Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2799412 - 06/16/04 02:08 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Alex, you lied. Anyone who reads the thread can see that. Your attempts at revisionism won't fly. Perhaps because I had already quoted your original pronouncement, this time you let it stand rather than getting up to your old trick of editing it without notification.

Your pronouncement is still there for all to see. To point out again that none of the excerpts you provide show me defending the "right" of corporations to make children do anything or defending the "right" of corporations to interfere with workers unionizing themselves is to be repetitive, but you leave me no choice.

Either admit you lied or find a quote of mine which shows me defending the right of corporations making anyone -- regardless of age -- work for them, or find one where I defend corporations preventing their employees from organizing anything. I wish I could say that would keep you occupied for a while, but sadly it won't, since both of us know there are no such quotes to be found. This saves you tons of time. Be thankful.

You have repeatedly, aggressively defended the right of western corporations to exploit third world labour.

If you had said that I defend the right of corporations to offer employment to people living in the third world, I wouldn't have responded as I did. Yes, of course I defend the right of employers to offer employment to people -- be those employers foreign-based (i.e. the Japanese firms in the UK your drinking mates derided or the Honda plants which provide employment to Americans) or domestic. I have never denied that, nor will I ever deny that.

You lied, you got called on it, you dig yourself deeper with every post. Time to let it go.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2799498 - 06/16/04 02:36 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

I think that they think exactly like libertarians, which is the problem. They are ideological purists. They have become so attached to their position that they have become unwilling to admit that their position is not right in all situations.

Psychologists call what you're doing here "projection", DoctorJ. You have somehow managed to convince yourself that an economy run by force is more "effective" than one that operates through mutual agreement, therefore anyone who fails to embrace this absurdity is being ideologically unsound, despite the historical evidence available to all of the results of running an economy by force. It can't possibly be that your own ideas are whacky, oh no! It must be that we are too attached to our own ideas to think through yours. Projection.

Even when shown evidence that their methods are not always effective, they will cling to them like religious dogma. They have become more interested in proving their point of view than figuring out what actually works.

Again, pure projection. Let's look at this remarkable statement more closely, shall we?

Even when shown evidence...

What "evidence" might that be?

...that their methods are not always effective...

Libertarians object to coercion in economic matters not because it is ineffective (although it is) but because it is immoral. The Roman era's method of using slaves do all the physical work was effective if the goal was to exempt slaveowners from having to work hard. The medieval practice of "Droit de Signeur" was effective if the goal was to provide one's ruler with a succession of virgins to deflower. Government-mandated collective farms in the Ukraine are effective if the goal is to cause widespread famine. Etc.

...they will cling to them like religious dogma.

Projection. Your attempts in this thread to push your whacky idea are nothing if not a textbook example of "clinging to them like religious dogma".

They have become more interested in proving their point of view than figuring out what actually works.

Projection. Your stubborn attempts in this thread to "prove" your whacky idea has merit are nothing if not a perfect example of someone more interested in proving his point of view than discovering what really works.

Not only that, but if I suggest something that even remotely conflicts with just one of their views...

LOL! Your totalitarian job placement scheme is more than merely a case of something "even remotely conflicting" with my views (and with common sense). It is an out and out description of Fascism.

... they immediately brand me the exact opposite of what they are- ie, a totalitarian fascist.

When you espouse totalitarian views, don't be surprised when people classify you a totalitarian. Some of the ideas you propose here are not totalitarian. This one was.

Oh, and I had a hard time deciphering the syntax of this last -- did you mean to claim that Libertarians are in fact totalitarian fascists? Because it can be read that way. If in fact you truly believe that, then your grasp of Libertarian principles is more meager than I had originally surmised. If you didn't mean it, ignore this paragraph.

They seem to think that the world is black and white, that there are no positions in between positions.

Of course there are in-between positions. Yours is not one of them.

I gave you an out a few posts back when I asked if this scheme was to be purely an advisory service provided to employer and employer alike. You made it quite clear that it was more than that -- that it was an essential component of job placement to be enforced by the government. Therefore the inescapable charge of totalitarianism.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2799681 - 06/16/04 03:25 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

You have somehow managed to convince yourself that an economy run by force is more "effective" than one that operates through mutual agreement




why can't an economy have elements of both?

I'm certainly not trying to advocate that force is always necessary, nor am I trying to contend that groups always make better decisions than individuals. I'm simply willing to admit that different things work in different situations.

One thing I'm not willing to admit is that any one set of principles is always right. I simply see no evidence to support this.

Quote:

Libertarians object to coercion in economic matters not because it is ineffective (although it is) but because it is immoral.




morals are fine as long as they don't conflict with survival.

Quote:

What "evidence" might that be?





the evidence that blind men are poor drivers is contradictory to the concept of intrinsic, equal rights, and supportive of the concept of capability-based rights.

the entire scientific community is evidence that groups can come to more accurate conclusions than individuals, which is why we have peer review. Science understands that one person's frame of reference may obscure him from seeing something objectively.

Quote:

Projection. Your stubborn attempts in this thread to "prove" your whacky idea has merit are nothing if not a perfect example of someone more interested in proving his point of view than discovering what really works.





well, nothing is ever really proven. Einstein's theory of relativity has survived many attempts to disprove it with observable evidence, but it will never be proven in the sense that it is unquestionable.

I'm just brainstorming. You seem to be the one trying to push off one particular system as the ultimate truth.

Quote:

It is an out and out description of Fascism.





not entirely. I will admit that it contains elements of fascism, but it is not intended to be out and out fascist. I have no intention of telling people what to read, think, eat, wear, believe in... there are many elements of human behavior which I could care less about having any control over. the system I propose would only place restrictions which were beneficial and necessary.

Quote:

When you espouse totalitarian views, don't be surprised when people classify you a totalitarian




So, what somebody says is what makes them what they are? Well, la-dee-da, I could start saying I'm a libertarian and reciting that rhetoric and everyone would think thats who I really was!!! Maybe, I could even get them to vote for me! This is a typical cognitive mistake like the ones I have mentioned.

Quote:

Oh, and I had a hard time deciphering the syntax of this last




you got it right the first time. sorry for the confusion.

Quote:

Yours is not one of them.




'one' of them? how many points are on a line, pinky?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2799952 - 06/16/04 05:07 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

why can't an economy have elements of both?

Because the elements which involve the initiation of force are immoral.

I'm certainly not trying to advocate that force is always necessary, nor am I trying to contend that groups always make better decisions than individuals. I'm simply willing to admit that different things work in different situations.

Of course different things "work" in different situations. Even the Soviet Union managed to wheeze along for seven decades, albeit at a horrible toll in human lives and human misery and ecological disaster. Humans are nothing if not resilient. Yet the fact remains that having the government bar you from employing someone because they decree he is not qualified to accept such employment is in fact totalitarian.

One thing I'm not willing to admit is that any one set of principles is always right. I simply see no evidence to support this.

And you claim to be a scientist. You honestly see no evidence that the third law of thermodynamics is right?

morals are fine as long as they don't conflict with survival.

LOL! A quote right out of Stalin's mouth. In actual fact, as I and others have demonstrated in numerous posts here morality, (or ethical behavior, if you prefer) is an essential prerequisite for human survival if humans are to live in contact with one another.

he evidence that blind men are poor drivers is contradictory to the concept of intrinsic, equal rights, and supportive of the concept of capability-based rights.

How on earth do you figure that? Midgets are lousy high jumpers, too. What's your point?

the entire scientific community is evidence that groups can come to more accurate conclusions than individuals, which is why we have peer review.

Incorrect. The peer review process is not used to arrive at conclusions, but to review the accuracy and reproducibility of experimental results. No committee came to the conclusion that gravity was the force causing objects to fall to earth, Newton arrived at that conclusion himself. Over time, more and more people agreed with his conclusion. But whether anyone had ever agreed with him or not doesn't change the fact that Newton made his own (correct) conclusions.

Science understands that one person's frame of reference may obscure him from seeing something objectively.

Then why cannot you -- a self-professed adherent of the scientific method -- recognize the flaws in your reasoning re the acceptable use of force in human interaction?

well, nothing is ever really proven.

Balderdash. Point me to the proof that the third law of thermodynamics is a crock. Or that gravity doesn't exist. There are things that have been proven.

I'm just brainstorming. You seem to be the one trying to push off one particular system as the ultimate truth.

Again, exactly the reverse is taking place here. When the flaws in your theory are pointed out, do you acknowledge it? Nope. You try to push it as the ultimate truth, despite your own experience that current testing is imperfect. That's not "brainstorming" in the slightest.

You have somehow convinced yourself that "soon" such tests will be infallible. Here you are building some "scientific" system of running a society on pie-in-the-sky technology that doesn't even exist and may never exist, yet criticizing those who use historical evidence to show the folly of attempting to manage a centrally-run economy. Do you not grasp the contradiction?

will admit that it contains elements of fascism, but it is not intended to be out and out fascist.

Nonetheless, despite your intention, it is Fascist.

the system I propose would only place restrictions which were beneficial and necessary.

The excuse of totalitarians and all other social engineers since time immemorial. "Beneficial". "Necessary". Uh huh.

So, what somebody says is what makes them what they are?

If you espouse totalitarian views, why are you surprised when people take you for one? Look, there are three possibilites here:

a) you are not really a totalitarian, just pretending to be one for some reason which escapes me
b) you don't actually understand that you are advocating totalitarian principles
c) you are a totalitarian

Well, la-dee-da, I could start saying I'm a libertarian and reciting that rhetoric and everyone would think thats who I really was!!!

If you were to espouse Libertarian principles and live by them then you would be a Libertarian, yes.

you got it right the first time. sorry for the confusion.

Let me make absolutely clear what you are trying to get across here. It is your position that Libertarianism is in fact Fascist and Totalitarian? Yes or no.

'one' of them? how many points are on a line, pinky?

Non sequitur. Your position in this thread -- your "scientific" job placement method of government controlling the economy -- is totalitarian, as is your desire to prevent people from disseminating Avril Lavigne's music. If you want to know how many other of your ideas are, list them and I'll tell you.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2800253 - 06/16/04 06:52 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Because the elements which involve the initiation of force are immoral.





this seems to be the source of our disagreement.

I liked what randall flagg said earlier, which was basically something to the extent : governments cause destruction and waste, but when people are left to their own devices, they will destroy and waste as well. According to the libertarian veiwpoint, when individuals cause destruction and waste, it is more moral than when governments do it. To me, niether outcome is acceptable. It doesn't matter to me if its the government or people doing it; human failure and misery is wrong and must be prevented at all costs.

Quote:

You honestly see no evidence that the third law of thermodynamics is right?





classical mechanics work, but not in all situations. When things go really fast or are really heavy, the rules change. Thats the whole point of relativity. lol why am I not surprised you aren't familiar with einstein's general and special theories of relativity? They are basically improvements to newtonian physics. I say improvements because they are more accurate in extreme situations not yet concieved of when newton was alive.

newton wasn't necessarily wrong, but he wasn't 100% right, either. His rules work fine inside our solar system, but they do not explain the behavior of particles that move almost as fast as the speed of light. Things like pulsars and black holes can only be explained by einstien's addition's to newton's laws.

this is the difference between 'classical physics' and 'quantum physics'. Classical physics is right, but it doesn't explain everything.

eventually our understanding of the universe will outgrow quantum mechanics and we will have to come up with even more specialized, accurate laws. Thats the way science works. Nothing is given. there are no postulates.

Quote:

In actual fact, as I and others have demonstrated in numerous posts here morality, (or ethical behavior, if you prefer) is an essential prerequisite for human survival if humans are to live in contact with one another.





so, what did humans do before they invented society? If morality is a prerequisite to human survival, then how come human survival predates morality?

Quote:

Point me to the proof that the third law of thermodynamics is a crock. Or that gravity doesn't exist. There are things that have been proven.





you may have a good understanding of politics, but your understanding of physics and the scientific method is weak. I would suggest you brush up on some reading before using the physics 'knowledge' you have in arguments.

seriously, ask trendal how universally accurate newton's law of gravity is. he's better at explaining those things to people than I am.

If anything, the example of classical mechanics is proof of what I'm saying. Different things work in different situations. There are exceptions to every rule.

Quote:

You have somehow convinced yourself that "soon" such tests will be infallible




reading comprehension alert: never did I say they would be 'infallible'. I only stated that they will continue to improve in accuracy and reliability and will probably be very usefull in the furure.

no method is 'infallible'. There is always room for improvement. There are always new situations which may introduce new variables. Again, this is how science works.

Quote:

yet criticizing those who use historical evidence to show the folly of attempting to manage a centrally-run economy




history is not always an accurate predictor of the future. Just because these methods didn't work in the past does not necessarily mean that they will not work in the future. Things change. Technology and science are changing everything. They have impowered the individual far more than government or religion have ever managed.

So communism failed in the 20th century. So what? This is the 21st century. The variables have changed. Just because matches won't light in the rain does not mean they won't work when it is dry.


Quote:

It is your position that Libertarianism is in fact Fascist and Totalitarian? Yes or no.





No. I don't think libertarians are fascists. I just think that their system is too idealistic to achieve beneficial results when applied to the general population.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2800285 - 06/16/04 07:02 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

I don't quite understand why you don't see government as just "Other people" It is not a godlike machine that can do things better. It is a collection of people that do things worse


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2800561 - 06/16/04 08:47 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

DoctorJ writes:

I liked what randall flagg said earlier, which was basically something to the extent : governments cause destruction and waste, but when people are left to their own devices, they will destroy and waste as well.

You would do well to actually read what people say if you intend to use them to support your own position. Here is his comment:

Quote:

To be quite blunt, a lot of people are idiots who make poor
decisions. While that statement could be construed as justification
for heavily controlling Man to ensure he does "the right thing", I
assure you, it is not. Man is in misery when he is controlled,
and Man destroys himself when he has freedom. Neither option
is good, but I much prefer the second one.




Even assuming all his premises are correct (and not all are), they are not support for what you are proposing.

According to the libertarian veiwpoint, when individuals cause destruction and waste, it is more moral than when governments do it.

Incorrect. The initiation of force is no more moral if done by an individual than if done by a group. You seem to be having an inordinately difficult time grasping this exceedingly simple point. What cognitive defect is at work here?

To me, niether outcome is acceptable.

Destruction of what? Waste of what? If I want to work all day, then use the money I earned to buy a case of champagne and use it to clean my handmade Italian bicycle, thus "destroying" and "wasting" yummy and delicious champagne, what business is it of anyone else's? I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut if what I do with my stuff isn't acceptable to you. It's not your business.

It doesn't matter to me if its the government or people doing it; human failure and misery is wrong and must be prevented at all costs.

Humans fail sometimes. You claim to be objective and scientific -- why is it so hard for you to grasp that humans are not infallible? Humans are often miserable. That too is a fact. How on earth have you managed to convince yourself -- with no evidence whatsoever -- that a group of humans can somehow (this is where all Lefties hit the same stumbling block: "and then, something MAGICAL happens and everything is all right!") prevent failure and misery through forcefully interfering with people who are minding their own business? The best way possible to reduce failure and misery is to refrain from initiating force against others.

classical mechanics work, but not in all situations. When things go really.... *** blah blah blah irrelevant and out of context digression snipped.***

None of this has anything to do with the initiation of force in human affairs. Inevitably in political arguments, someone will try to use the fact that matter is theorized to behave differently under extremely limited conditions such as near-lightspeed velocities or within the infinitesimally tiny radius of nuclear distances to try to prove that somehow, NEXT time, with some other gang of humans running the show, Marxism (for example) will actually work.

Contrary to your belief, I am familiar with Einstein's work, and with de Broglie's and Heisenberg's and others. None of their work disproves the fact that the earth rotates on its axis or that the earth revolves around the sun. These facts (yes, DoctorJ, they ARE facts) have been scientifically proven, despite your absurd claim that in science nothing is proven.

so, what did humans do before they invented society? If morality is a prerequisite to human survival, then how come human survival predates morality?

At a time when might alone was enough to guarantee the survival of a limited number of humans, they got along the same way wolves did. When sheer musclepower alone proved less of a survival trait than rational co-operation, the human population began to increase.

you may have a good understanding of politics, but your understanding of physics and the scientific method is weak. I would suggest you brush up on some reading before using the physics 'knowledge' you have in arguments.

At least I have a solid grounding in both areas. You demonstrate by your posts that you have almost none in the area in which you are currently trying to prove a point. It pains me to have to point out that this is not the "Science and Technology" forum but the "Politics, Activism and Law" forum.

If you had even a smattering of understanding of human psychology or political science or philosophy, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by trying to inject space colonization and quantum physics and special relativity theory into discussions about whether or not forcibly preventing someone from accepting employment at a job he desires constitutes totalitarian practice.

reading comprehension alert: never did I say they would be 'infallible'. I only stated that they will continue to improve in accuracy and reliability and will probably be very usefull in the furure.

Quote:

We are very close to being able to take intelligence indexes which are far more detailed than the primitive and horribly inaccurate 'intelligence quotient'. As soon as science devises a method for assessing capabilities which is proven to be accurate and objective (and I must repeat that this is right around the corner- the foundations for the method itself are already in place, and the only things to be done are fine tuning for accuracy and objectivity via research and testing), why not employ it?




You are right. You never said "infallible", you said "proven to be accurate" (how accurate?) and "objective" -- accurate enough and objective enough that they are to be forcibly used in place of the considered judgment of the parties (the employer and the employee) involved in the transaction.

You then asked, "Why not employ it?" Yet when I and others demonstrated what an appalling idea this is, you turned off your mind, cranked up your Joe Scientist mode and steamrolled onwards blithely. That's not "brainstorming", Doc, it's stormtroopering.

And, by the way, if nothing in science is proven, how is it that these scientific testing techniques (which let's not forget are "right around the corner") will be proven accurate and objective?

history is not always an accurate predictor of the future.

It's more accurate than some purely speculative pie in the sky placement test scheme, that's for sure. Further, I submit that history is in fact an accurate predictor of the future. If you run an electrical current through brine, you will end up with hydrogen gas and chlorine gas escaping from the brine at the electrodes. How can I predict this? Because that's what happened the last hundred million times it was done. History. If Marxism is tried by humans a hundred million times, human failure and misery will be the inevitable result, no matter who it is doing the trying and no matter if it is tried when horse and buggies are the preferred mode of transport or hovercraft; no matter if communication is accomplished by telegraph or cell phone; no matter if entertainment is delivered in opera houses by live actors or through computer animations broadcast by satellite to one's contact lenses.

Just because these methods didn't work in the past does not necessarily mean that they will not work in the future.

Yes it does. Marxism (as just one example) is an inherently flawed political system when practiced by human beings. This may not be true of all species. It is not impossible that some species somewhere out there in the vast reaches of the universe avoid failure and misery better under Marxism than under Capitalism. If so, I'd be delighted to hear about their experiences some day, it's just that I as a human don't want to have to attempt to live under Marxism.

Technology and science are changing everything.

Not everything. They haven't changed the fact that human survival requires human effort. What totalitarians and Capitalists disagree over is whose effort supports which humans.

So communism failed in the 20th century. So what? This is the 21st century. The variables have changed.

The relevant variables haven't changed at all. See my above comment re human effort.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2801015 - 06/16/04 11:41 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Even when shown evidence that their methods are not always effective, they will cling to them like religious dogma. They have become more interested in proving their point of view than figuring out what actually works.

Not only that, but if I suggest something that even remotely conflicts with just one of their views, they immediately brand me the exact opposite of what they are- ie, a totalitarian fascist. They seem to think that the world is black and white, that there are no positions in between positions. 




Amen Doc  :thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2801065 - 06/17/04 12:05 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Alex, you lied.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. That technique might've worked in your days as a salesman but I'm not buying your bullshit for a second.

Your pronouncement is still there for all to seeerhaps because I had already quoted your original pronouncement 

Waffle.  Address the point.

To point out again that none of the excerpts you provide show me defending the "right" of corporations to make children do anything or defending the "right" of corporations to interfere with workers unionizing themselves is to be repetitive, but you leave me no choice.

Yet you defend sweatshop labour and the exploitation of third world labour. Every fact I mention is a feature of sweatshop third world labour.

work for them, or find one where I defend corporations preventing their employees from organizing anything.

:grin:

Are you really this desperate? Are you really trying to say you defend sweatshop labour but do not defend any of the practises involved in it like making children work or banning unions? What did your silly line saying  "Yet a unionized American worker would die of apoplexy if asked to work in one"

Why would he die of apoplexy exactly? Because conditions are appalling? Because unions are banned? 

Yes, of course I defend the right of employers to offer employment to people

"In conditions that would make a unionized american worker die of apoplexy.."

Time to let it go

Not for me pink - I've no problem at all pointing out your lies. You reacted hysterically and have now realised how silly you were. If I were you I'd quit before you make yourself look any more foolish than you already have done.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2801112 - 06/17/04 12:29 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

Alex, you lied. Repeatedly denying it doesn't magically change your lie into the truth. Your statement is there for everyone to see. No statement of mine showing I defend the right of corporations to make people do anything is there for anyone to see.

Therefore, you lied.

Deal with it, suck it up, move on.

Yet you defend sweatshop labour and the exploitation of third world labour. Every fact I mention is a feature of sweatshop third world labour.

I defend the right of corporations to offer jobs to people. The fact that you yourself would find working in a factory in the third world unpleasant doesn't change the fact that offering someone employment is not "exploitation".

Do some employers operate factories where conditions are unsafe? Undoubtedly. I do not defend those employers. Do some cheat their employees? Undoubtedly. I do not defend those employers. Do some attempt to dissuade through forceful means employees from unionizing? Undoubtedly. I do not defend those employers.

In no post of mine have I ever defended employers who do such things, and you know that is true, since you participated in the very threads in which I have explicitly denounced such practices. Since you know this to be the truth yet declare otherwise, you are therefore a liar. Simple.

Are you really trying to say you defend sweatshop labour but do not defend any of the practises involved in it like making children work or banning unions?

The practices you describe are not universal, and you have never bothered to define what you mean by "sweatshop labour" in the first place. Apparently in your Alex world, any employment offered by a corporation operating in the third world is by definition "sweatshop" labor. Making children (or anyone, for that matter) work is not sweatshop labor, Alex, it is slavery and slavery is outlawed in civilized nations. As you are well aware, Libertarians oppose slavery.

Why did you make that silly reference to unionised american workers being in apoplexy at the conditions in sweatshop labour?

If you had the sack to provide links to the threads from which you pulled the quote, people would get the reference. More dishonest manipulation (although not outright lying this time) on your part. Par for the course.

***edit -- whoops, turns out all my quotes are from the single thread at the link provided by Alex, it's just that the point at which he linked is too far into the thread to catch some of the quotes he provides. For those interested in reading them in the context in which they are made, go to Alex's link, then scroll back a page or so to catch my first post in the thread. This time it was not dishonest manipulation, merely incompetent linking. My apologies for not figuring out the problem earlier and assuming it was a deliberate tactic. ***

I've no problem at all pointing out your lies.

Apparently you have a tremendous problem doing so, since none have been pointed out.

This is tedious. You somehow have managed to delude yourself into believing anyone reading this thread would think you're in the right about this. You are of course free to continue believing it, but I'm tired of repeating the obvious. Find a quote of mine supporting your accusation or give it up. You're making yourself look more like a desperate ass with every post you make on the topic. For your own sake, show at least a modicum of honesty for once and just let it drop.

pinky

*edit* Notice the fact that Alex has once again edited a post of his after it has been replied to while deliberately turning off the default "mark as edited" function. This time he was clumsy enough to leave tracks. He isn't always that clumsy.

Here is how his post read at the time I replied to it:

Why did you make that silly reference to unionised american workers being in apoplexy at the conditions in sweatshop labour?

Here is how it reads now (sentence fragment and all) --

What did your silly line saying "Yet a unionized American worker would die of apoplexy if asked to work in one"

Why would he die of apoplexy exactly? Because conditions are appalling? Because unions are banned?


Am I the only one who finds it revealing that in an exchange pointing out Alex's dishonesty, he cannot resist using dishonest tactics? I guess habits really are difficult to break.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.


--------------------

Edited by pinksharkmark (06/17/04 08:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2801388 - 06/17/04 03:29 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.



Then why don't you give up the practise?


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2801546 - 06/17/04 06:06 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

:rotfl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2802031 - 06/17/04 10:33 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Repeatedly denying it doesn't magically change your lie into the truth

Why are you repeating things I've just told you?

The fact that you yourself would find working in a factory in the third world unpleasant

Why would I find it unpleasant?

Undoubtedly. I do not defend those employers.

Then do you have a past post where you have condemned a third world employer for utilising child labour, unsafe working conditions or intimidating union organisers?

since you participated in the very threads in which I have explicitly denounced such practices

I must've missed those posts. Can you link me to a post where you condemn the practises of Western corporations in third world countries?

Seeing as you dodged the question, here it is again:

Are you really trying to say you defend sweatshop labour but do not defend any of the practises involved in it like making children work or banning unions?

Making children (or anyone, for that matter) work is not sweatshop labor, Alex, it is slavery and slavery is outlawed in civilized nations

Ah..I see is this the usual dodge of saying the children arn't "made" to work? That they have the choice to work or not?

Here's the question again:

Are you really trying to say you defend sweatshop labour but do not defend any of the practises involved in it like making children work or banning unions?

merely incompetent linking.

What reason was there to link every post?

This is tedious

You can say that again. Here's the question again:

Are you really trying to say you defend sweatshop labour but do not defend any of the practises involved in it like making children work or banning unions?

Notice the fact that Alex has once again edited a post of his after it has been replied to

Nope, it was edited at the time I was writing it as I'm sure you're perfectly aware. The first time I saw your reply was 9 hours later.

Incidentally, you forgot to state why an american worker would die of apoplexy. Please do so.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2802101 - 06/17/04 11:06 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Posted by Pinky: I can guarantee you that if you tell a Dominican worker the foreign factories are "exploiting" him, he'll look at you like you've got bugs on your eyeballs, because he has a firm grasp of reality and you don't





Forgive me but this sounds like another lie. Why don't we listen to a "Dominican worker" and see?

Kenia Rodriguez, a 19-year-old sweatshop worker from the Dominican Republic, will almost certainly be fired for speaking out. But she feels the matter is important enough to risk it.

Ms. Rodriguez works in a huge factory complex in a free-trade zone near Santo Domingo that turns out baseball caps with the names and logos of major American universities, including Harvard, Notre Dame, Georgetown, U.C.L.A. and the University of North Carolina.

The caps, which are extremely popular, sell for about $20 each in the United States. The universities, through licensing agreements, make about $1.50 per cap. Apparel companies, like Champion and Starter, that market the caps make a bundle from them. So do retailers. When all the big shots finally finish pocketing their shares, very little is left for the workers who actually make the caps.

According to a study to be released this week by a labor union in the U.S., only about 8 cents from each $20 cap is allocated for workers' wages. Ms. Rodrigguez said during an interview on Friday that she is paid about $28 for a 44-hour week, which is the minimum wage in the Dominican Republic. Even with a dozen hours of overtime, she only makes about $40, she said. When I asked if that was enough for her to live on, she laughed.

"Not even half," she said through an interpreter.

So the workers live in poverty, even though the factory complex, run by a Korean-owned firm called BJ&#348;B, is one of the most successful suppliers of baseball caps in the world. In addition to the college caps, the factories turn out caps with the logos of a variety of professional sports teams.

The study of conditions at BJ&#348;B was done by the Union of Needletrade, Industrial and Textile Employees. "What I want to know," said a worker quoted in the study, "is, Why do we get paid so little if these caps sell for so much? I'm working 56 hours a week and sometimes I can't afford clothes for my children."

Kenia Rodriguez, who is quiet, somewhat shy and never imagined being an activist, said the pay in the factory is so low and the treatment of the workers so demeaning that she felt she had no alternative but to fight back.

She and a former employee of BJ&#348;B, Roselio Reyes, who is 20, have come to the U.S. to visit several of the universities that benefit from the sale of caps made at BJ&#348;B. Their tour is being sponsored by the union. Their first stop will will be Harvard on Tuesday.

There are approximately 2,000 employees in the BJSB complex, which is in the town of Villa Altagracia. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Reyes said supervisors frequently yell at the workers, make degrading comments, hit them and touch the women and girls inappropriately.

"Sometimes you find people crying in the corners because they were treated so badly," said Mr. Reyes.

He and Ms. Rodriguez said workers are forced to work overtime, which is illegal in the Dominican Republic. And while most of the workers need the additional money, the forced overtime serves as a roadblock to those who want to go to college at night. This is a point they plan to stress in their meetings on college campuses here.

The union's report said BJSB fires workers who are found to be involved in labor-organizing activities, and has attempted to fire pregnant workers. Ms. Rodriguez complained that women are forced to take pregnancy tests before being hired, a policy she described as an affront.

In addition to Harvard, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Reyes will visit Brown, Georgetown, Cornell, Rutgers and the University of Illinois to inform students, faculty members and administrators about the conditions at BJ&#348;B.

"They are here to put the light of day on the problem," said Steven Weingarten, the union's director of industrial development. "Sweatshops are hidden and they proliferate as long as they remain hidden."

Duke University recently announced that it would require its licensees to identify all factories making products that carry the university's name and to allow the factories to be inspected by independent monitors. Duke officials recognized that opening the doors of the factories is a prerequisite to cleaning them up. Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Reyes hope to encourage other universities to follow Duke's lead.




http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43/064.html


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineDoctorJ
Male

Registered: 06/30/03
Posts: 8,846
Loc: space
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Phred]
    #2802226 - 06/17/04 11:52 AM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

Incorrect. The initiation of force is no more moral if done by an individual than if done by a group. You seem to be having an inordinately difficult time grasping this exceedingly simple point. What cognitive defect is at work here?





I did not say 'the initiation of force' I said 'destruction and waste'. Destruction and waste can occur without the initiation of force, and destruction and waste can be prevented by the initiation of force. For example, and individual who decides to drive an SUV is wasting oil and contributing to the destruction of the environment. Government regulation of SUVs could prevent this waste and destruction via the initiation of force (or threat thereof)

It seems to me that our differences stem from the fact that you are concerned with what is 'right' (in a moral sense) and I am more concerned with what actually works.

Quote:

The best way possible to reduce failure and misery is to refrain from initiating force against others.





I thought it wasn't the most effective, just the most 'moral'.

So, if we tore down all the stops signs and just let people cross intersetions at their own will, this would reduce car accidents and the misery they create?

I would argue that at least some force is necessary to keep people from killing themselves pointlessly.

Quote:

Inevitably in political arguments, someone will try to use the fact that matter is theorized to behave differently under extremely limited conditions such as near-lightspeed velocities or within the infinitesimally tiny radius of nuclear distances to try to prove that somehow, NEXT time, with some other gang of humans running the show, Marxism (for example) will actually work.




its not proof of anything, it just illustrates the point that no one set of rules governs everything. There is no grand unified theory of physics that always works, and there is no grand unified theory of politics that always works. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Besides, I think it was you that brought newton into this. I guess its inevitable in the course of a political discussion that someone will try to use newton's laws as proof that one system of rules governs everything.

Quote:

At a time when might alone was enough to guarantee the survival of a limited number of humans, they got along the same way wolves did. When sheer musclepower alone proved less of a survival trait than rational co-operation, the human population began to increase.





in other words, things changed, and a new system had to be adopted in order to accomodate for these changes.

Quote:

And, by the way, if nothing in science is proven, how is it that these scientific testing techniques (which let's not forget are "right around the corner") will be proven accurate and objective?





you're right I misspoke on that. I should have said 'their applicational value will be proven to work in most cases' (but certainly not all- no system is infallible

Quote:

If you had even a smattering of understanding of human psychology or political science or philosophy, you wouldn't embarrass yourself by trying to inject space colonization and quantum physics and special relativity theory into discussions about whether or not forcibly preventing someone from accepting employment at a job he desires constitutes totalitarian practice.





you can insult my intelligence and knowledge all you want. It won't erase the things I've learned and it won't convince me that libertarianism is 100% effective.

Quote:

They haven't changed the fact that human survival requires human effort.




I would say that human survival requires less effort today than it did 200 years ago. And yet many people have to work just as hard today as people did back then. Why is this?

Edited by DoctorJ (06/17/04 11:58 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2802681 - 06/17/04 02:30 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

you can insult my intelligence and knowledge all you want

Usually the weaker his argument, the stronger the personal attacks become.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegrib
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/01/03
Posts: 550
Loc: Here and there
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2802704 - 06/17/04 02:40 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

DoctorJ said:
If libertarianism is the best choice, then why aren't most people making it?




'Libertarianism involves a great deal of personal responsibility. The majority of Americans want and need to be told what to do, how to act, what's good for them., etc.

bahaaa bahaaa...


--------------------
<~>Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake <~>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: Xlea321]
    #2802981 - 06/17/04 04:19 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

i'll keep this simple and let pinky answer the other stuff. should be a good read.

alex123, you said this to pinksharkmark:

"And yet you would defend to your last breath the right of corporations to make children work in desperately unsafe conditions, to intimidate them and refuse them the right to form a union and to pay them as little as they can get away with."

you know that pinksharkmark, as a libertarian\lazziez-faire capitalist\minarchist would never defend the "right" of anyone to make anyone work, regardless of age, nor would he defend the "right" to accept employment offers from children (who because of their age are unable to make informed consent), nor intimidate those who would organize for collective bargaining in labor relations.

these things that you claim pinksharkmark would "defend to [his] last breath" are quite clearly examples of initiation of force, and you are familiar enough with pinksharkmark's politics to know that he would never defend anyone's "right" to initiate force against another person. your statement was false and you knew it when you made it. in other words, it was a lie.

Edited by mushmaster (06/17/04 04:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous

Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2803073 - 06/17/04 04:41 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

if it's not too late to address the original topic of the thread, i'd like to do that now.

the libertarian position is not that individuals always make the "best" choices. if that were indeed true, government would be unnecessary.

the libertarian position is that as long as individual decisions are not forced upon nonconsenting persons, then the person making the decision is the only one in a position to evaluate the decision as good or bad. because people do not make decisions they consider to be poor ones, individuals, when their decisions do not affect nonconsenting individuals, do always make the "right" decision, but only then.

when making decisions that may potentially be forced upon others, people do not always make the right choice, and no libertarian, or just about anyone else for that matter, would claim otherwise.

you could have said, "libertarians claim that individuals always make the best choices, but some choose to murder other people, which according to libertarians is a bad choice, therefore the libertarian argument is wrong". this would be a poor argument for the same reason that the one you are making is.

Edited by mushmaster (06/17/04 05:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Why I'm not a libertarian [Re: ]
    #2803145 - 06/17/04 05:11 PM (19 years, 9 months ago)

Quote:

in other words, it was a lie



:thumbup:
It's far past time that more who post here stop letting that liar say whatever he wish and get away with it.

Left/right/middle.... lying helps no-one.


--------------------
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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 34 Libertarian arguments debunked silversoul7 2,603 7 05/09/03 05:06 AM
by Phred
* Americans Embrace Tolerance, Freedom Ravus 663 8 12/18/04 06:39 AM
by Phred
* Libertarianism and Organ Donation retread 1,272 12 10/13/04 03:05 AM
by Mushmonkey
* Libertarians & Greens to Debate in Miami
( 1 2 3 all )
Ancalagon 4,453 49 10/03/04 10:12 PM
by Gijith
* Libertarianism BuzzDoctor 1,488 19 09/09/02 09:58 AM
by Innvertigo
* Positive & Negative Liberties in Three Dimensions lonestar2004 1,153 5 06/20/05 09:32 PM
by Phred
* The Tao of Liberty: wu wei and laissez-faire
( 1 2 all )
Silversoul 3,052 23 05/15/05 11:05 AM
by Silversoul
* Questions about libertarians DigitalDuality 1,719 13 09/18/04 05:44 AM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
13,746 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 5 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.014 seconds on 15 queries.