Basic economics for Democrats/Socialists

[Toddsterpatriot]

Fidel Castro, richest man in Cuba.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

So laws restricting some freedoms, like the freedom to punch people are good?

I never said all laws were a tyranny.

Why do you think you should have the freedom to punch people you don't agree with? You gonna answer that this time or keep trolling

 

[Woodznutz]

Those things will not be instantly available to all as soon as the first prototype appears. Now, there is scarcity of those goods created by the desire of people to have them, and the impossibiity of instant access by all.

It seems to me that the 'scarcity' is caused by the inability, or unwillingness, of the others to produce those things for themselves. So while there is 'equality' of easy-to-access products the 'inequality' arose with the various abilities/inabilities of the people to produce them.

However, I have debunked this theory as I have invented and produced many products that I use in my work that others don't have and it hasn't caused a perceptible scarcity among anyone. They happily do without.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Hidden Cancer That Has Never Been Diagnosed by Their Hired Opinionists

Castro's father was so rich that he employed 400 people. Fidel, like all Communist leaders, was nothing but a spoiled rich kid. Cut those brats off at age 18 and civilization will avoid its imminent collapse. That includes the Daddy-moochers who pose as Conservatives.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It seems to me that the 'scarcity' is caused by the inability, or unwillingness, of the others to produce those things for themselves. So while there is 'equality' of easy-to-access products the 'inequality' arose with the various abilities/inabilities of the people to produce them.

Moreso the unwillingness than the inability. People who want to work can almost always find work when the Government doesn’t try to “help” the economy.

However, I have debunked this theory as I have invented and produced many products that I use in my work that others don't have and it hasn't caused a perceptible scarcity among anyone. They happily do without.

I would say that if they are happy without it, there is no scarcity. Scarcity arises when not everyone who wants something automatically has it without effort. There is no scarcity of air and no effort to get it. We breathe as much as we want in our sleep.

 

[The5thHorseman]

I offer this as a way to help Democrats/Socialists understand what their economic approach really means. I offer it in good faith, with the heart of a teacher.

Democrats and Socialists get much of their economic understanding from Marx or followers of Marx. I actually don't mind that, because Marx was a brilliant economist/didactic. I disagree with his conclusions, but his simplified explanation of what he called "capital" was pretty accurate.

The problem with Marx' teaching is that it starts with an industrialized economy. Humans did not.

To understand the most basic principle underlying economics, let's imagine a hypothetical human society that has no economics. Suppose a small group of people lived on an island with freshwater stream running through it, and a mild climate. Suppose this island had many fruit bearing trees, and many wild edible vegetables, available for the picking. Suppose it also had freshwater fish in the stream and a lagoon in which fish and crabs were easily gathered.

There would be no economics in that society, because there would be no scarcity. Adults can take care of their own needs easily and families take care of those too young or too old to gather food for themselves. There would be no trade, because everyone has enough of everything. There would be little or no theft because it would be as easy to gather food as to steal what another has gathered. There would be no envy or greed.

Economics arises when there is scarcity. All human being experience scarcity for two reasons: There is no island or area in which food is so easy to come by. Even if there was, it is human nature to want and create more than nature provides.

Suppose on that island, fruits and vegetables had to be planted and harvested, fish are not easy to catch near the island and so must be fished for by skilled fisherman, perhaps using boats, and the weather is often cold, requiring clothing. There would arise a division of labor, with some people making cloth, some making the cloth into clothes, some farming, some making farm tools, some fishing, some making boats, and so on. They would not need money, and could barter for all they need. The fishers could trade fish for clothes, fruits and vegetables, with a share of their catch to the person who made the boat.

There would be in impetus to improve the technology in order to have more goods to trade. More occupations would arise.

I used to ask my high school economics students: Imagine three men go out on a boat and fish all day. When they come back, they divide the fish and then sell them at the market on the docks. One man gets two-thirds of the fish to sell and the other two get on sixth each. What is the most likely reason for the uneven division of the product of their labor.

Some of them surprised me by giving the correct answer: The man who gets two thirds owns the boat.

This is where Democrats/Socialists begin to fail to understand the basics. They see all of the goods available in the modern world the same way that those islanders saw the natural resources of their island. They see no reason why anyone should have more than anyone else.

Fish in the ocean are a natural resource available to all. A boat is not. To understand why the boat owner gets the lion's share of the fish, we have to ask ourselves why he owns the boat.

I'll give you some processing time for that, and then continue.

We eagerly await
"Rational Expectations for Dummies"...

 

[Curried Goats]

Who implemented the free market?

In America? Colonizers and slavers.

It depends on what you mean by "outside of government." If you mean "in a place in which no government exists," then of course I can provide no examples. Government exists everywhere people exist, as far as I know. By that logic, everything that ever happens anywhere is then "implemented" by government. That's the kind of fake logic I was talking about.

You have a poor understanding of logic and history. We are not discussing "everything" we are discussing one specific thing, capitalism. You posit it can exist (naturally) outside of government so it is entirely fair of me to ask you where has it ever. You have a lot of theories but they all seem to break down at the slightest bit of questioning and comparison to the way history actually unfolded.

There was an entire galaxy that existed for billions of years before people. Then there were many different types of people. Eventually and very recently (cosmologically speaking) there was only one type of people left, homo sapiens. Throughout our existence we homo sapiens have spread around the globe, creating different cultures, governments, beliefs and economies as we went. Capitalist economies are but one of them. They have an origin. We know where they came from. They didn't spring up naturally out of the ground. If you can't understand that or acknowledge their origins you really aren't fit to lecture anyone about them.

The free market exists in areas where the government exercises less control. Before you make another non-argument, I don't mean "totally and absolutely free market where anyone can do anything that they want at all times, and government never notices." I mean an economy in which the government doesn't try to manage producers and production, and therefore market forces - which are a function of psychology - determine what is produced and how.

I don't know what "a function of psychology" means. I think you imagine "market forces" to be unbiased but how could they be when they are manufactured by people? Are people unbiased? What about the slavers who created America's economy, where they unbiased? Did at some point the economy become unbiased?

Regulated currency is helpful to people operating within a free market, but it is not a requirement. Regulated currency and government coins are not the only kind of money. People have traded in many different kinds of money, including copper, silver, gold, arrowheads, whiskey, horses and cows. Those can be usesd for money because they are each widely agreed on as valuable, and they are portable due to their small size in relation to their value, or their ability to walk.

Currency is anything that is used as medium of exchange. Now imagine a free market economy where it wasn't regulated. There would be no standard currency. Maybe some people would prefer to trade in gold or silver, maybe some would want to trade in cows or arrowheads. And even some still some wanting to trade in favors or whiskey. It would be like the tower of babel without anyone being able to speak the same economic language. The United States currency is legal tender and must be accepted everywhere in the United States. This ensures that when someone pays you in dollars you know you can take those dollars and buy what you need with them. Without this assurance you might accept payment for your services in whiskey and come to find that the person you want to buy eggs from has too much whiskey already but really needs dental work so unless you're a dentist or you know a dentist who needs whiskey you're shit out of luck.

georgephillip made an interesting case that the first money may have actually been IOU's. I don't know that IOU's were the first money, but they were the basis of banknotes printed by private banks in exchange for their depositors raw gold or government minted coins. Those banknotes were used for free trade, without the need for government to wave any magic wand to make them be money.

I think you might of misunderstood. All currencies are I.O.U.s.

You are talking about fiat money, which helps government to be powerful, not the market to be free. By implementing fiat money instead of money backed by precious metals, governments gain power over the economy. Often enough power to do severe damage to the economy as was done to ancient rome by debasing the coins, and in the Weimar Republic by printing money to pay miners.

It's not a "free market". It's defined by the private ownership of land, land which is free to everyone to use until you start deciding to keep some for yourself. The term free market is promotion and propaganda. If we took the words literally they would be an oxymoron.

Capitalists trade in government money because the government requires them to accept it.

Government also forces people to recognize your ownership of land and respect whatever agreements (contracts) you came to with others.

Capitalism thrives when government prevents people from simply stealing the products that the capitalists produce. If I were arguing for anarchy, rather than a free market, you would have a point.

America at its Founding was not an anarchist state. It was a capitalist society. What you are engaging in is the No True Scotsman fallacy. You are confusing capitalism with ethics and morality. Capitalism can thrive just fine on the misery and exploitation of others. It isn't a natural phenomenon, it is a machine, a tool and tools can be used for whatever purpose the wielder wants.

"Capitalism" (which I find an inaccurate term) is the hiring of labor by the owner of "capital" which is a means of production such as a factory, a farm, or a fishing boat, and the profiting from that labor.

In your definition we can see that there exists two classes of people, owners of capital and laborers. To understand how this class division came about we have to look at history. The fantasy scenario in your OP is useless in helping us understand capitalism because it misunderstands the most important aspect of capitalism which is not your magically singular ability to build a house, it is the private ownership of land and natural resources.

When your island man builds a house you envision this creates a scarcity of houses and an economy is suddenly born. But in that scenario trees and land and resources are unlimited. It was in other words, a paradise. What economy could be created out of paradise? You build a house and any envious people could build their own house. Anything you created others could do the same if they wanted.

In actuality capitalism sprung out of feudalism. Feudalism is what we today would call a pyramid scheme wrapped up in a protection racket. Kings had divine right over their land and subjects. They gifted land to their Barons who they chose from their most loyal followers and who were responsible for managing their territory on behalf of their King. The Barons themselves appointed Knights who were their soldiers to keep the peace at home and to fill the ranks of the army when their King went to war and to managed the peasantry and kept them in line. The peasantry, who comprised the vast majority of subjects had very few legal rights and no land. They did the actual hard labor of farming that sustained the empire and in exchange on their off days they could work a small plot of land for their own sustenance. This wasn't much of an economy. It was a protection racket run by a bunch of thugs who spent much of their time scheming and plotting and fighting amongst themselves. It was the colonization of Africa, India and the Americas that grew the wealth exponentially for these emerging Empires. It also grew the wealth and political influence of a rising merchant class. They promoted mercantilism. They used tariffs and subsidies to try and maintain monopolies over goods like tobacco, sugar and tea. The land owners in the colonial new world didn't much care for this arrangement. They started undermining the authority of the King. Started promoting Locke's idea of equality under God. That it was work and labor mixed with natural resources that gave people the right to property. However don't be confused. These land owners didn't labor in the plantations they owned. That was for slaves and poor people. Their labor came in the form of stewardship of their land, investment and maximization of the profit. When they eventually created their own government they were very weary about letting commoners have a say in government. Most states restricted voting to white male land owners. The Senate was chosen by State legislators. The President by Electoral College and Supreme Court Justices were chosen by the President. Only the House of Representatives was voted on by popular vote. This was how capitalism in America got its start. How was any of that not manufactured with purpose?

The free market did not bring slavery to Africa. Kidnapping, beatings, imprisonment for no crime and forced labor are no part of the free market.

They are if the government allows it. The market isn't ethical, its a machine. Only people can be ethical (subjectively).

Slavery can only exist when government supports it, or in areas in which their is no government.

So basically anywhere on Earth....

When government protects manifest natural rights, instead of claiming that it is the creator of rights, slavery does not exist.

My guy you are almost there. I actually love this statement by you. Let's look at what you said. When the government acts to protect rights there is no slavery. With this statement you are showing an understanding that it is force and action that shape reality. In your mind someone can be a slave and yet still possess the right to be free but this is possession in theory only. In actuality they are still a slave and only action will free them from that bondage. Action shapes reality. Not pretty thoughts. And you might say that those thoughts of freedom spurned him to action or influenced a government to abandon slavery, and I agree. I also agree that thoughts of profit and wealth and a lack of empathy spurned others to profit greatly off of slavery for hundreds of years before that. Thoughts, beliefs, these are subjective. They exist only so long as you exist to believe them and unless you turn them into action they can't be objectively quantified as having added up to jack shit.

You never answered: Did the slave traffickers have a right to traffic slaves, so were therefore right to do it? Yes or no, then explain all you like.

Yes, they had legal rights to traffic slaves. Demanding me answer whether they had a moral right to slaves is like demanding me answer about whether I think mangos are delicious. What does it matter if I think they're delicious? I happen to love mango by the way. Some people in my family hate mango. Who's right? Who's wrong? Is there some universal arbiter deciding that people who like slavery and hate mangos are wrong? Do I personally think slavery was wrong? Sure. Slavers didn't think they were wrong and I don't think the universe is wagging a finger at them in admonishment.

 

[Curried Goats]

I didn't say that you could "know" it. On a philosophical level, nothing is "knowable," and on a rhetorical level, nothing is knowable to a person who thinks that "I don't know," wins arguments.

What I am at a loss for is where you think natural rights come from. How do you know they really exist? These are things I can't know because I'm not you. I don't believe in them. I know where Locke thought they came from, he thought they came from God. He called them natural rights because he believed all men in their natural state were equal under God. I don't believe in God and you won't say definitively if you think they come from God. Locke's notion of the nature of man being equal only holds if you believe in his God. I can see with my own eyes that naturally some people are taller, faster, smarter, healthier, more attractive.... None of us are equal in nature. None of us are even truly equal under the law. Citizens are treated differently than non citizens, adults are treated differently than children. Natural rights, equality, these things are fairytales. What we have is a manufactured and managed society and economy. We should do whatever we need to to manufacture the best results for all people instead of pretending allowing a handful of noblemen to use their property and influence to manufacture the best results for themselves is righteous.

I argued that the right to be left alone exists, I didn't seek to "prove" it. Make a counter argument if you can. Asking how you can "know" that I'm right is . . . not mature.

Your confession here is good enough for me. You don't know what an argument is. You stated that the right to be left alone exists but as you admit, you never tried to prove it. You never made an argument. What do I need to counter?

Again, your argument relies on defining "rights" only as the legal protection that government provides for certain activities.

Observation of natural forces is how I define reality. If you can't detect the force it exerts on anything else does it really exist? You misunderstood the lesson on gravity. Newton might not of known what caused gravity or where it came from but he could prove its affects on the world. How can we detect a right to freedom in a person who is enslaved in a way that isn't entirely subjective?

That is not the standard definition, it is your own or maybe someone told it to you. I'm going to endulge you on this one. I know you know, but here it is:

View attachment 737759

If you want to invent your own language, you are welcome to do so, but you can't expect everyone else to learn it and speak it in order to have a conversation with you. Sorry, I only debate in English.

What makes something justified or unjustified other than your subjective say so? Prove others have a duty to leave you alone. You don't get to assign me duties. I'm my own individual.

More of your "proof" mantra. No, I can't "prove" that moral and ethical rights exist, because philosophically nothing can be "proven."

That's your claim not mine and curious one from someone who wants to prove to us progressives are wrong.

You certainly cannot "prove" something to someone willing to say "that's not proof!" over and over instead of having a real debate.

I have explained to you why your logic is folly I didn't just state it as you did. I presented your argument and went through exactly why it was not logically consistent. Look at the quote you provided above to bolster your point.

"If I have a right to freedom then I have a justified claim to be left alone."

Well that's a big IF. How does your logical claim rest on uncertainty? Do you have a right to freedom? From where? If not because of a government and its laws protecting that right then from where?

Dodging the question again. I asked whether they gave themselves the "right" to own slaves. I did not ask if they gave themselves teh "legal right" to own slaves. Look:

View attachment 737756

Still running, I see. It's just yes, or no.

What's the difference? Explain it to me. I don't believe in your voodoo magic "rights". I only believe in legal rights because I can detect the force of them on others through pictures and accounts of the chains and whips.

View attachment 737753

No, I said "or granting of powers that had nothing to do with rights." The "legal right," as you call it, for the founders to own slaves was an example of granting of powers that have nothing to do with any right of any kind.

And who determines what rights are the real rights?

Owning slaves is not a right, and the constitution did not claim it was. It uses the word "right" several times, but not in the part about the slave trade.

Because they were too coward to write the word slavery into their constitution doesn't mean that we can't see by their actions that they legally employed it.

I have to say you're a funny dude. You state things that we can't see, hear, touch or detect in any way are real while also denying things that we can see simply don't exist because the people doing them didn't explicitly write it down on this one piece of parchment.

So where is your proof that the Constitution granted the "right" to continue the slave trade?

The fact that they did just that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

What I am at a loss for is where you think natural rights come from. How do you know they really exist? These are things I can't know because I'm not you.

I already explained, but I’m happy to repeat. We are endowed with certain right by our creator. As I explained before, that need not mean a bearded magical man in Heaven, or the Egyptian gods whose union produced the first humans, or any other sentient being. It could as well be the forces of evolution that created us as human beings.

I could put it in my sig, if you want to refer to it?

I don't believe in them.

Ironically, perhaps, I believe that you have a natural right not to believe in natural rights.

I know where Locke thought they came from, he thought they came from God.

I’m not Locke.

He called them natural rights because he believed all men in their natural state were equal under God. I don't believe in God

Again, you have a natural right not to believe in God.

and you won't say definitively if you think they come from God.

I did get the feeling that you were trying to get me to say whether they come from God. Now, I know I was right about that. I also have a feeling that you are hoping that I will say that yes, I believe that the come from God. Why is it important to you that I say that? Do you have a well-developed argument that you are wanting to present against that? If so, you can make it, whether I say I believe God endowed us with rights or not. I’m sure you’d get plenty of counter argument.

You can do it on this thread if you like, I don’t mind.

Locke's notion of the nature of man being equal only holds if you believe in his God.

I guess his notion of man being equal specifically and only because his God made us that way, you are correct. I’d have to see some proof if you claim that ANY believe in man being equal relies on Locke’s God.

I can see with my own eyes that naturally some people are taller, faster, smarter, healthier, more attractive.... None of us are equal in nature.

Yes, I see that too. I will note that in my case, I am short, but that perceived deficit is made up for by my smartness, health and athleticism and rather extreme attractiveness. Not saying that it balances out, by design.

None of us are even truly equal under the law.

No doubt that is true. The law will be flawed as long as fallible humans make it.

Citizens are treated differently than non citizens, adults are treated differently than children.

Yes, no doubt.

In those particular cases that is wise. In other cases of disparate treatment, not so wise. But that is subjective. The different treatment is factual.

Natural rights, equality, these things are fairytales.

I prefer to call them “ideals to strive for.” But it is true that there has never been a set of laws that fully protected natural rights. Which is an argument against the law being the only granted of rights.

What we have is a manufactured and managed society and economy. We should do whatever we need to to manufacture the best results for all people instead of pretending allowing a handful of noblemen to use their property and influence to manufacture the best results for themselves is righteous.

Would you agree that in the history of and since the Industrial Revolution, the more economic freedom a nation has, the better off economically its people have been, and the more managed a nation’s economy is, the worse off its people have been?

If you disagree with that, I think we could have an actual debate.

Your confession here is good enough for me. You don't know what an argument is. You stated that the right to be left alone exists but as you admit, you never tried to prove it. You never made an argument. What do I need to counter?

Nothing. There is nothing to counter, and no way to counter it, other than “prooove it.” It proves itself by the meaning of its words. First re-defining the word “right” and then asking me to prove that the standard definition is the real definition is a way to avoid debate, not have one.

It would be like me asking you to prove you are not a bot and then - whatever your response - countering with “AHA! That’s exactly what a bot WOULD say! LOLOLOLOL!” That may be fun as a prank, I guess. But, it would not be an argument.

Observation of natural forces is how I define reality. If you can't detect the force it exerts on anything else does it really exist?

I detect the force of natural rights, by observing how people are willing to fight, kill, and even die, when others try to take them away.

You misunderstood the lesson on gravity. Newton might not of known what caused gravity or where it came from but he could prove its affects on the world. How can we detect a right to freedom in a person who is enslaved in a way that isn't entirely subjective?

It’s “might not have,” not “might not of.”

Yes, Newton purported to prove gravity to the world. He clearly detected and measured the force it exerted on other things. He proved its effects on the world. He proved it such that the entire literate world understood and accepted it.

Maybe he was lucky that he died long before Einstein, “proved” that there was no such thing as “gravity,” anymore than there was such thing as “ether” as earlier scientists believed. Are you trying to show that something that does not exist can still be “proven?”

“Detect a right to freedom in an enslaved person?” In such an individual, that might be difficult. A life of slavery may have convinced him that no such thing as freedom exists. But a human somehow raised by wild dogs, may be convinced that he is a deformed dog. But they will still be a human just the same. Objectively, he is a human, not a dog. A benevolent person would feed the human, clothe him, teach him human language and socialize him as a human. Or malevolent person might capture him, and teach him to bark when he hears someone at the door. Either way, the former member of the dog pack is and always was human.

Humans have rights. That short but complete sentence is the bottom of the argument about whether humans have rights. The rest is detaill.

What makes something justified or unjustified other than your subjective say so? Prove others have a duty to leave you alone. You don't get to assign me duties. I'm my own individual.

I don’t have to prove it.

That's your claim not mine and curious one from someone who wants to prove to us progressives are wrong.

I think that might be your mistake. I never said that I want to “prove’ anything.

I have explained to you why your logic is folly I didn't just state it as you did. I presented your argument and went through exactly why it was not logically consistent. Look at the quote you provided above to bolster your point.

"If I have a right to freedom then I have a justified claim to be left alone."

Well that's a big IF.

(This next part should go after your next paragraph. Sorry)

Not, it is not an IF, at all. Can you prove that it is an if? Do you not understand the rhetorical devise that writer employed, of saying “if” for something that is known? Like “If we have a sun, we can use solar power instead of fossil fuels?” I could argue about the relative merits of solar vs. fossil. But if I say, “Your whole premise rests on an uncertainty, because you said ‘IF’!” I would not be taken very seriously.

Are you an American speaker of English? If not, maybe I should feel bad about mentioning your misuse of the language.

How does your logical claim rest on uncertainty? Do you have a right to freedom? From where? If not because of a government and its laws protecting that right then from where?

What's the difference? Explain it to me. I don't believe in your voodoo magic "rights". I only believe in legal rights because I can detect the force of them on others through pictures and accounts of the chains and whips.

I get it. You believe that there are no “rights” but only “legal rights” or that rights and “legal rights” are exact synonyms. You believe it in your subjective opinion, but you haven’t proven it, and it is not standard English, which again is the only language in which I argue.

And who determines what rights are the real rights?

Because they were too coward to write the word slavery into their constitution doesn't mean that we can't see by their actions that they legally employed it.

The constitution did not “legalize” the slave trade. It only forbade government from stopping it (for a set period of time). So where DID this “right to own slaves” you claim come from?

I have to say you're a funny dude. You state things that we can't see, hear, touch or detect in any way are real while also denying things that we can see simply don't exist because the people doing them didn't explicitly write it down on this one piece of parchment.

It was YOU who said no right exist until it is written down as a legal right. Where was the “right to own slaves” in North America written?

The fact that they did just that.

Repeating yourself is not proof. Where is your proof of the “right to own slaves?

 

[Curried Goats]

I already explained, but I’m happy to repeat.

Great. Love it. Let's do this.

We are endowed with certain right by our creator. As I explained before, that need not mean a bearded magical man in Heaven, or the Egyptian gods whose union produced the first humans, or any other sentient being. It could as well be the forces of evolution that created us as human beings.

Could as well be....? Not a great start. I asked what they were and where they come from. Do you have an answer or are you unsure because you don't sound sure.

I could put it in my sig, if you want to refer to it?

On what? All the things it could be? Which one is it?

Ironically, perhaps, I believe that you have a natural right not to believe in natural rights.

I have the ability to believe in whatever the fuck I want. Your hopes and dreams isn't the battery of my biology. That's what makes your beliefs subjective to you.

I’m not Locke.

No shit. At least he had a coherent belief system even if it was ultimately irrational.

I did get the feeling that you were trying to get me to say whether they come from God. Now, I know I was right about that. I also have a feeling that you are hoping that I will say that yes, I believe that the come from God. Why is it important to you that I say that?

What I was hoping for is that you'd give a definitive answer on what rights are and where they come from but you seem mighty confused yourself.

Do you have a well-developed argument that you are wanting to present against that?

Against what? Where exactly do you think you gave a clear answer? It could as well be God, a fat bearded man, the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose is not a very clear answer.

Yes, I see that too. I will note that in my case, I am short, but that perceived deficit is made up for by my smartness, health and athleticism and rather extreme attractiveness. Not saying that it balances out, by design.

If you can't say it balances out then are you admitting to inequity in nature? Are you intellectually honest enough to concede that some people, as a matter of their unique biology, are healthier, faster, stronger, taller or more intelligent or attractive than others? If so then by what claim are we actually equal in nature?

I prefer to call them “ideals to strive for.” But it is true that there has never been a set of laws that fully protected natural rights. Which is an argument against the law being the only granted of rights.

What other kind of rights are there? You can't claim to know if you can't even define them or show us how to detect them.

Would you agree that in the history of and since the Industrial Revolution, the more economic freedom a nation has, the better off economically its people have been, and the more managed a nation’s economy is, the worse off its people have been?

I don't know what you mean by economic freedom since the economy is a pretty complex thing. I do know first world nations with strong social safety nets, universal Healthcare and gun control have citizens that live longer, happier, healthier lives and are far less likely to die from gun violence. But any idiot can look those numbers up so what's to debate?

Nothing. There is nothing to counter,

Agreed.

and no way to counter it, other than “prooove it.”

It not my job to prove a negative or your claim. Something that you insist exists is on you to prove.

It proves itself by the meaning of its words.

That's circular logic.

First re-defining the word “right” and then asking me to prove that the standard definition is the real definition is a way to avoid debate, not have one.

I'm just trying to get you to define it, coherently for once and by that I mean tell me what it is and where it comes from and how we can detect its force.

I detect the force of natural rights, by observing how people are willing to fight, kill, and even die, when others try to take them away.

I see people fighting and dying for all sorts of things. Are you saying the things people fight and die for are natural rights by the fighting any dying for them? If someone breaks into a house and kills an old man for his TV does that mean you think he has a natural right to that TV?

Your logic is ass.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Great. Love it. Let's do this.

Could as well be....? Not a great start. I asked what they were and where they come from. Do you have an answer or are you unsure because you don't sound sure.

I am a hundred percent sure that we are endowed by our creator with natural rights, which all stem from the right to be left alone.

On what? All the things it could be? Which one is it?

How many things could it be? Name some examples.

I have the ability to believe in whatever the fuck I want. Your hopes and dreams isn't the battery of my biology. That's what makes your beliefs subjective to you.

The "battery of my biology?" I honestly have no idea what that means.

No shit. At least he had a coherent belief system even if it was ultimately irrational.

Why? Because he said that "God" gave us natural rights, it was coherent? You would not immediately say, "Oh YEEEAAAAH?" I don't understand where this "God" you speak of comes from. Can you prove it to me?" and think that you had just won an argument with John Locke?

What I was hoping for is that you'd give a definitive answer on what rights are and where they come from but you seem mighty confused yourself.

I've done it several times. Your refusal to accept it or counter it does not change that objective fact.

Against what?

Against the idea that God gave us natural rights. You seem to want me to say that.

Where exactly do you think you gave a clear answer? It could as well be God, a fat bearded man, the Easter Bunny or Mother Goose is not a very clear answer.

Also that it could be the natural forces of evolution. If you want to argue against that, go ahead. Or you could argue against what the thread is about which is basic economics.

Your right to do either or neither, I'm happy to say.

If you can't say it balances out then are you admitting to inequity in nature? Are you intellectually honest enough to concede that some people, as a matter of their unique biology, are healthier, faster, stronger, taller or more intelligent or attractive than others? If so then by what claim are we actually equal in nature?

"Inequity?" Do you mean the standard definition?

Yes, of course some people, as a "matter" (I think that you mean "result") of their unique biology, are, faster, stronger, or taller. Healthier and more attractive are subjective, and I thought you hated that, but whatever. I'm really glad if you understand that something being subjective does not mean that it is not real.

I'd be interested to know how you think "more intellegent" is objectively measured. Or if you think it is subjective, that's fine.

By what objective standard do any of those differences, or any combination of those differences make us "unequal in nature?"

What other kind of rights are there? You can't claim to know if you can't even define them or show us how to detect them.

Natural rights. I can claim to know, even if I can't define them or show you how to detect them.

I did define them very well: Rights which stem from the right to be left alone.

I can certainly claim to know, even if I cannot show you how to detect them. Watch this:

I, Seymour Flops, claim to know what kinds of rights there are, even if I cannot show Curried Goats how to detect them.

I also can claim to know what color the sky is, even if I cannot show a blind man how to detect color. Or a better analogy would be that I cannot show a person who insists on keeping his eyes closed how to detect color.

I don't know what you mean by economic freedom since the economy is pretty complex thing. I do know first world nations with strong social safety nets, universal Healthcare and gun control have citizens that live longer, happier, healthier lives and are far less likely to die from gun violence. But any idiot can look those numbers up so what's up debate?

Nothing, I guess.

Who was claiming that first world nations with strong social safety nets, universal Healthcare and gun contol do not have citizens that live longer, happier healthier lives and are far less likely to die from gun violence? Are you on the right thread?

Agreed.

It not my job to prove a negative or your claim. Something that you insist exists is on you to prove.

Do you insist that it is on me to prove?

That's circular logic.

Can you prove that?

I'm just trying to get you to define it, coherently for once and by that tell me what it is and where it comes from and how we can detect it force.

I'll go back to the blind man analogy. If you are showing a man a mountain and he says, "I don't see a mountain" and you say, "It's between that forest and that lake," and he says, "I don't see a forest or lake," and you say, "look, my finger is pointing right at it." and he says, "I don't see no finger," your next statement would be "dude, you're blind. That doesn't cancel out the existence of my finger, the mountain, the forest or the lake."

I see people fighting and dying for all sorts of things. Are you saying the things people fight and die for are natural rights by the fighting any dying for them?

No, I say the dying for them is the evidence of their force, which is what you asked for. I actually typed "from them" instead of "for them," by mistake. But that too actually. When people try to take natural rights away from others, they often die from the force of natural rights as a motivator. Otherwise know as "fucked around and fount out."

If someone breaks into a house and kills an old man for his TV does that mean you think he has a natural right to that TV?

No, I did not say that natural rights are the only motivator, but they clearly are a motivator.

Your logic is ass.

I think you man "an ass."

You must be ESL, so I apologize for needling you about your English. I speak a little German and Spanish, but I could never debate in it as well as you can in your second language. You have near-native fluency when writing, or you have an American proof-reading for you. How is your speaking?

Keep it up if you're taking classes and coming on here to practice!

 

[Curried Goats]

I am a hundred percent sure that we are endowed by our creator with natural rights, which all stem from the right to be left alone.

How?

The "battery of my biology?" I honestly have no idea what that means.

It means people have biology, not magical rights. Biology allows us to do things, not magical rights.

Why? Because he said that "God" gave us natural rights, it was coherent? You would not immediately say, "Oh YEEEAAAAH?" I don't understand where this "God" you speak of comes from. Can you prove it to me?" and think that you had just won an argument with John Locke?

Coherent doesn't mean correct. Locke is claiming a magical being has endowed us with magical rights. I don't believe in magical beings but it does hold logically that magical rights require magical origins. That at least makes some sort of fantasy sense. You're trying to mix actual objective science with your voodoo magic rights and it just ain't working.

I've done it several times. Your refusal to accept it or counter it does not change that objective fact.

I'm not required to accept your statement that magical rights exist just because you say so.

Against the idea that God gave us natural rights. You seem to want me to say that.

I don't care what you say, I'm just trying to get you to stick with one answer. Is it God or Nature?

Also that it could be the natural forces of evolution.

Could be or is? Doesnt sound like you're any more sure than you were the last time.

If you want to argue against that, go ahead. Or you could argue against what the thread is about which is basic economics.

I have been arguing against your insistence that magical rights exist because you say so this whole time. I'm aware of my abilities.

Your right to do either or neither, I'm happy to say.

"Inequity?" Do you mean the standard definition?

Yes, of course some people, as a "matter" (I think that you mean "result") of their unique biology, are, faster, stronger, or taller. Healthier and more attractive are subjective, and I thought you hated that, but whatever. I'm really glad if you understand that something being subjective does not mean that it is not real.

Oh I have never denied that your feelings were real, I'm trying to get you to understand that your feelings on what is right and what is wrong is not objective fact it is just your subjective feeling. That means that while I'm sure you have your own tastes and preferences so does everyone else and your feelings don't speak to what exists in all of mother nature, only in your nature. Maybe when you see someone who is enslaved you want them to be free, think they should be freed, but this does not equate to a natural right in them to be free, this is just your empathy speaking. You want them to be free. The people enslaving them don't want them to be free. You feel slavery its wrong, they feel it's good and profitable. You might think your feelings are more righteous than theirs but there is no way to objectively prove that.

I think you and people like you get confused because things like emotions can be both objective and subjective in different ways. It can be objective fact that you have feelings but I dont have your feelings, I have my own feelings. Our individual feelings are subject to our own biology. If we jump quickly to your blue sky scenario the color of the sky is not dependent on whether or not a blind man can see it. The blue in the sky is caused by the atmospheres reflecting visible light (at that particular time) in every frequency other than blue. That's what makes it objective. The atmosphere would reflect visible light in every frequency but blue whether we were here to witness it or not. Your feelings are entirely dependent on your being around to feel them, that's what makes them subjective to you.

I'd be interested to know how you think "more intellegent" is objectively measured. Or if you think it is subjective, that's fine.

 It is subjective, but I think I've done enough work to prove that we are not equal in nature, either objectively (some people are taller than others) or subjectively (some people are more attractive than others).

By what objective standard do any of those differences, or any combination of those differences make us "unequal in nature?"

All of them.

Natural rights. I can claim to know, even if I can't define them or show you how to detect them.

Oh I get that, you've been doing that very thing this whole time....

I did define them very well: Rights which stem from the right to be left alone.

Uh huh. Rights come from rights. Makes total sense....

I can certainly claim to know, even if I cannot show you how to detect them. Watch this:

Claim being the operative word there, not prove.

I, Seymour Flops, claim to know what kinds of rights there are, even if I cannot show Curried Goats how to detect them.

I also can claim to know what color the sky is, even if I cannot show a blind man how to detect color. Or a better analogy would be that I cannot show a person who insists on keeping his eyes closed how to detect color.

You can't seem to tell anyone how to detect rights, blind or otherwise.

Nothing, I guess.

Who was claiming that first world nations with strong social safety nets, universal Healthcare and gun contol do not have citizens that live longer, happier healthier lives and are far less likely to die from gun violence? Are you on the right thread?

No one was claiming they didn't, I was claiming they did. I was making an actual argument that included actual evidence its no wonder the sight of it confused you.

I'll go back to the blind man analogy. If you are showing a man a mountain and he says, "I don't see a mountain" and you say, "It's between that forest and that lake," and he says, "I don't see a forest or lake," and you say, "look, my finger is pointing right at it." and he says, "I don't see no finger," your next statement would be "dude, you're blind. That doesn't cancel out the existence of my finger, the mountain, the forest or the lake."

Are you claiming I can see these magical rights because there's nothing wrong with my senses. You keep comparing me to a blind man but you haven't even told the sighted people how to see these magical rights. I have asked you how to detect them and none of your answers hold up.

No, I say the dying for them is the evidence of their force, which is what you asked for.

If I shoot you for your wallet the force that killed you was from the bullet.

I actually typed "from them" instead of "for them," by mistake. But that too actually. When people try to take natural rights away from others, they often die from the force of natural rights as a motivator. Otherwise know as "fucked around and fount out."

This isn't a coherent sentence. People prey on others without consequence all the time. The Founders and early Americans preyed on African slaves for hundred of years.

No, I did not say that natural rights are the only motivator, but they clearly are a motivator.

A subjective one. We each have our own motivations. By what objective mechanism do you think your motivations are right and other people's motivations are wrong? That's what you are in essence arguing. By arguing you have a moral right (rather than a legal right) to not be shot for your wallet you are trying to argue that the people who want to shoot you for your wallet are wrong but in what way are they wrong other than your feelings and maybe the law? If your logic is that rights are motivations and motivations are proven through action doesn't that mean the man who wants to shoot you for your wallet proves he has that right to by shooting you?

You must be ESL, so I apologize for needling you about your English. I speak a little German and Spanish, but I could never debate in it as well as you can in your second language. You have near-native fluency when writing, or you have an American proof-reading for you. How is your speaking?

If you're going to try and take the piss out of someone don't apologize for it. I'm Jamaican so my dialect of English is a bit different than yours, however if I typed in Jamaican patois you wouldn't know what the fuck I was saying. I don't care that my American English isn't perfect because all languages are dialects and so like morality none is right or wrong, they're just different. It actually a fairly relevant point given the topic. You can think of morality like language. There are many different types of languages in the world. None is more right than another, they're just different. I made that point in a thread recently where a bunch of people were making fun of ebonics speakers and I pointed out to them that it was the hubris of whites to believe the white way is the right way. None of them could manage to argue that there was a right language and wrong one.

Keep it up if you're taking classes and coming on here to practice!

You keep demonstrating the folly of your logic.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How?

It means people have biology, not magical rights. Biology allows us to do things, not magical rights.

Coherent doesn't mean correct. Locke is claiming a magical being has endowed us with magical rights. I don't believe in magical beings but it does hold logically that magical rights require magical origins. That at least makes some sort of fantasy sense. You're trying to mix actual objective science with your voodoo magic rights and it just ain't working.

It is your subjective opinion that rights are voodoo magic.

I'm not required to accept your statement that magical rights exist just because you say so.

No, of course not. Because you have a right not to. Get it?

I don't care what you say, I'm just trying to get you to stick with one answer. Is it God or Nature?

Could be or is? Doesnt sound like you're any more sure than you were the last time.

That's a very good question, but not one that I introduced or that is central to this thread. Your mistake is claiming that if I don't identify the origin of rights, they don't exist. If I find a dollar on the sidewalk, I don't have to prove where it came from to know that it exists.

I guess you were just hoping (and praying?) that I would say that they come from God, so you could say that my superstition doesn't trump the legal right to whatever it is that you support.

Doesn't work that way. If something exists, it exists, regardless of whether we know the origin.

I have been arguing against your insistence that magical rights exist because you say so this whole time. I'm aware of my abilities.

I never insisted "magical" rights exist. "Magical" and "Natural" are not the same words.

Oh I have never denied that your feelings were real, I'm trying to get you to understand that your feelings on what is right and what is wrong is not objective fact it is just your subjective feeling. That means that while I'm sure you have your own tastes and preferences so does everyone else and your feelings don't speak to what exists in mother nature, only in your nature. Maybe when you see someone who is enslaved you want them to be free, think they should be freed, but this does not equate to a natural right in them to be free, this is just your empathy speaking. You want them to be free. The people enslaving them don't want them to be free. You feel slavery its wrong, they feel it's good and profitable. You might think your feelings are more righteous than theirs but there is no way to objectively prove that.

Why are your claims that rights are magical, not natural not subjective feelings? Did you prove it and I missed it?

I think you and people like you get confused because things like emotions can be both objective and subjective in different ways. It can be objective fact that you have feelings but I dont have your feelings, I have my own feelings. Our individual feelings are subject to our own biology. If we jump quickly to your blue sky scenario the color of the sky is not dependent on whether or not a blind man can see it. The blue in the sky is caused by the atmospheres reflecting visible light (at that particular time) in every frequency other than blue. That's what makes it objective. The atmosphere would reflect visible light in every frequency but blue whether we were here to witness it or not. Your feelings are entirely dependent on your being around to feel them, that's what makes them subjective to you.

But how would you convince a willfully blind man of the blueness?

 It is subjective, but I think I've done enough work to prove that we are not equal in nature, either objectively (some people are taller than others) or subjectively (some people are more attractive than others).

But it is subjective that any of those things make people "not equal." I think that you mean to say, "not the same."

Claim being the operative word there, not prove.

That was what you said I could not do, and I did. So, you were wrong. If you can't admit that you were wrong, debate becomes pointless.

You can't seem to tell anyone how to detect rights, blind or otherwise.

I can't tell you, who are willfully blind (metaphorically) how to detect them. Quite a leap that I can't "seem to" tell anyone.

No one was claiming they didn't, I was claiming they did. I was making an actual argument that included actual evidence its no wonder the sight of it confused you.

Ok, but not an argument against anything I said? You seem to be drifting to random thoughts.

If you're going to try and take the piss out of someone don't apologize for it. I'm Jamaican so my dialect of English is a bit different than yours, however if I typed in Jamaican patois you wouldn't know what the fuck I was saying. I don't care that my American English isn't perfect because all languages are dialects and so like morality none is right or wrong, they're just different.

Can you prove that? Just kidding!

I apologize for trying to "take the piss out of you," assuming that means insult you. The apology is real; I work with ESL kids every day.

I'm glad I know why your English is not standard. But, it has made this conversation confusing, since you have used so many words with non-standard meanings.

It actually a fairly relevant point given the topic. You can think of morality like language. There are many different types of languages in the world. None is more right than another, they're just different. I made that point in a thread recently where a bunch of people were making fun of ebonics speakers and I pointed out to them that it was the hubris of whites to believe the white way is the right way. None of them could manage to argue that there was a right language and wrong one.

No, there is no right language. There being objectively no right language does not prove that there is objectively no rights. You haven't connected those dots with that analogy. But speaking the same language is important to have a productive debate. I call it "talking past each other," and we seem to have hit that brick wall (Meaning we are unable to productively continue).

Maybe in Jamaica, "different" means exactly the same as "unequal" and maybe there is a "battery" in biology in Jamaica. I guess that is why so much of your argument seems to me to be nonsensical and repetitive. I've never studied Jamaican English to know how it is different.

Nor is there a right culture. I know nothing about Jamaican culture, and I don't pretend to know more than nothing. Maybe in Jamaica, the dream of equality is the dream of sameness, so your thinking that the are obvious synonyms make perfect sense.

Maybe in Jamaica, a short person can never be equal to a tall person.

You might want to recheck that thread on "Ebonics." Rather than insulting black people, they may have been making fun of the political idea of "Ebonics" being a second language and teachers who "speak Ebonics" demanding "bilingual pay," as is often given to teachers who speak Spanish, which need not be put in quotes.

BTW, this "hubris of whites?" Is it a natural trait of white people, and do all white people have it?

 

[Curried Goats]

It is your subjective opinion that rights are voodoo magic.

And your subjective opinion that they really do exist. I don't care about your subjective opinions, I care about what you can prove.

No, of course not. Because you have a right not to. Get it?

I do. You think attributing biological abilities to rights proves rights exist. You just sound confused.

That's a very good question, but not one that I introduced or that is central to this thread.

It's question you want to pretend isn't central to this thread but when you base your argument on an objective moral right to property its fair to question whether objective morality really exists.

Your mistake is claiming that if I don't identify the origin of rights, they don't exist. If I find a dollar on the sidewalk, I don't have to prove where it came from to know that it exists.

You can know a dollar exists because you can touch it. You keep trying to equate rights with other tangible things like dollars and mountains but are at a total loss when I ask you to prove that rights are as tangible as either of those. Can I see rights? Can I touch them? Can I smell them? Can I detect them in any way? You tried to argue that we can see them in people's actions and motivations but as I pointed out way back when that logic is bad. Do we prove Santa Clause exists because kids are motivated to leave cookies and milk out for him?

I guess you were just hoping (and praying?) that I would say that they come from God, so you could say that my superstition doesn't trump the legal right to whatever it is that you support.

I'm not hoping anything I'm just wondering if you know anything at all about these rights you claim really exist.

Doesn't work that way. If something exists, it exists, regardless of whether we know the origin.

If it exists it exists is not a reasoned argument.

I never insisted "magical" rights exist. "Magical" and "Natural" are not the same words.

They appear to be synonymous for the purposes of this argument. I mean we don't know where they come from, how to detect them or how they even work and yet you attribute biological function to them.

Why are your claims that rights are magical, not natural not subjective feelings? Did you prove it and I missed it?

If you want to admit that you have feelings and that those feelings are subjective to you I'll happily agree to that. What is magical is how you think your belief in rights magically makes them real or meaningful in some way beyond your feelings.

Let's look at American slaves. In what meangiful or tangible way, other than to yourself and your emotions, does it matter that you think they had a right to live freely? In what way could a slave touch, taste, smell or feel this right? I know previously you said in their minds but then is that an admission that rights only exist in the minds of people who believe in them? Because that I can agree with. But that wouldn't make them objective, that would make them subjective. That's the difference between arguing whether these rights come from our individual natures or God. Locke understood you couldnt take objective moral stances unless there was an objective moral arbiter like God to decide who was actually right and who was actually wrong. If morality is just a construct of each of our natures and there is no omnipotent judge then no ones individual nature or morality could be argued to be more right than anyone elses.

But how would you convince a willfully blind man of the blueness?

I wouldn't care to. If you don't think my arguments are worth responding to then don't. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm picking apart your argument for my own amusement and exercise.

But it is subjective that any of those things make people "not equal." I think that you mean to say, "not the same."

I think both of those things mean the same thing. In what way can you demonstrate people are equal?

That was what you said I could not do, and I did. So, you were wrong. If you can't admit that you were wrong, debate becomes pointless.

You still haven't proven in and pointless is also subjective. I'm still having fun.

I can't tell you, who are willfully blind (metaphorically) how to detect them. Quite a leap that I can't "seem to" tell anyone.

I can see and touch mountains and dollars just fine. Claiming you're willfully blind because you don't see the Easter Bunny or floating baby Jesus wouldn't be much of an argument.

I apologize for trying to "take the piss out of you," assuming that means insult you. The apology is real; I work with ESL kids every day.

I'm glad I know why your English is not standard. But, it has made this conversation confusing, since you have used so many words with non-standard meanings.

Fair enough, I'm happy to clarify if asked to.

No, there is no right language. There being objectively no right language does not prove that there is objectively no rights. You haven't connected those dots with that analogy.

It was a very loose analogy.

But speaking the same language is important to have a productive debate. I call it "talking past each other," and we seem to have hit that brick wall (Meaning we are unable to productively continue).

There's a simple fix to that, ask if you're unsure.

Maybe in Jamaica, "different" means exactly the same as "unequal" and maybe there is a "battery" in biology in Jamaica. I guess that is why so much of your argument seems to me to be nonsensical and repetitive. I've never studied Jamaican English to know how it is different.

Would engine have helped you out better? What I was saying was that your feelings don't drive me, my own biology does.

Nor is there a right culture. I know nothing about Jamaican culture, and I don't pretend to know more than nothing. Maybe in Jamaica, the dream of equality is the dream of sameness, so your thinking that the are obvious synonyms make perfect sense.

Equality under the law, ideally, does mean everyone gets treated the same....

That's why we can have equality under the law (in how we act towards one another) and not in nature, whether it be our biological differences or how we feel about one another. Do they not teach American children simple logic?

Maybe in Jamaica, a short person can never be equal to a tall person.

Are measuring sticks all broken in America? Or do you equal under the law?

You might want to recheck that thread on "Ebonics." Rather than insulting black people, they may have been making fun of the political idea of "Ebonics" being a second language and teachers who "speak Ebonics" demanding "bilingual pay," as is often given to teachers who speak Spanish, which need not be put in quotes.

Sure. Or they were just ignorant piece of shit racists.

BTW, this "hubris of whites?" Is it a natural trait of white people, and do all white people have it?

Hubris is a human trait but more common among whites in America due to their elevated socio-economic status especially coupled with poor education.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And your subjective opinion that they really do exist. I don't care about your subjective opinions, I care about what you can prove.

What did I start the thread announcing that I was going to prove? To save you a search, I didn't say I was going to prove anything.

I do. You think attributing biological abilities to rights proves rights exist. You just sound confused.

I never said that anything proves to you that rights exist.

It's question you want to pretend isn't central to this thread but when you base your argument on an objective moral right to property its fair to question whether objective morality really exists.

I don't base my argument on a moral right to property. When did I say I did?

You can know a dollar exists because you can touch it. You keep trying to equate rights with other tangible things like dollars and mountains but are at a total loss when I ask you to prove that rights are as tangible as either of those. Can I see rights? Can I touch them? Can I smell them? Can I detect them in any way? You tried to argue that we can see them in people's actions and motivations but as I pointed out way back when that logic is bad. Do we prove Santa Clause exists because kids are motivated to leave cookies and milk out for him?

When did I claim that rights can be touched?

I'm not hoping anything I'm just wondering if you know anything at all about these rights you claim really exist.

If it exists it exists is not a reasoned argument.

Your not understanding of an if-then statement in which the if is not in doubt is part of your different understanding of English. I already clarified that for you so if you still misunderstand I can't help that.

They appear to be synonymous for the purposes of this argument. I mean we don't know where they come from, how to detect them or how they even work and yet you attribute biological function to them.

You don't know those things but I do. I explained it but you disagree. But you don't explain why you disagree you just keep saying you don't know.

If you want to admit that you have feelings and that those feelings are subjective to you I'll happily agree to that. What is magical is how you think your belief in rights magically makes them real or meaningful in some way beyond your feelings.

Magical is not the right term. I'm not sure what you mean other than that you disagree but cannot explain why.

If your meaning is that rights don't exist because Seymour can't prove they do, I don't see the logic.

Let's look at American slaves. In what meangiful or tangible way, other than to yourself and your emotions, does it matter that you think they had a right to live freely? In what way could a slave touch, taste, smell or feel this right? I know previously you said in their minds but then is that an admission that rights only exist in the minds of people who believe in them? Because that I can agree with. But that wouldn't make them objective, that would make them subjective.

Suppose you're right. So what?

That's the difference between arguing whether these rights come from our individual natures or God. Locke understood you couldnt take objective moral stances unless there was an objective moral arbiter like God to decide who was actually right and who was actually wrong.

Why aren't the opinions of God also subjective? Can you prove they are objective?

You make the classic error of attributing something God and announcing that the matter is then settled. Or at least you praise Locke for doing so.

If morality is just a construct of each of our natures and there is no omnipotent judge then no ones individual nature or morality could be argued to be more right than anyone elses.

Of course it could be argued. Anyone can argue anything. But you know that so what did you really mean to say?

I wouldn't care to. If you don't think my arguments are worth responding to then don't. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm picking apart your argument for my own amusement and exercise.

You're actually attributing arguments to me that I did not make and repetitively asking me to prove what I never said. If that's amusing for you, enjoy.

I think both of those things mean the same thing. In what way can you demonstrate people are equal?

I didn't say people equal.

You still haven't proven in and pointless is also subjective. I'm still having fun.

I can see and touch mountains and dollars just fine. Claiming you're willfully blind because you don't see the Easter Bunny or floating baby Jesus wouldn't be much of an argument.

That is why I didn't make that argument. Clarification please: in Jamaican rhetoric is the convention that any analogy automatically valid?

Fair enough, I'm happy to clarify if asked to.

It was a very loose analogy.

There's a simple fix to that, ask if you're unsure.

I've noticed that you rarely answer questions.

Would engine have helped you out better? What I was saying was that your feelings don't drive me, my own biology does.

Equality under the law, ideally, does mean everyone gets treated the same....

American progressives Doug disagree.

That's why we can have equality under the law (in how we act towards one another) and not in nature, whether it be our biological differences or how we feel about one another. Do they not teach American children simple logic?

We can?

When and where has that happened?

Are measuring sticks all broken in America? Or do you equal under the law?

How is taller the same as unequal?

Sure. Or they were just ignorant piece of shit racists.

Could be. I didnt read it.

Hubris is a human trait but more common among whites in America due to their elevated socio-economic status especially coupled with poor education.

is hubris being more common among whites in America an objective fact that you can prove?

I think it is true that Americans have higher socio-economic status than people of other countries with better educations. Why do you think that is?

Why do you think that black immigrants are more successful economically on average that black Americans?

 

[Curried Goats]

What did I start the thread announcing that I was going to prove? Save you a search I didn't say I was going to prove anything.

You did when you thought up your magic island scenario and thought it explained anything.

I don't base my argument on a moral right to property. When did I say I did?

When you claimed you had a right to property outside of the legal system which defines your legal rights.

When did I claim that rights can be touched?

When you claimed they are as tangible as dollars and mountains.

Magical is not the right term. I'm not sure what you mean other than that you disagree but cannot explain why.

You can't explain them. You try and attribute regular biological processes to rights in order to explain them but that is a poor explanation.

For instance I said previously the I am not required to accept your belief in rights and you responded that it was because I had the right to, yet you can't prove at all that rights are why I can disagree with you whereas MRIs can show brain activity preceding me opening my mouth to disagree and not some magical substance called "rights".

Now if you want to counter my argument that it's brain activity that precedes moving and talking and offer up your evidence that it's magical rights instead, be my guest.

If your meaning is that rights don't exist because Seymour can't prove they do, I don't see the logic.

No, I don't think you do see logic. It's the fact that a things existence doesn't rely on your perception of it that makes it objectively real. It's existence relying solely on your perception of it is what makes it subjective (to you). Gravity, the mountain or the dollar bill, none of those require your belief in them to exist. That's what makes them objectively real. What it is is that your arguments are satisfactory explanations for me. If they are for you what are still doing here?

How is taller the same as unequal?

???

Are you arguing 5'6 is equal it 6'6? Do you not understand numbers?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You did when you thought up your magic island scenario and thought it explained anything.

Explain not prove.

When you claimed you had a right to property outside of the legal system which defines your legal rights.

That was not the basis of my argument. That was something you brought up.

When you claimed they are as tangible as dollars and mountains.

They are whether you choose to understand them or not.

You can't explain them. You try and attribute regular biological processes to rights in order to explain them but that is a poor explanation.

For instance I said previously the I am not required to accept your belief in rights and you responded that it was because I had the right to, yet you can't prove at all that rights are why I can disagree with you whereas MRIs can show brain activity preceding me opening my mouth to disagree and not some magical substance called "rights".

I never said I could prove anything to you.

Show me an MRI that shows brain activity of you opening your mouth to disagree.

Now if you want to counter my argument that it's brain activity that precedes moving and talking and offer up your evidence that it's magical rights instead, be my guest.

No need.

No, I don't think you do see logic. It's the fact that a things existence doesn't rely on your perception of it that makes it objectively real.

That was my point about rights. They exist whether Curried Goats perceives them or not.

It's existence relying solely on your perception of it is what makes it subjective (to you). Gravity, the mountain or the dollar bill, none of those require your belief in them to exist.

Gravity does not exist even though we may perceive it.

That's what makes them objectively real. What it is is that your arguments are satisfactory explanations for me. If they are for you what are still doing here?

???

I have literally no clue what you're trying to say there.

Are you arguing 5'6 is equal it 6'6? Do you not understand numbers?

The numbers are not equal but you haven't proved that the people are not equal. Unless by equal you mean the same which is not the English I speak.

 

[Ringo]

"If capitalism could adapt production not to maximize profits, but to systematically improve the material situation of the masses of the people, if it could pay attention not to satisfying the whims of parasitic classes, not to improving methods of exploitation, not to exporting capital, but to systematically raising the material situation of workers and peasants, then there would be no crises. But then capitalism would not be capitalism.
To destroy crises, capitalism must be destroyed.(с) Josef Stalin. 1930.

 

[Seymour Flops]

"If capitalism could adapt production not to maximize profits, but to systematically improve the material situation of the masses of the people, if it could pay attention not to satisfying the whims of parasitic classes, not to improving methods of exploitation, not to exporting capital, but to systematically raising the material situation of workers and peasants, then there would be no crises. But then capitalism would not be capitalism.
To destroy crises, capitalism must be destroyed.(с) Josef Stalin. 1930.

Yeah, that guy knew how to run a country.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Socialism Always Fails

Socialism in which government owns the means of production is always doomed to failure. When you disincentivize success, failure is all that is left. Because the government must be extremely authoritarian, to take over the means of production, it is unlikely to step down in the face of failure. So it turns to totalitarianism to avoid being overthrown.

Not a theory. A factual history of every socialist country ever. But I doubt anyone will dispute that, so I won't waste a lot of words on the obvious.

Partial Socialism Partially Fails, but Survives for One Reason

Partial socialism, often called "a mixed economy" happens whenever politicans decide to "manage" the economy, through taxes and regulation, rather than outright takeover of the means of production. It is a spectrum of systems from less controlled by government to more controlled by government. The nations with more controlled economies would be doomed to failure if not for the financial assistance provided to them by countries whose economies are less controlled by government.

In other words, partial socialism survives due to the freer market. In large part it is due specifically to the United States freer market.

Any current "First World" country that heavily regulates its industry, and distributes wealth to its less productive citizens in the form of welfare, publicly funded education, and publicly funded health, care does so by taking that wealth from the more productive who invariably work in the least regulated and least subsidized industries.

Countries in which all industry is heavily regulated and heavily subsidized, but manage to provide wealth to its citizens anyway, are nearly always United States protectorates, and most often beneficiaries of United States' largess. That largess is paid for by "American capitalists."

Countries in third world countries whose industries are often non-existent due to authoritarian government or quasi-goverment run by criminals are sustained in their own socialism by wealth from the United States and perhaps a few other benefactor nations. However - even those nations which do not take foreign aid in the form of money and even give other nations aid are almost always U.S. protectorates. Therefore they are spared the expense of defending themselves. So they have a few dollars to help other nations which are not yet full U.S. protectorate/benefeciaries.

Partial socialism is very popular among most nations' elected leaders. It is quite literally how they buy votes. As soon as the workers and non-working poor were given the vote, politics became a matter of promising less productive voters financial gain in exchange for voting for a government that gives them wealth, or promising more productive voters to reduce the amount of wealth take from producers and given to to non-producers, or at least to slow the growth of those amounts.

Where else do non-productive people get a say in the actions of large powerful organizations that they do not own, nor pay for? Parents don't have a say in public education qua parents, nor do they have a say in public education qua taxpayers. They only have a say qua voters.*

By our foreign aid, which in large part consists of military aid in which we pretend that nations we protect are actually "allies," and not protectorates, we practice socialism on an international scale. It is still a scheme for purchasing loyalty, just not in the form of votes. What the United States buys from the countries it supports with it's supposed benevolence is pretended loyalty and actual safety from attack by those nations. We are actually safe from those countries because our pretended benevolence in defending them makes them weak. Or protection makes them reluctant to spend money to protect themselves, so they develop no military to speak of.

They are also weak because they have less free economies than the Unites States. Is that the intent of U.S. leaders? I doubt they think that far into it. The whole system was solidified in the aftermath of WWII, in which the United States literally saved much of the world from totalitarianism, but left much of it in totalitariansim, and also created the means by which the whole would could be destroyed in the next war.

So at every turn, during the baby-boom years, the U.S. expended wealth for the purpose of preventing that next war. Had the protectorate nations developed some sort of national pride and refused to treated like international children, the U.S. may have taken a different approach to ensuring its own survival. But that has yet to happen in almost seventy years since. Ironically, as far as I know the only country that decided to eschew the protection of the U.S. and prepare itself for war is France. But, even then, they may be correctly expecting that the U.S. would help them anyway, if the need arose. Still it was a gutsy move. I rooted for France in the kickball game today for that reason.

The whole system can work, as it has been. Not well, but it can work. Maybe another couple of centuries, maybe more. It's not like we will ever run out of anything. Not as long as we have freer markets. In a freer market, "shortages" are met by rising prices at first, and then by innovation in replacing whatever is short. It is a beautiful self-correcting machine when left alone. Unfortunately, it is never left completly alone by government, so we have to count on the influence of the producers on government to control the worst impulses of those parts of the government influenced by the non-producers.

Our predicted (by Ben Franklin) downfall as a Republic can be held off indefinitely, so long as the desire to vote ourselves money from the public treasury is kept in check. At least in check enough to allow the producers to produce enough to support themselves, their honest workers, and also the non-productive parasites of the system.

*The part about the parents is not such a bad thing. People on the right often act shocked that parents do not control the schools by virture of sending their kids to them. That's what you agree to in exchange for that "free" "education." Voters control school boards, and non-parent organizations are skilled at campaigning for their choice which rarely has anything to do with desires of parents. But if parents and not voters controlled schools, how would public schools look in a district heavily populated by illegal alien families?