|
Yrat
Hello

Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13074493 - 08/19/10 03:54 PM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
GazzBut said:
Quote:
riddle me this, do you have a right to your life?
In my mind, subjectively speaking, yes I do!
interesting. so you don't consider it a fact, that merely by existing, you have a right to your life? it is only an opinion?
Quote:
Quote:
would it be alright for me to come along and take away your life against your will?
No! Would completely ruin my weekend.
agreed. you and only you have a right to your life.
Quote:
Look, I see where you are going with this but as I have outlined above a society or culture could start from a different viewpoint and come up with their own interpretation of universal rights.
either you and only you have a right to your life, or someone else can too, and take it whenever they wish. which is it?
Quote:
Do you really think that the concept of universal rights has the same objective validity as Newton's physics?
i believe an individual intelligent being has a right to its life and nobody else.
Quote:
I get that this concept is a fundamental building block of your philosophy. Would you go to war over it? 
only to defend it. as in, defend my right to my life, defend my right to live.
Quote:
Quote:
maybe the term "human" rights is limiting your scope of the matter.
lol, no I dont think so. Though it does raise the question, which I must have asked in the past but cant recall the standard position, why do these objective universal rights only apply to humans?
exactly. i don't believe they do.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: Yrat]
#13076824 - 08/20/10 01:03 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
interesting. so you don't consider it a fact, that merely by existing, you have a right to your life? it is only an opinion?
Exactly. I consider The atomic weight of cobalt to as a fact but I do not consider a subjective opinion as a fact.
Quote:
agreed. you and only you have a right to your life.
In your opinion. A culture based more around tribalism may disagree..as would be their right wouldn't you agree? 
Would you then argue that they had misinterpreted reality?
Perhaps we define objective in different ways? The Oxford English dictionary defines the word as follows:
adjective
* 1 (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:. historians try to be objective and impartial Contrasted with subjective * not dependent on the mind for existence; actual:a matter of objective fact
I fail to see how any conception of "rights" can be said to exist independently of the mind? Only mind can give existence to any conception of rights.
Quote:
either you and only you have a right to your life, or someone else can too, and take it whenever they wish. which is it?
Why does anyone, myself or otherwise, have to have a right to my life? This is just a concept that does not really hold any particular meaning for me.
If I am walking through a jungle and a lion attacks me and eats me does the lion stand in violation of natural law?! 
Quote:
i believe an individual intelligent being has a right to its life and nobody else.
And you are entitled to that belief. Does this make it objective fact? Of course not.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote: maybe the term "human" rights is limiting your scope of the matter.
lol, no I dont think so. Though it does raise the question, which I must have asked in the past but cant recall the standard position, why do these objective universal rights only apply to humans?
exactly. i don't believe they do.
Interesting. Does this mean you are a vegan?
Earlier in the thread you quoted Ludwig von Mises as a means to discredit socialism (let me say one more time I do not class myself as a socialist. Fully aligning with any of the -isms seems like a shortcut to thinking to me). Lets see what your buddy has to say about natural rights:
Quote:
It is a gratuitous pastime to depict what ought to be and is not because it is contrary to inflexible laws of the real universe. Such reveries may be considered as innocuous as long as they remain daydreams. But when their authors begin to ignore the difference between fantasy and reality, they become the most serious obstacle to human endeavors to improve the external conditions of life and well-being.
The worst of all these delusions is the idea that “nature” has bestowed upon every man certain rights. According to this doctrine nature is openhanded toward every child born. There is plenty of everything for everybody. Consequently, everyone has a fair inalienable claim against all his fellowmen and against society that he should get the full portion which nature has allotted to him. The eternal laws of natural and divine justice require that nobody should appropriate to himself what by rights belongs to other people. The poor are needy only because unjust people have deprived them of their birthright. It is the task of the church and the secular authorities to prevent such spoliation and to make all people prosperous.
Every word of this doctrine is false. Nature is not bountiful but stingy. It has restricted the supply of all things indispensable for the preservation of human life. It has populated the world with animals and plants to whom the impulse to destroy human life and welfare is inwrought. It displays powers and elements whose operation is damaging to human life and to human endeavors to preserve it. Man’s survival and well-being are an achievement of the skill with which he has utilized the main instrument with which nature has equipped him—reason.
I appreciate that Ludwig is basically saying natural rights cannot be used to justify any socialist society but he is also clearly stating the he does not believe Natural Rights exist.
I find the following in line with what I have mentioned earlier in the thread:
Quote:
Nature is not bountiful but stingy. It has restricted the supply of all things indispensable for the preservation of human life.
As I have said, I believe that abundance through technology will provide the only way we can move past the games of greed and power that currently shackle the human race. We can sit and aruge which of the -ism's provides the best way to organise society until the cows come home.
My personal prefernce of societal organisation probably involves aspects from socialism and capitalism.
However if I had a choice between the following:
A) The rules of society are based around my personal definition of how a society should operate. However greed and power games still rule the ways humans interact.
B) A classic communist society where greed and power games have been transcended.
I would choose B every time.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (08/20/10 01:11 AM)
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077136 - 08/20/10 04:12 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
A classic communist society where greed and power games have been transcended.
I would LOVE to live in such a society although it would mean that all communists/marxists/leftists would vanish from the face of the earth. "Greed and power" may be a real life motto of communism: greedy common folk who want to loot "rich" and power hungry leftist politicians.
Problem with your theory is that "classic communist society" is nothing but an act of collective robbery. Sure you personally at this stage of your life may only want to guarantee yourself money to buy pot and shrooms. But by deluding yourself about the nature of your motivation you fail to see that a crowd you run with may and will have much more destructive desires.
That's what happend in Soviet Russia BTW. Many rank and file communists who themselves wanted nothing but loot naively believed party elite would have some other, altruistic motivation. Even after being massacred like cattle and sent to rot in camps many still believed it's all a huge mistake and Stalin don't know anything.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077149 - 08/20/10 04:23 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
So do you think that Capitalism somehow removes the greed and power games? if you do then..... 
Quote:
Sure you personally at this stage of your life may only want to guarantee yourself money to buy pot and shrooms.
You are so far wide of the mark with this assumption that I cant begin to tell you!
Quote:
But by deluding yourself about the nature of your motivation you fail to see that a crowd you run with may and will have much more destructive desires.
What does this even mean??
Do you think I run with a socialist crowd? Have you actually read what I posted above?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077160 - 08/20/10 04:34 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So do you think that Capitalism somehow removes the greed and power games? if you do then..... 
"Capitalism" (economic freedom) doesn't remove anything. It doesn't allow stealing and robbery. That's it. Just like freedom of speech doesn't remove fascists: it doesn't allow them to take over.
You're not a socialist? Good for you. I read how you would prefer "classic communist society where greed and power games have been transcended" which sounds exactly like the crap socialists always say. Every rational individual kinda gets that robbery (usually a violent one) or economic fascism won't led to elimination of "greed and power games".
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077164 - 08/20/10 04:39 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
You really should read peoples whole posts before you jump in with your reply you know 
My point as mentioned multiple times in this thread is that any system, however good it looks on paper or when discussed in threads such as this, is subject to corruption by the greed and power games humans play.
I see abundance via technology as the most likely way to escape this viscous circle. Not Capitalism or Socialism.
To make the choices I outlined above clearer:
A) A classic capitalist society. However greed and power games still rule the ways humans interact.
B) A classic communist society where greed and power games have been transcended.
C) A classic capitalist society where greed and power games have been transcended.
D) A classic communist society. However greed and power games still rule the ways humans interact
In order of preference: C, B, A, D
Which order of preference would you choose?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077191 - 08/20/10 04:54 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
First I would prefer a society where lowlife impulses of despising "rich" or "business" and desires to loot them are not an established policy. Thus socialism is out of window. It's itself based on greed so it's impossible to have it without. All the social norms not based on protecting innocent individual from harm (social conservatism) are out of window as well.
I'm not sure what you mean by "greed and power games" ruling human interaction however.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077204 - 08/20/10 05:07 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "greed and power games" ruling human interaction however.
You dont think anything in society is influenced by selfish greed and lust for power?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077235 - 08/20/10 05:43 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You dont think anything in society is influenced by selfish greed and lust for power?
First we need to define "selfish greed". A desire to make money (and more money) with your skill, property and fair trade without harming anyone is something socialists would call "greed" because it stands in the way of their looting plans. It's the same type of "greed" DMX refers to in his "stop being greedy" song: unwillingness to part with your money when robber demands so.
A real greed ofcourse is on the part of robber. It's the desire to gain money by robbing, stealing, deceiving or otherwise abusing innocent people. A huge chunk of human activity is motivated by that including the bulk of socialist agenda. Those who have much power(including CEO's of big corporations) are of course more capable of inflicting serious damage, however all such actions are outlawed in capitalist societies. And they should be.
Same with lust for power. Same with desire to force others behave according to some abstract norms. Same with many other human desires.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077251 - 08/20/10 05:57 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
First we need to define "selfish greed". A desire to make money (and more money) with your skill, property and fair trade without harming anyone is something socialists would call "greed" because it stands in the way of their looting plans. It's the same type of "greed" DMX refers to in his "stop being greedy" song: unwillingness to part with your money when robber demands so.
Stop twisting everything round so you can bash Socialism!
Selfish: lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure Greed: intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth, power , or food
Now without referencing any of the -isms, which are irrelevant to the question I am asking:
Do you think human interactions are influenced by selfish greed?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077293 - 08/20/10 06:25 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I like how you give me some retarded definitions and demand I stick to them. Whatever dude. "Selfish" (as in selfish act behaviour) is when you knowingly hurt other people while pursuing your desires. Your definition implies that just pursuing your desires (like desire for money) is selfish, cause you're not doing for somebody else. Your definition is crap and is always used by socialists to justify their agenda.
In it's real sense (intense desire to rob others) I already told you what I think about selfish greed. In your artificial sense (preoccupation with ones desires) it cause probably 90% of an average human's actions (like me killing time right now).
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077318 - 08/20/10 06:38 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I like how you give me some retarded definitions
Well I took them from the Oxford English Dictionary. If you can give me your own less retarded version maybe we can use those? lol
Quote:
Your definition is crap and is always used by socialists to justify their agenda.
As I said, they are not my definitions. Is the Oxford English dictionary a tool of socialist propaganda?
If the definitions of these two words are so retarded/crap please feel free to enlighten me as to the correct definitions!
Quote:
In it's real sense (intense desire to rob others) I already told you what I think about selfish greed.
Lol, Priceless!!! Please point me to the definition that says Selfishness and Greed only define an intense desire to rob others so we can prove the Oxford English dictionary definition is a socialist manipulation.... hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
I dont understand why you cant answer a simple question:
Do you think human interactions are influenced by selfish greed?
YES / NO
The question is in no way related to socialism or captialism. Its just a simple question about human interaction.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077367 - 08/20/10 07:07 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Well I took them from the Oxford English Dictionary. If you can give me your own less retarded version maybe we can use those? lol
I just did. Dictionaries only helpful(more or less) if you want to know the botanically correct definition of some insect. When it comes to such words as "selfish", "greed", "good", "decent" etc they are laughable vague crap.
Quote:
If the definitions of these two words are so retarded/crap please feel free to enlighten me as to the correct definitions!
I just did. I can't make my two previous posts any more clear.
Quote:
As I said, they are not my definitions. Is the Oxford English dictionary a tool of socialist propaganda?
when did I said that? I got no idea if they are or aren't.
Quote:
Lol, Priceless!!! Please point me to the definition that says Selfishness and Greed only define an intense desire to rob others so we can prove the Oxford English dictionary definition is a socialist manipulation.... hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Not just rob. Any form of harming (blackmail, fraud etc). Dude seriously quite clowning, I already gave you exact definitions.
Quote:
I dont understand why you cant answer a simple question:
I already answered it. I pointed two different senses in which word "selfish greed" is used, one is apparently synonymous to Oxford's one. Or maybe not since Oxford's is vague. For both senses I answered your question: yes many human actions are influenced by "selfish greed" in both senses.
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077387 - 08/20/10 07:18 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I just did. Dictionaries only helpful(more or less) if you want to know the botanically correct definition of some insect. When it comes to such words as "selfish", "greed", "good", "decent" etc they are laughable vague crap.
Dude stop it!!! Thats twice you have made me laugh out loud in the office...my boss is giving me weird looks!!!!
You should be on stage, seriously. Funniest shit I have heard in a long time!!! 
Quote:
I just did. I can't make my two previous posts any more clear.
Okay so lets just agree that the dictionary has one definition and you have another.(Man thats some funny shit!)
EDIT: Sorry I was laughing so much I missed that you had agreed many interactions are influenced by both your definition and the dictionary definition of selfish greed.
Which is a shame as I had a killer comeback lol.
-------------------- Always Smi2le
Edited by GazzBut (08/20/10 07:23 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077395 - 08/20/10 07:25 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
So, can you explain to me how pure capitalism secures itself against the influences of Selfishness and Greed that we have (finally!) managed to agree affect many human interactions?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
HippieChick8
seeker of justice



Registered: 06/25/09
Posts: 869
Loc: Texas
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077419 - 08/20/10 07:31 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
AlexD said:Quote:
In it's real sense (intense desire to rob others) I already told you what I think about selfish greed.
You think the poor have an INTENSE DESIRE to rob others? I don't know the delusional world you live in, but in my community, the poor that I know are just trying to survive in a hostile world. Their main DESIRES are to eat, maintain a dwelling and pay the utility bills. The poor that I know are desperately seeking employment, or a job training program so that they can become employed and provide for themselves. If any legalized "robbing" is going on, it's the rich "robbing" the middle class.
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: GazzBut]
#13077430 - 08/20/10 07:36 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cant you just use the dumbass dictionary definition and answer the question??
Dude you either have real troubles with comrehension (make sure your boss doesn't read that) or you just fooling around. I already gave your answer for the meaning I believe Oxford's defenition holds (socialist one). But I'm not sure they mean that because the definition is vague. What you don't understand what vague is? It's good to know you like answering questions you don't clearly understand the meaning of but I'm not.
This crap about using different words for "selfish" and "greed" should what be funny or something
Anyway for all intents and purposes the answer to your question is yes. You're clearly not a nuance guy.
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
If any legalized "robbing" is going on, it's the rich "robbing" the middle class.
Aw how cute, I'm sure bottom class thinks you both robbing them. What a cute hate bunch. Anyway look when you invent some new BS ideas as to why it's ok for you to loot innocent people cause "they have too much" give me a call. Untill then Marx, Lenin and Stalin already explained the dumb shit it all too well.
|
AlexD
Stranger


Registered: 05/28/10
Posts: 347
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077456 - 08/20/10 07:50 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So, can you explain to me how pure capitalism secures itself against the influences of Selfishness and Greed that we have (finally!) managed to agree affect many human interactions?
"Selfish greed" in Oxford sense is not something "Capitalism" should secure itself from. You're not haming anybody, you do you whatever you want with your time and money. Smoke pot, make more money, have sex with your girlfriend, buy a yacht whatever. In second sense Capitalism guards itself by criminal justice system.
Edited by AlexD (08/20/10 07:50 AM)
|
GazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 13 days
|
Re: Socialism [Re: AlexD]
#13077464 - 08/20/10 07:54 AM (13 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Dude you either have real troubles with comrehension (make sure your boss doesn't read that) or you just fooling around.
Man, I think you might be onto something! The Oxford doesn't even have a definition for comrehension. Useless pile of crap.
Quote:
I already gave your answer for the meaning I believe Oxford's definition holds (socialist one).
I checked Merriam-Websters and the definitions are pretty much identical....fuck, we may have uncovered an international socialist dictionary conspiracy. Those evil, socialist bastard, word defining Mutha fuckas!!
Quote:
This crap about using different words for "selfish" and "greed" should what be funny or something 
Made me laugh but then Im easily amused.
Quote:
Anyway for all intents and purposes the answer to your question is yes.
Hurray!!!
Quote:
You're clearly not a nuance guy. 
I think you are operating on a level of subtle nuance far beyond most earthlings....good on you!
So, can you explain to me how pure capitalism secures itself against the influences of Selfishness and Greed that we have (finally!) managed to agree affect many human interactions?
Any words in there we need to define / redefine?
-------------------- Always Smi2le
|
|