Beware the Marxist world of Kamalla Harris: "There’s a big difference between equality and equity."

[BrokeLoser]

When a child with poor eyesite in seated in the back of the classroom, and moved to the front and changed seats with a student with no learning barriers,

Is that equity fine with you or not.

Don’t do that…that’s what twisted lefties do…Use a one-off anomaly to justify retarded bullshit.

 

[Winco]

Don’t do that…that’s what twisted lefties do…Use a one-off anomaly to justify retarded bullshit.

Meaning, you don’t understand what Equity really is unless you can use it as a political weapon

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What? Of course I view different inventions differently. Why wouldn't I? A car isn't the same as a boat and a boat isn't the same as a plane. Why wouldn't I view these things differently?

You didn't answer the question. Would you not say that slavery was a fact of life for the slaves?

Slavery is a human invention. Some people suffer under slavery some don't. For the people who suffer under slavery, slavery is a fact of their life. For people who don't suffer under slavery it isn't a fact of their life. I don't get what you're confused about.

You said: "I don't know what you mean by fact of life. I've never been a slave. It's not a fact of my life."

Then you say: "For the people who suffer under slavery, slavery is a fact of their life."

I'm confused because I had to ask you twice if slavery was a fact of life for the slaves. Also, I'm confused about what "fact of life" means to you because you're waffling between even knowing what it means and not knowing what it means and you waffle on what it means.

I believe again that you are confused. Force is a part of nature. Every action, every motion, every chemical response, everything that requires effort and work is force. Force isn't a European invention, private property is. What's different is the application of force. In order to forge the legal fiction that is private ownership of resources you need to apply force or threaten with force anyone who would seek to access those resources. Someone not believing in your legal fiction trying to access that resource is using force and violence in defense of their person. Shooting someone to defend yourself isn't the same as shooting someone to defend your imaginary belief that natural resources belong to you.

All I have to say to that is, if property belongs to you and you acquired it legally, that's not imaginary.

That's what I'm talking about. You don't dictate what I talk about.

Social services and social safety nets have nothing to do with my point that the U.S. is the most prosperous country.

What you're not accounting for is the distribution of a country's wealth. We may be more prosperous as a nation but that wealth is largely held in that hands of a tiny few where European and Asian nations have a much better distribution of their wealth via social safety nets. That's why they life longer, healthier, better educated and happier lives on average with more free time.

Social safety nets have nothing to do with how many rich people there are.

I don't really care about your opinion here.

You're the one who brought up race issues, not me. I thought we were talking about capitalism but you keep bringing up slavery and segregation. If you don't want my opinion on race issues then stick to the fucking topic of capitalism.

Ok. What does that mean? What's fundamental and how do I want to change it?

You've been telling me throughout the entire discussion how you want it changed. Why are you playing dumb now?

Says who? What is fundamental to our system and what makes it so and also why can't we give people resources and the education of what to do with them?

So now you want to give people resources?

When I asked: "Are you suggesting success should just be handed out?"

You said: "I'm saying I prefer to live in a society where the success created by society is celebrated and shared by all."
You're waffling again.

What are your liberties and where do they come from?

You don't know?

Not so long ago that there aren't plenty of living victims.

And? They're no longer victims, are they?

That's not a fact guy, that's an opinion. I got to say you aren't off to a great start with this list....

It was not an opinion about billionaires, you idiot. It was a statement of fact that I don't care that there are billionaires. Jesus Christ.

What is this fact pertaining to? I don't care about you.

Irrelevant. You said you weren't interested in my opinion when I didn't offer one.

Again, what are these facts relevant to? I don't care.

Irrelevant. The point is, they were facts, not opinions.

Buddy you got number 1 wrong.....

Apparently you still don't know the difference between a stated fact and a stated opinion.

Why do I need to?

Because you made the claim, dumbass.

If you want to argue something else is stifled beyond the ability to become a billionaire by a progressive tax structure designed to make it impossible to become one then make that argument. I don't know what else you're talking about.

Of course you don't. That's because you don't even fully understand what you're talking about.

You make it sound like it's so simple but it is anything but. One of the main points that you and many others like you don't understand or think about as it pertains to socialism, distributing wealth and economics in general is the personal accountability factor and personal choices.

Some choose to become rich and some don't. But you want to give some of the riches from the guy who chose to be rich to the guy who didn't. What's more, you want to dictate just how rich the rich guy can be. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

It would also mean that the inefficient, wasteful government apparatus we have now would become even more bloated, inefficient and wasteful.

I live in a democratic society.

Which means we have the right to be as rich as we want. You take that away from the American citizen and we are no longer a democratic society.

I skipped over it because I don't care about musing of your imagination.

Of course you don't. That's because, as I said, you don't care about a person's right or liberty to become rich. But if they do, you care about getting your share of it. It's hypocrisy to the Nth degree.

That's funny. I love quite a few of them I call family. They're not hundreds of millions of dollars sort of rich, I probably have 6 or 8 aunts and uncles with tens of millions of dollars and a bunch of them and cousins and in-laws with millions of dollars.

Did you care then about their right to become rich?

Are we? I dont really care about your opinions, you're the one curious about mine.

So why are you responding to my opinions?

It operates according to how the people in charge want it to, be that dictatorship or democracy or whatever.

Exactly.

To me the fundamental property is subjectivity.

Keep clutching that talisman, by Christ. Goodness knows you can't have a discussion without it.

 

[Curried Goats]

You didn't answer the question. Would you not say that slavery was a fact of life for the slaves?

I did answer your question.

You said: "I don't know what you mean by fact of life. I've never been a slave. It's not a fact of my life."

Then you say: "For the people who suffer under slavery, slavery is a fact of their life."

I'm confused because I had to ask you twice if slavery was a fact of life for the slaves.

In 870 you asked slavery was also an invention but you'd say it was a fact of life, correct?

I didn't fully understand what you were asking. I feel like I've clarified now though I don't know and care less about what your point is.

Also, I'm confused about what "fact of life" means to you because you're waffling between even knowing what it means and not knowing what it means and you waffle on what it means.

I mean that if you're a slave slavery is a fact of your life and if you're not a slave it isn't.

All I have to say to that is, if property belongs to you and you acquired it legally, that's not imaginary.

The moral justification for the use of force against others required to maintain that state of reality is. Force is force, whether used by individuals, gangs, or governments. That was ultimately my point to the libertarian.

Social services and social safety nets have nothing to do with my point that the U.S. is the most prosperous country.

I don't care about your points. I don't care about your arguments. I care only about answering questions you have about my arguments because that pertains to me and feeds my ego.

Social safety nets have nothing to do with how many rich people there are.

Productivity determines abundance and depending on the priorities of a society that abundance can enrich a few greatly or many more evenly. The more resources we allow to be concentrated in the hands of a few the less there is for everyone else.

You're the one who brought up race issues, not me. I thought we were talking about capitalism but you keep bringing up slavery and segregation. If you don't want my opinion on race issues then stick to the fucking topic of capitalism.

You're asking me about my opinions, I don't give a shit about yours.

You've been telling me throughout the entire discussion how you want it changed. Why are you playing dumb now?

I do want change. I don't know what you mean by fundamental change. But I also care less and less the more tedious this gets.

So now you want to give people resources?

When I asked: "Are you suggesting success should just be handed out?"

You said: "I'm saying I prefer to live in a society where the success created by society is celebrated and shared by all."
You're waffling again.

Giving people resources implies they're mine to give.

And? They're no longer victims, are they?

They're not compensated victims. They are victims who have yet to receive justice.

It was not an opinion about billionaires, you idiot. It was a statement of fact that I don't care that there are billionaires. Jesus Christ.

It's a statement about your feelings, yes?

Irrelevant. You said you weren't interested in my opinion when I didn't offer one.


Irrelevant. The point is, they were facts, not opinions.

I don't care about your irrelevant facts either.

Which means we have the right to be as rich as we want. You take that away from the American citizen and we are no longer a democratic society.

It's a democratic society so long as there is democracy.

Of course you don't. That's because, as I said, you don't care about a person's right or liberty to become rich. But if they do, you care about getting your share of it. It's hypocrisy to the Nth degree.

What right or liberty? What even is a right or liberty and where does it come from? Is it an objective thing or subjective thing? Why would I care about something you haven't defined? It's not hypocrisy, it's naked self interest. It's the libertarians who are the hypocrites. Who think force beyond self defense is immoral while at the same time believing force used to forge private property justified. I don't pretend my desires coincidentally align with righteousness or god or nature beyond my own nature.

So why are you responding to my opinions?

I respond to questions you have about my arguments because they're about me and arguments you imagine to be objective, like the one about a person's right and liberty to be rich, because I find them amusing.

Exactly.

Keep clutching that talisman, by Christ. Goodness knows you can't have a discussion without it.

Believing there is some sort of objective definition of rights and liberty is a talisman. I take a rational view of these things.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I did answer your question.

After asking twice.

In 870 you asked slavery was also an invention but you'd say it was a fact of life, correct?

I didn't fully understand what you were asking. I feel like I've clarified now though I don't know and care less about what your point is.

But you cared about your point, didn't you?

I mean that if you're a slave slavery is a fact of your life and if you're not a slave it isn't.

Right. But this contradicts what you said about inequality being a fact of capitalism but not a fact of life. That was my point; if capitalism and slavery are both inventions and both have inequality as essential elements and that slavery was a fact of life for slaves, logic dictates that capitalism is also a fact of life for those who live and work in that system.

The moral justification for the use of force against others required to maintain that state of reality is. Force is force, whether used by individuals, gangs, or governments. That was ultimately my point to the libertarian.

You said: "Someone not believing in your legal fiction..." and "...your imaginary belief that natural resources belong to you."
If one owns property and acquired it legally, it is not fiction or imaginary.

I don't care about your points. I don't care about your arguments. I care only about answering questions you have about my arguments because that pertains to me and feeds my ego.

You're the one bringing up social safety nets in the context of capitalism and billionaires. It is not necessary to eliminate billionaires for the government to provide social safety nets. That is a fact.

Productivity determines abundance and depending on the priorities of a society that abundance can enrich a few greatly or many more evenly.

Productivity is commensurate with demand; if people are not buying then the company will not produce. Giving a share of the resources or profits will not change that.

The more resources we allow to be concentrated in the hands of a few the less there is for everyone else.

Someone who has need of social safety nets will likely not have the means to exploit resources.

You're asking me about my opinions, I don't give a shit about yours.

Then why are you asking me for opinions? You asked me what I thought we should do about the disabled. If you don't give a shit about my opinions, why did you ask?

I do want change. I don't know what you mean by fundamental change. But I also care less and less the more tedious this gets.

You want to change capitalism to where it is no longer capitalism. If you don't see that as fundamental change then you either don't know what the word means or you're playing dumb again to avoid answering questions or critically examining your views.

Giving people resources implies they're mine to give.

And have you? Given resources?

They're not compensated victims. They are victims who have yet to receive justice.

And they probably never will or they will all have passed on by the time reparations comes to pass. In the meantime, their children and childrens' children are busying themselves looking for racism and white supremacy in mathematics and Corn Flakes.

It's a statement about your feelings, yes?

No, it's a statement about my lack of feeling on the matter. I don't hold any particular opinion about billionaires one way or the other. You do.

Is it fact or opinion that you don't care about my opinions?

I don't care about your irrelevant facts either.

You cared enough to characterize my statement as opinion when it was not.

It's a democratic society so long as there is democracy.

Which, again, means one can be as rich as they want. So long as they do so legally.

On a side note, the U.S. is not a democracy, we are a democratic republic or a constitutional republic.

The word gets tossed around a lot and I've used it myself. But strictly speaking, we are not a democracy. We are only a democracy within the paradigm of opposing views of free societies vs. restrictive societies.

What right or liberty?

To become as rich as they want.

What even is a right or liberty and where does it come from?

Again, you don't know?

You said in Post #794: "I'm not against rights, I just think we should recognize them for what they actually are, which are creations of society and law and government, rather than these magical things that exist in nature."

We both know our rights and liberties subjectively come from the government and is enforced by law and, according to the above quote, you've already stated that you're okay with this arrangement. But when I mention rights and liberties as they pertain to earning money and becoming rich, suddenly subjectivism of rights is a problem. Why?

Is it an objective thing or subjective thing? Why would I care about something you haven't defined? It's not hypocrisy, it's naked self interest. It's the libertarians who are the hypocrites. Who think force beyond self defense is immoral while at the same time believing force used to forge private property justified. I don't pretend my desires coincidentally align with righteousness or god or nature beyond my own nature.

The hypocrisy is thinking you have a right to a share of the rich man's money while taking away his right to be as rich as he chooses.

I respond to questions you have about my arguments because they're about me and arguments you imagine to be objective, like the one about a person's right and liberty to be rich, because I find them amusing.

Bullshit. You've been responding to my opinions by asking questions about them. I already proved that above when I cited your question about the disabled.

Believing there is some sort of objective definition of rights and liberty is a talisman.

I never said there was. That's the libertarian's thing as you have repeatedly pointed out.

I take a rational view of these things.

Your views on capitalism are based on your feelings just like everyone else's.

 

[Curried Goats]

Right. But this contradicts what you said about inequality being a fact of capitalism but not a fact of life. That was my point; if capitalism and slavery are both inventions and both have inequality as essential elements and that slavery was a fact of life for slaves, logic dictates that capitalism is also a fact of life for those who live and work in that system.

Logic would dictate that slavery is a fact of life for people who live under slavery, that however doesn't represent a contradiction of what I said, it only represents another misunderstanding by you. When I said it wasn't a fact of life I meant it wasn't a natural condition of mankind. Needing to breath in oxygen is fact of human biological life. Slavery isn't that.

You said: "Someone not believing in your legal fiction..." and "...your imaginary belief that natural resources belong to you."
If one owns property and acquired it legally, it is not fiction or imaginary.

It is the defintion of a legal fiction. That's what laws are. The only thing that makes your claim to resources objectively real is your ability to use force to maintain your actual dominion of it. Laws are just societies subjective justifications for the use of that force. Claiming the law says this land is yours and then beating anyone trying to access it is functionally no different than claiming God (the Muslim one) or the Easter Bunny said it was yours. What makes any of that true in the sense that it can be true is you being able to force everyone else into respecting it.

You're the one bringing up social safety nets in the context of capitalism and billionaires. It is not necessary to eliminate billionaires for the government to provide social safety nets. That is a fact.

It is a fact but not one that I care about. I never said it was necessary to eliminate billionaires to have social safety nets. My opposition to billionaires has more to do with wanting to avoid such large concentrations of wealth and leverage in one place in the same way we try to avoid monopolies.

Productivity is commensurate with demand; if people are not buying then the company will not produce. Giving a share of the resources or profits will not change that.

Who said anything about the goal of safety nets being to help raise demand for a companies products? What?

Someone who has need of social safety nets will likely not have the means to exploit resources.

The only means one requires to exploit natural resources is the desire and liberty to do so without violence and molestation.

Then why are you asking me for opinions? You asked me what I thought we should do about the disabled. If you don't give a shit about my opinions, why did you ask?

Because that pertained to some counter argument you were fashioning. I wanted you to clarify your argument. I don't care about your opinions on what you think black people need to do.

You want to change capitalism to where it is no longer capitalism. If you don't see that as fundamental change then you either don't know what the word means or you're playing dumb again to avoid answering questions or critically examining your views.

You have to do more than just say that. Explain the fundamental change to capitalism you imagine me to be making.

And have you? Given resources?

Again, this assumes they are anyone's to give. Qualify that first.

And they probably never will or they will all have passed on by the time reparations comes to pass. In the meantime, their children and childrens' children are busying themselves looking for racism and white supremacy in mathematics and Corn Flakes.

I still don't care about your racist opinions.

No, it's a statement about my lack of feeling on the matter. I don't hold any particular opinion about billionaires one way or the other. You do.

Is it fact or opinion that you don't care about my opinions?


You cared enough to characterize my statement as opinion when it was not.

What you care or don't care about is a representation of your subjective feelings, Moron. Whether or not you are sharing your real feelings with us is besides that point that I was making.

Which, again, means one can be as rich as they want. So long as they do so legally.

Unless the law is changed to say otherwise and then they can't. Legally just means whatever the law allows.

On a side note, the U.S. is not a democracy, we are a democratic republic or a constitutional republic.

The word gets tossed around a lot and I've used it myself. But strictly speaking, we are not a democracy. We are only a democracy within the paradigm of opposing views of free societies vs. restrictive societies.

We are both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. They all describe differenct aspects of our government. When people say we're a democracy they are referring to the fact that we vote on people to represent us in government.

To become as rich as they want.


Again, you don't know?

You said in Post #794: "I'm not against rights, I just think we should recognize them for what they actually are, which are creations of society and law and government, rather than these magical things that exist in nature."

We both know our rights and liberties subjectively come from the government and is enforced by law and, according to the above quote, you've already stated that you're okay with this arrangement. But when I mention rights and liberties as they pertain to earning money and becoming rich, suddenly subjectivism of rights is a problem. Why?

It's not a problem. It's an acknowledgment that when you talk about rights and liberties you're talking about them within the framework of what society allows. Rights and liberties are whatever society say they are. If society says you don't have the right to be a billionaire then you don't.

The hypocrisy is thinking you have a right to a share of the rich man's money while taking away his right to be as rich as he chooses.

What's hypocritical about that? What even constitutes a rich man's money or property is whatever society says it is. I thought we just went over that? The only thing that would make me a hypocrit in this scenario if I thought I should be afforded a democratic say while denying him the same. His choice in this instance is expressed through voting for representatives who will craft law to recognize property as he does.

Bullshit. You've been responding to my opinions by asking questions about them. I already proved that above when I cited your question about the disabled.

Because it pertained to some argument you imagined fashioning against me.

I never said there was. That's the libertarian's thing as you have repeatedly pointed out.

Your views on capitalism are based on your feelings just like everyone else's.

Yep. That was my point to the libertarian. You decided to turn that simple point into all this.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Logic would dictate that slavery is a fact of life for people who live under slavery, that however doesn't represent a contradiction of what I said, it only represents another misunderstanding by you. When I said it wasn't a fact of life I meant it wasn't a natural condition of mankind. Needing to breath in oxygen is fact of human biological life. Slavery isn't that.

Oh for fuck's sake.

It is the defintion of a legal fiction. That's what laws are.

No. A legal fiction would be something purported to be legal but is not. If something is legal, it's legal.

Laws are not fiction, they're just not bestowed on us by some deity. Why you seem to think this makes a difference is beyond me.

The only thing that makes your claim to resources objectively real is your ability to use force to maintain your actual dominion of it. Laws are just societies subjective justifications for the use of that force. Claiming the law says this land is yours and then beating anyone trying to access it is functionally no different than claiming God (the Muslim one) or the Easter Bunny said it was yours. What makes any of that true in the sense that it can be true is you being able to force everyone else into respecting it.

Okay.

It is a fact but not one that I care about.

I didn't ask.

I never said it was necessary to eliminate billionaires to have social safety nets.

But you do think it's necessary to divide wealth equally, yes?

My opposition to billionaires has more to do with wanting to avoid such large concentrations of wealth and leverage in one place in the same way we try to avoid monopolies.

If wealth can be created and grown, what difference does it make how many billionaires there are?

Who said anything about the goal of safety nets being to help raise demand for a companies products? What?

You said: "Productivity determines abundance and depending on the priorities of a society that abundance can enrich a few greatly or many more evenly."

It would be more to the point to say that demand determines productivity. Beyond that, the abundance should enrich those who invest the most or put the most work or make the better business decisions.

The only means one requires to exploit natural resources is the desire and liberty to do so without violence and molestation.

First, you've been saying that force and violence - or the threat thereof - are inherent in the acquisition and protection of property . I assumed you meant this in the same way inequality is inherent in capitalism. Secondly, we, individually, already have the liberty to exploit resources. Third, a person in need of social safety nets (welfare, food stamps, disability, etc.) will likely not have the means to exploit resources. Unless, again, you are suggesting we just give it away or portion it out evenly to those who both put more effort and money into its exploitation and those who put less.

Because that pertained to some counter argument you were fashioning. I wanted you to clarify your argument. I don't care about your opinions on what you think black people need to do.

Irrelevant. That wasn't in regards to blacks, it was in regards to the disabled.

That said, asking questions for clarification is the very purpose of asking questions. It's the reason I do it and it's the reason you do it. But you pretend you don't care about opinions but ask questions for clarification anyway. As you do, you assiduously declare throughout the discussion that you don't care about my opinion.

It's ridiculous and hypocritical. You put up this facade that you are above it all; that you don't care, that the other person's opinions are subjective, laughable and stupid; that you are only here for personal amusement and that you are a superior debater. The whole time you're doing exactly what everyone else is doing: debating opinions and being wrong just as much as they are.

You have to do more than just say that. Explain the fundamental change to capitalism you imagine me to be making.

You have already explained the changes you would like to make.

But if you insist on continuing this charade of ignorance, capitalism works to where one gets out of it what he puts into it, provided that the investment of money, decisions and efforts are well placed. You want to spread the money around to everyone, including those who put less into it or are just not capable of making the right choices of investment, decisions and effort. That is not capitalism, that is a welfare state.

Again, this assumes they are anyone's to give. Qualify that first.

So you haven't. Rather hypocritical to demand others hand out resources when you won't.

I still don't care about your racist opinions.

Then why did you bring up race?

What you care or don't care about is a representation of your subjective feelings, Moron. Whether or not you are sharing your real feelings with us is besides that point that I was making.

Like I said, I have no feelings one way or the other about billionaires. Hence, the FACT that I don't care that they exist.

We've gone over this before when we talked about liking/not liking certain foods. A statement about the quality of taste of spinach is an opinion. That someone likes or dislikes spinach is a fact.

Unless the law is changed to say otherwise and then they can't. Legally just means whatever the law allows.

Yes. What's your point?

We are both a representative democracy and a constitutional republic. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. They all describe differenct aspects of our government. When people say we're a democracy they are referring to the fact that we vote on people to represent us in government.

No shit.

It's not a problem. It's an acknowledgment that when you talk about rights and liberties you're talking about them within the framework of what society allows. Rights and liberties are whatever society say they are. If society says you don't have the right to be a billionaire then you don't.

Again, we both know this. So what's your point?

What's hypocritical about that?

It's hypocritical because he is contributing more to the system than you are and most likely always will.

What even constitutes a rich man's money or property is whatever society says it is. I thought we just went over that?

Our society right now says that a man or woman has the right to make as much money as they want. This is what bothers you.

The only thing that would make me a hypocrit in this scenario if I thought I should be afforded a democratic say while denying him the same. His choice in this instance is expressed through voting for representatives who will craft law to recognize property as he does.

No. Hypocrisy is thinking you're entitled to money you didn't earn.

Because it pertained to some argument you imagined fashioning against me.

In Post #854 I said: "Rights are equal opportunity to try to achieve success. No one has a right to have success and we shouldn't."

Post 856 is where you responded to my comment with your question: "So what about disabled people? Let them starve and die if they have no loved ones to care for them?"

Please explain to me how my comment was an argument "fashioned" against you.

Yep. That was my point to the libertarian. You decided to turn that simple point into all this.

Irrelevant. You said I believe there is some sort of objective definition of rights and liberty when I said nothing of the sort.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I have many sources, but everything I said is a well-established fact and hence easily verifiable. When I say that capitalism relies on wages or wage labor, that's a fact. Labor produces goods and services and the money that customers use to purchase those goods and services. Without human wage labor, and paying consumers who purchase everything with their wages, there's no market, hence no capitalism or capitalists. I don't need to cite scholars or encyclopedias for that. I could, but anyone with a simple google search can verify for themselves, the importance of wages.

If advanced automation and artificial intelligence replace most jobs, as it will in the near future, then society is forced by necessity to adopt a marketless, non-profit, rationally planned, system of mass production. That's just common sense.

What you will have is drones living their government supplied apartments that are exactly the same and furnished the same as every other person’s government provided housing. You will eat what you are provided, you will live where you are told to, if you want to travel, you will have to ask permission to ride on government provided transportation. If you want to see what that will be like for the average citizen,look at the PRC and USSR in the fifties and sixties. Oh and the high ranking members of the governmental bureaucracies will live better than billionaires do now. You are either young, inexperienced and foolishly idealistic, or old and stupid to think that is better than the system we have now. The real world isn’t Star Trek.

 

[TruthNotBS]

What you will have is drones living their government supplied apartments that are exactly the same and furnished the same as every other person’s government provided housing. You will eat what you are provided, you will live where you are told to, if you want to travel, you will have to ask permission to ride on government provided transportation. If you want to see what that will be like for the average citizen,look at the PRC and USSR in the fifties and sixties. Oh and the high ranking members of the governmental bureaucracies will live better than billionaires do now. You are either young, inexperienced and foolishly idealistic, or old and stupid to think that is better than the system we have now. The real world isn’t Star Trek.

What you will have is drones living their government-supplied apartments that are exactly the same and furnished the same as every other person’s government provided housing.

People aren't drones, they're human beings. Furthermore, you have zero evidence, that if the government guarantees basic housing for everyone who doesn't have it, it all has to have the same specifications or design. Even if that were the case, the housing could meet everyone's needs and be much better than homelessness. Do you prefer homelessness? Mind you, if you already own your home, then you would keep it. There would be no need for you to move into a public housing unit if you already have housing. Do you realize that? The people that will benefit from public housing, are those who need it, not those who already have a home.

You will eat what you are provided, you will live where you are told to, if you want to travel, you will have to ask permission to ride on government provided transportation.

That's false, you're just making crap up, and fearmongering. Advanced automation and artificial intelligence will provide us all with abundance. We will have more control over our government than we have today and we will organize production in such a way that it meets all of our needs, creating a much higher standard of living for all of us. You will have more options as to where you can live, if you don't already own your home and you will have freedom of travel, including more access to public transit. So your silly claims amount to nothing more than creating fear and disempowering the working-class.

If you want to see what that will be like for the average citizen,look at the PRC and USSR in the fifties and sixties. Oh and the high ranking members of the governmental bureaucracies will live better than billionaires do now. You are either young, inexperienced and foolishly idealistic, or old and stupid to think that is better than the system we have now. The real world isn’t Star Trek.

Nice try, but you've failed to provide a rational argument as to why the rich should own everything and the working class should remain under the heel of their wealthy employers (exploiters). Your capitalist Cold War propaganda amounts to exaggerated claims and outright lies. The point is that, whatever happened in the 20th century grandpa, is irrelevant to the conditions we're in today, thanks to advanced production technology. Even with the lack of technology available in the 20th century the USSR was still the second-largest economy in the world, despite all of the challenges and obstacles it had to overcome.

The system that we have now will become much worse as technology eliminates the need for wages or jobs, hence this will force society to adopt a non-profit, marketless, more democratic, publicly owned, and rationally planned system of mass production. That's the solution, not putting people on a UBI (i.e. Universal Basic Income) or UI (i.e. Universal Income) which is nothing more than a ploy to maintain capitalism on life-support (UBI = Another bailout for capitalists, that keeps capitalism on life support). It doesn't matter how you feel about it grandpa, that's what's going to happen, due to advanced automation and artificial intelligence:

​

There's no more need for capitalism or capitalists, we're entering the age of publicly owned, non-profit production:

The Age Of Capitalism Is Over. The Age Of National Socialism Begins. ​

 

[Curried Goats]

Oh for fuck's sake.


No. A legal fiction would be something purported to be legal but is not. If something is legal, it's legal.

Laws are not fiction, they're just not bestowed on us by some deity. Why you seem to think this makes a difference is beyond me.

They are bestowed by force. That's the only thing objectively real in the entire legal process. When I call them fiction I mean the beliefs that authorize them are imaginary. The right to life, liberty and property these are subjective opinions as imaginary as believing that you're gods representative on earth or the rightful ruler and King of all that you see, those beliefs are only made real by the application of force. I am in fact saying that there is no objective difference between forcing someone to bow to your religion by force, your law by force, or your gun by force. Force is force.

Again, the point I was making to the libertarian and the point he understood and walked away from addressing is that inalienable rights aren't objectively real. You have no objective right to own property, just a subjective one that you use force on others to make them respect.

But you do think it's necessary to divide wealth equally, yes?

Nope.

If wealth can be created and grown, what difference does it make how many billionaires there are?

Wealth is leverage. The fact that people could possibly gain more leverage doesn't address the danger in allowing some to hold that much leverage over others and the economy.

You said: "Productivity determines abundance and depending on the priorities of a society that abundance can enrich a few greatly or many more evenly."

It would be more to the point to say that demand determines productivity. Beyond that, the abundance should enrich those who invest the most or put the most work or make the better business decisions.

That's not to the point. Demand doesn't drive productivity. Productivity determines abundance, the whims of capitalists determines productivity and leverage determines the share of abundance that goes to Capitalists verses laborers.

First, you've been saying that force and violence - or the threat thereof - are inherent in the acquisition and protection of property . I assumed you meant this in the same way inequality is inherent in capitalism.

I did. When I say all that all is required for people to exploit natural resources is the liberty to do so without violence I'm talking about a world without private property. If no one person had claim to natural resources then all would be free to access and exploit them for their own desires. In that instance I would agree with you that demand determines productivity because everyone would be working for themselves to meet their own demands.

It's ridiculous and hypocritical. You put up this facade that you are above it all; that you don't care, that the other person's opinions are subjective, laughable and stupid; that you are only here for personal amusement and that you are a superior debater. The whole time you're doing exactly what everyone else is doing: debating opinions and being wrong just as much as they are.

See you did miss my point. My point to libertarian wasnt that I was better than him, it was that those like him crowing about violations of their inalienable equal rights use force to impose their subjective will just like everybody else.

You have already explained the changes you would like to make.

But if you insist on continuing this charade of ignorance, capitalism works to where one gets out of it what he puts into it, provided that the investment of money, decisions and efforts are well placed.

That's not how capitalism works. Productivity has gone up in this country while wages have remained stagnant because how much laborers get out of their productivity must be leveraged. There is no unbiased arbiter determining who gets what based on how hard they worked. There are only individuals or groups of individuals using wealth, skills and circumstance to leverage one another. Regardless of all that I'm not anti capitalist. I don't know what fundamental change you're referring to. Higher taxes and a larger social safety net isn't a fundamental change. It's a difference of degree.

You want to spread the money around to everyone, including those who put less into it or are just not capable of making the right choices of investment, decisions and effort. That is not capitalism, that is a welfare state.

Less in this instance constitues your subjective opinion.

So you haven't. Rather hypocritical to demand others hand out resources when you won't.

What?

Like I said, I have no feelings one way or the other about billionaires. Hence, the FACT that I don't care that they exist.

We've gone over this before when we talked about liking/not liking certain foods. A statement about the quality of taste of spinach is an opinion. That someone likes or dislikes spinach is a fact.

Yes, it's a fact that you don't care and also your opinion in regards to billionaires. It's both. I wasn't suggesting you were lying about how you felt towards billionaires I was saying I don't give a shit how you feel about billionaires. Fucking christ you're a moron.

Yes. What's your point?


No shit.


Again, we both know this. So what's your point?

In Post 870 you accuse me of not caring about a person's right and liberty to become rich. This to me expresses the idea that you think this right and liberty to become rich is some objective thing. If you really understood them to be subjective then you'd understand that I simply care about them in different manner than you do.

It's hypocritical because he is contributing more to the system than you are and most likely always will.

In what manner is more here an objective determination?

Our society right now says that a man or woman has the right to make as much money as they want. This is what bothers you.

And people are looking to politics for a more equitable distribution of wealth and this bothers you. So what?

No. Hypocrisy is thinking you're entitled to money you didn't earn.

Says who? It's the force of law that determines who is entitled to what.

In Post #854 I said: "Rights are equal opportunity to try to achieve success. No one has a right to have success and we shouldn't."

Post 856 is where you responded to my comment with your question: "So what about disabled people? Let them starve and die if they have no loved ones to care for them?"

Please explain to me how my comment was an argument "fashioned" against you.

That's you attempting a counter argument, innit? By arguing as if rights are objective things when rights are whatever society says they are.

Irrelevant. You said I believe there is some sort of objective definition of rights and liberty when I said nothing of the sort.

So then people can have a right to success? Or maybe success means something else to you other than favorable outcomes?

 

[SweetTea]

Wrong. You are a child. And there is a lot you still don't know.

Maybe she is a child, but she seems to be quite a bit more informed than most. She is the exception, not the rule.

Funny though, most “children” vote for liberals. I do agree they tend to be less informed and most certainly less wise, which explains quite a few things. It should tell you a little something about yourself that you tend to agree with these less than wise children. Alas, it won’t sink in.

 

[SweetTea]

So do you support the felon party?

More felons are Democrats by a HUGE margin. Try again.

 

[dblack]

The Age Of Capitalism Is Over. The Age Of National Socialism Begins.

Sure.. any day now.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Sure.. any day now.

Yes indeed.

 

[dblack]

Yes indeed.

Prolly just need more memes!

MOAR MEMES!!!!!

 

[TruthNotBS]

Prolly just need more memes!

MOAR MEMES!!!!!

Memes can and often reflect facts and the truth, but of course you're against that. You're a black man who loves to serve his masta.

 

[dblack]

Memes can and often reflect facts and the truth, but of course you're against that. You're a black man who loves to serve his masta.

LOL - yes, you know me so well. Dipshit.

Meme on.

 

[TruthNotBS]

LOL - yes, you know me so well. Dipshit.

Meme on.

That's right punk, I know you well.

 

[TruthNotBS]

• 
  

Reactions:dblack

Laughing nervously is all that a pathetic Uncle Tom punk like you can do. Go ahead keep laughing, but in real life, I will have the last laugh. Now laugh again and delude yourself into thinking you've won something, punk.

 

[dblack]

Laughing nervously is all that a pathetic Uncle Tom punk like you can do. Go ahead keep laughing, but in real life, I will have the last laugh. Now laugh again and delude yourself into thinking you've won something, punk.

You're making an (even bigger) idiot out of yourself. I'm not black.