Basic economics for Democrats/Socialists

[Curried Goats]

Both. How can I argue about rights with someone who doesn't believe they exist?

You could try making a convincing, logically consistent argument....

This is a perfect example. Now you claim that because they did it, they had a right to do it. Arguing in a circle.

Absolutely not what I said. You argue in terms of right to do things, I have consistently explained to you that I don't know what that means. I think they had the will (desire) to do it and the might (force) to do it so they did it.

By your logic, the founders had a "right" to continue the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Spanish had a "right" to enslave the natives in South America, Hitler had the "right" to slaughter the Jews, and Stalin had the "right" to slaughter everyone.

Did I use the word right in any of my arguments? Logically, if you have the will to do something and the ability to do it you can do it, whether you are right or wrong to do it is an entirely subjective proposition. Obviously the Founders thought they were right what does it matter if you think they were wrong? Those are just opinions and everyone's got them. If you don't have the ability (force) to oppose them and prevent the enslavement of Africans does it matter that you think they're wrong? Maybe you give more validity to your feelings rather than actions that shape reality but I don't.

If that is your logic - and you have a right to that logic - there is no point in discussing the much finer points of economic rights.

What is the point of any debate among people who have no power to enact laws as soon as they settle the debate?

Then - again - you don't believe in rights, but you've made no attempt to show why you think that they don't exist. Any argument I make about rights would then be met with the equivelent of "nuh-uh!"

I've also made no attempt to show why I don't think Unicorns and Goblins exist.

The government's ability to determine laws and enforce those laws is a power, not a right. Sorry, I'm not going to change the meaning of words because you want to re-define them.

Of only ever argue in terms of power.

You might want to ask yourself someday: Why do socialists/marxists/whatever insist on this amorality? What is it about the morality of mass slaughter and totalitarianism that they want to avoid discussing its right and wrong so badly?

I'm more than happy to discuss why you think there's a logical reason to believe in objective morality but you, as the believer in it seem reluctant to give your logically consistent reasons for believing in its existence.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Seymour Flops]

You could try making a convincing, logically consistent argument....

Absolutely not what I said. You argue in terms of right to do things, I have consistently explained to you that I don't know what that means. I think they had the will (desire) to do it and the might (force) to do it so they did it.

Ok, if you don’t know, you don’t know. The conversation might be more interesting if you look it up, but that’s your right to do or not do.

Did I use the word right in any of my arguments?

You sure did. Post # 33:

There are such things as legal rights, these are manufactured by government.

That being the case, the Nazis, the Soviets, the European colonizers, the British empire-builders, the slave-owners of Virginia, and the Pharoahs of Egypt had the right to do everything they did to the people. The people who opposed it, had no right to oppose it. That is the only logical conclusion from your “government manufactures rights” argument.

I hope you are not going to make some “Uh . . . Uh . . . I didn’t say ‘Nazis’” argument.

Logically, if you have the will to do something and the ability to do it you can do it, whether you are right or wrong to do it is an entirely subjective proposition. Obviously the Founders thought they were right what does it matter if you think they were wrong? Those are just opinions and everyone's got them. If you don't have the ability (force) to oppose them and prevent the enslavement of Africans does it matter that you think they're wrong? Maybe you give more validity to your feelings rather than actions that shape reality but I don't.

Of course it matters. According to your logic, the founders not only thought that they were right, they had the legal government manufactured right to enslave the Africans. They actually manufactured that right at the same time as the manufactured the new government. Prior to that, when the King governed the Colonies, the King had the legal government manufactured right to tax the colonists without giving them seats in Parliament.

If the colonists had shrugged and said “It’s his right,” we’d still be sending taxes, but not MP’s, to King Charles to this day. Instead, they recognized their right to independence and fought for it. They didn’t fight a war and then declare independence. They declared independence and then defended themselves when Chuckie tried to bring them back under control.

Non-government manufactured rights are powerful motivators, at least in North America. To say that something that powerful is non-existent flies in the face of the most basic logic.

I've also made no attempt to show why I don't think Unicorns and Goblins exist.

Of only ever argue in terms of power.

I'm more than happy to discuss why you think there's a logical reason to believe in objective morality but you, as the believer in it seem reluctant to give your logically consistent reasons for believing in its existence.

Not at all. But this is not the thread for that.

Start your own thread entitled: “Rights do not exist except when granted by government. Prove me wrong.” I will happily join the ensuing fray.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok, if you don’t know, you don’t know. The conversation might be more interesting if you look it up, but that’s your right to do or not do.

You know what, let me speak clearer. I have no idea what you imagine to be the rational basis for believing in objective moral rights is because I don't believe in them. I can't look up what your rationale is I can only ask you to explain it which you have so far declined to do.

You sure did. Post # 33:

In that post I made a clear distinction between moral rights and legal rights. I absolutely understand the rationale for how legal rights come into existence. That is through force.

That being the case, the Nazis, the Soviets, the European colonizers, the British empire-builders, the slave-owners of Virginia, and the Pharoahs of Egypt had the right to do everything they did to the people. The people who opposed it, had no right to oppose it. That is the only logical conclusion from your “government manufactures rights” argument.

Those countries had a legal right to do as they did, as per their laws and their ability to force those laws on to others, rightnup until they lost that ability to a superior force. And even though those countries might have criminalized dissent I think the oppressed would of been prudent to resist oppression.

I hope you are not going to make some “Uh . . . Uh . . . I didn’t say ‘Nazis’” argument.

Your invocation of Nazis doesn't frighten me because it's you who doesn't seem to understand the differences between subjective moral rights (which you haven't even attempted to prove exist with logic and reason) and objective legal rights. The Founders legalized slavery. That's simply an objective fact.

Of course it matters. According to your logic, the founders not only thought that they were right, they had the legal government manufactured right to enslave the Africans.

No, that's not according to my logic, that's according to history. That actually happened. The Founders legalized slavery.

They actually manufactured that right at the same time as the manufactured the new government. Prior to that, when the King governed the Colonies, the King had the legal government manufactured right to tax the colonists without giving them seats in Parliament.

Yes.

If the colonists had shrugged and said “It’s his right,” we’d still be sending taxes, but not MP’s, to King Charles to this day. Instead, they recognized their right to independence and fought for it. They didn’t fight a war and then declare independence. They declared independence and then defended themselves when Chuckie tried to bring them back under control.

And yet declaring themselves independent was not enough to secure their independence. Only force and violence did that.

Non-government manufactured rights are powerful motivators, at least in North America. To say that something that powerful is non-existent flies in the face of the most basic logic.

My argument isn't that personal motivations are non existent, it's that they are entirely subjective. I have my motivations, the Nazis have theirs, you have your own. Which of our motivations can logical be described as objectively and morally right?

Not at all. But this is not the thread for that.

Start your own thread entitled: “Rights do not exist except when granted by government. Prove me wrong.” I will happily join the ensuing fray.

No. You're trying to give me orders except I don't take them from you. The entire foundation of your argument is sus and I'll stick around and keep pointing them out.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You know what, let me speak clearer. I have no idea what you imagine to be the rational basis for believing in objective moral rights is because I don't believe in them. I can't look up what your rationale is I can only ask you to explain it which you have so far declined to do.

But, you do know what the term means. So it was disengenious for you to say:

You argue in terms of right to do things, I have consistently explained to you that I don't know what that means.

I knew you were being disengenious, so I saw no reason to play along. I hoped that you would finally admit that you - obviously - know what the term means.

Now that you have, I will be happy to explain why "moral rights" (I prefer "ethical rights" but whatev) are indeed an objective and verifiable description of something that clearly exists.

All moral rights stem from the one manifest central moral right which is the right to be left alone, conversely known as the right not to be bothered. If we want to know whether something is a moral right or not, we only need measure it against that right to be left alone, or right not to be bothered.

This right is endowed to us by our creator. Before you spin off in another direction, that "creator" can just as easily be the forces of natural evolution as it could be some diety. Doesn't matter, we can just look at what we have that allows us to protect that right, which the creator (in whatever form) gave us.

Every animal has some form of built-in (evolved in, if you will) way of avoiding being bothered. Fast legs, sharp horns, thick armor, strong jaws, or something. Few animals will just lie down when approached by a predator. Very few, and the ones who do, appear to have evolved it (or been designed with it) as a defensive mechanism against predators who avoid eating carion.

A natural right is "a right to do things," but rather the right not to be bothered when we do. Thus, the natural "right to free speech" is really the right to not be hindered when we do speak. The right to bear arms is the right not to be infringed on when we do bear arms.

Libertarians often speak of "negative rights" and "positive rights." The negative rights are some form of the right to be left alone, and positive rights are some form of "if I need it, you have to give it to me." The second clearly violate the right to be left alone, so it is just as clearly not a description of moral rights.

"Positive rights" means such ideas as "a hungry person has a right to eat, even if means that another person must work for that person's sustenance," or "a sick person has a right to medical care, even if it means that another person must work to pay the doctors." No such thing. No basis in the central moral right to be left alone for that.

I have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't give me the right to require someone to buy me a gun. "A right to water" exists, of course. The Earth is covered about seventy percent with water and it very regularly falls out of the sky. Literally. Drink up, no one has a moral right to stop you. But a right to clean, potable water pumped directly to my house and available in very hot, very cold or anything in between? I have a right to create that for myself, but not for others to provide it for me.

"Legal rights," such as the right to have someone be our slave, or the right to kill other people, do not exist in the form you claim, that is rights which come into existence by law, and can be taken out of existence by law. Something that subject to sudden non-existance cannot be said to have existed in the first place as something so fundamental as a right.

Government cannot grant rights. It can protect rights, it can fail to protect rights, and it can interfere with rights. Rights cannot be created or destroyed by government. The Nazis had no right to kill the Jews, because the Jews had a right to not be killed.

What you call "legal rights" are actually protection of existing rights, or granting of powers that have nothing to do with rights.

In that post I made a clear distinction between moral rights and legal rights. I absolutely understand the rationale for how legal rights come into existence. That is through force.

That is how powers come into existance. You may wish that government powers were the same as rights, but your wishing does not make it true. I'm not going to say, "ok, let's use a completely different definition of 'rights' and debate from there."

Those countries had a legal right to do as they did, as per their laws and their ability to force those laws on to others, rightnup until they lost that ability to a superior force. And even though those countries might have criminalized dissent I think the oppressed would of been prudent to resist oppression.

"Would have" but it would not be solely a matter or prudence. It was not particularly prudent of our founders to sign the Declaration of Independence, which was a literal death warrant for some and could have been for all the signers. They signed it in order to preserve their right to be left alone. People die for that right, they don't die so that they can have more money by not paying taxes.

Your invocation of Nazis doesn't frighten me because it's you who doesn't seem to understand the differences between subjective moral rights (which you haven't even attempted to prove exist with logic and reason)

Well now I have proven it.

and objective legal rights.

There are no legal rights, there are only moral rights which can either be protected, or not protected, by law.

The Founders legalized slavery. That's simply an objective fact.

No, that's not according to my logic, that's according to history. That actually happened. The Founders legalized slavery.

Yes.

So did they give themselves the "right" to own slaves or not? You seem to be more afraid of that question than of Nazis.

And yet declaring themselves independent was not enough to secure their independence. Only force and violence did that.

Resistance to force and violence, I assume you mean?

My argument isn't that personal motivations are non existent, it's that they are entirely subjective. I have my motivations, the Nazis have theirs, you have your own. Which of our motivations can logical be described as objectively and morally right?

The ones that do not interfere with the right to be left alone.

No. You're trying to give me orders except I don't take them from you. The entire foundation of your argument is sus and I'll stick around and keep pointing them out.

Point away, then! I order you to!

 

[Curried Goats]

But, you do know what the term means. So it was disengenious for you to say:


I knew you were being disengenious, so I saw no reason to play along. I hoped that you would finally admit that you - obviously - know what the term means.

Now that you have, I will be happy to explain why "moral rights" (I prefer "ethical rights" but whatev) are indeed an objective and verifiable description of something that clearly exists.

All moral rights stem from the one manifest central moral right which is the right to be left alone, conversely known as the right not to be bothered. If we want to know whether something is a moral right or not, we only need measure it against that right to be left alone, or right not to be bothered.

This right is endowed to us by our creator. Before you spin off in another direction, that "creator" can just as easily be the forces of natural evolution as it could be some diety. Doesn't matter, we can just look at what we have that allows us to protect that right, which the creator (in whatever form) gave us.

Every animal has some form of built-in (evolved in, if you will) way of avoiding being bothered. Fast legs, sharp horns, thick armor, strong jaws, or something. Few animals will just lie down when approached by a predator. Very few, and the ones who do, appear to have evolved it (or been designed with it) as a defensive mechanism against predators who avoid eating carion.

A natural right is "a right to do things," but rather the right not to be bothered when we do. Thus, the natural "right to free speech" is really the right to not be hindered when we do speak. The right to bear arms is the right not to be infringed on when we do bear arms.

Libertarians often speak of "negative rights" and "positive rights." The negative rights are some form of the right to be left alone, and positive rights are some form of "if I need it, you have to give it to me." The second clearly violate the right to be left alone, so it is just as clearly not a description of moral rights.

"Positive rights" means such ideas as "a hungry person has a right to eat, even if means that another person must work for that person's sustenance," or "a sick person has a right to medical care, even if it means that another person must work to pay the doctors." No such thing. No basis in the central moral right to be left alone for that.

I have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't give me the right to require someone to buy me a gun. "A right to water" exists, of course. The Earth is covered about seventy percent with water and it very regularly falls out of the sky. Literally. Drink up, no one has a moral right to stop you. But a right to clean, potable water pumped directly to my house and available in very hot, very cold or anything in between? I have a right to create that for myself, but not for others to provide it for me.

"Legal rights," such as the right to have someone be our slave, or the right to kill other people, do not exist in the form you claim, that is rights which come into existence by law, and can be taken out of existence by law. Something that subject to sudden non-existance cannot be said to have existed in the first place as something so fundamental as a right.

Government cannot grant rights. It can protect rights, it can fail to protect rights, and it can interfere with rights. Rights cannot be created or destroyed by government. The Nazis had no right to kill the Jews, because the Jews had a right to not be killed.

What you call "legal rights" are actually protection of existing rights, or granting of powers that have nothing to do with rights.


That is how powers come into existance. You may wish that government powers were the same as rights, but your wishing does not make it true. I'm not going to say, "ok, let's use a completely different definition of 'rights' and debate from there."

"Would have" but it would not be solely a matter or prudence. It was not particularly prudent of our founders to sign the Declaration of Independence, which was a literal death warrant for some and could have been for all the signers. They signed it in order to preserve their right to be left alone. People die for that right, they don't die so that they can have more money by not paying taxes.

Well now I have proven it.

There are no legal rights, there are only moral rights which can either be protected, or not protected, by law.

So did they give themselves the "right" to own slaves or not? You seem to be more afraid of that question than of Nazis.

Resistance to force and violence, I assume you mean?

The ones that do not interfere with the right to be left alone.

Point away, then! I order you to!

You have not proven that you have a right to be left alone. You may have the desire to be left alone but if I refuse to leave you alone and you can't make me leave you alone then your "right" means absolutely dick.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You have not proven that you have a right to be left alone. You may have the desire to be left alone but if I refuse to leave you alone and you can't make me leave you alone then your "right" means absolutely dick.

That just means that you don't like rights. It doesn't mean that rights don't exist.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

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.

A couple of points on this well written summary

1) Suppose there is someone on that island who gets his kicks from taking food the others have gathered for no other reason that he thinks its fun.

2) Marxist are selfish cowards. They want everything for doing nothing. Now suppose you had those on your island.

I'll also give you this and this is the reason why communism WILL NEVER WORK

Suppose we took all these Marxist and the Crab Thief and put them on the island. Everyone begins like you suggest gathering their own food. Then the crab thief takes everyone's stuff and more people start getting tired of going to get food for him to steal. The people come together to punish the crab thief and to set rules. This is where "A classless society" will never be. There is now a ruling class over the working class all because some jackass wanted to steal from everyone else and others were too lazy to get their own food. Human nature is what Marxism doesn't take into account. In their push to punish the crab thief he has killed the ruling class and is now a dictator. End result of communism, criminals running the show

 

[Curried Goats]

That just means that you don't like rights. It doesn't mean that rights don't exist.

You haven't proven they exist. You claim now that nature gave you a right to be left alone but what nature gave you was personal desire. You may desire to be alone but as we see in Nature where everything is food for something else, that is not your Right.

 

[Curried Goats]

A couple of points on this well written summary

1) Suppose there is someone on that island who gets his kicks from taking food the others have gathered for no other reason that he thinks its fun.

2) Marxist are selfish cowards. They want everything for doing nothing. Now suppose you had those on your island.

I'll also give you this and this is the reason why communism WILL NEVER WORK

Suppose we took all these Marxist and the Crab Thief and put them on the island. Everyone begins like you suggest gathering their own food. Then the crab thief takes everyone's stuff and more people start getting tired of going to get food for him to steal. The people come together to punish the crab thief and to set rules. This is where "A classless society" will never be. There is now a ruling class over the working class all because some jackass wanted to steal from everyone else and others were too lazy to get their own food. Human nature is what Marxism doesn't take into account. In their push to punish the crab thief he has killed the ruling class and is now a dictator. End result of communism, criminals running the show

Your number 1 and 2 could also describe our capitalist Founders who stole the wealth created by the labor of their African slaves in order to enrich themselves and this country. It's not just communists who seek to live off the work of others.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You haven't proven they exist.

I haven't "prooooven" they exist in the sense that nothing can ever be "proved" to a person willing to chant, "that's not proof!"

I provided a clear explanation of the existence of rights. You have offered no rebuttal to any point I made, though you promised to point out when my arguments are "sus."

You claim now that nature gave you a right to be left alone but what nature gave you was personal desire. You may desire to be alone but as we see in Nature where everything is food for something else, that is not your Right.

Sure, it is. Just because rights are violated, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Your refusal to accept or refute my explanation is a function of your desire that people have no rights.

It has been enlightening reading your words. I had not realized how vital the disparaging of right is to the whole philosophy of Marxism/socialism/progressivism. Only in an imagined world with no rights can socialism be brought about. Ironically, they claim to disbelieve the idea of morality so they can do the amoral work always required to bring about and continue socialism and not feel immoral while doing it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

A couple of points on this well written summary

1) Suppose there is someone on that island who gets his kicks from taking food the others have gathered for no other reason that he thinks its fun.

Yes, there will be people like that. They must be dealt with, if the Island is to remain an Island of Enough.

2) Marxist are selfish cowards. They want everything for doing nothing. Now suppose you had those on your island.

Their wants must be ignored so they can slowly starve in their refusal to take care of themselves. If they show any sign of using force, drowning them immediately is the safest option.

I'll also give you this and this is the reason why communism WILL NEVER WORK

Suppose we took all these Marxist and the Crab Thief and put them on the island. Everyone begins like you suggest gathering their own food. Then the crab thief takes everyone's stuff and more people start getting tired of going to get food for him to steal. The people come together to punish the crab thief and to set rules. This is where "A classless society" will never be. There is now a ruling class over the working class all because some jackass wanted to steal from everyone else and others were too lazy to get their own food. Human nature is what Marxism doesn't take into account. In their push to punish the crab thief he has killed the ruling class and is now a dictator. End result of communism, criminals running the show

No, a society will never be classless as the Island of Enough I described would be. In the primitive tribes "discovered" by modern explorers, there were always at least four classes of people:

1) Male hunter-gatherers
2) Female hunter-gatherers
(while both genders were involved in the food-seeking process, roles were split along gender lines in every case)
3) Leaders of the hunter-gathering process, i.e. a "chief" who decided when to move in search of more food, when to stop for the winter, etc.
4) Spiritual leader/healers, i.e. a Shaman of some sort.

Often the Chief and the Shaman roles were filled by one person each, but it was never the same person in any of the discovered tribes. Women often had their own Shaman's, midwives.

In a tribe that fought other humans, there sometimes were "war chiefs" seperate from the hunting chief.

In those tribes, there was what could be called "primitive communism," in which the food was shared. The chief might get first pick of the game, but that is also true for the alpha male of wild dog packs. That type of communism worked for the tribal people for one reason: The tribal people of North America and of Africa had extremely low average IQ's.

Because of that low-IQ, the people could be happy, or at least not unhappy, with a system in which they had "enough." At least had no less than the other people they knew. The Native Americans never quarelled over wooden houses, or even log cabins, because they never invented one. Their housing technology developed over thousands of years, starting perhaps as a skin draped over a low branch, and peaking with portable teepees.

There it stopped. They never even thought to cut a hole in the side of the teepee and sew a flap over it so they could have windows. They never put in a floor other than skins to sleep on. They were not smart. No nomadic tribal hunter-gatherers were, which is why they remained in their primitive state.

Those scores are very low. Such people would now qualify as "Intellectually Disabled" or what used to be called "Mentally Retarded."

Communism could only work in a society of low-intellect. Put a modern socialist on an island with a thousand of those, and he would rub his hands with glee. The modern socialists main source of frustration is the intellect of the people he seeks to dominate. That's why destroying education is the key goal of American socialists.

The frustration that the modern socialist would eventually discover on the "Island of the Low-IQ's" is that without them having the intellectual ability to create and prosper, he would have nothing to take from them. He might make weapons, recruit enforcers and scream at them to "start farming, you morons," but they would not farm because they would not know how, nor be able to devise it.

The socialist ruler will not be able lead the people into a more modern and productive state. If he were capable of leading people to be productive, he would have no reason to be a socialist. He would be a capitalist.

 

[Curried Goats]

I haven't "prooooven" they exist in the sense that nothing can ever be "proved" to a person willing to chant, "that's not proof!"

Your logic simply doesn't hold and your arguments stumble on criticism.

I provided a clear explanation of the existence of rights. You have offered no rebuttal to any point I made, though you promised to point out when my arguments are "sus."

I have. You claim nature gives you the right to be alone by giving you the ability to walk away but all that can be objectively proven is that you have the ability to walk. It is an inference to then make the leap that this ability to walk equals the right to walk. Those are not the same thing and you never really fully explain what the latter is.

Sure, it is. Just because rights are violated, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Your refusal to accept or refute my explanation is a function of your desire that people have no rights.

Your explanation isn't good enough. Do you even understand what objective means? There are two forms of existence in this universe, matter and energy. If you can't see it and you can't measure its force then it can't be said to rationally exist.

It has been enlightening reading your words. I had not realized how vital the disparaging of right is to the whole philosophy of Marxism/socialism/progressivism. Only in an imagined world with no rights can socialism be brought about. Ironically, they claim to disbelieve the idea of morality so they can do the amoral work always required to bring about and continue socialism and still feel moral while doing it.

This speech is entirely ironic. You can't prove morality exists you can only assert that it does with no objective evidence. You think your belief in it is enough to prove its existence? You say look at how it motivates people. Yet we can observe that small children are motivated by their beliefs to leave out milk and cookies for Santa Clause on Christmas Eve, is this enough evidence to prove to you that Santa really exists?

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Your number 1 and 2 could also describe our capitalist Founders who stole the wealth created by the labor of their African slaves in order to enrich themselves and this country. It's not just communists who seek to live off the work of others.

Africans sold their own people as slaves,the real tribe and real history falsely portrayed in "The Woman King" is proof of this. There is also the Barbary Pirates and the Khans so stop acting like slavery is only a white man's creation.

 

[Curried Goats]

Africans sold their own people as slaves,the real tribe and real history falsely portrayed in "The Woman King" is proof of this. There is also the Barbary Pirates and the Khans so stop acting like slavery is only a white man's burden.

I'm aware Africans sold other Africans into slavery, just as white Europeans have slaughtered each other in civil wars throughout the centuries, that all is really besides my critique of our capitalist Founders which you can obviously not refute.

 

[Rust_Cohle]

Yes, there will be people like that. They must be dealt with, if the Island is to remain an Island of Enough.

Their wants must be ignored so they can slowly starve in their refusal to take care of themselves. If they show any sign of using force, drowning them immediately is the safest option.

No, a society will never be classless as the Island of Enough I described would be. In the primitive tribes "discovered" by modern explorers, there were always at least four classes of people:

1) Male hunter-gatherers
2) Female hunter-gatherers
(while both genders were involved in the food-seeking process, roles were split along gender lines in every case)
3) Leaders of the hunter-gathering process, i.e. a "chief" who decided when to move in search of more food, when to stop for the winter, etc.
4) Spiritual leader/healers, i.e. a Shaman of some sort.

Often the Chief and the Shaman roles were filled by one person each, but it was never the same person in any of the discovered tribes. Women often had their own Shaman's, midwives.

In a tribe that fought other humans, there sometimes were "war chiefs" seperate from the hunting chief.

In those tribes, there was what could be called "primitive communism," in which the food was shared. The chief might get first pick of the game, but that is also true for the alpha male of wild dog packs. That type of communism worked for the tribal people for one reason: The tribal people of North America and of Africa had extremely low average IQ's.

Because of that low-IQ, the people could be happy, or at least not unhappy, with a system in which they had "enough." At least had no less than the other people they knew. The Native Americans never quarelled over wooden houses, or even log cabins, because they never invented one. Their housing technology developed over thousands of years, starting perhaps as a skin draped over a low branch, and peaking with portable teepees.

There it stopped. They never even thought to cut a hole in the side of the teepee and sew a flap over it so they could have windows. They never put in a floor other than skins to sleep on. They were not smart. No nomadic tribal hunter-gatherers were, which is why they remained in their primitive state.

View attachment 737280

View attachment 737283

Those scores are very low. Such people would now qualify as "Intellectually Disabled" or what used to be called "Mentally Retarded."

Communism could only work in a society of low-intellect. Put a modern socialist on an island with a thousand of those, and he would rub his hands with glee. The modern socialists main source of frustration is the intellect of the people he seeks to dominate. That's why destroying education is the key goal of American socialists.

The frustration that the modern socialist would eventually discover on the "Island of the Low-IQ's" is that without them having the intellectual ability to create and prosper, he would have nothing to take from them. He might make weapons, recruit enforcers and scream at them to "start farming, you morons," but they would not farm because they would not know how, nor be able to devise it.

The socialist ruler will not be able lead the people into a more modern and productive state. If he were capable of leading people to be productive, he would have no reason to be a socialist. He would be a capitalist.

No argument to any of that

 

[Rust_Cohle]

I'm aware Africans sold other Africans into slavery, just as white Europeans have slaughtered each other in civil wars throughout the centuries, that all is really besides my critique of our capitalist Founders which you can obviously not refute.

Oh but I can, capitalism is still the best we have right now. Not communism, not socialism, not national socialism. With the last three the state ultimately has the final word and it always ends in tyranny

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your logic simply doesn't hold and your arguments stumble on criticism.

I have. You claim nature gives you the right to be alone by giving you the ability to walk away but all that can be objectively proven is that you have the ability to walk. It is an inference to then make the leap that this ability to walk equals the right to walk. Those are not the same thing and you never really fully explain what the latter is.

Again, it is the standard definition that you finally admitted to knowing.

Your explanation isn't good enough. Do you even understand what objective means? There are two forms of existence in this universe, matter and energy. If you can't see it and you can't measure its force then it can't be said to rationally exist.

Enlighten me, sir, on your idea of things being "objectively proven."

Explain what you mean by objectively proven. Please provide several examples of things that you yourself can objectively prove.

I am especially interested in your objective proof that matter and energy exist.

This speech is entirely ironic. You can't prove morality exists you can only assert that it does with no objective evidence. You think your belief in it is enough to prove its existence? You say look at how it motivates people. Yet we can observe that small children are motivated by their beliefs to leave out milk and cookies for Santa Clause on Christmas Eve, is this enough evidence to prove to you that Santa really exists?

I never said that my belief in it is enough to prove its existence. Can you prooooove that I did say that?

 

[Curried Goats]

Oh but I can, capitalism is still the best we have right now. Not communism, not socialism, not national socialism. With the last three the state ultimately has the final word and it always ends in tyranny

There are no real communists and no real free markets capitalist. We all believe in mixed economies the only place we differ is where we think the mix would be. Some of you like only to socialize the military and the police force and some of us all would like to also socialize Healthcare, education and retirement. Tyranny is just a pejorative you use for people who don't agree with your particular mix.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Your number 1 and 2 could also describe our capitalist Founders who stole the wealth created by the labor of their African slaves in order to enrich themselves and this country. It's not just communists who seek to live off the work of others.

Stole it from who?