Screw the poor!

[Comrade Anarchist]

The income tax is the biggest fraud ever concocted to steal from people. Why should people have to work their asses off at work just to pay for other people's problems. People should work for what they want, but if by the off chance that they succeed at what makes them happy then their success becomes someone else's property and is forcefully taken away from them so that those who are too lazy to work may profit off other's hard work. Now i understand there are some people who truly can not help their situations and i'm not addressing them. I am talking about all of welfare and medicaid and such. My mom paid roughly $15000 from her money to put braces on my teeth and those of my sisters, she choose to and she doesn't believe she should be paid back for that or get them cheaper for any circumstances. She worked her ass off and she has paid these without any help from anybody. Medicaid now covers braces. Braces are a cosmetic procedure why should my mom have to pay for her kids and someone else's. There are some people who have taken control of the system. The head start program is only available to lower income citizens and guess what, it doesn't even work and costs millions a year. Why should people who work hard, have to pay for anybody but themselves and what they deem to be important to spend on. This isn't about hating the poor contrary to the title but is instead against the income tax and all taxes. Taxes are needed in a democratic society or the government or collective commune cannot function. That is why i am against democracy and all forms of state for something more. Autonomy of the human mind. Self-governance. Capitalism. Taxes say no to autonomy, no to self governance, yes to sitting around, yes to not furthering oneself, yes to stealing from those who work to pay for those who don't. When are people going to learn that man is to work for himself (not being sexist). That humans should work to further their happiness and knowledge without constraints like taxes or society's needs.

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://ui25.gamespot.com/2360/notlolwutpearuw5_2.jpg

[#FF0000]

Hahahahhahahhahaha

hey guise sup im an ankerist skrew the poor

hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah aha

capitalism and anarchism make sense completely togeth- hahahahahahhahahahahahhaha
hahahahahahhahahahaha

oh bless your heart. Bless your little heart.

[Agnapostate]

I wrote a brief little jot-up of the ignorance of primitive accumulation and consequent vulgar libertarianism that stupid propertarians like you engage in the other day.

“He [the peasant] is taxed by the state, which cannot do without its formidable hierarchy of officials, and finds it necessary to maintain an expensive army, because the traders of all nations are perpetually fighting for the markets, and any day a little quarrel arising from the exploitation of some part of Asia or Africa may result in war.” -Peter Kropotkin

Taxation, all too often imposed for the purpose of accumulating revenue to be used for imperialistic military campaigns or a similar form of blatant state aggression, is certainly objectionable when applied to the underclass that lack financial stability and the means to truly afford surrender of their income to the government. However, there exist compelling reasons to not regard the application of taxation to the wealthy upper classes as similarly unethical. One is a straightforward consequentialist argument related to the diminishing marginal utility of greater levels of wealth: ten dollars is worth more to a person with a hundred dollars than to a person with a thousand dollars because of the greater likelihood of it being spent on necessities that provide direct sustenance to a person, rather than luxuries of a more frivolous nature.

Obviously, the non-consequentialist would not find this very convincing, as the ethical objection to state appropriation of wealth that he or she would conceive of is the rights violation that it entails, not the consequences that result. If we wanted to force the point, a firm meta-ethical justification for consequentialism and an illustration that deontology is itself derived from consequentialism (as conceptions of rights would not have evolved if it were not perceived that possession of those rights generally led to favorable consequences), could be pressed here, but there is a far more straightforward rights-based argument against the premise that taxation of the wealthy is as unethical as taxation of the poor, or even unethical at all, for that matter. It lies in the authoritarian nature of the primitive accumulation of capital; as it involved an abundance of state-backed force, fraud, and coercion, it is sharply at odds with the non-aggression principle.

All existing private property was at one point either directly gained through aggression, or created through productive resources that were themselves gained through aggression, many of those being capital goods created through still other productive resources themselves gained through aggression. The inheritance of the current upper classes was not justly acquired by their ancestors, but criminally seized. A member of the Navajo reservation subject to the crippling poverty that Native Americans have and continue to endure more than any other racial group in the United States (and many of the other American countries, for that matter), is likely not solely a victim of his own laziness, alcoholism, and lack of individual self-reliance and responsibility, contrary to popular misconception among some circles, but of the shameful legacy of exploitation of communities weakened through infectious disease that characterizes U.S. (and more broadly American) Indian policy. His bad lot lies in the fact that his forefathers were subject to fraudulently violated treaties and land sales (originally conducted in the coercive presence of U.S. military units, no doubt), as well as plenty of outright force, that resulted in the deprivation of their long-held productive resources from the Navajo and inequitable distribution of wealth based on this original theft.

There can be no sane talk of “theft” from those that are themselves in possession of stolen property, even if they are not personally guilty. Let us recall that if Smith were to rob Jones of some valuable property and pass it down to his grandson, the lack of personal culpability on the grandson’s part does not alter the fact that it is rightfully the possession of Jones’s grandson by inheritance.

[Girl A]

Okay so you must be trolling now

'This isn't about hating the poor contrary to the title but is instead against the income tax and all taxes.'

ORLY so why was that your title?

Keep hating the working class and not understanding the oppressive nature of capitalism.

'People should work for what they want, but if by the off chance that they succeed at what makes them happy then their success becomes someone else's property and is forcefully taken away from them so that those who are too lazy to work may profit off other's hard work.'

Well said comrade, the bourgeoise DO take away the proletariat's success and gets the wealth and freedom much deserved by the worker instead. They do profit off the work of us working-class individuals. They do stop us from having real freedom!

Oh fuck you don't mean it the way I means it, do you?

[Skooma Addict]

One is a straightforward consequentialist argument related to the diminishing marginal utility of greater levels of wealth: ten dollars is worth more to a person with a hundred dollars than to a person with a thousand dollars because of the greater likelihood of it being spent on necessities that provide direct sustenance to a person, rather than luxuries of a more frivolous nature.

A poorer person will not necessarily value ten dollars more than a richer person. All you can say is that for each person, the next 10 dollars will be valued less than the last 10 dollars.

[Che a chara]

'comrade' anarchist, would you be happy for your children and your children's children to grow up and live in a world which pursues your illogical economic ideology ?

the condition of the society that would be presented in your capitalist, poverty stricken community would be of one of war, and division.

capitalism doesn't give the worker what they work for. so your just talking bloody nonsense.

it is the capitalist society who is at fault for the 'stealing' of your mother's money. You do know that socialism would mean free healthcare for all ?

you live on earth; you breathe it's air. use it's facilities. prevail of it's many services. use it, abuse it. you will want it to give you a profit and steal what you don't deserve and kick someone when their down at the same time. you don't think it's fair to give just a little back to those who are unable to do such things while you bask in your glory and stolen wealth ?

[Raúl Duke]

In anarcho-communism (communism in general), there's no taxes either...
So...
like...
IDK, shouldn't you make a thread trying to denounce communism (state-less, class-less society)?

Ok, I'll play along...
Is a socialism without income tax possible?

Also, what's your position on corporate tax, taxes on financial transactions between banks/etc, and things like the Tobin tax? Consider, that these taxes don't effect individuals but rather institutions or other such things.

[sarmchain]

yes its easy to talk about how the poor are stealing your money when your sitting in a house with food on hand , try sleeping under a bridge and digging though cockroach infested dumpsters for food for a month then come back and lets see if your still quoting Ayn Rand
*oh and and about taxes supporting the lazy , my mother worked at mcdonalds for 4 years to support me and my sister on $6.00 a hour , yet some fucktard TV person says a bunch of shit on TV and gets payed millions, is that fair? the idea that you mearly need to work hard to get rich under capitalism is compelete and utter bullshit

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why should people have to work their asses off at work just to pay for other people's problemsThat's exactly what I want to tell my boss:


My labor alone just brought in $2,000/day of which I see $60/day. Profits over the last two years went up by 500% but my last raise was $.30 and was 2 years ago. Now that times are bad, you want to make me to take a pay-cut? Oh, so you are the boss and you want to buy advertising to compete with other firms that offer the exact same service... that's your problem not mine.

Therefore we are on strike until we see our fair share. Oh, you can't get that $2000 from each of my co-workers? THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM, WE'RE SHUTTING YOU DOWN MOTHERFUCKER.

[Agnapostate]

A poorer person will not necessarily value ten dollars more than a richer person. All you can say is that for each person, the next 10 dollars will be valued less than the last 10 dollars.

It's fairly straightforward to distinguish between necessities and luxuries based on income elasticity of demand, given changes in consumption patterns related to increasing income levels, as you'd know had you ever taken an introductory course. And while a poor person will not necessarily value ten dollars more than a "richer" person, the general trend of them doing so is sufficient to determine general policy. Hence, our focus on diminishing marginal utility.

[Skooma Addict]

It's fairly straightforward to distinguish between necessities and luxuries based on income elasticity of demand, given changes in consumption patterns related to increasing income levels, as you'd know had you ever taken an introductory course. And while a poor person will not necessarily value ten dollars more than a "richer" person, the general trend of them doing so is sufficient to determine general policy. Hence, our focus on diminishing marginal utility.

Right, so a poor person won't necessarily value ten dollars more than a richer person. You should have been more clear in the first place. I don't know why you think the general trend of them doing so is sufficient to determine policy.

[Drace]

You do realized welfare problems were instituted to battle the poverty capitalism creates and to suppress resistance?

Oh but no, the state loves working class people.

[Agnapostate]

Right, so a poor person won't necessarily value ten dollars more than a richer person. You should have been more clear in the first place. I don't know why you think the general trend of them doing so is sufficient to determine policy.

It'll have to do with policies being related to rules rather than occasional exceptions to them. If you were actually familiar with utilitarian ethical theory, for example (you're not), you'd be more familiar with the difference between acts and rules. As Peter Singer notes:


[S]oundly chosen intuitive moral principles should be like a good tennis coach's instructions to a player. The instructions are given with an eye to what will pay off most of the time; they are a guide to playing "percentage tennis." Occasionally an individual player might go for a freak shot, and pull off a winner that has everyone applauding; but if the coach is any good at all, deviations from the instructions laid down will, more often than not, lose. So it is better to put the thought of going for those freak shots out of one's mind. Similarly, if we are guided by a set of well-chosen intuitive principles, we may do better if we do not attempt to calculate the consequences of each significant moral choice we must make, but instead consider what principles apply to it, and act accordingly.

The constrictions of bounded rationality prevent constant calculation of all consequences, as the informed Hayekian knows, so it's necessary to rely on principles that will generally yield desirable consequences.

[Jimmie Higgins]

By the way, I'm against taxes too. The government needs to be smashed and the workplaces need to be run by the workers, the people who actually create the wealth through their mental and physical labor - not by people who control the money and get to control our labor because they put some cash in or privately own the tools.

Your tax rant will get you no where because currently you have no clue as to why they capitalist government exists or what it's relationship to the ruling class really is. If the capitalists didn't want taxes, didn't see them as necessary for their collective rule, then it wouldn't be here!

The same thing goes for all the things the government uses taxes for: roads and brides and docks for shipping and transporting goods; wars to secure trade routes and force other countries to comply to their needs; schools to have a workforce with basic skills; social welfare reforms to appease popular demands and ease social conflicts; and cops and national guards in case the reforms don't appease the population.

You can keep raging against the taxes and system built by the "people of abilities" but it's an insane line of thinking that will only lead you to become a corpse futilely piloting your body into an IRS building somewhere.

[Skooma Addict]

It'll have to do with policies being related to rules rather than occasional exceptions to them. If you were actually familiar with utilitarian ethical theory, for example (you're not), you'd be more familiar with the difference between acts and rules. As Peter Singer notes:

Are you saying that I don't know the difference between acts and rules? Well your wrong, and it isn't really that difficult to understand.


[S]oundly chosen intuitive moral principles should be like a good tennis coach's instructions to a player. The instructions are given with an eye to what will pay off most of the time; they are a guide to playing "percentage tennis." Occasionally an individual player might go for a freak shot, and pull off a winner that has everyone applauding; but if the coach is any good at all, deviations from the instructions laid down will, more often than not, lose. So it is better to put the thought of going for those freak shots out of one's mind. Similarly, if we are guided by a set of well-chosen intuitive principles, we may do better if we do not attempt to calculate the consequences of each significant moral choice we must make, but instead consider what principles apply to it, and act accordingly.

Well I am not going to listen to that advice, and you can't prove that I am acting wrongly. All you can say is that you personally do not like the feeling of unease you get when I perform an act you consider wrong. That's it.

Just as we differ in what foods taste good, we also differ on issues of how one should act. Asking who is right is like asking who is right about which food tastes better.

[Agnapostate]

Are you saying that I don't know the difference between acts and rules? Well your wrong, and it isn't really that difficult to understand.

http://travelerdiary.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/grammar.jpg


Well I am not going to listen to that advice, and you can't prove that I am acting wrongly. All you can say is that you personally do not like the feeling of unease you get when I perform an act you consider wrong. That's it.

Just as we differ in what foods taste good, we also differ on issues of how one should act. Asking who is right is like asking who is right about which food tastes better.

Obviously not, considering the intuitive moral aversion to suffering that is common to all sentient creatures. The Hindu withdraws his hand from the fire as quickly as the Welshman, as does the chimpanzee, for that matter.

[Skooma Addict]

Oh well I do hope you will forgive me for my terrible grammatical error. Please don't tell the vanguard about my crime.


Obviously not, considering the intuitive moral aversion to suffering that is common to all sentient creatures. The Hindu withdraws his hand from the fire as quickly as the Welshman, as does the chimpanzee, for that matter.What are you trying to prove here? What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, just like what food tastes better is a matter of opinion. When you say something is wrong, all you are really saying is "I don't like the feeling I get when you perform action X." Your pop ethics is really annoying.

[Wolf Larson]

This person needs deprogramming. Ayn Rand was a decrepit EDIT psychopath.

[Wolf Larson]

Oh well I do hope you will forgive me for my terrible grammatical error. Please don't tell the vanguard about my crime.



What are you trying to prove here? What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, just like what food tastes better is a matter of opinion. When you say something is wrong, all your really saying is "I don't like the feeling I get when you perform action X." Your pop ethics is really annoying.

You should look into suicide. When your homeless child has no means of survival I will let him starve so as to stick by your principles.

[#FF0000]

You should look into suicide. When your homeless child has no means of survival I will let him starve so as to stick by your principles.

Uh, hey, cut that out. This isn't quite a verbal warning but keep things on topic and avoid this kind of post. Real talk.

[Agnapostate]

Oh well I do hope you will forgive me for my terrible grammatical error. Please don't tell the vanguard about my crime.

Another grammatical error would be your reference to an "error," which is singular. In actuality, I've not yet seen you use the correct term "you're" in place of the incorrect "your." As I knew you'd respond in this exact way, I had an opportunity to educate you about the difference between acts and rules. ;)


What are you trying to prove here? What is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, just like what food tastes better is a matter of opinion. When you say something is wrong, all your really saying is "I don't like the feeling I get when you perform action X." Your pop ethics is really annoying.

To some extent, we derive ethics from biological realities, and our ability to reason that enables us to develop higher forms of social organization parallel to our higher forms of sentience. Since we all have an intuitive aversion to suffering (most obviously physical pain, though that is but a form of suffering), the avoidance of suffering is in the interest of all and moral principles constructed around the achievement of that aim are sound. I know you don't read ethics, so you should brush up on this (http://books.google.com/books?id=1OBtQgAACAAJ).

[Drace]

Anarchist Child has a habit of making useless topics, disappearing and then coming back with more.

So if you think the poor are of their own doing, then why the hell do you even consider reform at all? Just get the state to stop taxing you and cut out welfare programs and you'll have your paradise. I think the ideology your looking for is fascism.

[Skooma Addict]

Another grammatical error would be your reference to an "error," which is singular. In actuality, I've not yet seen you use the correct term "you're" in place of the incorrect "your." As I knew you'd respond in this exact way, I had an opportunity to educate you about the difference between acts and rules. ;)Why even bother?


To some extent, we derive ethics from biological realities, and our ability to reason that enables us to develop higher forms of social organization parallel to our higher forms of sentience. Since we all have an intuitive aversion to suffering (most obviously physical pain, though that is but a form of suffering), the avoidance of suffering is in the interest of all and moral principles constructed around the achievement of that aim are sound. I know you don't read ethics, so you should brush up on this (http://books.google.com/books?id=1OBtQgAACAAJ). No, I will not read that. I don't like reading books on pop ethics. I know that we generally have an intuitive aversion of suffering. I know that it is in my interests not to have others needlessly suffer, but that proves nothing. Moral principals constructed around the minimization of suffering are not sound if they are proclaimed to be binding to everyone. I can imagine scenarios where I minimize suffering, yet I would still feel as though I should have acted differently. As I said, this is like arguing what candy bar tastes better. It is not the sort of thing that you can prove.

If you have adopted a fully materialistic worldview, then you should have solved these problems by now.

[Agnapostate]

Why even bother?

I'd just worry that there would be a strong cognitive dissonance caused by your simultaneous arrogance and inaccuracy. And naturally, I'm looking out for your best interests, comrade.


No, I will not read that. I don't like reading

That's better. No need to be overly verbose.


I know that we generally have an intuitive aversion of suffering. I know that it is in my interests not to have others needlessly suffer, but that proves nothing. Moral principals constructed around the minimization of suffering are not sound if they are proclaimed to be binding to everyone. I can imagine scenarios where I minimize suffering, yet I would still feel as though I should have acted differently. As I said, this is like arguing what candy bar tastes better. It is not the sort of thing that you can prove.

I'm quite certain that you can imagine scenarios where you minimize suffering, yet still feel that you should have acted differently. Similarly, I imagine scenarios where robbing, raping, and murdering members of the local Amish village would be the best way to destroy the Taliban, but given what we've noted about general rules being the best mechanisms for producing optimal results the majority of the time, I'd say it's probably best to maintain prohibitions of robbery, rape, and murder. And as you've apparently not understood properly, I never claimed that it was in your best interest for others to avoid suffering, but rather that it was in everyone's best interest for conventions intended to reduce suffering to be devised and adhered to.

[Communist]

People should work for what they want, but if by the off chance that they succeed at what makes them happy then their success becomes someone else's property and is forcefully taken away from them so that those who are too lazy to work may profit off other's hard work
:thumbup1:

This reminds me of that great old Dead Kennedys song 'Kill The Poor', anyone know it? But I believe they were being sarcastic.

By the by, is there currently a thread on this member's unrestriction?

:lol:

[Jimmie Higgins]

:thumbup1:

This reminds me of that great old Dead Kennedys song 'Kill The Poor', anyone know it? But I believe they were being sarcastic.

Ha, that's what I thought of when I saw that title.

Yeah, it's a slightly sarcastic song:lol:. It's about the US using the neuron bomb in urban areas so that the humans are all killed but the property remains intact. Today maybe we'd call that "Shock and Gentrify".

But killing poor people and leaving property for the rich to enjoy... yup, sounds like Ayn Rand's priorities.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I will only screw the poor if I receive consent. And let's pretend it's acceptable to ignore the poor. How can you give no consideration to the interests of a group and simultaneously expect them to consider you're interests? It's like "I'll never give you a cent, but you shouldn't steal from me because it's wrong." This kind of reasoning is extremely popular and extremely stupid. People only agree to it because it alleviates any sense of guilt they have suppressed. I honestly think it's better to be honest about your selfishness than lie to yourself. Ideally, you stop being selfish, but honesty is a step in the right direction.

[Ele'ill]

First of all I think this entire thread was a troll attempt.


Now i understand there are some people who truly can not help their situations and i'm not addressing them. I am talking about all of welfare and medicaid and such. My mom paid roughly $15000 from her money to put braces on my teeth and those of my sisters, she choose to and she doesn't believe she should be paid back for that or get them cheaper for any circumstances.

This is an absurd statement. Why wouldn't she use the help to pay for that unless you're so swimming in money that you really don't have to worry about it?

"I work 50 miles away but I don't use public transportation I walk because I'm tough and everyone else should be too"

Fuck you, Hollywood.




She worked her ass off and she has paid these without any help from anybody. Medicaid now covers braces. Braces are a cosmetic procedure why should my mom have to pay for her kids and someone else's.

Perhaps your braces were for cosmetic purposes but dentistry has had the ability to be able to see in the future and it is suggested that a lot of people get braces, among other things, so that they don't end up with other more serious medical issues later on down the road.




Why should people who work hard, have to pay for anybody but themselves and what they deem to be important to spend on.

The social services that you pay for help people in your community. Ever do basic community work to see who you're helping out? Have you actually walked through your city?


It's a lot more beneficial than the money they use for funding their WARs and domestic TERRORISM.



When are people going to learn that man is to work for himself (not being sexist).

Then why did you say it?



That humans should work to further their happiness and knowledge without constraints like taxes or society's needs.

So then you're opposed to working as a community?

A lot of the stuff paid for by taxes are emergency services.

[Havet]

Right, so a poor person won't necessarily value ten dollars more than a richer person.

Why not? Ten dollars are in the poor person's interest because they affect his/her survival in a more intense manner than it would to a rich man.

[Demogorgon]

This is reminding me strongly of CappieJ. Boy in his mid teens coming along with an argument to the effect off "I've got rich parents so why should there be any kind of facilities to help people who don't?"

[gorillafuck]

This reminds me of that great old Dead Kennedys song 'Kill The Poor', anyone know it? But I believe they were being sarcastic.
Efficiency and progress, is ours once more....

[Skooma Addict]

That's better. No need to be overly verbose. I said I don't like reading books on pop ethics.


I'm quite certain that you can imagine scenarios where you minimize suffering, yet still feel that you should have acted differently. Similarly, I imagine scenarios where robbing, raping, and murdering members of the local Amish village would be the best way to destroy the Taliban, but given what we've noted about general rules being the best mechanisms for producing optimal results the majority of the time, I'd say it's probably best to maintain prohibitions of robbery, rape, and murder. And as you've apparently not understood properly, I never claimed that it was in your best interest for others to avoid suffering, but rather that it was in everyone's best interest for conventions intended to reduce suffering to be devised and adhered to.Let us assume that this really is in everyone's best interest. You can't prove that I ought to act in everyone's best interest, just like you can't prove that one piece of art is better than another.

Normative statements like these are just a matter of opinion. If someone thinks it is wrong to eat meat, then it is wrong for them. Their personal value scales are not binding on others. If you reject any kind of God and accept materialism, this is the logical conclusion. Maybe you would benefit from reading Dennett or Metzinger.


Why not? Ten dollars are in the poor person's interest because they affect his/her survival in a more intense manner than it would to a rich man.I assume that most of the time a poor person would value the 10 dollars more. But it is not true of necessity that a poor person always will. A poor person who does not care for material things may value the ten dollars less than a rich person who is obsessed with acquiring money.

[Dimentio]

If only all objectivists were this honest...

[Havet]

I assume that most of the time a poor person would value the 10 dollars more. But it is not true of necessity that a poor person always will. A poor person who does not care for material things may value the ten dollars less than a rich person who is obsessed with acquiring money.

The necessity of the poor person will only win when he/she is in a situation of underprivilege, in regard to the rich man, according to the 10 dollar value. Obviously if we switch the value of the money in question, or the person remains poor by some other standard but has a higher financial relief, then he/she will value the same amount differently.

I think its safe to make the generalization, though.

[Skooma Addict]

The necessity of the poor person will only win when he/she is in a situation of underprivilege, in regard to the rich man, according to the 10 dollar value. Obviously if we switch the value of the money in question, or the person remains poor by some other standard but has a higher financial relief, then he/she will value the same amount differently.

I think its safe to make the generalization, though.

I am not sure if I understand what you're saying here. I agree that generally, a poor person will value ten dollars more than a rich person. If you were saying that a poor person will always value the 10 dollars more only if they are in an underprivileged situation, that is still incorrect.

[Havet]

I am not sure if I understand what you're saying here. I agree that generally, a poor person will value ten dollars more than a rich person. If you were saying that a poor person will always value the 10 dollars more only if they are in an underprivileged situation, that is still incorrect.

I said that it was safe to assume that a poor person will always value 10 dollars more if they are in an underprivileged situation despite there being occasions when such person will not value those 10 dollars as highly.

[Agnapostate]

I said I don't like reading

Yes, we've established that. Just as there's no need to be overly verbose, there's no need to be repetitive. ;)


Let us assume that this really is in everyone's best interest. You can't prove that I ought to act in everyone's best interest, just like you can't prove that one piece of art is better than another.

Normative statements like these are just a matter of opinion. If someone thinks it is wrong to eat meat, then it is wrong for them. Their personal value scales are not binding on others. If you reject any kind of God and accept materialism, this is the logical conclusion. Maybe you would benefit from reading Dennett or Metzinger.

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this to you, since your perpetual inability to distinguish between acts and rules is growing very tiresome. I have not claimed that you ought to act in others' self-interest. I have, however, claimed that it is in your self-interest that moral principles and conventions that prohibit practices such as unrestricted murder are in your own self-interest since they reduce the probability of your murder, as well as the self-interest of others. Therefore, they ought to be adopted and adhered to, so as to maximize total utility and fall into line with general desires.


I assume that most of the time a poor person would value the 10 dollars more. But it is not true of necessity that a poor person always will. A poor person who does not care for material things may value the ten dollars less than a rich person who is obsessed with acquiring money.

And since necessities will generally be valued more than luxuries (referring back to the income elasticity of demand), and the diminishing marginal utility of greater sums of money must be considered, it is sufficient to construct general policy around that with the assumption that the poor will usually value ten dollars more than the rich. Are you unaware of the fact that laws and social conventions are all devised to target generalities? :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

This is the last time I'm going to repeat this to you, since your perpetual inability to distinguish between acts and rules is growing very tiresome. I have not claimed that you ought to act in others' self-interest. I have, however, claimed that it is in your self-interest that moral principles and conventions that prohibit practices such as unrestricted murder are in your own self-interest since they reduce the probability of your murder, as well as the self-interest of others. Therefore, they ought to be adopted and adhered to, so as to maximize total utility and fall into line with general desires.

As long as you realize that it is only in peoples opinion that I am acting immorally if I don't follow this advice. Ethics is just a matter of opinion, and nobody is more "right" than anyone else. Do you accept this?


And since necessities will generally be valued more than luxuries (referring back to the income elasticity of demand), and the diminishing marginal utility of greater sums of money must be considered, it is sufficient to construct general policy around that with the assumption that the poor will usually value ten dollars more than the rich. Are you unaware of the fact that laws and social conventions are all devised to target generalities? :rolleyes:

I was just pointing out that the statement that "A poor man necessarily values 10 dollars more than a rich man" is false. I am correct.


I said that it was safe to assume that a poor person will always value 10 dollars more if they are in an underprivileged situation despite there being occasions when such person will not value those 10 dollars as highly.


So it is safe to assume something that is clearly false? Replace the word "always" with "generally."

[Havet]

So it is safe to assume something that is clearly false? Replace the word "always" with "generally."

It is not false. It has to do with probabilities. The probability of encountering a certain situation is far greater than the one that disproves the hypothesis. I do not deny there is a small probability of error, but I do not think it is sufficient to "destroy" the hypothesis.

[Agnapostate]

As long as you realize that it is only in peoples opinion that I am acting immorally if I don't follow this advice. Ethics is just a matter of opinion, and nobody is more "right" than anyone else. Do you accept this?

What an idiotic suggestion of adherence to petty relativism. Shall I come and visit you and light you on fire, should it be my opinion that it's advisable to do so? That you would dislike this, as a result of your intuitive aversion to suffering (physical pain, in that case), is evidence of universal moral standards found in aims to reduce suffering.


I was just pointing out that the statement that "A poor man necessarily values 10 dollars more than a rich man" is false. I am correct.

You are not, due to his explicit statement of his comment being a "generalization." You remain profoundly incorrect.

[IcarusAngel]

This thread is basically your mind on objectivism. You come to believe that you deserve to own the world, and since that is true, the people who are the current "owners" also deserve all the property since they "earned" it in highly restricted capitalist markets.

It's a good ideology to justify being a slave.

[Wolf Larson]

Uh, hey, cut that out. This isn't quite a verbal warning but keep things on topic and avoid this kind of post. Real talk.

I'm proving a point albeit rudely. What I'm saying is, his ideology is against ANY and ALL public safety nets and socialism, empathy and altruism in general. If he had kids and he died , in his system, his kids would starve to death. This is my point [not my only point concerning capitalism of course]. And I wasn't in the mood to be civil with fascists. Sorry. He started this thread to stir shit up while advocating death and murder. Some warped capitalist version of social Darwinism. It's disgusting. I invite you to lurk/post in their objectivist forums and in the "anarcho" capitalists groups online so you can get the full view of what these people advocate. Objectivism is a mental illness. Randroids need help. Anarcho capitalists don't consider themselves objectivists but their economic views are the same and drawn from the same conclusions concerning so called human nature. It's the philosophy of psychopathy not egoism. If a revolution began they would be armed to the teeth fighting against us with a fervor no other capitalist holds. They would be akin to Hitlers SS. Right now, within society, it has been people such as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan who have helped destroy socialism. Disciples of Ayn Rand. I'll refrain from being rude in the future and was rude only because I've spent much time being civil with these people and it goes nowhere. Sorry.

[Wolf Larson]

If only all objectivists were this honest...

Oh they are. I'll give you a link to a thread I started in one of their groups concerning orphans. These people are psychopaths. I've spent a lot of time debating them in a civil manner. I'd say about 100 hours. After getting a glimpse into the true nature of these people it's hard for me to tolerate them.

[Weezer]

The income tax is the biggest fraud ever concocted to steal from people. Why should people have to work their asses off at work just to pay for other people's problems. People should work for what they want, but if by the off chance that they succeed at what makes them happy then their success becomes someone else's property and is forcefully taken away from them so that those who are too lazy to work may profit off other's hard work. Now i understand there are some people who truly can not help their situations and i'm not addressing them. I am talking about all of welfare and medicaid and such. My mom paid roughly $15000 from her money to put braces on my teeth and those of my sisters, she choose to and she doesn't believe she should be paid back for that or get them cheaper for any circumstances. She worked her ass off and she has paid these without any help from anybody. Medicaid now covers braces. Braces are a cosmetic procedure why should my mom have to pay for her kids and someone else's. There are some people who have taken control of the system. The head start program is only available to lower income citizens and guess what, it doesn't even work and costs millions a year. Why should people who work hard, have to pay for anybody but themselves and what they deem to be important to spend on. This isn't about hating the poor contrary to the title but is instead against the income tax and all taxes. Taxes are needed in a democratic society or the government or collective commune cannot function. That is why i am against democracy and all forms of state for something more. Autonomy of the human mind. Self-governance. Capitalism. Taxes say no to autonomy, no to self governance, yes to sitting around, yes to not furthering oneself, yes to stealing from those who work to pay for those who don't. When are people going to learn that man is to work for himself (not being sexist). That humans should work to further their happiness and knowledge without constraints like taxes or society's needs.


What happened to you, man?

[Pawn Power]

The income tax is the biggest fraud ever concocted to steal from people. Why should people have to work their asses off at work just to pay for other people's problems. People should work for what they want, but if by the off chance that they succeed at what makes them happy then their success becomes someone else's property and is forcefully taken away from them so that those who are too lazy to work may profit off other's hard work. Now i understand there are some people who truly can not help their situations and i'm not addressing them. I am talking about all of welfare and medicaid and such. My mom paid roughly $15000 from her money to put braces on my teeth and those of my sisters, she choose to and she doesn't believe she should be paid back for that or get them cheaper for any circumstances. She worked her ass off and she has paid these without any help from anybody. Medicaid now covers braces. Braces are a cosmetic procedure why should my mom have to pay for her kids and someone else's. There are some people who have taken control of the system. The head start program is only available to lower income citizens and guess what, it doesn't even work and costs millions a year. Why should people who work hard, have to pay for anybody but themselves and what they deem to be important to spend on. This isn't about hating the poor contrary to the title but is instead against the income tax and all taxes. Taxes are needed in a democratic society or the government or collective commune cannot function. That is why i am against democracy and all forms of state for something more. Autonomy of the human mind. Self-governance. Capitalism. Taxes say no to autonomy, no to self governance, yes to sitting around, yes to not furthering oneself, yes to stealing from those who work to pay for those who don't. When are people going to learn that man is to work for himself (not being sexist). That humans should work to further their happiness and knowledge without constraints like taxes or society's needs.


The thing is most of that money coming from our income taxes isn't going to the poor. In reality it is going to the bloated military budget. So your anger, which is legit, is directed towards the wrong people. Blame military-industrial-complex! They line their pockets with no-bid contracts to make basically useless jet fighters and missals on our dime and without our consent. Now that's robbery.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S17GGwQ1TrI/AAAAAAAACSY/X2bs4rpZpWU/s1600/spending.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S17GGwQ1TrI/AAAAAAAACSY/X2bs4rpZpWU/s1600-h/spending.png

[Havet]

The thing is most of that money coming from our income taxes isn't going to the poor. In reality it is going to the bloated military budget. So your anger is, which is legit, is direct towards the wrong people. Blame military-industrial-complex! They line their pockets with no-bid contracts to make basically useless jet fighters and missals on our dime and without our consent. No that's robbery.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S17GGwQ1TrI/AAAAAAAACSY/X2bs4rpZpWU/s1600/spending.png

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/S17GGwQ1TrI/AAAAAAAACSY/X2bs4rpZpWU/s1600-h/spending.png

Very good point.

[Bud Struggle]

Very good point.

That IS a good point! With the fall of the Soviet block we really didn't have much need here in America for a state of the art killing machine--thank heaven the Islamic peoples came along and took up the slack from the Soviets.

Seriously that 44% is HUGE. We could all live alot better if that were cut in half at least.

[Drace]

According to other sources, military spending is only about 18%.

[Skooma Addict]

What an idiotic suggestion of adherence to petty relativism. Shall I come and visit you and light you on fire, should it be my opinion that it's advisable to do so? That you would dislike this, as a result of your intuitive aversion to suffering (physical pain, in that case), is evidence of universal moral standards found in aims to reduce suffering.

If you lit me on fire, I couldn't prove that you are performing an objectively bad act. I could only say that I personally do not like it. It does not follow from the fact that because of the mindless process of evolution we developed an intuitive aversion of suffering, that therefore objective morality exists. In fact, people like William Provine would say just the opposite, i.e. that evolution is an argument against objective/universal morality.

Moral relativism bothers a lot of people, just like materialism bothers a lot of people. However, after a while you learn to come to peace with them. Once you reject God and accept the materialist worldview, you should eventually come to accept moral relativism or possibly nihilism.

[Havet]

According to other sources, military spending is only about 18%.

What sources??

Also, this might be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

[Pawn Power]

According to other sources, military spending is only about 18%.

Ha!

What other sources? The government itself produces a budget for each fiscal year. 44.4% is by their own admission! :lol:

Actually it is probably even higher because it doesn't include all costs of current wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan which cost billions a year.

But yes, please, lets see these other sources. :lol:

Dogmatism actually does blind people of the facts.

[Bud Struggle]

If you lit me on fire, I couldn't prove that you are performing an objectively bad act. I could only say that I personally do not like it. It does not follow from the fact that because of the mindless process of evolution we developed an intuitive aversion of suffering, that therefore objective morality exists. In fact, people like William Provine would say just the opposite, i.e. that evolution is an argument against objective/universal morality.

Moral relativism bothers a lot of people, just like materialism bothers a lot of people. However, after a while you learn to come to peace with them. Once you reject God and accept the materialist worldview, you should eventually come to accept moral relativism or possibly nihilism.

That point is dead on correct. If one is a Materialist as you Communists claim to be you have no choice other than to concede that there is no "right" or "wrong" there is ony what "you want" and what "I want." Now you can build up a whole moral structure around your wants (e.g. to feel less pain,) but your structure is no more good or right than anyone elses. We can all get together as a societ and say something like: "murder isn't permitted," but that's just something that is a decision of the majority, nothing more than that. We could easily decide something other--and that would be just as "good."

Once you kill off God--there is no more moral absolute--and everything is permitted.

[Wolf Larson]

If you lit me on fire, I couldn't prove that you are performing an objectively bad act. I could only say that I personally do not like it. It does not follow from the fact that because of the mindless process of evolution we developed an intuitive aversion of suffering, that therefore objective morality exists. In fact, people like William Provine would say just the opposite, i.e. that evolution is an argument against objective/universal morality.

Moral relativism bothers a lot of people, just like materialism bothers a lot of people. However, after a while you learn to come to peace with them. Once you reject God and accept the materialist worldview, you should eventually come to accept moral relativism or possibly nihilism.

You mean we should accept private ownership of the means of production [property/exclusion] , wage slavery, rent, interest and usury under threat of exposure and starvation while living life in a battle of aggressive competition pitting man against man in a struggle to survive. Do you know why Stirner did not advocate property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury? Stirner is one of the men your capitalist hero's have cherry picked and warped as with Nietzsche. You should understand what Stirner meant by his Union of Egoists. He said Egoists could only be free if equality first existed and to maintain this equality man would need to survive by HIS labor alone. Stirner did not advocate property, wage slavery, rent and interest. He advocated a persons ability to take what he needed from the earth NOT from other human beings via exclusion from the means of production. There were also some German Nazi's who warped Nietzsche just as capitalists have warped Stirner. Nietzsche wasn't advocating exploitation, theft and brutality either.<br><br> Your cherry picking subjective revisionism is up there with the Germans. You don't understand Stirner or Nietzsche. I say this with the utmost confidence. What you do understand is the subjective capitalist interpretations of existentialist and nihilistic philosophers who were no more advocating capitalism than Benny Hinn advocates reality. If we look at what actually happened when free market principles were put into action we can see what would happen in your free market fantasy land. What happened in NY City when the fire service was privatized? What happened during the industrial revolution when private police were used to bust up unions? What happened when roads were privatized in Texas and people couldn't pay the various tolls? What sort of traffic did that cause? What happened to the poor in various capitalistic societies that depended on charity to care for the abandoned children and elderly? What happened when Wall St was deregulated by Larry Summers and other neoliberal economists in Washington? There's so much more. What happened when corporations use their private military contractors to go to war around the globe? You'll blame EVERYTHING on the state while ignoring what your mind frame of abject greed and selfishness causes.<br><br> You objectivists and anarcho capitalists alike both advocate a state. You simply advocate a state that is only beneficial to the capitalist- a private state used as a tool to subjugate labor under an iron fist. The invisible iron fist. Why do you think Adam Smith advocated government programs? Have you even read wealth of nations? Why do you think even Hayek advocated universal health care? Why do you think capitalists give concessions to workers via the state/taxes? Capitalism cannot provide full employment and is crisis prone.<br><br> Also, if you had any sense you'd be aware of the fact that taxes and concessions to workers saved capitalism from the strong revolutionary movement of the early 20'th century. If not for public programs we would have indeed overthrown your system by now- that is the only rational reason to oppose social spending within the capitalist system. It saved capitalism. Keynes saved capitalism. FDR saved capitalism. If your preferred free market system was allowed to manifest workers would overthrow it almost immediately.

[Drace]

Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_%28United_States%29

Defense is at 23%. Majority is social security and Medicare.

But then according to this
http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Its like 60%!


In 2005, the United States spent 4.06% of its GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GDP) on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia)'s 10%


Actually it is probably even higher because it doesn't include all costs of current wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan which cost billions a year.

Its actually, about billion a day!

[IcarusAngel]

The military industrial complex is needed because that is where all the funds come from for scientific research. Removing that is a double-edged sword. Consider the fact that Universities outcompete market research, esp in programming. Even linguistic theories have been funded by science.

markets = inefficent.

I wouldn't try and reform how science is funded. Again, another issue best left for after a fundamental paradigm shift in society (maybe then research could be funded without the need of the military part of it).

[IcarusAngel]

You mean we should accept private ownership of the means of production [property/exclusion] , wage slavery, rent, interest and usury under threat of exposure and starvation...

Haha. Nice sentece. For a required English class I wrote the following:

"
So basically my philosophy is that we should just ignore social problems and free ourselves of restrictive ideologies. We don’t need a bunch of busybodies running around telling everybody how to live. You’re not going to solve the world’s problems, and the people who attempt to solve them often make things a lot worse. One theory of history purposes that sacrifice to higher powers such as to the state or God has been the cause of most of the social strife in history. Just look at the USSR; they had the noble goal of eliminating wage slavery, usury, and interest, but became everything they ever hated. The US has seen its wealth concentrated in fewer hands in a way that even founders such as Thomas Jefferson would have opposed. Instead of these tactics, we should have an idle philosophy that attempts to figure out at what point the actions of others interferes with your own personal interests and proceed from there."



Although seemingly anti-leftist as well as anti-rightist, I'm arguing that all of the world's creations and inventions come from the ability of more of the working class to have leisure time and access to resources.

[Wolf Larson]

The military industrial complex is needed because that is where all the funds come from for scientific research. Removing that is a double-edged sword. Consider the fact that Universities outcompete market research, esp in programming. Even linguistic theories have been funded by science.

markets = inefficent.

I wouldn't try and reform how science is funded. Again, another issue best left for after a fundamental paradigm shift in society (maybe then research could be funded without the need of the military part of it).

It's also needed by capitalists to expand capitalism/ set up capitalist friendly governments via fraud, violence and trickery. They also use their military to contain socialism. Capitalism, ironically, doesn't want any competition and getting rid of socialist competition can only be done via coercion/ violence. The military is the only reason capitalism exists. This is why people like Ron Paul, even though I agree with his foreign policy views [not his economic views], are laughed at by both capitalist liberals and capitalist conservatives. Most all capitalists are honest enough to admit capitalism could not exist without brute global force.

[Glenn Beck]

Once you kill off God--there is no more moral absolute--and everything is permitted.

When it comes to ethics God is dead (irrelevant) whether you believe in him or not. There is no "divine command" source of morality, if you accept "God's will" as a source of morality you are in reality accepting a set of assertions on the authority of another human being (or group of human beings). If you accept the Bible you accept the authority of the church fathers who compiled it, and the authority of everyone who translated and edited its text over the centuries eventually culminating in whatever particular edition you favor. If you accept the Torah you are accepting it on the basis of the authority of generations of rabbis.

Even if you have a vision from God, you have to contend with the reliability of your senses, but more fundamentally nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe you aside from taking your word for it. So we are back at square one, your claim may have a privileged reality for you, in your head, but once you are out in the real world of other human beings it becomes just another competing claim in an ocean of creeds shouting "believe me"!

It doesn't matter whether God exists or not, we have no way out, we have to live with it and figure it out together, and the only way we can do that is by coming up with our own principles and getting others to believe them, by fair means or foul, according to what your principles happen to be. That's the situation, it's reality, and it's messy and ambiguous. "God" (or rather human ideas about God) cannot save us from that. You imagine that you are escaping from this impossible dilemma with your faith, but in reality you are playing the same game everyone else is, the only difference between us is that your participation in it is under the false pretenses of an ideology that denies the fundamental reality that our morality is our responsibility.

[Skooma Addict]

You mean we should accept private ownership of the means of production [property/exclusion] , wage slavery, rent, interest and usury under threat of exposure and starvation while living life in a battle of aggressive competition pitting man against man in a struggle to survive.


What does this have to do with anything you quoted?



Do you know why Stirner did not advocate property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury? Stirner is one of the men your capitalist hero's have cherry picked and warped as with Nietzsche. You should understand what Stirner meant by his Union of Egoists. He said Egoists could only be free if equality first existed and to maintain this equality man would need to survive by HIS labor alone. Stirner did not advocate property, wage slavery, rent and interest. He advocated a persons ability to take what he needed from the earth NOT from other human beings via exclusion from the means of production. There were also some Germans who warped Nietzsche just as capitalists have warped Stirner. Nietzsche wasn't advocating exploitation, theft and brutality either. Your cherry picking subjective revisionism is up there with the Germans. You don't understand Stirner or Nietzsche. I say this with the utmost confidence.

Are you sure you quoted the right person? I never said anything about Stirner or Nietzsche.

[Havet]

The military industrial complex is needed because that is where all the funds come from for scientific research. Removing that is a double-edged sword. Consider the fact that Universities outcompete market research, esp in programming. Even linguistic theories have been funded by science.

So you're basically saying that the ends justify the means?

[IcarusAngel]

I wouldn't recommend the elimination of the military for several reasons:

The threat of fascist-capitalism is still very real, such as when fascists and capitalists (modern day: Conservatives and Libertarians) tried to overthrow the American government and install a fascist dictatorship.

This is less true in America and Europe but would become similar to the thirdw orld if

Private militaries would directly attack the workers and if there is no public input on the government, the government military could be used to threaten workers. This is what happens in the third world.

Also, deregulating industries leads back into bigger government and less public input, and hence less freedom, so it's a futile strategy anyway.

So that is blind activism.


I purpose "idle strategies." An idle strategy determines at what point the actions of one individual harms another individual. This is the big reason why we have freedoms in the US, because the liberal founding fathers were able to keep the conservatives at bay when it came to negative liberties.

This idle strategy needs to be implemented in the economy and something similar was purposed by Russell.

The NAP, the Libertarian solution, is too full of holes and ignores private property, so it's actually probably even worse than current society.

[Wolf Larson]

What does this have to do with anything you quoted?



Are you sure you quoted the right person? I never said anything about Stirner or Nietzsche.

You act as if I'm not aware you advocate wage slavery, interest rent and usury while using nihilism to rationalize it. I can smell your capitalist stench through my computer screen. Stirner and Nietzsche have been used by capitalists to legitimize exploitation, theft and usury. Quit playing games. I'm not in the mood. Just so you know Hayek also advocated universal health care. Didn't know that did you? EDIT: And if you knew anything about nihilism you would know both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard said it was an affliction to be overcome. Not something to bask in. Nihilism is whats destroying humanity. Just as it destroyed Nietzsche's mind.

[Bud Struggle]

It doesn't matter whether God exists or not, we have no way out, we have to live with it and figure it out together, and the only way we can do that is by coming up with our own principles and getting others to believe them, by fair means or foul, according to what your principles happen to be. That's the situation, it's reality, and it's messy and ambiguous. "God" (or rather human ideas about God) cannot save us from that. You imagine that you are escaping from this impossible dilemma with your faith, but in reality you are playing the same game everyone else is, the only difference between us is that your participation in it is under the false pretenses of an ideology that denies the fundamental reality that our morality is our responsibility.

Not at all. If God exists then he gave us rules to live by and we as his "creatures" are obligated to follow them. If he doesn't exist we are free to do as as choose. If you want to work out some rules with some other people--that's up to you. If I choose to not play by your rules so be it. The driving point of Communism isn't that it's "more fair" than Capitalism, but rather that masses will want an greater share of their work and reward for work will then be distributed more equally. There's nothing fair or unfair about Communism it follows (what it believes to be) laws of economics.

Without God I deny there is any morality whatsoever. There is just the best way to survive; and if we decide as a society that if I don't kill you--you won't kill me then that's an agreed upon plan of action. There's nothing "moral" about that. I'm just looking out for my own best interest as are you.

One of the biggest complaints that I hear hear on RevLeft is that Capitalism is unfair. Those poor starving people, we have to help them, etc. That's not the point of Materialism at all--it's about me getting my fair share. Nothing more.

[Havet]

I wouldn't recommend the elimination of the military for several reasons:

The threat of fascist-capitalism is still very real, such as when fascists and capitalists (modern day: Conservatives and Libertarians) tried to overthrow the American government and install a fascist dictatorship.

This is less true in America and Europe but would become similar to the thirdw orld if

Private militaries would directly attack the workers and if there is no public input on the government, the government military could be used to threaten workers. This is what happens in the third world.

Also, deregulating industries leads back into bigger government and less public input, and hence less freedom, so it's a futile strategy anyway.

So that is blind activism.


I purpose "idle strategies." An idle strategy determines at what point the actions of one individual harms another individual. This is the big reason why we have freedoms in the US, because the liberal founding fathers were able to keep the conservatives at bay when it came to negative liberties.

This idle strategy needs to be implemented in the economy and something similar was purposed by Russell.

The NAP, the Libertarian solution, is too full of holes and ignores private property, so it's actually probably even worse than current society.

So it's okay to continue to kill brown people in middle-eastern countries in the name of science?

[IcarusAngel]

lol. You're not paying attention. When the military collapsed in Nazi Germany due to Hitler spreading lies about it, an even worse military took it's place, and even more "brown people" were killed. Mussolini invaded several third world countries just like the US does.

Reagan, who didn't destroy the military, nonetheless used it for capitalist-imperialist purposes, and killed 3 to 10 million people.

You can't "reform" militarism as long as there is capitalism, because markets create the need to put some people down (third worlders) while protecting their own resources.

The military reasoning is similar to the capitalist reasoning on science.

Science outcompetes markets and is the reason for everything in society. Capitalists want to eliminate it or privatize it, because it sets a bad example (for them).

By the same reasoning, the military tries to put down third world countries that are third world democracies, because it is an embarrassment to the first world capitalist system.

That is the only reason, it has nothing to do with unnecessary "force," because (A) markets cause more force than taxation and (B) the military interventionist stragegies cause more force than social revolutions in the third world.

[IcarusAngel]

There's also the fact that without a strong public system, many people will die due to inefficiencies.

In "Hunger and Public Action," Sen and Dreze demonstrate that even a Chinese style social system would have saved tens of millions of people in India, and that markets, by putting resources in few hands, destroyed 30 million lives every 8 years or worse. That's over 50 million people.

There is no way of really telling how many people have died from resources being controlled by private hands, probably somewhere in the vicinity of three-hundred million to half a billion people.

So why would anybody purpose a path where even more people will die solely for an ideology of private property? They wouldn't.

[Wolf Larson]

I wouldn't recommend the elimination of the military for several reasons:

The threat of fascist-capitalism is still very real, such as when fascists and capitalists (modern day: Conservatives and Libertarians) tried to overthrow the American government and install a fascist dictatorship.

This is less true in America and Europe but would become similar to the thirdw orld if

Private militaries would directly attack the workers and if there is no public input on the government, the government military could be used to threaten workers. This is what happens in the third world.

Also, deregulating industries leads back into bigger government and less public input, and hence less freedom, so it's a futile strategy anyway.

So that is blind activism.


I purpose &quot;idle strategies.&quot; An idle strategy determines at what point the actions of one individual harms another individual. This is the big reason why we have freedoms in the US, because the liberal founding fathers were able to keep the conservatives at bay when it came to negative liberties.

This idle strategy needs to be implemented in the economy and something similar was purposed by Russell.

The NAP, the Libertarian solution, is too full of holes and ignores private property, so it's actually probably even worse than current society.

Indeed. I've tried to show this to libertarians. Property IS aggression and the NAP cannot coexist with property and thus the forced wage slavery, rent, interest bearing loans and usury it sets the stage for. American right wing libertarians live in a theoretical la la land which ignores or denies the very fibers of reality. They usually make fun of religion but then go and show the same blind faith in an even more absurd dogma. The dogma of the free market.

[Havet]

Science outcompetes markets and is the reason for everything in society. Capitalists want to eliminate it or privatize it, because it sets a bad example (for them).

How does science "outcompete" markets?

[IcarusAngel]

That is correct Wolf. Mises himself despised the scientific method and ranted and raved against it in his writings like the old kook he was. They don't try and justify their axioms or show where they lead because they don't like deductive proofs.

So basically they want you to accept their axioms without evidence, even though they fail to show even one example where empirical evidence was proven to be wrong due to their "axioms."

[Skooma Addict]

You act as if I'm not aware you advocate wage slavery, interest rent and usury while using nihilism to rationalize it. I can smell your capitalist stench through my computer screen. Stirner and Nietzsche have been used by capitalists to legitimize exploitation, theft and usury. Quit playing games. I'm not in the mood. Just so you know Hayek also advocated universal health care. Didn't know that did you?

Ok, well if you think you can refute my moral relativism, by all means, go ahead. I never once mentioned Stirner, Nietzsche, or Hayek, and I don't see why you brought them up.

[Wolf Larson]

Ok, well if you think you can refute my moral relativism, by all means, go ahead. I never once mentioned Stirner, Nietzsche, or Hayek, and I don't see why you brought them up.

Hayek is in your sig and you do promote wage slavery, interest, rent and usury using nihilism as the justification- you simply haven't gotten around to it yet. You're a capitalist- It's obvious to me. Many people consider Stirner a nihilist philosopher just as Nietzsche. Ayn Rand cheery picked both Stirner and Nietzsche to form her cult of objectivism as did Rothbard for his anarcho capitalism one of which you no doubt subscribe to [if not a mixture of both]. I'm just getting to the point. I'm not playing your games. I know your position better than you know it. I've read and understand the sources both objectivists and so called anarcho capitalists use to justify property, wage slavery, interest, rent and usury. Next, if you're an anarcho capitalist, you'll begin to cherry pick Tucker and Spooner - I say this because your obvious pro capitalist position and your weak nihilistic justifications wreak of the subjective revisionism both Rothbard and Rand used to justify capitalism. And again, nihilism isn't a state of mind to bask in and enjoy-as both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard said it's a state of mind to overcome. You don't understand nihilism which would make you a pseudo intellectual or you do understand the things your saying which simply makes you a sociopath. Either way I suggest you get to the point and tell me why property, wage slavery, rent and interest are acceptable in your mind. Lets hear it. Simplified version? Because you think liberty is the ability to do whatever you want.

[Skooma Addict]

Hayek is in your sig and you do promote wage slavery, interest, rent and usury using nihilism as the justification- you simply haven't gotten around to it yet. You're a capitalist- It's obvious to me. Many people consider Stirner a nihilist philosopher just as Nietzsche. Ayn Rand cheery picked both Stirner and Nietzsche to form her cult of objectivism as did Rothbard for his anarcho capitalism one of which you no doubt subscribe to [if not a mixture of both]. I'm just getting to the point. I'm not playing your games. I know your position better than you know it. I've read and understand the sources both objectivists and so called anarcho capitalists use to justify property, wage slavery, interest, rent and usury. Next, if you're an anarcho capitalist, you'll begin to cherry pick Tucker and Spooner - I say this because your obvious pro capitalist position and your weak nihilistic justifications wreak of the subjective revisionism both Rothbard and Rand used to justify capitalism. And again, nihilism isn't a state of mind to bask in and enjoy-as both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard said it's a state of mind to overcome. You don't understand nihilism which would make you a pseudo intellectual or you do understand the things your saying which simply makes you a sociopath. Either way I suggest you get to the point and tell me why property, wage slavery, rent and interest are acceptable in your mind. Lets hear it. Simplified version? Because you think liberty is the ability to do whatever you want.


I don't think the idea of wage slavery makes any sense, and I also see nothing wrong with rent, interest or usury. But that is for another discussion. I wouldn't call myself a nihilist either. Rothbard used natural rights theory to justify capitalism. He was not a moral relativist. What ethical theory do you subscribe to?

[Drace]

@Olaf,

"Natural rights" is very much an idealist concept and so is any other moral principle. And so, I am a nihilist, rejecting all morals on the basis that they have no logical basis.

The only morals that should subscribe to society are the basic ones (no killing, stealing, hurting people is bad, etc). To invent abstract concepts like natural rights and even "animals have feelings too, we shouldn't hurt them" is stupid from a philosophical level.

Thought at least PETA and vegetarianism are built on empathy for animals. The same cant be said for natural rights to property. Its useless and meaningless.

A utilitarian concept is much better fitted at meeting the basic moral principles.


Reagan, who didn't destroy the military, nonetheless used it for capitalist-imperialist purposes, and killed 3 to 10 million people.

Explain please.

[Pawn Power]

Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_budget_%28United_States%29

Defense is at 23%. Majority is social security and Medicare.



Sorry if I'm a bit brazen but you should read the things you link to.

There are billions of other expenses clearly related related to defense and blatantly driven by the military-industrial-complex which is not included in the defense budget. This is what your own link says:


This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration) budget, Veterans Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs), the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security), counter-terrorism spending by the FBI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI), and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA).

Veterans Affairs clearly stipulated on war (though this is not a priority for the government since 1/3 of homeless men are vets). Debt from past wars?- so obvious shouldn't need mentioning. State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance? This is so blatant we should all be furious. This is not even military funding for our country but we are paying taxes to fund the military's of other countries-- and its not even counted in the military budget! The list goes on. And when its all added up, it amounts to closer to 44%. And it is probably even higher if you take into account DHS funding, non-military specific costs that are directly related to our current wars, funded university research, etc. The Pentagon is good at distributing their obscene spending around to other departments so it doesn't make them bloated.

[Skooma Addict]

@Olaf,

"Natural rights" is very much an idealist concept and so is any other moral principle. And so, I am a nihilist, rejecting all morals on the basis that they have no logical basis.

The only morals that should subscribe to society are the basic ones (no killing, stealing, hurting people is bad, etc). To invent abstract concepts like natural rights and even "animals have feelings too, we shouldn't hurt them" is stupid from a philosophical level.

Thought at least PETA and vegetarianism are built on empathy for animals. The same cant be said for natural rights to property. Its useless and meaningless.

A utilitarian concept is much better fitted at meeting the basic moral principles.

Well I agree with you on natural rights. You say that you are a nihilist and that you reject all morals, but then you go on to say what moral values should be subscribed to society and praise utilitarianism for meeting basic moral principals. Maybe I am misinterpreting what your saying?

[Drace]

Well I agree with you on natural rights. You say that you are a nihilist and that you reject all morals, but then you go on to say what moral values should be subscribed to society and praise utilitarianism for meeting basic moral principals. Maybe I am misinterpreting what your saying?

Well if we are to live as a civilized society, morals indeed are important.
How can we discuss politics if we find nothing wrong with murder, death, starvation etc?

As a nihilist, all I am saying is that morals have no logical basis. While there may be no reason that killing is "bad", that moral is something that should be valued.

[Agnapostate]

If you lit me on fire, I couldn't prove that you are performing an objectively bad act. I could only say that I personally do not like it. It does not follow from the fact that because of the mindless process of evolution we developed an intuitive aversion of suffering, that therefore objective morality exists. In fact, people like William Provine would say just the opposite, i.e. that evolution is an argument against objective/universal morality.

Moral relativism bothers a lot of people, just like materialism bothers a lot of people. However, after a while you learn to come to peace with them. Once you reject God and accept the materialist worldview, you should eventually come to accept moral relativism or possibly nihilism.

Your ethical relativism is itself a frivolous viewpoint generally not retained by incoming freshmen after having sat through an introductory ethics course. The meta-ethical case for utilitarianism is very straightforward; happiness is universally desired by all sentient creatures and suffering universally unwanted by all sentient creatures. As such, since it is in the common interest of all sentient creatures to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, it is the common interest of all sentient creatures to devise social conventions based on the moral principle of happiness maximization and suffering minimization, as this will generally increase and decrease the probabilities of experiencing happiness and suffering, respectively.

Now, in a given scenario, it is not necessarily in your self-interest to reduce the total suffering of others (and is quite often not, for that matter), but it is necessary to consistently apply the aforementioned social conventions if they are to function as effective rules, free of subjective bias.


You're a capitalist- It's obvious to me.

He's not a capitalist. He's an anti-socialist, and an effective advocate of capitalism, but would have better things to do than ramble on this board if he was a capitalist.

[GPDP]

He's not a capitalist. He's an anti-socialist, and an effective advocate of capitalism, but would have better things to do than ramble on this board if he was a capitalist.

Indeed.

But then again, Bud Struggle.

[RGacky3]

Without God I deny there is any morality whatsoever. There is just the best way to survive; and if we decide as a society that if I don't kill you--you won't kill me then that's an agreed upon plan of action. There's nothing "moral" about that. I'm just looking out for my own best interest as are you.

One of the biggest complaints that I hear hear on RevLeft is that Capitalism is unfair. Those poor starving people, we have to help them, etc. That's not the point of Materialism at all--it's about me getting my fair share. Nothing more.

Not nessesarily, it does'nt matter perse where you get your morality from, however, once you claim some sort of morality, then you have to be consistant, for example if you say murder is WRONG (thats a moral statement), then you have to be consistant with that, and deal with it rationally.

[Skooma Addict]

Your ethical relativism is itself a frivolous viewpoint generally not retained by incoming freshmen after having sat through an introductory ethics course. The meta-ethical case for utilitarianism is very straightforward; happiness is universally desired by all sentient creatures and suffering universally unwanted by all sentient creatures. As such, since it is in the common interest of all sentient creatures to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, it is the common interest of all sentient creatures to devise social conventions based on the moral principle of happiness maximization and suffering minimization, as this will generally increase and decrease the probabilities of experiencing happiness and suffering, respectively.

Now, in a given scenario, it is not necessarily in your self-interest to reduce the total suffering of others (and is quite often not, for that matter), but it is necessary to consistently apply the aforementioned social conventions if they are to function as effective rules, free of subjective bias.


I don't see why I would care about what incoming freshman who have only taken 1 philosophy class think. The argument you just made for utilitarianism is not an ethical one. What you said is akin to saying "it is in our common interest to have this building built, so lets work together."

[Agnapostate]

I don't see why I would care about what incoming freshman who have only taken 1 philosophy class think. The argument you just made for utilitarianism is not an ethical one. What you said is akin to saying "it is in our common interest to have this building built, so lets work together."

The basis of morality is merely the development of sound principles of social conduct, and ethics in this context is merely the study of morality. If you're not able to rebut my justification, there's no shame in admitting it. But you've not even attempted.

[gorillafuck]

To those who think morality is not relative, how do you explain different ideas of what is and what is not immoral in different historical cultures?

[Agnapostate]

To those who think morality is not relative, how do you explain different ideas of what is and what is not immoral in different historical cultures?

I've never met anyone that disputes the idea that morality is "relative" in the descriptive sense, in terms of what actually "is." That someone would disagree with this idea would be enough to provide a counterexample to it. You've conflated descriptive relativism (which is effectively universal), with prescriptive relativism, which usually entails epistemological relativism (we cannot know or understand the moral values of others), and meta-ethical relativism (as a result of epistemological relativism, we should refrain from attempting to judge others with our own moral standards).

A strength of my utilitarianism is that it provides sound and simple foundational moral principles that ethical relativism cannot (happiness should be maximized; suffering should be minimized), while it does not impose excessively restrictive moral rules, as absolutism does, since there will be different means of adhering to the principles of happiness maximization and suffering minimization in different circumstances.

[Skooma Addict]

The basis of morality is merely the development of sound principles of social conduct, and ethics in this context is merely the study of morality. If you're not able to rebut my justification, there's no shame in admitting it. But you've not even attempted.

I think you are defining the bases of morality too generally. But anyways, your supposed justification of utilitarianism is nothing more than offering advice. "Hey everyone, we all desire happiness, so if we adopt utilitarianism, that will end up benefiting all of us." That is like saying "Hey, your a good accountant, and I am a good cook. We will both benefit if we both combine our skills and open a restaurant." You did not make a moral justification of utilitarianism, let alone objective ethics.

The way I see it, there is almost a chain of progress that people go down. First you reject God, then you reject the idea that there is any kind of deep meaning in life, then you accept moral relativism or nihilism. If you accept and properly understand the implications of materialism, then this is where you should end up. So again, my advice is to read Dennett or Metzinger.

[Ele'ill]

You guys did a great job derailing this thread btw

[Skooma Addict]

You guys did a great job derailing this thread btw

I think that may actually be a good thing in this case.

[Agnapostate]

I think you are defining the bases of morality too generally. But anyways, your supposed justification of utilitarianism is nothing more than offering advice. "Hey everyone, we all desire happiness, so if we adopt utilitarianism, that will end up benefiting all of us." That is like saying "Hey, your a good accountant, and I am a good cook. We will both benefit if we both combine our skills and open a restaurant." You did not make a moral justification of utilitarianism, let alone objective ethics.

You disappoint me, Oaf. The basis for restrictions on criminal assaults against others is the fact that no society could maintain itself if say, unrestricted murder were permitted. The reason that such social conventions will evolve in developed societies is because of a fairly common interest in life. The aim is to align individual and societal interests to the greatest extent possible. This is certainly strategic, but is not frivolous, as your inaccurate analogy falsely implies. Utilitarianism rests on the same logical principle; all have a common interest in the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering, so it is therefore rational to have such principles form the basis for the creation of social conventions. For all of your pointless and misguided denial of objective moral principles, you will still pull your hand back from the flame.


The way I see it, there is almost a chain of progress that people go down. First you reject God, then you reject the idea that there is any kind of deep meaning in life, then you accept moral relativism or nihilism.

Then you finish the first two weeks of your first ethics course in your first college semester and realize how asinine it was to promote the idea that it is impossible to condemn the worst Stalinist atrocities or praise the maximization of liberty. "Oh, I'm sorry your dog died. That must be bad. I mean, I'm a relativist so I don't actually think so, but damn. No, that guy shouldn't have pummeled him with a pickax."

[Die Rote Fahne]

Kill kill kill kill kill the poor
kill kill kill kill kill the poor to ni-i-i-ight to ni-i-i-ight

[Dr Mindbender]

I think this cartoon shreds any 'screw the poor' argument ever made.

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif


I think that may actually be a good thing in this case.
Why, because you failed at defending your position?

[Havet]

I think this cartoon shreds any 'screw the poor' argument ever made.

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif



Curiously enough, in Rand's utopian society, all the industrialists and aristocrats were very eager to till the soil and grow food, because now every single product of their labor would be owned by them in its entirety.

[Skooma Addict]

You disappoint me, Oaf. The basis for restrictions on criminal assaults against others is the fact that no society could maintain itself if say, unrestricted murder were permitted. The reason that such social conventions will evolve in developed societies is because of a fairly common interest in life. The aim is to align individual and societal interests to the greatest extent possible. This is certainly strategic, but is not frivolous, as your inaccurate analogy falsely implies. Utilitarianism rests on the same logical principle; all have a common interest in the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering, so it is therefore rational to have such principles form the basis for the creation of social conventions. For all of your pointless and misguided denial of objective moral principles, you will still pull your hand back from the flame. You just made the exact same mistake. You are not defensing utilitarianism as an ethical doctrine that is binding to all people. All you are doing is saying why we should adopt utilitarianism to achieve a certain goal. I am not making a moral argument when I say you should use a plunger to unclog the toilet. If you refuse, you aren't acting immorally. If I refuse to accept your advice, I am not acting immorally (in my eyes at least).


Then you finish the first two weeks of your first ethics course in your first college semester and realize how asinine it was to promote the idea that it is impossible to condemn the worst Stalinist atrocities or praise the maximization of liberty. "Oh, I'm sorry your dog died. That must be bad. I mean, I'm a relativist so I don't actually think so, but damn. No, that guy shouldn't have pummeled him with a pickax."I'm sorry if you don't like the implications of moral relativism, but your argument here is no different from the theists who use the moral implications of there being no God as an argument for the existence of God. Also, I can condemn what Stalin did as long as I realize that it is only according to my own values and preferences that he acted wrongly. He did not act wrongly in some objective sense.


Why, because you failed at defending your position?

What position did I fail to defend?

[Agnapostate]

You just made the exact same mistake. You are not defensing utilitarianism as an ethical doctrine that is binding to all people. All you are doing is saying why we should adopt utilitarianism to achieve a certain goal. I am not making a moral argument when I say you should use a plunger to unclog the toilet. If you refuse, you aren't acting immorally. If I refuse to accept your advice, I am not acting immorally (in my eyes at least).

The only mistake made is yours in your asinine misunderstandings. Though I've already explained the issue to you clearly, I'll do so again. All aims of deliberate action are to accomplish certain tasks in what is perceived as the most efficient and effective manner for whatever one's intentional purposes are. What you've done is absurdly tossed about an analogy that is wholly unrelated to applied ethics. "Yes, perhaps optimal firm organization would be a more productive way of doing things. Oooh, but that doesn't have anything to do with economics. See, if you say I should use a plunger to unclog the toilet, that wouldn't have anything to do with economics either."


I'm sorry if you don't like the implications of moral relativism, but your argument here is no different from the theists who use the moral implications of there being no God as an argument for the existence of God. Also, I can condemn what Stalin did as long as I realize that it is only according to my own values and preferences that he acted wrongly. He did not act wrongly in some objective sense.

Not that he actually did much of anything (it was a matter of those around him to a very significant extent), but your subjective preferences have no greater impact on social conventions and laws than those of anyone else's, obviously. Therefore, there is no true basis for opposition to Stalinist policies, since it's merely something different than what you favor. And you're aware of that, or should be.

[Skooma Addict]

The only mistake made is yours in your asinine misunderstandings. Though I've already explained the issue to you clearly, I'll do so again. All aims of deliberate action are to accomplish certain tasks in what is perceived as the most efficient and effective manner for whatever one's intentional purposes are. What you've done is absurdly tossed about an analogy that is wholly unrelated to applied ethics. "Yes, perhaps optimal firm organization would be a more productive way of doing things. Oooh, but that doesn't have anything to do with economics. See, if you say I should use a plunger to unclog the toilet, that wouldn't have anything to do with economics either."

I have not misunderstood anything. You just haven't been giving good arguments, which is what my analogy showed. Again, this post has no ethical argument in it whatsoever. I don't think there is a point in discussing this further until brush up on the topic.



Not that he actually did much of anything (it was a matter of those around him to a very significant extent), but your subjective preferences have no greater impact on social conventions and laws than those of anyone else's, obviously. Therefore, there is no true basis for opposition to Stalinist policies, since it's merely something different than what you favor. And you're aware of that, or should be.

It is something that I severely disapprove of. That's it. What he did is not by way of nature objectively wrong.

[Dr Mindbender]

Curiously enough, in Rand's utopian society, all the industrialists and aristocrats were very eager to till the soil and grow food, because now every single product of their labor would be owned by them in its entirety.

Well it would have been idealistic naivety to think they'd have been in any way successful at it.

[The Red Next Door]

The taxes cover your ass too, I bet your ass use medicare and to talk about lazy. Bosses in the production companies sit on their asses, all fucking day, while people work for shit cash coming from their fucking asses. Then have the nerve to send their jobs overseas. The taxes cover everybody including yourself. Do yourself a favor and get some fucking sense.

[deLarge]

YOU HAVE DEFILED MAX STIRNER

/weeps in the corner

[Agnapostate]

I have not misunderstood anything. You just haven't been giving good arguments, which is what my analogy showed. Again, this post has no ethical argument in it whatsoever. I don't think there is a point in discussing this further until brush up on the topic.

Your piss-poor effort at an "analogy" was just rebutted, you idiot. It was shown to be a red herring. This is how debate functions:

1. You make Claim A.

2. I rebut Claim A.

3. You address my rebuttal to Claim A. You do not asininely repeat Claim A. You do not make further comments until you have rebutted Claim A.

That is what you have failed to do.


It is something that I severely disapprove of. That's it. What he did is not by way of nature objectively wrong.

Your "severe disapproval" is not sufficient to constitute a basis for moral objections. So by all means, sit back and disapprove all you wish as it occurs anyway.

[Skooma Addict]

Your piss-poor effort at an "analogy" was just rebutted, you idiot. It was shown to be a red herring. This is how debate functions:

1. You make Claim A.

2. I rebut Claim A.

3. You address my rebuttal to Claim A. You do not asininely repeat Claim A. You do not make further comments until you have rebutted Claim A.

That is what you have failed to do.


Your points are getting less and less coherent. All you did in in the post before this one was explain how humans act, not how they should act (there are no "right" or "wrong" answers to the latter). You didn't make a normative claim. All you have done so far is defended utilitarianism as a means for achieving our goals, not as any kind of ethical doctrine. But I will give you another chance to redeem yourself. So, given that materialism holds true, how can you hope to bridge the is/ought dichotomy?

Only reply to my last sentence please.

[Drace]

I think utilitarianism is a generally accepted concept, isn't it?

[Skooma Addict]

I think utilitarianism is a generally accepted concept, isn't it?

No. But why would that matter?

[Agnapostate]

Your points are

apparently all sound, as evidenced by your perpetual lack of rebuttal. Thanks for playing.


I think utilitarianism is a generally accepted concept, isn't it?

Yes, at least meta-ethically. There's simply an intuitive preference for happiness maximization. It's some of the consequences of the consistent application of the ideology in the field of applied ethics that troubles people.

[Skooma Addict]

apparently all sound, as evidenced by your perpetual lack of rebuttal. Thanks for playing.

I made it clear multiple times where your errors lie.

[Agnapostate]

I made it clear multiple times where your errors lie.

No. You made a false claim about utilitarianism, frantically claimed that my justification for it wasn't legitimately based on ethics, and made a red herring pseudo-analogy that I illustrated as idiotic. Then you asininely claimed victory.

You need to practice, Oaf.

[Ele'ill]

Hey! There are still poor people!

[Skooma Addict]

No. You made a false claim about utilitarianism, frantically claimed that my justification for it wasn't legitimately based on ethics, and made a red herring pseudo-analogy that I illustrated as idiotic. Then you asininely claimed victory.

You need to practice, Oaf.

I will restate the problem in simple terms so you understand it. The problem began when you said....

"The meta-ethical case for utilitarianism is very straightforward; happiness is universally desired by all sentient creatures and suffering universally unwanted by all sentient creatures. As such, since it is in the common interest of all sentient creatures to maximize happiness and minimize suffering, it is the common interest of all sentient creatures to devise social conventions based on the moral principle of happiness maximization and suffering minimization, as this will generally increase and decrease the probabilities of experiencing happiness and suffering, respectively."

This is not an ethical argument. As my legitimate analogy showed, this is just giving us advice for how to best achieve a certain goal. What you need to do is prove why everyone is obliged to abide by utilitarianism. Can you comprehend this?

But you cannot prove this since you cannot bridge this is/ought gap.

[Agnapostate]

I will restate the problem in simple terms so you understand it.

You've never spoken in anything but simple, or rather, simplistic terms. When I rebutted your idiotic red herring pseudo-analogy, I noted:


The only mistake made is yours in your asinine misunderstandings. Though I've already explained the issue to you clearly, I'll do so again. All aims of deliberate action are to accomplish certain tasks in what is perceived as the most efficient and effective manner for whatever one's intentional purposes are. What you've done is absurdly tossed about an analogy that is wholly unrelated to applied ethics. "Yes, perhaps optimal firm organization would be a more productive way of doing things. Oooh, but that doesn't have anything to do with economics. See, if you say I should use a plunger to unclog the toilet, that wouldn't have anything to do with economics either."

You had, and have, no reply to this.

[Mindtoaster]

I'd like to kindly suggest that the OP be banned if he continues to not respond to the provocative threads he starts

[Skooma Addict]

The only mistake made is yours in your asinine misunderstandings. Though I've already explained the issue to you clearly, I'll do so again. All aims of deliberate action are to accomplish certain tasks in what is perceived as the most efficient and effective manner for whatever one's intentional purposes are. What you've done is absurdly tossed about an analogy that is wholly unrelated to applied ethics. "Yes, perhaps optimal firm organization would be a more productive way of doing things. Oooh, but that doesn't have anything to do with economics. See, if you say I should use a plunger to unclog the toilet, that wouldn't have anything to do with economics either."

All you do here is describe how humans act, not how they should. So again, no argument. As for my analogy, I think it is fine. I was just trying to show that you were merely giving advice, not making an ethical claim. If you don't like the analogy, whatever. The actual point I was making was correct.

[Agnapostate]

All you do here is describe how humans act, not how they should. So again, no argument. As for my analogy, I think it is fine. I was just trying to show that you were merely giving advice, not making an ethical claim. If you don't like the analogy, whatever. The actual point I was making was correct.

They should act in accordance with their mutual interests in order to produce the greatest amount of happiness. Your analogy was a red herring that instantly collapsed. How thick is your skull?

[Drace]

No. But why would that matter?

Because what the general population holds true, goes. We cant invent reasons as to why something is moral or not.

[Dimentio]

Haven't this thread been locked yet?

[Skooma Addict]

They should act in accordance with their mutual interests in order to produce the greatest amount of happiness. Your analogy was a red herring that instantly collapsed. How thick is your skull?

So to be sure, you think all people are morally obligated to act in accordance with their mutual interests in order to produce the greatest amount of happiness, correct? Well I don't. What argument do you have to support your claim?

You are going to have to derive an ought from an is, but as there is no single "ought" is better than any other, you aren't going to be able to prove anything. If I agree with you on how humans act, I can still disagree on how they should act. It is this disagreement that is like disagreeing over what candy bar tastes better.

[Agnapostate]

So to be sure, you think all people are morally obligated to act in accordance with their mutual interests in order to produce the greatest amount of happiness, correct? Well I don't. What argument do you have to support your claim?

You are going to have to derive an ought from an is, but as there is no single "ought" is better than any other, you aren't going to be able to prove anything. If I agree with you on how humans act, I can still disagree on how they should act. It is this disagreement that is like disagreeing over what candy bar tastes better.

Oaf, even my patience for autistic kindergarten students that strike me as crack babies eventually dwindles. If you're thickheaded enough to presume to lecture me, the person who just elaborated on the differences between positive and normative relativism, about is-ought problems, there is little hope for you. All have a common interest in happiness maximization. Therefore, there ought to exist social conventions that best facilitate the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people, since there is an intuitive desire for it. Not a particularly difficult concept, even for a beginner like yourself.

[Skooma Addict]

Lets break this failed argument down into parts.


Oaf, even my patience for autistic kindergarten students that strike me as crack babies eventually dwindles. If you're thickheaded enough to presume to lecture me, the person who just elaborated on the differences between positive and normative relativism, about is-ought problems, there is little hope for you.I think you could use a few lectures on philosophy. How are you ever going to grasp people like Quine if you can't even understand something so basic as this?

Now, on to your failed attempt to make an argument...


All have a common interest in happiness maximization. Therefore, there ought to exist social conventions that best facilitate the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people, since there is an intuitive desire for it. Not a particularly difficult concept, even for a beginner like yourself.It is funny how I predicted you would make this error in my previous post.

From the mere fact that we have an interest in maximizing our own happiness, it does not follow that we are all morally obligated to act in order to maximize overall happiness. What you are saying is "we all desire happiness, therefore, we are all morally obligated to maximize overall happiness." But the conclusion does not follow from the premise. We are not morally obligated to do something just because it is an intuitive desire. Can you comprehend this?

[Agnapostate]

I think you could use a few lectures on philosophy. How are you ever going to grasp people like Quine if you can't even understand something so basic as this?

Oaf, you couldn't even distinguish between Bentham and Mill in terms of the qualitative separation of pleasures. What makes you think you possess even a sliver of the cranial capacities needed to successfully debate meta-ethics?


From the mere fact that we have an interest in maximizing our own happiness, it does not follow that we are all morally obligated to act in order to maximize overall happiness. What you are saying is "we all desire happiness, therefore, we are all morally obligated to maximize overall happiness." But the conclusion does not follow from the premise. We are not morally obligated to do something just because it is an intuitive desire. Can you comprehend this?

Are you partially blind or are you just stupid? I can think of no other explanation than a malfunctioning speech synthesizer that would cause you to misunderstand the fundamental basis of utilitarianism so badly. Regardless of your yammering that happiness and suffering have no necessary relation to ethics (which is accepted by virtually no moral philosophers, even the numerous dissidents from utilitarianism and its predecessors), happiness will be sought and suffering avoided nonetheless. Scream all you want; you'll wail that much harder when your hand is placed in the fire, as an element of your intuitive aversion to physical pain. And what is morality? It consists of social conventions and rules that govern the affairs of sentient creatures, the most rational course of option being the pursuit of happiness, considering a universal interest in it. We have simply derived a logical stance from our intuitive interests, and it thus constitutes what ought (bolded for your feeble brain) to be done. :rolleyes:

And your reference to "overall happiness" is another instance of your asinine lack of understanding of meta-ethical theory despite numerous attempts to pound it through your skull, which once again proves to rival the composition of a bank safe.

[Skooma Addict]

Oaf, you couldn't even distinguish between Bentham and Mill in terms of the qualitative separation of pleasures. What makes you think you possess even a sliver of the cranial capacities needed to successfully debate meta-ethics?The field of ethics is by far the easyest aspect of philosophy to grasp. Unfortunately, as the rest of your post makes apparent, you are just spewing nonsense.


Are you partially blind or are you just stupid? I can think of no other explanation than a malfunctioning speech synthesizer that would cause you to misunderstand the fundamental basis of utilitarianism so badly. Regardless of your yammering that happiness and suffering have no necessary relation to ethics (which is accepted by virtually no moral philosophers, even the numerous dissidents from utilitarianism and its predecessors), happiness will be sought and suffering avoided nonetheless. Scream all you want; you'll wail that much harder when your hand is placed in the fire, as an element of your intuitive aversion to physical pain. And what is morality? It consists of social conventions and rules that govern the affairs of sentient creatures, the most rational course of option being the pursuit of happiness, considering a universal interest in it. We have simply derived a logical stance from our intuitive interests, and it thus constitutes what ought (bolded for your feeble brain) to be done. :rolleyes:For starters, this post doesn't even make sense. I know people will act to maximize their own happiness, and I am not clamoring against that fact like you claim. I am obviously not arguing against the fact that people avoid suffering.

Morality just defines what is right and what is wrong. So your argument is that we ought (are morally obligated) to act to maximize the greatest good for the greatest amount of people (or adopt certain rules) because we all seek happiness? That conclusion in no way whatsoever follows from the premise. Where is the proof that a person who disagrees with you on what ought to be done is incorrect?

Try making your posts more coherent in the future. This one made almost no sense.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The income tax is the biggest fraud ever concocted to steal from people. Why should people have to work their asses off at work just to pay for other people's problems. People should work for what they want, but if by the off chance that they succeed at what makes them happy then their success becomes someone else's property and is forcefully taken away from them so that those who are too lazy to work may profit off other's hard work. Now i understand there are some people who truly can not help their situations and i'm not addressing them. I am talking about all of welfare and medicaid and such. My mom paid roughly $15000 from her money to put braces on my teeth and those of my sisters, she choose to and she doesn't believe she should be paid back for that or get them cheaper for any circumstances. She worked her ass off and she has paid these without any help from anybody. Medicaid now covers braces. Braces are a cosmetic procedure why should my mom have to pay for her kids and someone else's. There are some people who have taken control of the system. The head start program is only available to lower income citizens and guess what, it doesn't even work and costs millions a year. Why should people who work hard, have to pay for anybody but themselves and what they deem to be important to spend on. This isn't about hating the poor contrary to the title but is instead against the income tax and all taxes. Taxes are needed in a democratic society or the government or collective commune cannot function. That is why i am against democracy and all forms of state for something more. Autonomy of the human mind. Self-governance. Capitalism. Taxes say no to autonomy, no to self governance, yes to sitting around, yes to not furthering oneself, yes to stealing from those who work to pay for those who don't. When are people going to learn that man is to work for himself (not being sexist). That humans should work to further their happiness and knowledge without constraints like taxes or society's needs.

I think we should make it our mission to publicize statements like this as much as possible, they will do wonders to expose them for what they are in the public mind.

[Comrade Anarchist]

All taxes are corrupt no matter what they pay for. The military is paid for by using our tax dollars and all it does is go kills innocents and crazy people. But you have to see that entitlement spending whether it be social Security, medicade, medicare are bullshit. they promote laziness by saying if you make under this amount then here is next to free medical care, while someone who makes too much money has to pay for it. If that person who earned too much money is having to pay for someone else against their will, isn't that robbery. Lets all ***** about the bailouts cause rich wall street is getting off, well guess who is paying for those bailouts and who should feel cheated by the state capitalism that allowed them, the people who actually fucking work and who don't have kids like their fucking food. The people in this country who actually work and actually make money should not have their money taken away from them so that poor piss ant can live in next to free housing and then not even have the decency to try to change their circumstances. That my friends is tax slavery, the people who make money are forced under threat of gun and prison to give their money up so that lazy fucks can sit around, so that a ginormous fucked military can kill children, and so that an entity such as the government can grow and demand more and more for those who don't deserve it.

[Dr Mindbender]

@ ancap

theres a big difference between medicare and non essential commodities. Things which sustain life, such as shelter medicine and food ought to be regarded as human rights, not commodities. When you curtail the access of these to people who wouldnt otherwise have them you are also removing their liberty by removing their life. I thought liberty was the fundamental block of your ideology surely?

The problem with your belief system is that it is founded on reliance on antiquated production means and the false dichotomy that must we choose between individual liberty and altruist distribution.

[#FF0000]

All taxes are corrupt no matter what they pay for. The military is paid for by using our tax dollars and all it does is go kills innocents and crazy people. But you have to see that entitlement spending whether it be social Security, medicade, medicare are bullshit. they promote laziness by saying if you make under this amount then here is next to free medical care, while someone who makes too much money has to pay for it. If that person who earned too much money is having to pay for someone else against their will, isn't that robbery. Lets all ***** about the bailouts cause rich wall street is getting off, well guess who is paying for those bailouts and who should feel cheated by the state capitalism that allowed them, the people who actually fucking work and who don't have kids like their fucking food. The people in this country who actually work and actually make money should not have their money taken away from them so that poor piss ant can live in next to free housing and then not even have the decency to try to change their circumstances. That my friends is tax slavery, the people who make money are forced under threat of gun and prison to give their money up so that lazy fucks can sit around, so that a ginormous fucked military can kill children, and so that an entity such as the government can grow and demand more and more for those who don't deserve it.

Have you ever paid taxes in your life

also make arguments instead of stupid self righteous monologues you dumb fuck.

[Ele'ill]

All taxes are corrupt no matter what they pay for. The military is paid for by using our tax dollars and all it does is go kills innocents and crazy people.

Crazy people?





But you have to see that entitlement spending whether it be social Security, medicade, medicare are bullshit. they promote laziness by saying if you make under this amount then here is next to free medical care, while someone who makes too much money has to pay for it.

If you've ever used food stamps/cards or needed emergency medical treatment and qualified for it you're not pulling one over on society by living some lavish life. You're just scraping by and it sucks.






If that person who earned too much money is having to pay for someone else against their will, isn't that robbery.

Everybody pays taxes. Not just 'those that make too much'. :lol:



Lets all ***** about the bailouts cause rich wall street is getting off, well guess who is paying for those bailouts and who should feel cheated by the state capitalism that allowed them, the people who actually fucking work and who don't have kids like their fucking food.

So wait, what?




The people in this country who actually work and actually make money should not have their money taken away from them so that poor piss ant can live in next to free housing and then not even have the decency to try to change their circumstances.

This assumes the poor like being poor because they get free (and barely worth the fucking while) services. Do you have evidence that they don't want to change their circumstances?

In a community when you see people suffering to any degree and you make "too much money" you can help by giving some of that money to those that are suffering - it's just in a controlled environment.



That my friends is tax slavery, the people who make money are forced under threat of gun and prison to give their money up so that lazy fucks can sit around, so that a ginormous fucked military can kill children, and so that an entity such as the government can grow and demand more and more for those who don't deserve it.

Why don't I deserve food stamps? I lost my job. Why don't I deserve housing services? I was evicted.

Tell me how your world would work.

Would taxes used for road repair so you can drive the vehicle that you can afford be a bad thing too?

I ride a bicycle. Why should I have to pay for your fucking roads, asshole

[Comrade Anarchist]

Why don't I deserve food stamps? I lost my job. Why don't I deserve housing services? I was evicted.

Would taxes used for road repair so you can drive the vehicle that you can afford be a bad thing too?

I ride a bicycle. Why should I have to pay for your fucking roads, asshole

Get a fucking job. If you are fired then tough shit, but dont sit around *****ing about it. Tons of people are on unemployment and they refuse to get a job b/c they are getting paid to do fucking nothing. You use to work in job in a factory and the factory moved and your left jobless, dont ***** about it, go get a job. McDonalds is fucking hiring people every fucking day. And the only reason people dont get a job at mcdonalds or etc is b/c they see it as below them.

About the stupid fucking road shit guess what in an anarchist world there is no gov't so no taxes. Private companies will build roads so you won't pay for the fucking road unless you use it. Unlike today where no matter if you use it or not you are still going to be paying for it through taxes.

[Comrade Anarchist]

In a community when you see people suffering to any degree and you make "too much money" you can help by giving some of that money to those that are suffering - it's just in a controlled environment.


In an anarcho capitalist society if someone is suffering then you can voluntarily give money. To be forced to help someone is bullshit, especially in a controlled environment. If i want to give money ill give but to be forced with threats to give money if fucking robbery no matter where that money is going.

If someone doesn't like being poor then get a job. If you do not have a job that can support you all that well look for a different one or change your lifestyle. Aww they feel bad about being poor, well then change it, don't go to the government and get paid to sit on fat ass.

[#FF0000]

So what options do third world factory workers have to better their lot in life, CA?

[Drace]

Oh god anarcho capitalism is going to inefficient as hell. Can't pay for the road to get to work? TOO BAD YOU LAZY **** :rolleyes:
Dropped a $10 bill on the other side of the street? That'd be $20 to cross! :lol:

Also, every road would be a monopoly. There isn't going to be any repairs either because that costs me money and your forced to use MY road. I built it with my own workers! :p


Aww they feel bad about being poor, well then change it, don't go to the government and get paid to sit on fat ass. Yeah that's where the African's fat is hiding! On their ass...

[Demogorgon]

It is very difficult to take these rants seriously from some adolescent who has never worked. Maybe once you have had a little taste of the working world and have to try and provide for yourself, you will see things a tad differently.

Thing is though, and I apologise for bringing up the same old argument, but it can hardly be ignored. Why is it that those who are the first to cry crocodile tears over "people being forced to work for others!" are in fact those who are defending the system where the vast majority of people are forced to work for the benefit of their employers.

[Ele'ill]

Get a fucking job. If you are fired then tough shit,

The solution for not having a job because I was fired and perhaps not being able to find a new job for several months because nobody is hiring or because I am unqualified to work in the local economy where I live and thus have to go travel to find work - Isn't to 'get a fucking job'. It would be to use services provided to help me out while I look for another job or while I plan to move to an area richer in work.

Your politics are overdone and boring. :rolleyes:





but dont sit around *****ing about it. Tons of people are on unemployment and they refuse to get a job b/c they are getting paid to do fucking nothing.

This simply isn't true. Do you think you can live comfortably on unemployment?

Have you ever had a job?


You use to work in job in a factory and the factory moved and your left jobless, dont ***** about it, go get a job. McDonalds is fucking hiring people every fucking day.

No they aren't. Most corporations are taking advantage of the buzz surrounding the bad economy and raking in profits by only staffing skeleton crews. In fact, a lot of companies are making more during this recession than they did before hand because their employees have been duped into thinking it's ok to work three times as hard because their bosses won't hire the six other people needed in their area.

The quality of work produced is much less as you can see in the consumer report type magazines or websites but the companies don't care at this point because they gambled and are still making it big.





About the stupid fucking road shit guess what in an anarchist world there is no gov't so no taxes. Private companies will build roads so you won't pay for the fucking road unless you use it. Unlike today where no matter if you use it or not you are still going to be paying for it through taxes.

How are the private companies going to afford it?

[Ele'ill]

In an anarcho capitalist society if someone is suffering then you can voluntarily give money. To be forced to help someone is bullshit, especially in a controlled environment. If i want to give money ill give but to be forced with threats to give money if fucking robbery no matter where that money is going.

In the event that you become disabled and homeless you're going to wish you didn't have to rely on vertical charity bullshit.


In the event that anarchism works by itself are you going to be the one to pay for and build a community shelter for the poor? For the homeless? Are you going to be the one to sweat in the street constructing roadways and bridges so that emergency vehicles can get to people who need care? Are you going to unclog sewers?

There will be times when nobody else or not enough people are going to want to do a job and it's going to take YOU dropping your disgusting, sassy-*****, attitude and get your fucking hands dirty. Suck it up and get a fucking job.

[Dr Mindbender]

Get a fucking job. If you are fired then tough shit, but dont sit around *****ing about it. Tons of people are on unemployment and they refuse to get a job b/c they are getting paid to do fucking nothing. You use to work in job in a factory and the factory moved and your left jobless, dont ***** about it, go get a job. McDonalds is fucking hiring people every fucking day. And the only reason people dont get a job at mcdonalds or etc is b/c they see it as below them.


This whole response is based on the false premise that there are enough available jobs to provide for all unemployed people which is fucking bollocks. In a scarcity society (which capitalist society is) the whole point is that there less resources than people who need them including jobs. So even those people that desperately want jobs cant get them because they just don't exist. Geddit yet??

Secondly, saying that people refuse to get jobs because they get paid to do nothing is an oversimplified way of looking at it. I don't know what its like in the states, i'm guessing its pretty awful considering you have to pay for medical policies etc but here once you come off benefit and go onto minimum wage you get hammered with rent, council tax etc after which the income factor is pretty much a negligible motive compared to what it would have been on benefit. So if anyones to blame its the employer sector of society for paying such shit wages.

By the way asshat, people who get fired often are because of factors outside their control like company cutbacks and involuntary redundancy so they do have a right to '***** about it'.




About the stupid fucking road shit guess what in an anarchist world there is no gov't so no taxes. Private companies will build roads so you won't pay for the fucking road unless you use it. Unlike today where no matter if you use it or not you are still going to be paying for it through taxes.
So people are going to have to pay a toll fare to go through every solitary road? Ha! I can see that going down really well with the general public. Having worked in the industry previously, i'd invite you to drive sometime in Dublin if you'd like to sample the 'marvels' of the private mass transport system. The whole system (tried and tested) is a farce and motorists across the country are up in arms. Which is where the whole fallacy of your argument is. You think that removing the social state will favour individual autonomy when in fact all it will do is put vital public amenities in the hands of opportunist profiteers and faceless bureaucrats. Come back to Earth.

[Lumpen Bourgeois]

In an anarcho capitalist society if someone is suffering then you can voluntarily give money. To be forced to help someone is bullshit, especially in a controlled environment. .

Forcing people to help others by threat of violence is wrong and reprehensible, but forcing people to recognize "property rights" by threat of violence is perfectly acceptable? Ok I get it now.


If someone doesn't like being poor then get a job. If you do not have a job that can support you all that well look for a different one or change your lifestyle. Aww they feel bad about being poor, well then change it, don't go to the government and get paid to sit on fat ass.

No, no, no. You're doing it wrong!!! A real free market fetishist blames "big gubamint" first and foremost for all social ills like poverty and umemployment. However, after that is no longer a viable explanation, THEN it is appropriate to blame disadvantaged people themselves (like arguing that many blacks are poor because their culture fosters laziness or because they're genetically inferior to everyone else). You got the order mixed up, silly!!!

I heartily recommend Lew Rockwell's website for a crash course in anarcho-capitalist talking points. You'll get the gist of it eventually, don't worry. Keep your head up, son!!!

[RGacky3]

In an anarcho capitalist society if someone is suffering then you can voluntarily give money. To be forced to help someone is bullshit, especially in a controlled environment. If i want to give money ill give but to be forced with threats to give money if fucking robbery no matter where that money is going.


You know your absolutely right, So if I go to a grape farm someone says is "his" I'll be damned if I have to give him a percentage of the grapes I pick, thats bullshit, if I want to voluntarily give him some grapes, because I feel bad for him thats fine. The same goes with working in a factory, I'll be damned if I'm gonna give him what I produce, if I decide, the "owner" deserves some of what I"m producing I'll give it to him voluntarily.

Forced to help someone in a controlled enviroment is EXACTLY Capitalism, however, in that case, the person does'nt need to be helped, your juts giving him more.


If someone doesn't like being poor then get a job. If you do not have a job that can support you all that well look for a different one or change your lifestyle. Aww they feel bad about being poor, well then change it, don't go to the government and get paid to sit on fat ass.

I'll have to say the exact same after Capitalists and Bosses are dispossesed, well, if you don't like it, work.

BTW, about bosses, why do they get to sit on their fat ass and get paid for workers work?

The amount of money taken by walfare people is so miniscule compared to the amount taken from wage slavery its barely worth mentioning, even comparing it to corporate welfare, its barely worth mentioning. Even those on walfare, the vast majority WANT to work.

The fact is, your an asshole, plain and simple, and I sincerely hope that if you ever fall out on your luck you end up around people like yourself.


Get a fucking job. If you are fired then tough shit, but dont sit around *****ing about it. Tons of people are on unemployment and they refuse to get a job b/c they are getting paid to do fucking nothing. You use to work in job in a factory and the factory moved and your left jobless, dont ***** about it, go get a job. McDonalds is fucking hiring people every fucking day. And the only reason people dont get a job at mcdonalds or etc is b/c they see it as below them.


I hope you say the same thing when workers are on strike about the boss "Tough shit", because if you don't your a hypocrite (I already know you are), and in a non-state situation when workers will simply "fire the boss" I hope your saying the same thing, "tough shit," you won't though, you'll whine and ***** about property rights, and we will say the same thing "tough shit."

Venezuela took away the oil from corporations - "tough shit" it belongs to the Venezuelan people, sorry Oil CEOs, go get a real job now.

The people of the United States (maybe) take away the control of their healthcare and give it to the public sector - tough shit, its our healthcare, get a job healthcare executives, work at Mcdonalds

The Zapatistas ousted the ranchers from the land they have worked for generations and collectivized the land - tough shit ranchers, maybe become a campesino now.

I take it you agree with all my above examples right? Tough guy?

No, because your not a tough guy, your the same type of guy that will join the army suck up to power and as soon as they get a little bit will kick the guys below them while sucking up to whoever is above them, thats not a tough man, thats a small sad little man.

I hate to make it personal, but, I sincerely believe that mindset that makes that type of ideology comes out of that sort of insecurity.


About the stupid fucking road shit guess what in an anarchist world there is no gov't so no taxes. Private companies will build roads so you won't pay for the fucking road unless you use it. Unlike today where no matter if you use it or not you are still going to be paying for it through taxes.

No, I would'nt pay for the roads, without the state to enforce it no one would pay, why should they? Unless the Private company hires a military force to enforce the rules they choose, which is .... a State.

[Drace]

I am pretty sure without the state the businesses would be owned by worker cooperatives already.
Might want to look at the gruesome labor union history.

[Demogorgon]

I am pretty sure without the state the businesses would be owned by worker cooperatives already.
Might want to look at the gruesome labor union history.
That's one of these pretty pointless arguments because corporations are tied in with Government in an inseparable way. And by that I don't necessarily mean they are dependent on the state (though of course they are) but that their existence entails the existence of the state.

If there were no state, those who hold the cards would simply create a new one. Even Nozick (in his most right wing days) acknowledged this, though of course he saw it as a good thing.

Anyway Gacky gets it spot on, though I have to say I am always a little hesitant to be too harsh on people his age because going through a phase of presenting oneself as being as callous as possible and pretending that makes one rational or freedom loving or whatever does seem to be a phase some people go through.

[Mindtoaster]

10 dollars says this child pulls a political 360 and becomes a Stalin-kiddy within a year

[Jazzratt]

Get a fucking job. If you are fired then tough shit, but dont sit around *****ing about it. Tons of people are on unemployment and they refuse to get a job b/c they are getting paid to do fucking nothing. You use to work in job in a factory and the factory moved and your left jobless, dont ***** about it, go get a job. McDonalds is fucking hiring people every fucking day. And the only reason people dont get a job at mcdonalds or etc is b/c they see it as below them.

Fuckwit spoiled brat anarcho-"capitalist" whose never done a decent days work in his fucking life lectures people on finding a job. Film at eleven.

Jesus christ you dumbfuck do you imagine that when it's your worthless fucking arse your whoring on the job market it will be as easy as you're imagining in this post? That you can just rock up to any fucking where and get a goddamn job? Are you so dense, so completely out of touch with anything that even comes close to pretendeding to coincide with reality that you think it's as simple as "get a fucking job"? Jesus fuck I understood more than you ever will about the job market in fucking primary school.

Honestly your every post on this forum makes me think that some beneficient soul tried to do the genepool a favour by bashing your skull open as a kid but was unfortunately stopped mid way through the task, you fucking cocktrumpet.