalker
Point is, Communism removes the false profit motive that Capitalism props up. Which is the complete opposite of the arts. Most art out today is local, independent or low-key. Most of this lack of popularity is due to the fact the people involved don't care about the profit motive. If they do, they're not swimming in it.
The Soviet Union, though not communist, thought itself to be one. The idea of ridding capitalist thought and profit gain, and though it didn't work and there was so much deceit, you still had some of the greatest artistic minds. Like Andrei Tarkovsky.
What is art but the very definition of human individuality. If you're talking about actual legal individuality, communism isn't totalitarianism. [/quote]
You have to ask yourself how art benefits society as a whole, in this particular instance. While it's nice to express yourself through art and while it's also nice to be able to enjoy art, it doesn't put food on people's tables. This isn't a capitalist stance, it's a fact of life. People in a capitalist society can still produce art, even for money provided there is adequate demand for it. There is no "false profit motive", there is only "false consumer motive", from your perspective anyway. People don't find the arts as important as you do, that's just something you'll have to deal with.
[QUOTE=amute;29173592]Humans aren't machines, money and other goods tie into our lives. Capitalism, regardless of the social intentions, always brings a society down to a social level. The act of purchasing things is a part of life, and involved socially. A lot more then you think. Capitalism replaces human emotion with the false idea that profit is exponentially important.
But being a capitalist Alucard, I doubt the human element matters at all to you. You're more concerned with poor people not stealing your tax money.
And even then, why bring up communism? Communism is an economic theory, and using your logic, shouldn't have a place here. So good job your arrogant fuck, you shot yourself in the foot.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism does not "replace" human emotion, what?
The human element matters a lot to me, i prefer a society based on freedom over a society based on coercion. Without coercion your definition of society doesn't work, in my view. I don't see how it would ever be possible.
Furthermore the market serves a very important purpose in society, that is, knowing how to best allocate resources. Under concepts that entail the removal of the market system that can never be accurately calculated.
[QUOTE=alucard_extreme;29173617]i'm merely explaining to you the perpetual idiocy that occurs whenever you post.
even if s0beit is way more tolerant and patient than me to systematically disprove your points, it doesnt change the fact that you still don't fundamentally "get it".[/QUOTE]
Anyone who doesnt agree with your ideas the second you say them is an idiot. Instead of explaining you just call anyone an idiot. Im sorry but even though I dont like stereotypes your acting the libertarian one. Also since libertarians are supposed to have different beliefs and opinions I would like to see how you would defend your version of your political belief.
The market is as much a form of coercion as anything a government can ask you to do for your country. It's just a coercion that doesn't even ensure you're own security(take security how you will, financial or otherwise)
I have quite the dislike of term based argument because is assumes that a certain idea is inherently bad and because it avoids actual descriptions of why it is bad. "X is bad because it means we are going towards Y". This kind of statement does little to explain why X is bad. What I'm referring to in this specifically is the "universal health care is bad because it is leading us towards socialism". This argument is based on association and does nothing to address why universal health care would be bad. It'd make far more sense to explain why it was bad in a direct response to the issues that would be caused by universal health care. If an idea is truly bad, association based arguments wouldn't be needed. This isn't to say that there aren't good arguments as to why universal health care would be bad, but it more to comment on how people think associative arguments are arguments.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29174500]The market is as much a form of coercion as anything a government can ask you to do for your country. It's just a coercion that doesn't even ensure you're own security(take security how you will, financial or otherwise)[/QUOTE]
How is it coercion? Who is forcing you? Nobody is forcing you to buy products except in the case of food or water, but that isn't really coercion. There's no entity forcing you to do that, that's a general limit of human endurance. Bring it up with evolution or god or the laws of thermodynamics or whatever you think is best in that scenario. There's no one person forcing you to do anything.
I'm not going to blame capitalism for that in the same way that I'm not going to blame capitalism because it doesn't provide free oxygen in space or underwater.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29175953]I have quite the dislike of term based argument because is assumes that a certain idea is inherently bad and because it avoids actual descriptions of why it is bad. "X is bad because it means we are going towards Y". This kind of statement does little to explain why X is bad. What I'm referring to in this specifically is the "universal health care is bad because it is leading us towards socialism". This argument is based on association and does nothing to address why universal health care would be bad. It'd make far more sense to explain why it was bad in a direct response to the issues that would be caused by universal health care. If an idea is truly bad, association based arguments wouldn't be needed. This isn't to say that there aren't good arguments as to why universal health care would be bad, but it more to comment on how people think associative arguments are arguments.[/QUOTE]
Well, I think I've been pretty specific as to why i advocate the society i advocate, as for socialism, maybe somebody could make a topic on that. This isn't really a "i hate socialism" topic, it's more of a "let's debate the supposed flaws of libertarianism" topic.
Although, you know, i agree with you. People have tried pulling that card in regards to libertarianism in this topic quite a lot as well. I'm glad it turned into a productive discussion, though.
I don't see what's the point of all this bickering and arguing.
We should have several anarcho-syndicalist communes. They should take it in turns and have an executive officer every week. Except all decisions by that officer need to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in case of internal affairs or by a two-thirds majority in case of more major affairs.
[QUOTE=torero;29176701]I don't see what's the point of all this bickering and arguing.
We should have several anarcho-syndicalist communes. They should take it in turns and have an executive officer every week. Except all decisions by that officer need to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting, by a simple majority in case of internal affairs or by a two-thirds majority in case of more major affairs.[/QUOTE]
Ever read Lord of the Flies?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;29177224]Ever read Lord of the Flies?[/QUOTE]
No, but someone in my class once read a summary of it out loud.
[QUOTE=torero;29177532]No, but I heard some guy presenting a summary of it for class. Does that count?[/QUOTE]
No, but I recommend that you read it. Not only is it a good book, but it details how your communes might turn out.
Wasn't the Great Depression ended with WWII? For the US at least?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;29177552]No, but I recommend that you read it. Not only is it a good book, but it details how your communes might turn out.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, except that book's about a bunch of stranded children.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29177872]Yeah, except that book's about a bunch of stranded children.[/QUOTE]
Gee, I would have never noticed. Children or not, it still makes a perfect analogy towards his proposed governmental and economic policies.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;29178025]Gee, I would have never noticed. Children or not, it still makes a perfect analogy towards his proposed governmental and economic policies.[/QUOTE]
It might be an equal comparison if he was suggesting that people are just dropped into empty areas and forced to form communes, however he's not. The book was about a [B]bunch of children STRANDED ON AN ISLAND.[/B]
I personally wouldn't use a book based on something that has never really happened to base my political opinions on unless it was based on real psychology, sociology or behavioral biology.
If anybody is interested in Libertarian based videos I suggest checking out [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV]ReasonTV[/url]. Even if you disagree with Libertarian philosophy, they have good informative videos and exposure isn't bad. Exposure is the primary reason why I subscribed to them, and also because their videos are generally done pretty well.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;29178938]I personally wouldn't use a book based on something that has never really happened to base my political opinions on unless it was based on real psychology, sociology or behavioral biology.[/QUOTE]
The book was about human nature, which actually turns up [i]suprisingly[/i] often in politics.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;29179091]The book was about human nature, which actually turns up [i]suprisingly[/i] often in politics.[/QUOTE]
Right, but he's saying it's a good analogy for Anarcho-syndicalist communes, which isn't true considering if they did start up, it wouldn't be in some deserted, cut-off island, and it wouldn't be inhabited by all children.
I've been lurking in this thread for a while now as a guest. And now I'm finally going to post in it. I completely agree with ShivanCommander. And I too support the Libertarian Party.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
