| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: They aren't needed by those who have the ability to reason and listen. They obviously never helped you. Had they been any help you'd have learned long ago to be honest. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take more than they deserve. It is fairly obvious that if the obscene wages taken by businessmen were distributed more equally throughout their entire organisations then their employees would have more "freedom". I.e the freedom to not have to count every penny, to take the holidays that they want etc. The way the world works it is not possible for every single person to own a mansion and a ferrari etc. There is nothing to stop anyone from becoming a successful businessman and earning all these meaningless trinkets would be your arguement I presume? This is obviously not the case. Quote: Why? Because it is gained through participating in a system that needs everyones participation to work. Right down to the man who cleans toilets for a living. Therefore when people are taking dividends from this system which put them in the financial super league somebody somewhere is missing out. By whom? We need to move towards living in a democracy rather than a puppet dictatorship. With the technology we have at our disposal all members of society should be able to be consulted on these matters. Instead of simply choosing a minority to make our decisions for us once every 4 years we should actually make the decisions. Politicians should simply be facilitators of the will of the people. Dont you see that we have a political system where a minority controls the majority and our economic system leads to a situation where a minority control the majority of the wealth of society. Is that a simple coincidence? Quote: And in the same way every single bee and ant are individuals. Humans exist in groups. We always have done, always will. It is the only way we can survive. We are a subsection of a larger organism, that larger organism being the planet we live on. You seem to be taking the christian view of man as a divine being, apart from the rest of nature. Quote: So their is no simple correlation between my actions and effects on the lives of a single peasant, called Jim say, living somewhere else in the world. But try thinking in terms of how the actions of GROUPS of individuals effects the lives of other GROUPS of individuals. Quote: No they are dying because there are many people like Bill Gates who own more than they need. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take more than they deserve. Two fallacies need to be addressed in that sentence: 1) "These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take...." Incorrect. You have somehow managed to convince yourself that it is impossible for one to acquire quite a bit of property through honest work. You are wrong in this presumption. It is not at all necessary to "take" anything from anybody in order to end up with a lot of wealth. There are thousands of millionaires who achieved their wealth through nothing but voluntary transactions. 2) " ...because they take more than they deserve." Who decides what someone "deserves"? In a free market, those who choose to do business with an individual decide what that individual deserves to receive for the goods or services he offers. J K Rowling, for example, went from being a single working mother to a multi-millionaire because those who bought her books judged the pleasure the books brought into their lives and the lives of their children would be worth the money they exchanged for them. By what rationale do you presume to claim that Rowling "took" anything from anyone? By what rationale do you presume to claim that Rowling has more than she "deserves"? It is fairly obvious that if the obscene wages taken by businessmen were distributed more equally throughout their entire organisations then their employees would have more "freedom". I.e the freedom to not have to count every penny, to take the holidays that they want etc. It is fairly obvious that you are employing the standard Leftist trick of redefining words to suit your own agenda. It seems you are aware of this, hence the quotation marks around the word freedom. Freedom doesn't mean the ability to do take the holidays you want, freedom is that condition of human existence wherein one's actions are not interfered with by other humans. The way the world works it is not possible for every single person to own a mansion and a ferrari etc. If true, so what? That doesn't address the question I ask. There is nothing to stop anyone from becoming a successful businessman and earning all these meaningless trinkets would be your arguement I presume? My argument is that your ownership of a mansion and a Ferrari has no effect whatsoever on the potential of my one day owning both. My odds of owning both (or either) remain unchanged whether you own them or not. The fact that ten Americans own mansions, or a hundred Americans, or a thousand, or ten thousand, or a hundred thousand -- is irrelevant to my potential ownership of one some day. Why? Because it is gained through participating in a system that needs everyones participation to work. Incorrect. I don't need the participation of everyone in order to earn a ton of money -- I just need to produce a product and find customers. Interestingly enough, you feel that in order for the system to work, force must be initiated against people in order to get them to participate. Therefore when people are taking dividends from this system which put them in the financial super league somebody somewhere is missing out. Incorrect on two counts: 1) People in a free market don't "take" "dividends" from "this system" -- they trade the products of their efforts for the products of the effort of others. 2) The fact that someone agrees to enter into a trade with you does not deprive anyone else of their opportunity to enter into trades of their own. No one anywhere is "missing out". We need to move towards living in a democracy rather than a puppet dictatorship. Nonsense. Your concept of "democracy" is nothing more than dictatorship of the majority -- Peter and John agree together to rob Paul. We need to move towards living in freedom. With the technology we have at our disposal all members of society should be able to be consulted on these matters. So if 51% of the members of society vote that it is correct to forcibly seize 98% of the belongings of a societal group comprising perhaps 5% of that society, you would be in favor? You are saying nothing more than "might makes right". Politicians should simply be facilitators of the will of the people. And there are to be no limits on the "will of the people"? Remember that politicians "facilitate" things through the initiation of force. Dont you see that we have a political system where a minority controls the majority... If true, it is irrelevant to my support of total freedom in economic activity, since our current system is nowhere close to what I support. ... and our economic system leads to a situation where a minority control the majority of the wealth of society. Is that a simple coincidence? Since humans are individuals, there will always be those capable of prospering and those incapable of prospering. This has nothing to do with politics (or coincidence) and everything to do with the nature of humans. Humans exist in groups. We always have done, always will. There are incalculable benefits available to individuals able to freely and peaceably interact with other humans. This is why the norm is for humans to exist in groups. It is the only way we can survive. Incorrect. Humans can and often do survive quite handily in the absence of other humans. We are a subsection of a larger organism, that larger organism being the planet we live on. Incorrect. We are not essential components of a Gaia-type super organism. If you truly believe this is the case and are using this assumption to base your arguments on, there is no point continuing this discussion. You seem to be taking the christian view of man as a divine being, apart from the rest of nature. Man is not apart from nature. Man depends on nature to produce that which he needs to sustain his existence. How does this have the slightest relevance to the point we are discussing -- that it makes no difference to your rights and freedoms if all the raw silver in the United States (for example) is owned by a single corporation or three thousand separate corporations. Or that the fact that Bill Gates lives in a mansion does nothing to prevent you from living in a castle. So their is no simple correlation between my actions and effects on the lives of a single peasant, called Jim say, living somewhere else in the world. But try thinking in terms of how the actions of GROUPS of individuals effects the lives of other GROUPS of individuals. You want to talk groups? Okay then. How many computer owners are there in the UK? Millions? Tens of millions? Let's suppose that there were instead none. No one in the UK owned a computer. How would that affect the lives of all those living in a rural province of Laos? How would their lives be better? What things which they are currently being deprived of by UK citizens owning computers would they cease being deprived of? Let's take it further -- suppose no one in the UK owned a motor vehicle either. Or any kind of electronic device -- no TV, no radio, no stereo system, no telephone. After all, none of those things are required for human survival, yet all of those things use resources -- resources that the Laotians don't have access to if they are owned by folks in the UK. In my hypothetical example described above, none of those resources have been hoarded by people living in the UK. All that steel and aluminum and copper and silicon and rubber that would have gone into the making of belongings for UKers is available to the world at large. What freedoms have the Laotians gained? What rights have they acquired which were denied to them by the UK ownership of all that wealth? pinky
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
If we found a way to "feed everyone", it would be like curing all diseases. The world is, for the most part, vastly overpopulated, the invention of DDT, penicillin and sanitation has only contributed to that problem. In nature, animals die from hunger when the food supply is too heavily taxes. The point about hunger not coming from overpopulation is quite flawed. While the numbers of people in third-world nations might not be growing as fast as they were, they are still heavily overpopulated. The more "natural enemies" of human life we stop, the more people we will have, and the more hunger their will be.
In Brave New World, revisisted, Huxley talks about how "death control" can be accomplished by a few trained technical personel going into a third-world nation, thus bringing the number of deaths down due to easily curable things (increased sanitation, penicillin, etc). However, birth control, is quite impossible for any number of people to bring on to a people. Their are no sure-fire ways of encouraning the teeming, illiterate, starving masses to not have children. Taking a pill of penicillin or boiling your water is much easier than using effective (and costly) methods of birth control. Until we have less people, we will be marching towards our own Brave New World. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Gosh, one mans story.
I'm convinced. EVERY american corporation is evil. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Really.... get a life. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
What was the point of posting that link?
Seriously -- I have no idea which of my points you were attempting to address with that. Help me out here. pinky
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Nice try. But where have I actually said anything of the sort? Quote: Ah! the hallowed voluntary transaction. This seems to be a cornerstone of your philosophy. Say I get held up by somebody tommorow, they want my money and they are pointing a gun in my face. I voluntarily hand over my money because I do not wish to be shot. Does that mean this transaction is fair? Now, I know this is an extreme example but it highlights the fact that a voluntary agreement is not always reached because it is the fairest agreement available to both parties. Many of these agreements are reached because one side has a far stronger bargaining posistion than the other. This applies to the minimum wage arguement. Just becasue someone is willing to enter into an agreement with somebody to earn a pittance rather than nothing at all, does not mean they are happy or that the agreement is fair. This is a gaping hole in your ideas that needs to be addressed properly. For you to say that because an agreement is voluntary it is therefore fair, seems to pander to those with the strongest bargaining position. Cant you see you are simply following a philosophy designed by powerful people to keep themselves powerful? Quote: Your obsession with the individual continues. My point is, no single individual is responsible for infringing upon the freedom of others. It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. Quote: Quote: So if one human takes too much dividend from a system to the point where they are limiting the actions of other humans.... Quote: So what is your definition of democracy? I would be very intrested to hear it. What would be wrong with a "dictatorship" (Emotive word used by yourself to try and cast a negative light on my idea) of the majority? Quote: If this is true then somebody is always taking these things at the expense of somebody else. Here you reveal the Darwinian surivival of the fittest side of your quaint philosophy. Quote: Im not saying the majority would always concur with what I think. However, if the majority of any group decide a certain course of action is the one to take I would prefer to see that followed than the course of action chosen by a minority. (Cue examples from Pink along the lines of what if the majority decided to drown all puppies etc) Quote: So if large swathes of society suddenly decided to stop participating in the system called "money" how would you make any "money"? Quote: Nice fantasy Mark but I dont see any free markets anywhere right now. Do you? Quote: Once again you try and fall back on a Darwinian form of economics. This is obviously rubbish as many humans find themselves in a position of economic preeminence simply because they are born into the "right" family. The same concept applies to power, hence the USA is ruled by an idiot simply because of the gene pool he came from. Quote: Please give me some meaningful examples of humans existing outside of any group structure. Quote: I didnt say we were essential components, but as far as I can tell we are reliant upon the rest of the planet for our existence. Gaia could carry on quite happily without us. She just wouldnt be as smart. Quote: Once again, groups of bill gates living in mansions will prevent some other people from living in mansions. Or do you seriously think that every single person on earth can live in a mansion under your utopian economic philosophy? Re: Your example of the UK going without computers etc. If the UK stopped buying computers and instead put the excess wealth towards feeding the poor of the world then the Laotians may well benefit. However, I am not advocating that entire populations go without. I am simply advocating a more equal distribution of existing wealth. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: That is most definately not a voluntary transaction and you well know it. Or should at least. In that circumstance you are being coerced and threatened. When was the last time you were threatened and forced to buy fish and chips? That's an example of a voluntary transaction. Bizarre reasoning , but the rest of your posts in this thread are the same. Bizarre. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
This is the way our discussions always go. I ask very simple, very clear questions, and you avoid them -- all the while attempting to draw the discussion further and further away from your inability to answer.
Let's review: I originally asked you to explain -- Quote: You have not tried to answer these questions. Instead you have irrelevantly claimed (with no supporting argument) that such a situation is "inefficient", opined that this kind of wealth "should be" more evenly spread around (without demonstrating WHY it should be), claimed (with no support) that humans are hive organisms akin to bees and ants unable to survive as individuals, claimed (again with no supporting argument) that the mansions and "trinkets" of the successful are acquired at the expense of the impoverished, implied that the true meaning of "freedom" means the ability to take a vacation whenever and wherever you want, and claimed that even though no single individual amassing wealth can be shown to be restricting the freedom and rights of any other single individual, somehow magically when several unspecified individuals amass wealth it restricts the rights and freedoms of several other unspecified individuals -- to the point that people are actually dying because of their ownership. It seems you are incapable of actually answering my questions, so I am tempted to end this post here and now. However, it's a slow night and I'm bored, so I'll allow myself to be diverted into areas having nothing to do with those questions and rebut your latest proclamations. GazzBut writes: Nice try. But where have I actually said anything of the sort? When you say things like, "These people in society who own more than they need do so because they take more than they deserve." To "take" something in this context clearly implies dishonest behavior. Say I get held up by somebody tommorow, they want my money and they are pointing a gun in my face. I voluntarily hand over my money because I do not wish to be shot. Does that mean this transaction is fair? Now, I know this is an extreme example... Not only is it extreme, it is completely irrelevant. The behavior you describe above is the kind of behavior you support and I oppose. ...but it highlights the fact that a voluntary agreement is not always reached because it is the fairest agreement available to both parties. If one of the parties had a "fairer" alternative available to him, yet voluntarily chose to accept the less "fair" alternative anyway, then clearly there are more important -- to him -- factors involved in his decision than "fairness". Who are you to tell him by which criteria he must make his decision? It's his decision, not yours. Just becasue someone is willing to enter into an agreement with somebody to earn a pittance rather than nothing at all, does not mean they are happy or that the agreement is fair. The fact that one has the freedom to exercise his right to choose does not guarantee the choices available to him are infinite, nor does it guarantee his happiness, nor does it guarantee that whenever he is faced with the necessity to make a choice there will always be a "fair" choice available to be made. This is a gaping hole in your ideas that needs to be addressed properly. It is not a "gaping hole" at all -- it is an objective assessment of life as it is really is, not as you naively believe it ought to be. See above. For you to say that because an agreement is voluntary it is therefore fair, seems to pander to those with the strongest bargaining position. I have never said that a voluntary agreement needs to be "fair". In the context of freedom (which is after all what we have been discussing all along), all that matters is that the agreement is uncoerced. Cant you see you are simply following a philosophy designed by powerful people to keep themselves powerful? This philosophy wasn't "designed by powerful people", it is one that has been independently discovered by philosophers in virtually every civilization in recorded history -- it is forbidden for one human to initiate force against another human; not even in the interest of "fairness". And this single taboo -- followed consistently -- benefits more than just the "powerful", for it prevents the powerful from plundering the less powerful. In fact, it allows the powerless to eventually empower themselves. Does it guarantee that every single individual on the planet will eventually empower themselves? Nope. No one can force another to expend the effort necessary to achieve such a goal, nor can anyone remove all misfortunes from the path of another. Your obsession with the individual continues. As does your insistence on refusing to acknowledge individual rights, and your downright baffling persistence in viewing humans as colonial organisms. My point is, no single individual is responsible for infringing upon the freedom of others. This is a contradiction in terms. If no single individual's actions infringe on the freedom of others, no one's freedom has been infringed upon. It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. Impossible. Example, please. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. What you are saying is self-contradictory. If there are a group of people trading peacefully among themselves by voluntary consent, no one's rights and freedoms -- inside or outside the group -- can possibly be violated. So if one human takes too much dividend from a system to the point where they are limiting the actions of other humans.... If you could ever get around to providing us a specific example of this we could address it, couldn't we? What you insist on obfuscating by terming it "a dividend from the system taken by individual X", rational people refer to as "wages" or "salary" or "payment for goods and/or services rendered". The fact that I exercise my ability to produce goods and services others wish to buy in no way whatsoever diminishes your ability to do the same. I am in no way "limiting" your rights and freedoms. So what is your definition of democracy? The same one recognized by political scientist everywhere -- that system of government by which decisions affecting all members of that society are made by majority vote. I would be very intrested to hear it. What would be wrong with a "dictatorship" (Emotive word used by yourself to try and cast a negative light on my idea) of the majority? A majority could vote to strip rights from a minority. Slavery is a good example of this. Coercion is wrong whether initiated by a single individual, a minority of individuals, or a majority of individuals. If this is true then somebody is always taking these things at the expense of somebody else. Incorrect. Michael Jackson took his mansion from no one. It didn't exist at all before he commissioned it and paid for it. If Michael Jackson had never existed, there would not be a mansion sitting around available for some poor goatherder to move into. Here you reveal the Darwinian surivival of the fittest side of your quaint philosophy. Darwin has nothing to do with it. Human survival requires human effort. This was known long before Darwin was born. Here you reveal your ignorance both of Darwin's work and of the facts of reality. Im not saying the majority would always concur with what I think. Well, DUH! However, if the majority of any group decide a certain course of action is the one to take I would prefer to see that followed than the course of action chosen by a minority. Really? Would you have said the same as a black man in Mississipi in the early 1800s? You would prefer to see recreational drugs remain illegal rather than have the minority legalize them? (Cue examples from Pink along the lines of what if the majority decided to drown all puppies etc) Why would I need to use examples of drowned puppies when there are examples such as slavery and drug prohibition available? So if large swathes of society suddenly decided to stop participating in the system called "money" how would you make any "money"? Barter. Currency itself provides nothing I need or want. It is the products and services I exchange my money for that I am interested in. Nice fantasy Mark but I dont see any free markets anywhere right now. Do you? Nope. How does the fact that there are no free markets (except of course the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies) support your claim that people's economic freedom must be restricted? Once again you try and fall back on a Darwinian form of economics. This is obviously rubbish as many humans find themselves in a position of economic preeminence simply because they are born into the "right" family. And their being born to wealthy parents infringes upon your freedom in what way, specifically? The same concept applies to power, hence the USA is ruled by an idiot simply because of the gene pool he came from. Irrelevent to the discussion, and incorrect in any case. Bush is president because he received more electoral votes than Gore, not because his father was president. Don't bother replying, since it is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand no matter what your reply may be. Please give me some meaningful examples of humans existing outside of any group structure. People have lived alone for decades on desert islands -- some by choice. Hermits were far from unusual during the settling of the American West. Japanese soldiers lived for almost thirty years by themselves. Is it the norm? Nope. Is it possible? Certainly. Once again, groups of bill gates living in mansions will prevent some other people from living in mansions. Once again, HOW ? Try to grasp that simply repeating an assertion over and over again does not prove your point. Or do you seriously think that every single person on earth can live in a mansion under your utopian economic philosophy? No, I don't believe that. Certain people are incapable of or unwilling to expend the effort required to produce enough goods or services to exchange for a mansion. This doesn't mean that Bill Gates or a hundred thousand like him have prevented these people from owning one. If the UK stopped buying computers and instead put the excess wealth towards feeding the poor of the world then the Laotians may well benefit. Ah. So it is not the ownership of things that is restricting the freedom of others. Why didn't you say that at the beginning? We have been in agreement all along. However, I am not advocating that entire populations go without. I am simply advocating a more equal distribution of existing wealth. You are advocating the seizure by force of the belongings of peaceful individuals. No matter how you slice and dice and mince your words; no matter how you evade and equivocate and drag irrelevancies into the discussion, that is your position in a nutshell -- force is to be initiated against certain individuals not for anything they have done wrong, but for what others have not done. And you proclaim your morality superior to mine? pinky
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
|
No Pinky. I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. That is how our discussions go.
You have asked how somebody owning a ferrari etc stops me from doing the same and how this impinges upon anyones freedoms. Correct so far? I will rephrase what I have ALREADY said... You cannot simplify these situations down to individuals because that is not how the world works. One JK Rowling or Bill Gates is not directly affecting me. However, groups of overpaid individuals certainly do have a bearing on me. For instance, it is bonus time at the company I work for at the moment (Yipee!) If the MDs of my company werent taking obscene paypackets I may well see a considerable improvement in the bonus I get. If Bill Gates and Co werent so overpaid it wouldnt cost my company so much to buy all the neccesary licences they need which again could result in a small raise in the bonus I get. Bill would still be rich beyond my wildest dreams as would the directors of the multinational I work for. However, I might have a little bit more money in my pocket and might not need to get a credit card to go skiing next month. If you are simply saying what actions does their wealth stop me taking then the answer is none. I can do what I like...I cant believe that is all you are getting at though as that is a very oversimplistic way of looking at things. Obviously I am pretty much free to do anything but with more money I would be able to do alot more. I have also explained why I believe this sort of wealth should be distrbuted more evenly. Like it or not we are part of a system in which the majority of people partcipate. Without this majority participation then the rewards people such as Gates and Rowling take would be renedered meaningless. Besides, these people do not simply get into these positions by their own merit, there is a lot of luck and timing involved. Who knows what other people were developing Operating systems that could have gone onto be much better than windows? It hardly takes a great deal of imagination to imagine a better o/s than windows after all. As for Rowling she has been lucky enough to capture the public imagination through some smart PR work and has made a fortune from her prose which is decidedly average. Quote: Your shortsightedness is laughable. You support the removal of the minimun wage which allows companies to hold a financial gun to peoples heads. You can kid yourself it is a voluntary agreement but it is fairly obvious coercion is involved when a choice between no pay and being paid a pittance is all that is on offer. Quote: See above. Quote: Please explain to me exactly how a free market prevents the powerful for plundering the less powerful. Ive got to hear this! Quote: Once again, where have I ever failed to acknowledge an individuals rights? Please stick to what I actually say instead of putting words into my mouth and these discussion might be a little more concise and a little less tedious. Quote: I also said "It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. " Your whole philosophy seems to put the individual above any form of group structure which is clearly asinine. You ask for an example? I grow weary of you apparent inability to read the written word Mark and wonder if I am wasting my time continually restating what I have said to pander to your debating technique of trying to bash people into the ground with a whole range of inconsistent yet elegantly constructed rhetoric. It is fairly obvious that I am putting forth the idea that groups of people hoarding extreme levels of wealth has a negative effect on the levels of wealth attainable by the average member of society. It is simple maths. Quote: Fantasy land again. I was talking about the real world. Quote: Once again this is pure fantasy. We get to choose every four years which minority group gets to make our decsions for us. The majority does not have a say in any of the decisions other than public opinion occasionally swaying a government. And public opinion is at best measuered in a vague and subjective fashion. Quote: How the hell is slavery a good example of this? When were the majority of people consulted over whether slavery should be allowed or not? Anyway by the same token a minority could just as easily decide to strip the rights of another minority. Quote: Yes but reward does not match effort in some neat little x=effort y=reward graph does it? Quote: Once again, when were the majority actually consulted on the slavery issue. They may well have chosen to keep slavery but you cant say that for sure. Anyway I feel peoples ideas of morality and equal rights have generally evolved to a point where I would be far happier putting my trust in the majority to do the right thing than putting my trust in governments run by the likes of Bush and Blair. Quote: Because ALL the examples you use have never been truly referred to a majority vote. Quote: ONCE AGAIN make a little more effort when reading what other people have written and you might find your general reading comprehension improves a little. Just a thought. Quote: A tiny, tiny minority compared to the 99.999% of people who have lived their entire lives within some form of group structure. Quote: So what you are actually saying is if everyone had the same drive and ability as Bill Gates we would all be living in big mansions? Dream on. Quote: Hardly force. I am simply saying that people should be required to put more back into the system which allows them to become so wealthy. If they dont want to...fine. They can go an join all the hermits. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
bravo.
"You are advocating the seizure by force of the belongings of peaceful individuals. No matter how you slice and dice and mince your words; no matter how you evade and equivocate and drag irrelevancies into the discussion, that is your position in a nutshell -- force is to be initiated against certain individuals not for anything they have done wrong, but for what others have not done."
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
Quote: Bull Shit. Cases in point: Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tycho, and many others. More generally the whole pattern of "outsourcing", "downsizing", "rightshoring", "deregulation", "structural adjustment" and whatever other moronic PC euphemisms that right-wing poopstix use for outright looting and thuggery. Some more examples: HP and MSFT exporting all their software engineering jobs to India. This is not about what the masses have not done; its about what certain individuals have done wrong -- albeit not in terms of laws that they bought... -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I think it is impossible to look at this objectivly and say "Person X is making too much money, we should forcable redirect their income to me." In your opinion Bill Gates might be making too much money, if you believe so, and you believe his product is overpriced, noone will make you buy it. Linux is much better and totally free. This is typical of the "equality" movement, instead of bettering one self, you just cripple the people that are better than you. Thus, you end up with a lowest common denomenator by crippling the harder working. It's like having all of "our kids" get the same shitty education by the same underqualified and underpaid teachers, that way they'll be all equally stupid. It might work, but it's not the best course of action. Quote: Since your example, like everything else, operates on a continuum, the richer you got, the more you'd have poor people under you that would want your riches (they'd be saying the same thing you are now), and you'd have to give your "excess" money to them. Then you'd be "poor" again, and be critical of the people richer than you endless circle. Want more money? Invent a computer operating system that 90% of all computers in busines, retail and the government use, then do well with your stock. Don't take it from people that did do that. Quote: This really seems like the "waah.. wahh.. Iw anna be rich too, it's not fair mommy" kind of class warfare crap we've already talked about somewhere else. If you think "luck" is the problem, talk to the Gods of Fate, but don't cripple the people that are lucky. What about lottery winners, thats "luck", shouldthey take their winnings and give them to you? Quote: You seem to miss a very obvious choice. Instead of me working for McDonalds, I have chosen to work for McDonald Douglas, due to my degrees in aeronautics. I am presented with mroe choices than starve, or work minimum wage. Just how much do you think burger flipper technicians or french fry consultants deserve to be paid? If you don't like your lot in life, get a degree, get a better job. I grew up in a town where the majority of people went nowhere with their lives after high school. They started off working as a waitress or in a factory and 40 years later they'll still be there. I, on the other hand, started driving an hour to work so I could work at MC-D entry level making 14$ an hour, no experience. I then went to college full time while working part-time. Should my wage be fixed by the "happy police" so it's teh same as a burger flipper just so they can buy the same things I have? Haven't I done more work, and presented more initiative than they have, shouldn't I be able to get some sort of reward for this? Quote: If you don't feel you are getting paid enough, or you aren't getting the proper benefits, noon will make you work there. Quote: Demonstrate this math. When Bill Gates developed MS and their products, who did he TAKE money from? Show me, with this "maths" of yours, who got shafted so that he could be rich. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of his investors weren't poor people having their money forcibly put into the pot... Quote: When the south seceded from the Union, a vote aws put forth. They elected JEfferson Davis, and they elected to stay with slavery. Quote: Newsflash : Life not fair, extra extra read all about it! Life is not fair. The answer here isn't to penalize every person who DOES make it so those that do not make it don't feel bad, or so that they can have an Escalade as well. Life is what it is. Quote: When they voted on Jefferson Davis? I'm sure that you won't make the assertation that the south was ANTI-Slavery? You can't, for sure, say that hte south was Anti-slavery, unless you drool and seizure every few hours due to mental retardation. I don't know how Blair came to power, I'd say he was probably elected, just like Bush. Isn't that a majority, or is it only when you liek the outcome that you support it? Quote: I think that most poeple that end up in big mansions, somewhere along the line, did so as a result of hard work, ability and drive. Since you can no more prove the opposite of this than we can prove what you asked us for, it's a moot point. Did Gates have the drive and ability? Yes. DO alot of people who don't "make it" have the same drive? Probably. Is it the answer, then, to penalize Gates for having the drive, the ability, and the random gift of luck to make up for those that don't have it? Of course not. You don't penalize people who contribue and work hard. How much money does Gates contribute each year to charity? how much do you contribute? Quote: Wrong. If the people who ARENT making the money like Gates feel the need to lash out and penalize him for making it rich, they should be forced to live hermitage. Nowhere in the constitution of America is it written that people that od the hard work should be forced to compensate those that don't. "I hate the rich, so lets take all of their money so I can be rich too" - Typical. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 06/15/02 Posts: 15,608 |
| ||||||
|
More generally the whole pattern of "outsourcing", "downsizing", "rightshoring", "deregulation", "struc tural adjustment" Interesting point. You are pissed that jobs in America are being sent to other countries. The reason this is happening is because people in other countries will work for less money. There is no way an American worker can compete with someone who is willing to work for half of the money that he is. It really does appear as if America is becoming the adminstrative country of the world and the rest of the world will do the work. Now before you think I am going all "Lefty" on you, I recognize that this entire process has been undertaken with voluntary economic choices. Unfortunately, it is the American consumer's fault for buying the cheaper foreign made goods that has resulted in lost American jobs. All of this is good for American consumers, because our goods will be cheaper. It is not good for the American worker, because he might find himself downsized or laid-off suddenly. We live in a modern and massive economy, where certain individuals are at the head of companies that employ thousands of people. The decisions made by these higher-ups can negatively affect other people because of the sheer scope of the company's influence. In America, we are not living in a free-market economy, but it is free-market oriented. In free-market oriented economies, shit can and does happen. The bad things that happen in free-market oriented economies are easier to deal with than what happens in controlled economies. We also have the ability to enact legislation that will deal with the problems of our economy. We have the ability to make a "patch-work" free-market oriented economy. Productivity that is marked by disparity. Equality that is marked by stagnation and mediocrity. Which would you rather deal with?
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
All of this is good for American consumers, because our goods will be cheaper. It is not good for the American worker, because he
might find himself downsized or laid-off suddenly. It doesnt matter how cheap goods are if nobody can afford to buy them...that might not be the case just yet..but globalization is a race to the bottom...so it will be..sooner rather than later..i dont have any numbers to back this claim up...but im almost positive..that prices have not gone down much at all..while labour costs have...or if they have gone down..not nearly so much..as median wages...if you have figures that can prove or disprove this..pls post a link.. Productivity that is marked by disparity. Equality that is marked by stagnation and mediocrity. Which would you rather deal with? ..in the former scenario...all that productivity..will go towards increasing the power of the financial oligarchy..which they will use..to rob you more...so whatever level of stagnation and mediocrity that your at..in the latter scenario...it will eventually become worse under the former.. -------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Bull Shit. Cases in point: Enron, Arthur Anderson, Tycho, and many others. More generally the whole pattern of "outsourcing", "downsizing", "rightshoring", "deregulation", "structural adjustment" and whatever other moronic PC euphemisms that right-wing poopstix use for outright looting and thuggery. Some more examples: HP and MSFT exporting all their software engineering jobs to India. This is not about what the masses have not done; its about what certain individuals have done wrong -- albeit not in terms of laws that they bought...
irrelevant to the statement you are refuting. the statement was summarizing the coercive nature of collectivist schemes to redistribute wealth. now... i'm not familiar with the specifics of every example you just gave, but each is either an initiation of force\fraud or it isn't. if it is, it's a violation of the idea of voluntary exchange. if it's not... then it's not. what it comes down to is this: please provide just ONE example of how a person's RIGHTS may be infringed upon without the use of force or fraud. just one will suffice.
| |||||||
|
liberal pussy Registered: 05/21/02 Posts: 5,646 Loc: innsmouth..MA |
| ||||||
|
I think in those examples i gave the use of force..is prolly appropriate..had they not been caught (forcibly or otherwise)..they would have continued their looting and fraud...which violates the RIGHTS of many ppl...but i must admit...to being deficient in rightist logic...so i wont try to argue with right-wing chicken turds anymore..
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
I think in those examples i gave the use of force..is prolly appropriate..had they not been caught (forcibly or otherwise)..they would have continued their looting and fraud...which violates the RIGHTS of many ppl
if they were initiations of force\fraud, they are crimes.... so what's your point? how is this an argument against voluntary exchange? how does it make pinksharkmark's statement i quoted "bull shit"? but i must admit...to being deficient in rightist logic...so i wont try to argue with right-wing chicken turds anymore.. the "rightist logic" here is that individuals have a right to do as they wish without forceful intrusion unless they themselves first initiate force. it's that the only proper use of force is in response to force. if you cannot grasp that, it's rather sad. again i ask... can you provide just a single example of a specific right which can be violated without the use of force or fraud?
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Pure Capitalism ( |
10,763 | 76 | 12/25/01 11:30 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
monopolies... ( |
2,642 | 61 | 08/11/03 02:45 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
Communist Anarchism | 987 | 6 | 05/05/04 03:55 AM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
God is an Anarchist. ( |
4,823 | 33 | 07/21/05 01:12 PM by rogue_pixie | ||
![]() |
The Reluctant Anarchist | 2,014 | 17 | 06/12/04 09:27 PM by RandalFlagg | ||
![]() |
America. the threat to its self... ( |
3,955 | 29 | 02/21/02 08:50 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
You May Already Be An Anarchist. ( |
5,001 | 45 | 10/16/02 01:16 AM by zeronio | ||
![]() |
An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society ( |
6,961 | 63 | 07/27/07 03:57 PM by Teotzlcoatl |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 10,832 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||



