A Thought Experiment

[Father Time]

of course you think that, since he is a moron like you and just made up a bunch of bullshit and tried to lay it in my lap in the same way your are doing..

Bull shit? It's a simple question: I need a kidney and yours is a perfect match. I have a right to life correct? That is your argument isn't it? So does my right to life give me a right to your kidney or does your individual sovereignty mean that I can only have it if it is your choice? Which is it? And it is in your lap my friend. Can you answer or are you just going to leave it lying there...

you can live with one kdney fucktard

Ok now let's say both of my kidneys are failing, I need a kidney, you have two working ones and can live with one.

 

[PeterS]

Totally and absolutely false. It is truly amazing that you have deluded yourself into believing that. That explains your wacky response to one of my posts.

Your mission is clear: move to a Socialist country. Good luck with that.

Ok, say I move to Canada. Explain how I am any less free?

We all know Canada isn't a purely Socialistic Country, but it can still be used as an example. Sadly, this is a common question. The government continues to grow and yet many Americans no longer understand that there is a line between limited government and a free people. Take for instance education, business and health care. The Government has intruded in these areas to such a degree that the individual is left with few choices. In other words, the government controls what choices a person can make. When politicians pass laws and regulations to manage society, freedoms are lost. People are better off when they have more choices and can make their own decisions.

So I haven't been able to choose what schools to attend, businesses to be involved in, or health care to receive? The last is true to an extent but that has be at the discretion of the provider not government and the first two I don't see a loss of freedom at all. You should explain.

 

[iagainsti]

of course you think that, since he is a moron like you and just made up a bunch of bullshit and tried to lay it in my lap in the same way your are doing.

like I said I would break the kid out and teach him to wage war on your ass, I would provide him with weapons to kill his opressors. then he would take the town and posses it for himself and others seeking to be free from the opressive thumb of anti-liberty fuckholes.

There doesn't even seem to be much point in replying to you, since you're obviously a dickshit with a nice big brick wall built around your brain, but here it goes anyway:

What bullshit, exactly, was it that I made up and tried to lay in your lap? I'd be interested for you to tell me what it was, because I don't remember making up anything new, only commenting on what you said, and asking you whether you bothered to read PeterS's post before replying to it and whether you had a point...

So, thanks for providing me with even more proof that you don't bother to read anything before spitting out a bunch of meaningless insults that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. Way to add so much to the conversation YET AGAIN.

And also, why is it you'd be "waging war on my ass?" Because again, if you had bothered to read anything, you'd know that I was not in favor of keeping the child locked up.

every thing he said to me about what he imagined i said was some fucknut psycho bulllshit. he invented his fucknuttery and then laid it in my lap.

he didnt even come close to what i said, he just jacked off thought it felt good and went on his merry dipshit way, then you come along and agree with his contrived lunacy. so that makes two of ya.

So, since you agreed with him, that means you wanted the kid to stay in the closet because that is what he was arguing. that is why i would teach the kid to wage war on your ass. socialists who keep people locked away to have a boogyman they can persecute and pretend their lives have meaning deserve nothing less. overthrowing opressors requires force, giving the kid a means of force is giving him liberation

I didn't agree or disagree with what he said, I simply pointed out that your response made it seem as though you didn't even bother to read anything he said, you just started throwing out a bunch of insults because he dared disagree with you. How is that constructive to a conversation or a debate?

And since you want to drag socialism into the mix now too...if you want Omelas to represent an economic system, then it represents capitalism, because in order for the rest of the people to be happy, the child must suffer...just like in order for the upper class to be wealthy, the working class must suffer.

I'm not sure how "keeping people locked away to have a boogyman they can persecute and pretend their lives have meaning" is descriptive of socialists or has anything to do with socialism for that matter. If anything, everything you just said relates more to capitalism, as does the story itself.

Like they say, there's nothing worse than an ignorant person with a strong opinion.

 

[xsited1]

Ok, say I move to Canada. Explain how I am any less free?

We all know Canada isn't a purely Socialistic Country, but it can still be used as an example. Sadly, this is a common question. The government continues to grow and yet many Americans no longer understand that there is a line between limited government and a free people. Take for instance education, business and health care. The Government has intruded in these areas to such a degree that the individual is left with few choices. In other words, the government controls what choices a person can make. When politicians pass laws and regulations to manage society, freedoms are lost. People are better off when they have more choices and can make their own decisions.

So I haven't been able to choose what schools to attend, businesses to be involved in, or health care to receive? The last is true to an extent but that has be at the discretion of the provider not government and the first two I don't see a loss of freedom at all. You should explain.

Look at our educational system. We currently spend more money per student than any other industrialized nation and get the least in return. The government dictates what will be taught, who will teach it and where kids go to school. Obviously, they don't believe in competition, choice or rewarding teachers based on performance. Why does the government require so much control over our students? Power. Obviously, a loss of freedom in education has had a devastating effect on our country.

Business is another example of too much government intrusion. When the government tries to control the free market, you usually end up with disaster. Take for instance the rolling blackouts in California a few years back. It's a story of what happens when politicians try to manage competition and impose their vision of a market. Unfortunately, it was mislabeled as 'deregulation', but the opposite was true. The housing market was another example of how the government encouraged banks to provide risky mortgages to underqualified borrowers. That coupled with Crony Capitalism led to the mess. If they would just practice Liberty rather than control, you wouldn't see this mess.

 

[xsited1]

Ok, say I move to Canada. Explain how I am any less free?

We all know Canada isn't a purely Socialistic Country, but it can still be used as an example. Sadly, this is a common question. The government continues to grow and yet many Americans no longer understand that there is a line between limited government and a free people. Take for instance education, business and health care. The Government has intruded in these areas to such a degree that the individual is left with few choices. In other words, the government controls what choices a person can make. When politicians pass laws and regulations to manage society, freedoms are lost. People are better off when they have more choices and can make their own decisions.

I'm curious, in what way do you see that people have few choices in education? I think pure socialism or pure capitalism are over-the-top ideologies rather than practical economic systems. And as far as people being better off when they have more choices...normally I would agree, but the older I get the more I get the feeling that people really don't know what's best for them. But that's not for me to decide, I guess.

I'll assume this is a joke.

 

[Father Time]

There doesn't even seem to be much point in replying to you, since you're obviously a dickshit with a nice big brick wall built around your brain, but here it goes anyway:

What bullshit, exactly, was it that I made up and tried to lay in your lap? I'd be interested for you to tell me what it was, because I don't remember making up anything new, only commenting on what you said, and asking you whether you bothered to read PeterS's post before replying to it and whether you had a point...

So, thanks for providing me with even more proof that you don't bother to read anything before spitting out a bunch of meaningless insults that have nothing to do with what's being discussed. Way to add so much to the conversation YET AGAIN.

And also, why is it you'd be "waging war on my ass?" Because again, if you had bothered to read anything, you'd know that I was not in favor of keeping the child locked up.

every thing he said to me about what he imagined i said was some fucknut psycho bulllshit. he invented his fucknuttery and then laid it in my lap.

he didnt even come close to what i said, he just jacked off thought it felt good and went on his merry dipshit way, then you come along and agree with his contrived lunacy. so that makes two of ya.

So, since you agreed with him, that means you wanted the kid to stay in the closet because that is what he was arguing. that is why i would teach the kid to wage war on your ass. socialists who keep people locked away to have a boogyman they can persecute and pretend their lives have meaning deserve nothing less. overthrowing opressors requires force, giving the kid a means of force is giving him liberation

I didn't agree or disagree with what he said, I simply pointed out that your response made it seem as though you didn't even bother to read anything he said, you just started throwing out a bunch of insults because he dared disagree with you. How is that constructive to a conversation or a debate?

And since you want to drag socialism into the mix now too...if you want Omelas to represent an economic system, then it represents capitalism, because in order for the rest of the people to be happy, the child must suffer...just like in order for the upper class to be wealthy, the working class must suffer.

I'm not sure how "keeping people locked away to have a boogyman they can persecute and pretend their lives have meaning" is descriptive of socialists or has anything to do with socialism for that matter. If anything, everything you just said relates more to capitalism, as does the story itself.

Like they say, there's nothing worse than an ignorant person with a strong opinion.

Can you prove there has to be a population that suffers for capitalism to work? There isn't a correlation between money and happiness you know.

Also you can help charities if you really wanted to help the poor which is much more nobler than plundering the rich and mumbling "the ends justify the means".

 

[Diuretic]

......
Can you prove there has to be a population that suffers for capitalism to work?

.....

Anyone who is unemployed.

 

[Father Time]

......
Can you prove there has to be a population that suffers for capitalism to work?

.....

Anyone who is unemployed.

Why does a capitalist society need unemployed people to function?

 

[Diuretic]

......
Can you prove there has to be a population that suffers for capitalism to work?

.....

Anyone who is unemployed.

Why does a capitalist society need unemployed people to function?

If everyone had a job there would be a distortion in wage rates as employers bid against one another to entice workers to their firm. When there's unemployment it tends to settle wages to a level that allows an economy to function. I'm sure someone much more versed in economics than I am could explain it much clearer but that's my rough understanding of the need.

 

[xsited1]

Anyone who is unemployed.

Why does a capitalist society need unemployed people to function?

If everyone had a job there would be a distortion in wage rates as employers bid against one another to entice workers to their firm. When there's unemployment it tends to settle wages to a level that allows an economy to function. I'm sure someone much more versed in economics than I am could explain it much clearer but that's my rough understanding of the need.

I'm sure Toro can provide some distorted chart to "prove" to himself that that fallacy is true and then blame everything on the 'Republicans'.

 

[Diuretic]

Why does a capitalist society need unemployed people to function?

If everyone had a job there would be a distortion in wage rates as employers bid against one another to entice workers to their firm. When there's unemployment it tends to settle wages to a level that allows an economy to function. I'm sure someone much more versed in economics than I am could explain it much clearer but that's my rough understanding of the need.

I'm sure Toro can provide some distorted chart to "prove" to himself that that fallacy is true and then blame everything on the 'Republicans'.

I'm quite sure Toro could explain it far better than I can, assuming I'm halfway near correct of course

 

[xsited1]

If everyone had a job there would be a distortion in wage rates as employers bid against one another to entice workers to their firm. When there's unemployment it tends to settle wages to a level that allows an economy to function. I'm sure someone much more versed in economics than I am could explain it much clearer but that's my rough understanding of the need.

I'm sure Toro can provide some distorted chart to "prove" to himself that that fallacy is true and then blame everything on the 'Republicans'.

I'm quite sure Toro could explain it far better than I can, assuming I'm halfway near correct of course

The problem I found with Toro's methods is that he tends to take ALL the data while including extraneous and/or meaningless data points, thus leading him to the wrong conclusions. Then he makes the claim that one is 'cherry-picking' the data. Wrong.

I would be interested in an explanation of this, but I can't find anything with a simple google search.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm sure Toro can provide some distorted chart to "prove" to himself that that fallacy is true and then blame everything on the 'Republicans'.

I'm quite sure Toro could explain it far better than I can, assuming I'm halfway near correct of course

The problem I found with Toro's methods is that he tends to take ALL the data while including extraneous and/or meaningless data points, thus leading him to the wrong conclusions. Then he makes the claim that one is 'cherry-picking' the data. Wrong.

I would be interested in an explanation of this, but I can't find anything with a simple google search.

I'm only going from memory and I only gave a pretty rough idea anyway. I remember reading about mediaeval guilds and how they controlled the price of labour by controlling the number of entrants into a craft (like the medical and legal professions do today) so that too many practitioners wouldn't force down the price of labour. It seems to me intuitive - meaning I can't bloody well find any proof - that there has to be a number of unemployed people in a capitalist society for it to work on the basis that wages have to have a market level in a capitalist society. Something about equilibrium comes to mind.

Sod it, I need more coffee

 

[midcan5]

The story reminds me of, or is a take off on the question Ivan asks in the Brothers Karamazov. It is also a kind of reference to original sin. There does seem to be a contradiction in saying the people are moral people. If they are moral then this suffering is allowed, if this is not allowed then none are moral and all sinners. And that too raises a religious issue about the poor or unfortunate. What is our responsibility in this world to suffering? But there is also the issue of distance that enters moral considerations: I'm not responsible, it's not my fault, I can only do so much. And I'm sure some would think the child deserved the suffering, after all he [we all] ate of the apple. I only have easy answers on why some would leave. I have to check out the story.

"Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence, then, evil." Epicurus

Ivan's question is here.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/51207-profound-question.html

 

[Diuretic]

*Note to self - "read more classics". End of note.*

 

[Fatality]

Bull shit? It's a simple question: I need a kidney and yours is a perfect match. I have a right to life correct? That is your argument isn't it? So does my right to life give me a right to your kidney or does your individual sovereignty mean that I can only have it if it is your choice? Which is it? And it is in your lap my friend. Can you answer or are you just going to leave it lying there...

you can live with one kdney fucktard

Ok now let's say both of my kidneys are failing, I need a kidney, you have two working ones and can live with one.

yeah i could live with one, so whats your point?

 

[Old Rocks]

...

Socialism does not take away individual freedom. It does not curtail success. It simply takes the focus of power away from money and puts it into the lives of those who live by its philosophies. It ensures that most or any people at all don't have to suffer to make other people wealthier. It gets rid of the wealthy and the impoverished. And it isn't perfect, but its better than someone suffering for your prosperity.

Totally and absolutely false. It is truly amazing that you have deluded yourself into believing that. That explains your wacky response to one of my posts.

Your mission is clear: move to a Socialist country. Good luck with that.

Every modern industrial nation is a mix of capitalism and socialism. None are wholly one or the other. Both, by themselves, contain factors that limit a nation, putting it's growth behind its peers, and rendering it vulneble to economic and physical agression.

We now have all the modern nations experimenting with that combination. Just as in the story, there have to be an underclass for the impetus to better one self in capitalism. But socialism is all too often seen as a sharing of the poverty, also.

What we need to remember here is that the goal is not to make us all rich, nor eliminate differances in scale of living. The goal is that the least of those in the society have decent lives. And that someone born into those circumstances have ample oppetunity to better themselves to whatever level that they are capable of.

In our nation, our current President is seen as the embodyment of the ideal of social mobility by many. And is hated for it by some.

I do not hate capitalism. I do not hate socialism. I do not love either idea. They are constructs of ways to improve all of our lives. Both have met success in some areas, abject failure in others. That is why the mix is neccessary.

And that is why I find your ideas of calling President Obama a Socialist as an insult to be indictive of a lack of mental ability. Just as those on the left that would state that nothing good has come of capitalism seem to be equally blind.

The ideal is that each receives from his efforts a good life. That those who contribute a great deal to our society, recieve more in ratio to their achievements. The falseness comes in obvious idiocies, such as third string NFL linebackers recieving more for their efforts than either Dr. Salk or Dr. Sabine. One can point out equally foolish compensation on the other side of the aisle, also.

I guess in the end, we are talking about sanity, and balance. I am not a Christian, but I do remember the verse where Christ stated that "what you do to the least of these, you do to me". Seems to me to be the moral of the story.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

...

Socialism does not take away individual freedom. It does not curtail success. It simply takes the focus of power away from money and puts it into the lives of those who live by its philosophies. It ensures that most or any people at all don't have to suffer to make other people wealthier. It gets rid of the wealthy and the impoverished. And it isn't perfect, but its better than someone suffering for your prosperity.

Totally and absolutely false. It is truly amazing that you have deluded yourself into believing that. That explains your wacky response to one of my posts.

Your mission is clear: move to a Socialist country. Good luck with that.

If you can show that socialism does restrict individual freedom, with references to back your refutation, then I'll retract this statement, change my philosophy, and become a capitalist. Deal?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The dangers of the Socialistic State are:
1) it often is unjust in taking lawful property from individuals through excessive taxation,
2) it substitutes the collective judgment of the government for the freedom and judgment of the individual
3) it discourages initiative and entrepreneurship by individuals, and
4) it leads to excessive government power and hence corruption.

The danger of these tendencies of the socialist state were well summarized by Lionel Trilling, a respected man of the contemporary liberal left as quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Poverty and Compassion (Knopf Publisher 1991) “Some paradox of our natures leads us, when once we have made our fellow men the objects of our enlightened interest, to go on to make them the object of our pity, then of our wisdom, ultimately of our coercion. It is to prevent this corruption, the most ironic and tragic that man knows, that we stand in need of the moral realism which is the product of the moral imagination”.

As the distinquished political economist F. A. Hayek has stated; “The guiding principle that a policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy remains as true today as it was in the nineteenth century”.

The definition of the word socialism from websters:

1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2) a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. Also a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3) stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


And just for history's sake lets look at the first government to impliment socialism as a system for governance.

In years of peace, Diocletian, with his aides, faced the problems of economic decay. To overcome depression and prevent revolution he substituted a managed economy for the law of supply and demand. He established a sound currency by guaranteeing to the gold coinage a fixed weight and purity which it retained in the Eastern Empire until 1453.

He distributed food to the poor at half the market price or free, and undertook extensive public works to appease the unemployed. To ensure the supply of necessaries for the cities and the armies, he brought many branches of industry under complete state control, beginning with the import of grain; he persuaded the shipowners, merchants, and crews engaged in this trade to accept such control in return for governmental guarantee of security in employment and returns .

The state had long since owned most quarries, salt deposits, and mines; now it forbade the export of salt, iron, gold, wine, grain, or oil from Italy, and strictly regulated the importation of these articles. It went on to control establishments producing for the army, the bureaucracy, or the court. In munition factories, textile mills, and bakeries the government required a minimum product, bought this at its own price, and made the associations of manufacturers responsible for carrying out orders and specifications.

If this procedure proved inadequate, it completely nationalized these factories, and manned them with labor bound to the job. Gradually, under Aurelian and Diocletian, the majority of industrial establishments and guilds in Italy were brought under the control of the corporate state. Butchers, bakers, masons, builders, glass blowers, ironworkers,
engravers, were ruled by detailed governmental regulations. The “various corporations," says Rostovtzeff, "were more like minor supervisors of their own concerns on behalf of the state than their owners; they were themselves in bondage to the officials of the various departments, and to the commanders of the various military units.

The associations of tradesmen and artisans received various privileges from the government, and often exerted pressure upon its policies; in return they served as organs of national administration, helped to regiment labor, and collected taxes for the state from their membership similar methods of governmental control were extended, in the late third and early fourth centuries, to provincial armament, food, and clothing industries. "In every province," says Paul-Louis, "special procuratores superintended industrial activities. In every large town the state became a powerful employer . . . standing head and shoulders above the private industrialists, who were in any case crushed by taxation.

Such a system could not work without price control. In 301 Diocletian and his colleagues issued an Edictum de pretiis, dictating maximum legal prices or wages for all important articles or services in the Empire. Its preamble attacks monopolists who, in an "economy of scarcity," had kept goods from the market to raise prices:

The edict was until our time the most famous example of an attempt to replace economic laws by governmental decrees. Its failure was rapid and complete. Tradesmen concealed their commodities, scarcities became more acute than before, Diocletian himself was accused of conniving at a rise in prices, riots occurred, and the Edict had to be relaxed to restore production and distribution. It was finally revoked by Constantine”

*Will Durant Story of Civilization, Part III, Caesar and Christ. Copyright Simon and Shuster, NY, 1944

 

[Rubber Hoser]

The USA is 1 party away from being a socialist country. And both your parties are pretty much the same. Almost like one party.
Nothing is free in the USA. Think about it.