• Egyptian Revolution Was Against Neoliberalism- The Best Opinion Piece I've Seen In A While
    505 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28468351]his heads so far up his ass I'm surprised it isn't hurting his asshole to get his shoulders up there too.[/QUOTE] This post made my day.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28470667]Why don't you try to post something useful to the topic at hand?[/QUOTE] all you do is reinterpret any facts that are thrown at so they agree with your skewed worldview, using incredible Mr-Kite-like feats of mental gymnastics, so i don't really see the point. you have no intellectual integrity [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] for an objectivist you sure do love to rely on subjectivity. you're just too far gone. locked up with your idealized political beliefs, you've failed to moderate them with reality and, so, have created a totally logical and consistent worldview of a world that doesn't actually exist
[QUOTE=Strider*;28453658][img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/b41c3dadd0302c0bd7f90f0aa11c8bb8.png[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/bbbeb7a3c55507619b989bccb2dfe866.png[/img_thumb] High taxes, high cost of living, and a minute amount of affluence. It's easy to get by with mediocrity but if you want to pursue success the Nordic model shouldn't be your most favorable system.[/QUOTE] I will be over here in canada enjoying my minute of affluence. [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] like really cheap healthcare [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] and my poutine
Strider, why do you keep using the term 'free market haven'? as if this world is a zombie apocalypse of socialist commies roaming the planet looking for income equality and brains. BUT the only place of freedom and beautiful skylines are PURE capitalist states where the poverty is 0 and everyone is smart, healthy and monopolies are run by kittens! [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] Sugar Kittens!
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28474069]for an objectivist you sure do love to rely on subjectivity. you're just too far gone. locked up with your idealized political beliefs, you've failed to moderate them with reality and, so, have created a totally logical and consistent worldview of a world that doesn't actually exist[/QUOTE] You're taking subjectivity from the fact that I believe capitalism benefits the common man more in the long run than other economic systems, which is subjective you're right. However I do not objectify laissez-faire capitalism as an ideal standard because of the fact that I believe it is a system which benefits everyone in the long run (which it does). Unlike libertarians I objectify laissez-faire capitalism because it is the only economic standard which lives in harmony with morality in that it respects the rights and direction of individuals. Man must uphold himself on his own will, move with his own judgement, and continuously work forward as a creative and productive individual. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=The LocalFlavor;28479771]Strider, why do you keep using the term 'free market haven'?[/QUOTE] An area where the free market is alive, in good condition, and with a sunny forecast.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28484974]You're taking subjectivity from the fact that I believe capitalism benefits the common man more in the long run than other economic systems, which is subjective you're right. However I do not objectify laissez-faire capitalism as an ideal standard because of the fact that I believe it is a system which benefits everyone in the long run (which it does). Unlike libertarians I objectify laissez-faire capitalism because it is the only economic standard which lives in harmony with morality in that it respects the rights and direction of individuals. how does the system in Hong Kong work for the poor? You've already admitted that wealth equality means nothing, so you obviously don't care how they're doing, so why do you tout your system to work for them so well? Especially out of harmony with history of what's happened in those systems? Man must uphold himself on his own will, move with his own judgement, and continuously work forward as a creative and productive individual. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] An area where the free market is alive, in good condition, and with a sunny forecast.[/QUOTE] Explain how it benefits everyone in the long run? 100 years of it didn't benefit the lower class in industrialized britan. It doesn't help everyone, deregulating everything and having it all free market is terrible because of how little actually gets taken into account for when ads and marketing is put in, then it's no longer about selling the best product. You know that no scientific, artistic, nor any other form of "achievement" is achieved alone? No, not fucking one, and it's funny you think it is. And our best advances as man kind have been as groups of people advancing us? Your idolizing the individual as if the individual is the greatest thing ever. I love my individuality and [b]before you go on some "socialists are the death of individuality" rant or whatever, realize, no one here wants anyone to be less individualistic, and a socialist society does not change peoples individuality.[/b] People can be, and are just as individual under that system.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28485305]Explain how it benefits everyone in the long run? 100 years of it didn't benefit the lower class in industrialized britan. It doesn't help everyone, deregulating everything and having it all free market is terrible because of how little actually gets taken into account for when ads and marketing is put in, then it's no longer about selling the best product. You know that no scientific, artistic, nor any other form of "achievement" is achieved alone? No, not fucking one, and it's funny you think it is. And our best advances as man kind have been as groups of people advancing us? Your idolizing the individual as if the individual is the greatest thing ever. I love my individuality and [b]before you go on some "socialists are the death of individuality" rant or whatever, realize, no one here wants anyone to be less individualistic, and a socialist society does not change peoples individuality.[/b] People can be, and are just as individual under that system.[/QUOTE] No scientific, artistic, or any other form of achievement is achieved alone? Ridiculous. It's statements like that which defy the ego of individuality and the scientific as well as creative drive of man. How can you say something like this and then say "no one here wants to be less individualistic"? The rationale behind the American government and constitution was the most individual revolution of known history, and yet you condemn it. Individual rights are suppressed under socialism if you can't see this I need not explain it. When my property, my work, and my productivity are subjugated to the "common good" of all I cease to have individual rights. Capitalism and individuality go hand in hand.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28485571]No scientific, artistic, or any other form of achievement is achieved alone? Ridiculous. It's statements like that which defy the ego of individuality and the scientific as well as creative drive of man. How can you say something like this and then say "no one here wants to be less individualistic"? The rationale behind the American government and constitution was the most individual revolution of known history, and yet you condemn it. Individual rights are suppressed under socialism if you can't see this I need not explain it. When my property, my work, and my productivity are subjugated to the "common good" of all I cease to have individual rights. Capitalism and individuality go hand in hand.[/QUOTE] So are you saying you're an island unto yourself? No one has influence? No one makes you think certain ways and no one does anything to help you? Get the fuck out. And show me where I condemn it? Really? How are they supressed? I live in a socialist nation, and yet, my individuality is flowing pretty freely. Thanks for judging me without knowing me, apparently, I'm not individualistic. Really? Because socialism steals your shit... I love how you can't even respond with a rational reply here, you just make up what you think socialism is and run with it. And humanity and individuality go hand in hand too, socialism does not deter this. There would be no art coming from socialist countries if you were right. You're proven wrong by reality.
You forget, many of the people arguing with you, come from socialist countries with socialistic tendencies. You're openly fucking telling us, we're not as individual as someone like you, you're openly defying modern psychology in that no man/woman is truly alone. Maybe I over stepped my boundaries in saying nothing comes from being one person, but you [b]do the exact same acting like nothing comes from groups, or that greater things don't come from groups.[/b]
I haven't yet heard one rational argument from you because you are completely mistaking and misunderstanding the point. Great things come from groups, but only those willingly working together in a contractual relationship. However the results of contractual relationships are only made possible by the individual efforts of every man involved. Everyman is an island upon himself. Terrible things come from individuals being robbed of their productive and creative efforts at gunpoint to provide for the undeserving which is the exact definition of socialism. You're missing the complete point because you haven't yet grasped how important property is to the individual. The fact is that property is the extension of an individual and must have all the rights an individual possesses. The most individualistic society is the capitalist society. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28485671]You forget, many of the people arguing with you, come from socialist countries with socialistic tendencies. You're openly fucking telling us, we're not as individual as someone like you[.][/b][/QUOTE] No I'm saying you're against individuality perhaps unknowingly because you haven't realized the full implications of socialism.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28485901]Terrible things come from individuals being robbed of their productive and creative efforts at gunpoint to provide for the undeserving which is the exact definition of socialism.[/QUOTE] also literally murdering babies is the definition of religion and hating cute animals is the exact definition of non-vegetarianism and other hyperbolic bullshit used by people who argue in extremes untethered to reality to hide their woefully poor understanding of the issues at hand and act like big damn babies in debates [QUOTE=Strider*;28485901] Everyman is an island upon himself. [/QUOTE] ya see this is where you are absolutely 100 percent wrong. we are forced by necessity to share the same spaces, the same planet. whether you like it or not your actions necessarily have consequences on other people, and you need to accept the fact that you (plus everyone else in the world with the exception of feral children) are not a self-made man. you have relied upon other people and institutions who have not demanded reciprocity, without whom you would have failed, both in your childhood as well as in adult life what you call "individuality" is not "individuality", it is petulant childishness. it is the voice of either a highly-privileged rearing wholly oblivious to it's privileges, white or otherwise you have committed the whole of your political philosophy to turning a blind eye to the societal institutions you have relied upon while raging against in order to perpetuate this myth of yourself being some glorious ubermensch who has done only for himself and relied upon no one [i]"self-reliance" is not what makes a person an individual good lord, you big spoiled baby[/i]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486365]ya see this is where you are absolutely 100 percent wrong. we are forced by necessity to share the same spaces, the same planet. whether you like it or not your actions necessarily have consequences on other people, and you need to accept the fact that you, and everyone else except for feral children, are not a self-made man. you have relied upon other people and institutions who have not demanded reciprocity, without whom you would have failed, both in your childhood as well as an adult life[/QUOTE] I have relied upon other people who have relied upon me or provided their service as charity or compensation for a service. The simple fact that we inhabit the same earth does not give anyone moral or rational justification to enact the "greater good", or to be more precise their interpretation, at the expense of my natural rights. My actions DO have consequences you are absolutely correct and therefore we respect each other as individuals. I'm not sure how you're defending socialism in this manner. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486365]You have committed the whole of your political philosophy to turning a blind eye to the societal institutions you have relied upon while raging against in order to perpetuate this myth of yourself being some glorious ubermensch who has done only for himself and relied upon no one "self-reliance" is not what makes a person an individual good lord[/QUOTE] You're misinterpreting what I'm saying once again. Self made or self reliance does not imply that you haven't used anyone's services for the exchange of your own. Secondly self reliance is but a small factor of individuality. Individuality is concentrated on the effort, productivity, judgment, and direction of free men. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] You seem to think that society owns my production. That is wholly what I'm against.
Hey strider, you should read Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, it covers pretty thoroughly how well lassiez faire and deregulation mixed with the corruption that comes with such a system has worked out for the United States over the past half decade or so (hint: it ruined the economies of half the world)
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486461]I have relied upon other people who have relied upon me or provided their service as charity[/QUOTE] then you are no island [QUOTE=Strider*;28486461]The simple fact that we inhabit the same earth does not give anyone moral or rational justification to enact the "greater good", or to be more precise their interpretation, at the expense of my natural rights. [/QUOTE] no but here's the thing you're not attempting to process in your mind. Someone else might, through environmental abuses, screw [i]you[/i] over, without your consent. not because they did something clear and obvious, like pour sludge on your house, but through abuses of unowned land or public land, or through the un-ownable air environmental consciousness is a mutual system. I believe in natural rights, but I do not see "choking to death on smog" to be one of them [QUOTE=Strider*;28486461]My actions DO have consequences you are absolutely correct and therefore we respect each other as individuals. I'm not sure how you're defending socialism in this manner.[/QUOTE] maybe it's because I'm not defending socialism, I'm simply attacking your oblivious, privileged worldview [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28486547]Hey strider, you should read Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, it covers pretty thoroughly how well lassiez faire and deregulation mixed with the corruption that comes with such a system has worked out for the United States over the past half decade or so (hint: it ruined the economies of half the world)[/QUOTE] he isn't going to read it because it doesn't agree with his pre-existing worldview
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486599]then you are no island no but here's the thing you're not attempting to process in your mind. Someone else might, through environmental abuses, screw [i]you[/i] over, without your consent. not because they did something clear and obvious, like pour sludge on your house, but through abuses of unowned land or public land, or through the un-ownable air environmental consciousness is a mutual system. I believe in natural rights, but I do not see "choking to death on smog" to be one of them maybe it's because I'm not defending socialism, I'm simply attacking your oblivious, privileged worldview [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] he isn't going to read it because it doesn't agree with his pre-existing worldview[/QUOTE] He really should, it's less opinion-based than The Great Derangement and features a lot of interviews and backstage looks into the companies that colluded to perpetrate all the shit that happened.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486599]no but here's the thing you're not attempting to process in your mind. Someone else might, through environmental abuses, screw [i]you[/i] over, without your consent. not because they did something clear and obvious, like pour sludge on your house, but through abuses of unowned land or public land, or through the un-ownable air environmental consciousness is a mutual system. I believe in natural rights, but I do not see "choking to death on smog" to be one of them [/QUOTE] No one has any right to "dirty my water" without my consent but the environmental "crisis" is a scientific and technological issue not a political one. Regardless we should not have much public land (unless funded privately), the more private the better. No one treats public or others' property as well as they treat their own. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28486614]He really should, it's less opinion-based than The Great Derangement and features a lot of interviews and backstage looks into the companies that colluded to perpetrate all the shit that happened.[/QUOTE] I'd consider it if you took the time to read Eat The Rich, The Wealth of Nations, or Free to Choose. Keep in mind that the latter is by the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman and The Wealth of Nations was written by the father of modern economics. Two very credible authors with decades of study into the workings of an economy.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486642]No one has any right to "dirty my water" [/QUOTE] but your water is the water of the entire world, just like the quality of the air you breathe is dependent upon the quality of the air around the world. are you going to consent, via notarized form, to everything that is emitted by all manmade machines?
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486724]but your water is the water of the entire world, just like the quality of the air you breathe is dependent upon the quality of the air around the world. are you going to consent, via notarized form, to everything that is emitted by all manmade machines?[/QUOTE] Efforts towards the reduction of environmental impact must be taken at great care to insure the integrity of the industry and technology that allows man to thrive. Emissions by man made machines are not the doomsday harbingers the ecology movement would have you believe.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486642] No one treats public or others' property as well as they treat their own. [/QUOTE] not if they don't depend on the quality of the environment for their profits, silly and besides, no institution could ever conceivably own the atmosphere, it is [b]necessarily[/b] public. what do you plan to do about that
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486642]No one has any right to "dirty my water" without my consent but the environmental "crisis" is a scientific and technological issue not a political one. Regardless we should not have much public land (unless funded privately), the more private the better. No one treats public or others' property as well as they treat their own. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] I'd consider it if you took the time to read Eat The Rich, The Wealth of Nations, or Free to Choose. Keep in mind that the latter is by the Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman and The Wealth of Nations was written by the father of economics. Two very credible authors with decades of study into the workings of an economy.[/QUOTE] Well, the book I suggested tackles more the real world application of ideas and less the theoretical basis of it, but I guess i'll look at Eat The Rich. Seems the most relevant.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486749] Emissions by man made machines are not the doomsday harbingers the ecology movement would have you believe.[/QUOTE] because you say so or because of a scientific conspiracy (orchestrated by collectivists?)
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486752]not if they don't depend on the quality of the environment for their profits, silly and besides, no institution could ever conceivably own the atmosphere, it is [b]necessarily[/b] public. what do you plan to do about that[/QUOTE] What do I plan to do about what? You're implying that I foresee a problem with the future of our atmosphere, which I do not. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28486763]Well, the book I suggested tackles more the real world application of ideas and less the theoretical basis of it, but I guess i'll look at Eat The Rich. Seems the most relevant.[/QUOTE] Yes Eat The Rich is far less theoretical and is actually quite humorous as well as a fun read.
which is, on your part, willful ignorance. i'd assume, normally, you're a great believer in science and have no difficulty sifting through the smear campaigns leveled against other pieces of sound science like evolution, but you deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change because it suits your worldview
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486766]because you say so or because of a scientific conspiracy (orchestrated by collectivists?)[/QUOTE] The ecology movement seeks to destroy the last remnants of capitalism in our mixed economy by limiting and ultimately removing the rights individuals have over their own property. It is a collectivist motive but not much more of a conspiracy than the true motive behind the inner workings of the "peace" movement during the 1960s which collectivists were quite open about. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486806]which is, on your part, willful ignorance. i'd assume, normally, you're a great believer in science and have no difficulty sifting through the smear campaigns leveled against other pieces of sound science like evolution, but you deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change because it suits your worldview[/QUOTE] Actually I don't, it's ridiculous to believe that after constructing massive cities and building great industrial wonders we haven't altered the environment in any way. I just reject the fear mongering of environmentalists. And again if we are having a significant impact on the environment to the point of a future doomsday, which I am convinced we are not, then our only solution lies in continuing down the path towards technological and industrial advancements.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486824]The ecology movement seeks to destroy the last remnants of capitalism in our mixed economy by limiting and ultimately removing the rights individuals have other their own property. It is a collectivist motive but not much more of a conspiracy than the true motive behind the inner workings of the "peace" movement during the 1960s which collectivists were quite open about.[/QUOTE] oh it's a conspiracy theory, jeeze even if there were a massive collectivist conspiracy (motivated by whatever it is that motivates shallow caricatures), aren't the capitalists still the ones with all the money for funding scientific research? i wouldn't think a bunch of tuned-out hippies and the occasional trust-fund college student would be able to orchestrate a scientific conspiracy able to overshadow the corporate interests of countless vast international conglomerates who collectively spend billions on PR like you had me sorta infuriated before, i was seriously struck by your arguments, but you've gone and disarmed yourself with a belief that is wholly laughable. like now I feel that, more appropriate than well-thought out logical critiques of your beliefs, the best argument I can make against you is "come on. come onnn." i'm gonna go play a video game or something
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486824]The ecology movement seeks to destroy the last remnants of capitalism in our mixed economy by limiting and ultimately removing the rights individuals have over their own property. It is a collectivist motive but not much more of a conspiracy than the true motive behind the inner workings of the "peace" movement during the 1960s which collectivists were quite open about. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] Actually I don't, it's ridiculous to believe that after constructing massive cities and building great industrial wonders we haven't altered the environment in any way. I just reject the fear mongering of environmentalists. And again if we are having a significant impact on the environment to the point of a future doomsday, which I am convinced we are not,[B] then our only solution lies in continuing down the path towards technological and industrial advancements.[/B][/QUOTE] "Maybe if we slam into that wall hard enough, we can go through it!"
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28486914]oh it's a conspiracy theory, jeeze even if there were a massive collectivist conspiracy (motivated by whatever it is that motivates shallow caricatures), aren't the capitalists still the ones with all the money for funding scientific research? i wouldn't think a bunch of tuned-out hippies and the occasional trust-fund college student would be able to orchestrate a scientific conspiracy able to overshadow the corporate interests of countless vast international conglomerates who collectively spend billions on PR like you had me sorta infuriated before, i was seriously struck by your arguments, but you've gone and disarmed yourself with a belief that is wholly laughable. like now I feel that, more appropriate than well-thought out logical critiques of your beliefs, the best argument I can make against you is "come on. come onnn." i'm gonna go play a video game or something[/QUOTE] Alright I knew that one would be humorous. You'll have a laugh at this one check out the connection between Earth Day and Vladimir Lenin's birthday. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] The goal of the major groups and leaders of the ecology movement mirror the motives of the leaders of the "peace" movement of the 60s. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] And this is solely because the ecology movement is the direct evolution of what was the new left. [editline]8th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Xen Tricks;28486941]"Maybe if we slam into that wall hard enough, we can go through it!"[/QUOTE] Atta boy.
[QUOTE=Strider*;28486824]The ecology movement seeks to destroy the last remnants of capitalism in our mixed economy by limiting and ultimately removing the rights individuals have over their own property. It is a collectivist motive but not much more of a conspiracy than the true motive behind the inner workings of the "peace" movement during the 1960s which collectivists were quite open about.[/QUOTE] *throws peanuts*
Wow, this is just getting funnier. I don't even have to argue you, you don't even acknowledge any points, you just act like you're the only one on earth... [editline]7th March 2011[/editline] It's like what anyone else considers philosophy goes right in one ear and out the other, then you babble on about how you're right. Your world views are your world views, there's very little historical evidence to back you up, and there's very little to tell you, you believe in objectivity, you believe in monopolies are for the good of the people, you believe that each and every man lives a life truly as an island, which I, and every single other psychologist alive worth a damn would tell you is full of shit. And as for a book written by the "founder of economics", I just have to say, not even as a real argument, just because you found something, doesn't mean you know shit about it. Freud was the father of modern psychology, but no body has ever been more wrong about things than freud.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28487295]Wow, this is just getting funnier. I don't even have to argue you, you don't even acknowledge any points, you just act like you're the only one on earth...[/QUOTE] Or perhaps you can't argue with me? If you mean to imply that I regard myself as my highest value you are correct but it is not the role or motive of an individualist to neglect the presence and rights of others.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.