Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

The problem with your theory is that in those days a majority of Americans were land holders. There weren't a lot of large cities over populated with ticks on the ass of society. Madison considered owning land a sign that you were responsible enough to vote.

And now we have partly recognized how stupid the idea of "not being responsible enough to vote" means in a Democracy. In a true-to-form Democracy economic standing cannot have influence in the vote. If policy decisions are made that influence your life, whether you are homeless or not you must be able to vote in a genuine Democracy. Not only to vote but to make an informed vote so that the Democracy, like it does in Germany, provides money to small platforms who get 5% of the vote or more.

But I don't know where you got the idea that I believe "in those days a majority of Americans were land holders." Can you explain where you picked them from? Because I know I didn't say that but I'd be curious to see why you think so.

Your term "self determined" is meaningless. Your belief that everyone has to have a multi-million dollar inheritance to be "self determined" would make any form of the concept impossible, wouldn't it?

Despite most people not having what you call "the resource to survive," Many Americans become wealthy and some even become billionaires. That kind of blows your theory that it can't be done out of the water.

First it wasn't my term. Please don't butt in on conversations you have no interest in following.

Second, you have a really bad habit of drawing up strawmen. I never claimed people have rights to inheritance. So blowing your own strawman out of the water is pretty funny to watch but please stop drawing ideas from your bank of "stupid things I believe liberals would say" since nothing you've accused me of has had any grounding in the posts I've made but in some lunatic leftist you have in your head.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.

But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?

So let me get this straight.

If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?

So you've taken one founder's writings, related them to a few aspects of our constitutional guidelines that they clearly influenced, and concluded that the implications you've drawn definitely represent the primary purpose for the founding of our country? Is it that I don't study, or is it that you've decided that your rather far fetched conclusion is gospel and that I'm ignorant for not agreeing? Charmingly self righteous. The more I talk to Marxists, the more they remind me of fundamentalist Christians.

Next up: Government is regulation. Democracy is a system of government. Regulation -is-, in fact, -core- to the discussion of Democracy, since all we're talking about is an arrangement for how society decides upon regulations.

My criticisms regarding the complexity of our legislation, also, wasn't directed at the concept of Democracy. It was in direct response to your continued referral to our system of government as an oligarchy. When I talk about the ridiculous regulation scheme, I'm simply pointing out that a representative republic isn't automatically an oligarchy, and that it's only through exploitation of the amount of power we've given our officials that we have -become- an oligarchy. I specified in my post that the American system is the system I prefer, and the discussion of how it became an oligarchy was my concession that the current manifestation of that system is fucked up beyond recognition, and obviously not what it is that I'm in support of.

Not only was this all an explanation of what I view as the ideal form of government, which is what you've been asking about in general throughout this discussion, but it's also a direct response to your oligarchy label. It is literally in response to your question and your commentary.

If you don't want to debate these points, feel free to say so, but when they're direct responses to everything you've been saying and yet you persist to claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion, you're either being dishonest or stupid. I'll let you choose.

Lastly, yes, circumstances affect the number of choices one has. Where we disagree is that you're implying that subjugating people economically to ensure that the poor have more choices allows for more self determination than allowing circumstance to potentially leave people impoverished.

Part of your implication is that shitty circumstances imply less self determination. This is not the case, it simply implies less effective influence on one's environment. The person in question, whether impoverished or not, is either free to do as they will or they are not, and that is not a function of how successfully their available choices are likely to achieve their desired results.

"Economic freedom" means having a certain amount of wealth, and that's why it's a bullshit term and a bullshit concept. Wealth is the physical representation of means. Means is a synonym for power. Power is -not- a synonym for freedom.

If power and freedom are different, then stepping on one man's self determination so that another man has more potency behind his own self determination is not trading freedom for freedom, it's trading freedom for power.

I value shared freedom over shared power. You, clearly, do not.

 

[gnarlylove]

If you ask me, self determination is freedom. The amount of stuff you're able to get ahold of is a separate concept.

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.

But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?

So let me get this straight.

If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?

So you've taken one founder's writings, related them to a few aspects of our constitutional guidelines that they clearly influenced, and concluded that the implications you've drawn definitely represent the primary purpose for the founding of our country? Is it that I don't study, or is it that you've decided that your rather far fetched conclusion is gospel and that I'm ignorant for not agreeing? Charmingly self righteous. The more I talk to Marxists, the more they remind me of fundamentalist Christians.

Next up: Government is regulation. Democracy is a system of government. Regulation -is-, in fact, -core- to the discussion of Democracy, since all we're talking about is an arrangement for how society decides upon regulations.

My criticisms regarding the complexity of our legislation, also, wasn't directed at the concept of Democracy. It was in direct response to your continued referral to our system of government as an oligarchy. When I talk about the ridiculous regulation scheme, I'm simply pointing out that a representative republic isn't automatically an oligarchy, and that it's only through exploitation of the amount of power we've given our officials that we have -become- an oligarchy. I specified in my post that the American system is the system I prefer, and the discussion of how it became an oligarchy was my concession that the current manifestation of that system is fucked up beyond recognition, and obviously not what it is that I'm in support of.

Not only was this all an explanation of what I view as the ideal form of government, which is what you've been asking about in general throughout this discussion, but it's also a direct response to your oligarchy label. It is literally in response to your question and your commentary.

If you don't want to debate these points, feel free to say so, but when they're direct responses to everything you've been saying and yet you persist to claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion, you're either being dishonest or stupid. I'll let you choose.

Lastly, yes, circumstances affect the number of choices one has. Where we disagree is that you're implying that subjugating people economically to ensure that the poor have more choices allows for more self determination than allowing circumstance to potentially leave people impoverished.

Part of your implication is that shitty circumstances imply less self determination. This is not the case, it simply implies less effective influence on one's environment.
The person in question, whether impoverished or not, is either free to do as they will or they are not, and that is not a function of how successfully their available choices are likely to achieve their desired results.

What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life. You act like poor people are free but that's because you've never been or associated yourself with such a person. So in your mind, a poor person is just like you except they lack money. Turns out it's much more complicated then that. Certain people are not allowed to cross boarders due to economic status that led to class 3 misdemeanor. This includes me, stealing bread for myself and friends prevented me from going to Canada for a week and it was Canadian law to lock me up for trying. There are major restrictions on movement if your a poor person who made the mistake of trying to steal bread for yourself or family.

Being poor means you cannot travel. Unless you have literally nothing, then travel means you need a vehicle with insurance that you likely do not have and cannot afford. Tickets for transport allow you to carry very little of personal belongings and charge you for even the most basic luggage. Poverty reduces one's ability to obtain sufficient calories leaving one exhausted more readily, as does lack of sleep (for sleeping on bad mattresses or the floor). Turns out that cops have targeted poor people for decades and with pre-crime being developed, this will sky-rocket even beyond what it is which already we know, or at least I do, have local laws that criminalize poverty, like sleeping on sidewalks, parks during after hours, no sleeping on benches, no loitering.

I like your child's idea of what poverty is like, that they are totally free to be not poor and autonomous, but you clearly have one mouth full of no information regarding what it means to be poor and how that relates to a lack of being able to have genuine self-determination. Speaking of subjugation you should know this but I guess you have a hard time recognizing that subjugation of other people is still subjugation and should not be tolerated. In other words, that economic status creates self-determination or lack therein and if you want to claim concern for all people, then you need to recognize this crucial flaw.

"Economic freedom" means having a certain amount of wealth, and that's why it's a bullshit term and a bullshit concept. Wealth is the physical representation of means. Means is a synonym for power. Power is -not- a synonym for freedom.

If power and freedom are different, then stepping on one man's self determination so that another man has more potency behind his own self determination is not trading freedom for freedom, it's trading freedom for power.

I value shared freedom over shared power. You, clearly, do not.

I know, why would I clearly prefer freedom? It makes no sense. I express criticism of your ideas and because I express it, I must therefore be your enemy. Therefore, as an enemy, it's ok to make claims that this enemy is a lunatic and obviously prefers power over freedom. Clearly that's my point in disagreeing with your ideas. I mean there could be no other point in me trying to express criticism than taking away your freedom and subjugating your family. People never exchange ideas in order to make better ideas, no, they just try to under cut one another and the one who best undercuts the other wins.

Well la di da mister, you have ******* won the grand prize because I don't intend to play according to such immature exchanges. But I guess when you imagine the whole world is trying to subjugate your, when you live in such a fear, whether rational or not, you think everyone who doesn't applaud you must be out to get you. Do you think that way, constant paranoia? Then please count me out and don't respond to my posts.

I think you misunderstand Madison's role and where the quote is. He was the main framer of the constitution and devised congress in order to retain power in the hands of the "wealth of the nations." I would like for you to show me where the real purpose of congress was discussed and is clearly not for the land holders. For some reason you are very sensitive to disagreement and because you read me through a filter, you exaggerate my assertions. I'm very happy to discuss openly, freely, exchanging information.

But you clearly lacked knowledge of Madison's idea behind the congress and I felt it important for you to understand that. Perhaps the congress was not intended for the wealth of the nations. I am very willing to concede that, but absent reason to think it, you really just through a hissy fit. So offer up some evidence please.

An aspect of your allergic reaction to my posts consists in think I am fundamentally committed to my beliefs despite any criticism. So you naturally make my claims out to be fundamentalist when they carry no such character. For example, it's obvious I just posted Madison's quotes regarding congress and suggested that the agenda was not hidden. You spun this around to mean I believe the sole purpose of government in general "was designed by American land holders." How funny you put in quotes something I never even remotely said. I was quoting Madison and suggested it should alter your understanding.

I think where your allergy to my posts get bad is that I suggest you alter your thinking. Usually people who call people fundamentalist and self-righteous are not saying anything meaningful but instead are projecting their deficiencies onto their opposition. For you might think "how dare gnarly suggest I should alter my thinking of history a slight bit!? Damn it I am god! What I think goes and even if I agree with gnarly that 'America was never intended to be a Democracy' (your exact words) I must still berate gnarly as a fundamentalist because he suggest I change my understanding of history and he has no right to suggest facts to me!"

While your posts are long and suggest understanding, they are also fraught with such allergic reactions as to impair your ability to accurately understand what I say. Your filter is swollen and views me as a target. Man people are quite incapable of plain jane wholesome debate about ideas. What a tragedy! So until we can address this fundamental failing in our discussion, I see little point in wasting your time with my posts that you unintentionally though inevitably misconstrue.

Are you willing to slow it down, take one idea per post and hammer this out like adults with reasonable intelligence or we can just stop because I don't care to waste your time.

 

[gnarlylove]

In other words, humans must look out for their own interest and to be concerned with another is folly, nay, an impossibility. So why is it impossible for human beings to care about other human beings?

Or is it possible but current reps do not? In other words, Democracy is possible but is not happening.

Nothing requires humans to look out for their own interests. However, the reality is that most people are concerned about their welfare before they even think about the welfare of others.

This says people can be tricked into not looking out for themselves but in all likelihood do look out for themselves. This is your answer to if it is possible for humans to be concerned for other people? That answer hardly relates to my question but it sounds like you would agree any sane person recognizes they can care for other people, that human beings can actually love and care for people that are not themselves. So let's assume for a moment that some person with this capacity then becomes a representative of her constituency, where her main job description is to look out for other people. Why do you think this is an impossibility?

I agree this is impossible in America right now. But just because it isn't happening in America doesn't mean it's impossible. Right? Or is there something about being a representative that strips you of humanity and prevents you from empathizing with your constituents? What is it about being a rep. that tears your ability to be human asunder?

 

[freedombecki]

Sounds like a good reason to have term limits and 401Ks, instead of pensions, for all politicians.

Or we could stop voting for rich bitches who spend most of their time dialing for dollar$:

"For the first time in history, most members of Congress are millionaires, according to a new analysis of personal financial disclosure data by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Millionaires' Club: For First Time, Most Lawmakers are Worth $1 Million-Plus

Or we could shrink government so much that it doesn't attract power grubbers.

Paying off the National Debt would do just that. Right now, all that money in the Treasury isn't enough for today's power grubbers when they feel entitled to "charge it" to the taxpayer with limitless credit. By withholding spending and paying the debt off, the political money-grubbers would get discouraged real fast. So fast, the taxpayer would not be snagged for all those sleazy pet rock projects that no one wants, needs, or appreciates having their earnings taxed on.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

Anyway, your whole argument consisted of arguing about regulation which is not the core concept of Democracy. Regulation exists in our supposed Democracy and does not function. So if this is what you disagree with, that should be obvious enough, but it is not obvious that Democracy must exist with 7,000 page bills and the rest of your ad hoc criticisms. While legitimate, they do not bear on our current discussion.

But taking what I've quoted from you, I wanted to ask you how people can be self-determined when they don't have the resources to survive without dependence or death? That sounds like determined-to-die, not a self-determined life. Why do some people get to determine their life while others determine very little in their life?

So let me get this straight.

If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?

So you've taken one founder's writings, related them to a few aspects of our constitutional guidelines that they clearly influenced, and concluded that the implications you've drawn definitely represent the primary purpose for the founding of our country? Is it that I don't study, or is it that you've decided that your rather far fetched conclusion is gospel and that I'm ignorant for not agreeing? Charmingly self righteous. The more I talk to Marxists, the more they remind me of fundamentalist Christians.

Next up: Government is regulation. Democracy is a system of government. Regulation -is-, in fact, -core- to the discussion of Democracy, since all we're talking about is an arrangement for how society decides upon regulations.

My criticisms regarding the complexity of our legislation, also, wasn't directed at the concept of Democracy. It was in direct response to your continued referral to our system of government as an oligarchy. When I talk about the ridiculous regulation scheme, I'm simply pointing out that a representative republic isn't automatically an oligarchy, and that it's only through exploitation of the amount of power we've given our officials that we have -become- an oligarchy. I specified in my post that the American system is the system I prefer, and the discussion of how it became an oligarchy was my concession that the current manifestation of that system is fucked up beyond recognition, and obviously not what it is that I'm in support of.

Not only was this all an explanation of what I view as the ideal form of government, which is what you've been asking about in general throughout this discussion, but it's also a direct response to your oligarchy label. It is literally in response to your question and your commentary.

If you don't want to debate these points, feel free to say so, but when they're direct responses to everything you've been saying and yet you persist to claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion, you're either being dishonest or stupid. I'll let you choose.

Lastly, yes, circumstances affect the number of choices one has. Where we disagree is that you're implying that subjugating people economically to ensure that the poor have more choices allows for more self determination than allowing circumstance to potentially leave people impoverished.

Part of your implication is that shitty circumstances imply less self determination. This is not the case, it simply implies less effective influence on one's environment.
The person in question, whether impoverished or not, is either free to do as they will or they are not, and that is not a function of how successfully their available choices are likely to achieve their desired results.

What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life. You act like poor people are free but that's because you've never been or associated yourself with such a person. So in your mind, a poor person is just like you except they lack money. Turns out it's much more complicated then that. Certain people are not allowed to cross boarders due to economic status that led to class 3 misdemeanor. This includes me, stealing bread for myself and friends prevented me from going to Canada for a week and it was Canadian law to lock me up for trying. There are major restrictions on movement if your a poor person who made the mistake of trying to steal bread for yourself or family.

Being poor means you cannot travel. Unless you have literally nothing, then travel means you need a vehicle with insurance that you likely do not have and cannot afford. Tickets for transport allow you to carry very little of personal belongings and charge you for even the most basic luggage. Poverty reduces one's ability to obtain sufficient calories leaving one exhausted more readily, as does lack of sleep (for sleeping on bad mattresses or the floor). Turns out that cops have targeted poor people for decades and with pre-crime being developed, this will sky-rocket even beyond what it is which already we know, or at least I do, have local laws that criminalize poverty, like sleeping on sidewalks, parks during after hours, no sleeping on benches, no loitering.

I like your child's idea of what poverty is like, that they are totally free to be not poor and autonomous, but you clearly have one mouth full of no information regarding what it means to be poor and how that relates to a lack of being able to have genuine self-determination. Speaking of subjugation you should know this but I guess you have a hard time recognizing that subjugation of other people is still subjugation and should not be tolerated. In other words, that economic status creates self-determination or lack therein and if you want to claim concern for all people, then you need to recognize this crucial flaw.

"Economic freedom" means having a certain amount of wealth, and that's why it's a bullshit term and a bullshit concept. Wealth is the physical representation of means. Means is a synonym for power. Power is -not- a synonym for freedom.

If power and freedom are different, then stepping on one man's self determination so that another man has more potency behind his own self determination is not trading freedom for freedom, it's trading freedom for power.

I value shared freedom over shared power. You, clearly, do not.

I know, why would I clearly prefer freedom? It makes no sense. I express criticism of your ideas and because I express it, I must therefore be your enemy. Therefore, as an enemy, it's ok to make claims that this enemy is a lunatic and obviously prefers power over freedom. Clearly that's my point in disagreeing with your ideas. I mean there could be no other point in me trying to express criticism than taking away your freedom and subjugating your family. People never exchange ideas in order to make better ideas, no, they just try to under cut one another and the one who best undercuts the other wins.

Well la di da mister, you have ******* won the grand prize because I don't intend to play according to such immature exchanges. But I guess when you imagine the whole world is trying to subjugate your, when you live in such a fear, whether rational or not, you think everyone who doesn't applaud you must be out to get you. Do you think that way, constant paranoia? Then please count me out and don't respond to my posts.

I think you misunderstand Madison's role and where the quote is. He was the main framer of the constitution and devised congress in order to retain power in the hands of the "wealth of the nations." I would like for you to show me where the real purpose of congress was discussed and is clearly not for the land holders. For some reason you are very sensitive to disagreement and because you read me through a filter, you exaggerate my assertions. I'm very happy to discuss openly, freely, exchanging information.

But you clearly lacked knowledge of Madison's idea behind the congress and I felt it important for you to understand that. Perhaps the congress was not intended for the wealth of the nations. I am very willing to concede that, but absent reason to think it, you really just through a hissy fit. So offer up some evidence please.

An aspect of your allergic reaction to my posts consists in think I am fundamentally committed to my beliefs despite any criticism. So you naturally make my claims out to be fundamentalist when they carry no such character. For example, it's obvious I just posted Madison's quotes regarding congress and suggested that the agenda was not hidden. You spun this around to mean I believe the sole purpose of government in general "was designed by American land holders." How funny you put in quotes something I never even remotely said. I was quoting Madison and suggested it should alter your understanding.

I think where your allergy to my posts get bad is that I suggest you alter your thinking. Usually people who call people fundamentalist and self-righteous are not saying anything meaningful but instead are projecting their deficiencies onto their opposition. For you might think "how dare gnarly suggest I should alter my thinking of history a slight bit!? Damn it I am god! What I think goes and even if I agree with gnarly that 'America was never intended to be a Democracy' (your exact words) I must still berate gnarly as a fundamentalist because he suggest I change my understanding of history and he has no right to suggest facts to me!"

While your posts are long and suggest understanding, they are also fraught with such allergic reactions as to impair your ability to accurately understand what I say. Your filter is swollen and views me as a target. Man people are quite incapable of plain jane wholesome debate about ideas. What a tragedy! So until we can address this fundamental failing in our discussion, I see little point in wasting your time with my posts that you unintentionally though inevitably misconstrue.

Are you willing to slow it down, take one idea per post and hammer this out like adults with reasonable intelligence or we can just stop because I don't care to waste your time.

The post to which I responded included the quote, "Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government."

I respond in kind, and then you have the nerve to call me out for being snarky and act like -I'm- turning this into an emotional, targeting match that's hindering my ability to reason? Hahaha.

You gonna call yourself out for the same, or you going the nutless route?

Speaking of lacking metaphoric philosophical testicles, I like the way you destroyed my argument by supposing to know my history. Spent much of my childhood with my mother raising me alone, 3k miles away from my father, existing on ramen and soda crackers in a 1 bedroom apartment for extended periods. Mom grew up in Kuhio Park Terrace, notorious Oahu housing complex (ghetto). She busted ass in school to get a scholarship, but dropped out of college after having me a couple years in. She worked her way up to a low level management position in the hotel industry, which is pretty prone to upheaval, so she'd regularly go through periods of being laid off and job hunting for lateral positions at competing hotels. Lots of real rough times during the lows, couch surfing separately a few times during transitional (homeless) periods. Went to a new school at least every year as she moved us where she could find work. Her mother, despite being in horrible economic repair during her upbringing, was herself raised as Hawaiian nobility for a fair portion of her childhood. Even when my family lost its land holdings, wealth, and influence, along with their culture, the family continued to raise their children with pride in intellect and personal capacity. My mother, during times of economic hardship, never once went on government assistance outside of unemployment, which is part of what FICO payments were extracted from her paychecks for in the first place. I was never on the free lunch programs as a kid. If we were broke, she'd go without so that I wasn't the only kid at school without a lunch, experiencing the same stigma she had to grow up with. Sadly, I only point this out to make the point that I find it funny that your entire point, while irrelevant to begin with, is also 100 percent incorrect. I don't come from wealth, little buddy.

Whether or not a person's experienced the hardships of being poor doesn't change the nature of these philosophical terms. Self determination is what self determination is, and power is simply an enabler of better results, not a direct synonym. You're confusing potency with freedom simply because potency broadens practical choices. Still doesn't mean that potency defines freedom. You have yet to bridge that gap, chief.

Not liking the scope of your choices doesn't mean your self determination is being subjugated, it means you need to use that self determination to acquire means and broaden your choices.

On top of that, when I was poor, guess what I didn't do. . . I didn't steal ******* bread. Your economic situation didn't lead to you stealing bread, your willingness to steal in desperation lead to you stealing bread. Don't blame your border status and criminal record on circumstance, YOU DID THAT. Circumstance is what it is, your actions are your own, homie.

I do find it telling that, by your very language in this anecdote, you place the responsibility for your crime on your circumstance as opposed to your own decision making. This explains a good deal of the fissure in our thinking. You've implied that you believe that your decisions, and therefore everyone's decisions, are simply a product of circumstance. You've implied with your theft story that circumstance -defines- self determination, and so it's no wonder that you equate good circumstances with freedom.

I've got a hunch that your entire understanding of the nature of self determination is based in your psychological need to defer, to poverty, the responsibility that you rightly bear for the choices of your past, so that you don't have to blame yourself for the consequences or acknowledge that you -chose- to step outside of your own moral code, but as compelling as that thought is, I won't claim to know. We'll call this a wild theory

I can tell you that I know this: Poverty doesn't force you to steal. Neither does being hungry. I've experienced both of these things and chosen not to steal, so I feel pretty safe making this claim. In fact, poverty doesn't force you to do anything. It leaves your self determination intact, just lacking in any immediate economic potency. It's up to each of us to acquire that potency by developing a skillset that someone values.

Next up, what's this shit about you being my enemy? LOL! I'm sorry that you view someone who values power over freedom as a lunatic, but I'm equally sorry to say that the fact that you equate money with freedom and then say that you desire freedom (money) for everyone, you are mistaken and -actually- implying that you want power for everyone at the cost of the freedom of the capable.

Or is it my use of the word bullshit that makes you think that I'm blindly attacking a perceived oppressor? Again, lemme remind you that you were quite condescending regarding your Madison quote and your statement that I'm probably just making uneducated assertions. Please, forgive me if I respond in kind, and I'll likewise try to assume that your bit of condescension doesn't imply an emotional level that's left you incapable of reason. Deal?

And this about constant paranoia, thinking everyone is out to subjugate me? Hahaha! Most of the world has actually, often unknowingly, professed a desire to subjugate the successful to whatever degree is necessary to meet the needs of the impoverished. Anyone who says that the government should force people with money to pay for other peoples' necessities is, in fact and to varying degrees, promoting the active subjugation of anyone who is economically successful. That's not paranoia, that's simply an understanding of the terms.

Next up on your list of indicators that I'm overly emotional and making you an enemy target: My misrepresentation of your argument. "You spun this around to mean I believe the sole purpose of government in general "was designed by American land holders." How funny you put in quotes something I never even remotely said." Not at all what I said. I said, "...then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?" That was the exact wording. . . not by the land holders, but -for- the land owners. Why does this make a difference. YOUR EXACT QUOTE: "Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations.""

You're right. I did misrepresent your statement. You didn't say America was designed for the land owners. You said America was -created- for the land owners. Holy shit, huge difference. What an illogical, emotional perspective I must be coming from to so blatantly put words in your mouth

It's also funny that in this quote where you accuse me of putting words in your mouth that weren't there, you not only fail to recognize that those words -were- there, but you also shifted my reference around inaccurately so that it was actually -you- who was guilty of what you're accusing me of. The irony is thick enough to cut with a steak knife. Projecting much?

The rest of your post continues to build on this theory that I'm mad at you for suggesting that I alter my thinking. Not true. If you've noticed, everywhere I believe you to be wrong, I acknowledge what you've said, I tell you what I believe it principally implies, and I explain why I do or do not find it compelling. If you post something that shows me an error in my logic, I'm quite willing to accept it and adjust my definitions, and though you accuse me of being tied dogmatically to my viewpoint, I can't help but notice that you haven't provided any examples of something I've said that implies as much.

In fact, your entire argument here seems to be that I'm too angry at your opposing viewpoint to analyze it critically. Yet every point that I've argued has been with specific regard to what you've said and backed by logical argument while nowhere do you provide any -accurate- record of my blind anger to support your claim. I can't help but find it, again, charmingly ironic that it's supposed to be me who's reacting emotionally and illogically.

I'll tell you what I'm willing to do. I'm willing to keep the condescension out of my replies if you're willing to take the condescension out of yours. I'm also willing to assume that your stated reasoning is your actual reasoning and not discount it as a product of your anger if you'll give me the same benefit of the doubt.

I will continue to tell you what I believe your viewpoints principally imply, and I'll do you the courtesy of explaining the logic by which I reached my conclusion. I'll do this unapologetically as it allows you the opportunity to point out where my logic errs, and I welcome any such input and will, when appropriate, respond in kind.

Lastly, I'm willing to NOT assume that I can divine your financial history, and NOT pretend that I know what sort of hardships you have or have not had to overcome, if you'll do me the same kindness.

Is that enough consideration to qualify me as someone who's worthy of debate?

 

[gnarlylove]

NotSubjugated, snarky had a context and you removed it. Wish you would read my post instead of skim for things you don't like. You said poor people don't have self determination while also saying they do in a very sleight of hand manner, trying to use different terminology to fool yourself and me. I explained it in detail in the post above so take the time to read what I'm saying.

Or if you really did read my full post you are not here to exchange ideas in a productive manner but instead are here for some personal joy in disagreeing with me. And calling me a Marxist is funny since I don't know what the hell Marxism is and I definitely know you'd never waste your time reading Marx yourself so you sure as hell don't know what a Marxists is either. So Marxism didn't mean an idea, it was used as a slur against opposition, namely me. Or are you really a Marxist scholar and fooled me?

Lastly, saying you addressed my hidden agenda post was also a non-response. You clearly cannot be reading my full posts, there's no way otherwise you just are incapable of reading my posts through a fair lens of honest inquiry. You accussed me of saying the whole government was erected for the wealthy land holders and it's quite obvious I never said anything close to that. I suggested Madison agreed with you that America was never intended to be a Democracy and you disagree. Not because anything contradicted your position, in fact they aligned with your assertion about American Democracy, but because I said it, you just had to disagree. So given these examples, you are not worth your time. If you want to stop being garrulous and stick to one idea per post then we can get somewhere but if you keep responding like you are this is not worth your time. I too will stick to one idea per post: my suggestion is addressing your Marxist slur and why you think it's valid. It would help determine if you are capable of recognizing or defending your assertions. Just because I've read Marx doesn't make me a Marxist, just because you read the bible doesn't make you a Christian.

 

[dnsmith35]

A thread where nazis and communists agree. Try to tell me again that one is right wing and the other is left wing.

Both are socialist. The fact that fascism did not last long enough for the government to achieve the total nationalism of industry was a function of time, not intent.

 

[dnsmith35]

What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life. You act like poor people are free but that's because you've never been or associated yourself with such a person. So in your mind, a poor person is just like you except they lack money. Turns out it's much more complicated then that. Certain people are not allowed to cross boarders due to economic status that led to class 3 misdemeanor. This includes me, stealing bread for myself and friends prevented me from going to Canada for a week and it was Canadian law to lock me up for trying. There are major restrictions on movement if your a poor person who made the mistake of trying to steal bread for yourself or family.

Being poor means you cannot travel. Unless you have literally nothing, then travel means you need a vehicle with insurance that you likely do not have and cannot afford. Tickets for transport allow you to carry very little of personal belongings and charge you for even the most basic luggage. Poverty reduces one's ability to obtain sufficient calories leaving one exhausted more readily, as does lack of sleep (for sleeping on bad mattresses or the floor). Turns out that cops have targeted poor people for decades and with pre-crime being developed, this will sky-rocket even beyond what it is which already we know, or at least I do, have local laws that criminalize poverty, like sleeping on sidewalks, parks during after hours, no sleeping on benches, no loitering.

You have a strange idea about what poverty is even in the US which tends not to have much true poverty.

The first 15 years of married life, we were poor by American standards; ie we hade a family income which was less than half of the poverty line set by our government. We learned how to survive on very little money and for years we did not have the ability to buy a TV, or rent a proper sized home. We were only capable of renting a small hovel in the not so nice part of town, leaving us with only enough money to have meat once a week and have rice and beans the rest of the time. Even potatoes were too expensive as it took 5 lbs to feed my family. All of this was in spite of being employed the entire period ..... minimum wage or less when I was drafted into the Army with 4 kids before our last 2 were born. The way I bought an old car after basic training for $100 occurred was only because I was paid over $100 to drive 5 people home from basic on the way to my home. (Monthly pay in the Army as a Pvt E-1 was $78 a month in 1961.)

Even so, we were not poverty stricken in the same way most of the poor in the 3rd world were. Having lived in India during my late high school period, I became aware of real poverty, and I learned from the poor Indians how to live with very little. The way we made our way out of poverty was to buy a house for $10,000 with a $300 insurance settlement as a down payment for FHA; since rent was higher than a house payment for an even smaller house. When we moved we rented the house out for double the payment, and had a little more income; a whopping $60 extra. (The house payment was $52 and taxes and insurance came up almost to $8 a month). From that time on, we bought a house at every move, and we kept them until I retired in 1988, sold them, and invested in an apartment complex in our retirement city. By that time 4 of the properties were free and clear, and the average equity of the other 7 was in excess of $20,000 each at the inflated prices in 1988. Now, with my military pension and the investment income my monthly earnings are over $9,000.

The point is, being poor does not require law breaking, and law breaking being a character flaw, one who remains poor (by American standards) has only himself to blame. Obviously this does not include the disabled (physical or mental) who are incapable of working.

Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."

Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.

When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?

 

[SAYIT]

"Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."

Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.

When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?

You assume much because like most whiny, snively socialists, you know so little. I am regularly shocked by how incapable of complete thoughts most lefties are.

 

[SAYIT]

Leftists are only interested in attacking productive people, stealing their money, and giving that money which isn't theirs, to other people.

Precisely my motiviation and goal. Your caricature of me and I assume anyone who dares disagree with you must always be 100% accurate and certifiably insane...

Despite your feeble attempt at humor, the "rationale" you and the rest of the whiny, socialist cabal employ here is clearly intended to use the levers of gov't to extract from others and give it to you.

 

[gnarlylove]

Whiny is a funny way to say ideas lack validity. Ideas either have validity or not. If your personal bias causes you to be allergic to criticism, you are participating in the suicide of your ideas. Nothing valid or true is one sided. Ideas must enter dialectical process to develop genuine validity unless, like mentally ill and paranoid patients, you have no capacity for entertaining opposition and as a result of your ideas existing in isolation, refusing all criticism, will only serve to magnify your mental illness, your allergy to listening to disagreement.

I welcome to hear one of your favorite ideas. I am very willing to accept it. So how about briefly describing a belief of yours and why you think its valid.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

NotSubjugated, snarky had a context and you removed it. Wish you would read my post instead of skim for things you don't like. You said poor people don't have self determination while also saying they do in a very sleight of hand manner, trying to use different terminology to fool yourself and me. I explained it in detail in the post above so take the time to read what I'm saying. Or if you really did read my full post you are not here to exchange ideas in a productive manner but instead are here for some personal joy in disagreeing with me.

Alright, you got a half a point here. When I responded to that last post, I read the whole thing and then responded. The initial few sentences of my response took the word snarky and related it to the back half of your post, all of which was that I don't like you and I'm angered by your point of view and so I'm not analyzing it fairly. I was pretty stuck on the accusation, having -just- finished reading it, and worded that whole opening poorly. The word snarky wasn't related to the emotional/illogical accusations, and insofar as I implied that it was, I apologize for misrepresenting what you said.

Here, I'll address the snarky part more accurately.

What a snarky way to say poor people don't deserve full self-determination. Stop deceiving yourself and admit that "reduced ability to influence one's environment" is saying a person with lesser means is naturally less able to govern their life.

The fact that you used the phrase "full self determination" makes this an easier illustration.

The poor aren't free because they are bound to less options by circumstance. A poor person can't just go traveling like someone with money, for instance.

If this is how we define the lack of liberty, however, then consider that even someone making enough money to comfortably support themselves and go on vacations isn't free to go the moon. They're bound by their circumstances, and therefore not truly free to travel.

Ah, but on the other hand, Bill Gates can go to the moon. Maybe that level of wealth frees one from circumstance? Nah. Bill Gates isn't free to dunk on people like Blake Griffin. He wasn't born into height, so he, too, is bound by the parameters of his circumstance.

The reason economic freedom isn't the measure of liberty is because the very term implies freedom from material circumstance, which literally does not exist. By your own reasoning, believing that the poor deserve full self determination is like believing that the poor deserve a unicorn: THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS FULL FREEDOM FROM THE LIMITATIONS OF CIRCUMSTANCE.

If you believe that freedom from circumstance is the prerequisite for freedom, you either concede that there is no such thing as freedom, or you've drawn an arbitrary line (and yes, -convenient- travel and luggage facilitation is a -real- arbitrary line) across some particular circumstances that you've decided need to be circumvented before you can call someone free.

Also, by that particular example, was nobody born before the invention of the wagon truly self determined? Early man had no convenient way of migrating individually with his pelts, bludgeoning tools, and shiny stones in tow. Was everyone who lived before the invention of the wheel an economic slave?

My thought is that circumstance will -always- limit -all- of us, some more than others depending on the circumstance and the desired result. It is literally impossible to equalize circumstance, and even more impossible to be free of circumstance. Therefore, when we speak of freedom, what we're speaking of isn't the literally infinite material capacity that would be required to eliminate the influence of material circumstance, we're speaking of the ability to act according to our own will and not someone else's.

It is only by varying degrees that anyone is able to overcome circumstance, and when we're speaking of the degree to which someone is able to defeat the limits of circumstance, we're speaking of an adjustable value: That individual's -capacity- to influence their environment. Synonyms for "capacity" include "means", "ability", "might", and (you guessed it!) "power".

This is where your arbitrary definition of freedom actually describes the trade-off of one man's freedom for another man's power. It demands, for instance, that a man incapable of providing his own means of travelling by vehicle and with convenient accommodations for his collection of physical belongings to be transported with him have those means provided for him before we can rightly say he is a free man.

Someone else has their free will subjugated by this man's need (and calling the ability to travel with convenient luggage accommodations a need is a stretch, but I'll make the allowance) in that this implies that someone has to perform the work necessary to build or acquire a vehicle large enough to transport Mr. Needs and his boxes of stuff.

Mr. Needs, meanwhile, was already free to travel. He was free to move around wherever he wanted (at least domestically. International borders are a different issue entirely) he was free to trade goods or services for the means to acquire a van or a bus ticket or a plane ticket or whatever he wanted. He was free to leave his shit behind, write it off, and just walk to where he wanted to go. He was free to ask someone else to help him get there voluntarily. What he gained wasn't freedom, it was the capacity to travel more effectively, i.e. by plane/train/automobile and with his shit in tow. He gained capacity. He gained power. We've traded one man's ability to act according to his -own- desires as opposed to someone else's (freedom), for the ability of the needy man to augment his freedom to move around with the capacity of a vehicle to get him there more expediently and carry a bunch of material shit along with him (power).

I apologize if any prior explanation came off as sleight of hand, it's a complex set of shit to break down into simple terms.

Also, sorry if my conclusion makes you feel attacked. As you can hopefully see, though, I've actually reasoned this out. I'm not just angrily accusing you of being some kinda despot. If there's an err in my reasoning, please point it out. Don't just flatly state that I'm wrong or that I'm firing off a blind accusation.

And calling me a Marxist is funny since I don't know what the hell Marxism is and I definitely know you'd never waste your time reading Marx yourself so you sure as hell don't know what a Marxists is either. So Marxism didn't mean an idea, it was used as a slur against opposition, namely me. Or are you really a Marxist scholar and fooled me?

Another baseless accusation from the guy who's gone on for 2 posts now telling me I'm just blindly disagreeing because I'm emotional about his point of view?

Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto weren't Marx, and Engels and Marx, respectively? Who the **** was I reading? Whoever labeled my kindle files is an asshole!

You're right, it's impossible that I've read Marx. When we argued in another thread about the validity of individual property rights and you, via an endorsement of the UN's bill of human rights (including housing, health care, food, water), endorsed communal ownership at least to the degree that human "necessities" are concerned, I couldn't have possibly made the connection to the Marxist ideal of communal ownership. It was probably a blind, right wing "N" word moment.

It turns out that the majority of people in America (58%) will face poverty for at least 1 year. So the majority of people exist in conditions without economic freedom.

Economic freedom has 2 popular definitions. One of those definitions means free trade, and the other definition, the one you were clearly using, means the lack of poverty and is a common term in English translations of The Communist Manifesto. Hmmm. . . who wrote that again? Engels and, uh. . . ****, what was that other guy's name? I wonder why I might've taken this as an indicator that your philosophy tends toward Marxism. . . Silly me.

It also couldn't have been that you spent most of this thread prior to our argument debating against the alternatives to a true democracy, and pointing out with more than a little vitriol that the US isn't a true democracy. Though you made a point of stating that you weren't going to get into your own personal opinions, everything you said either contradicted arguments against democracy or seemed designed to lead to the revelation that the US isn't a true democracy after all! If what you seemed to imply was my mistake, I apologize, but you seemed to be endorsing a true democracy, which, combined with communal ownership, is what Marx and Engels described as the rule of the proletariat. Marxist Communism.

Possible preference of pure democracy, definite preference of communal ownership, and use of terminology popular with Marxists. If the conclusion doesn't fit, feel free to tell me where I'm incorrect, but don't get the mistaken impression that my guess is uneducated or fueled by emotion, or for that matter by anything other than my observation of your arguments.

Lastly, saying you addressed my hidden agenda post was also a non-response. You clearly cannot be reading my full posts, there's no way otherwise you just are incapable of reading my posts through a fair lens of honest inquiry. You accussed me of saying the whole government was erected for the wealthy land holders and it's quite obvious I never said anything close to that.

I'm actually reading your posts word for word, and accurately. I accused you of saying that the country was designed for the land owners. My exact quote was:

So let me get this straight.

If Madison's writings implied that the land owners should have enough say in the government to keep the majority of the less fortunate from using said government to arbitrarily strip them of their property, then the logical conclusion is that "America was designed for the land owners"?

I said that the portion in quotes was your conclusion because, when I said America was never meant to be a Democracy, you said:

Glad you recognize America was never intended to be a Democracy. It was created for land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the "wealth of the nations."

I accused you of saying what you literally said yourself, almost ver-*******-batim. What did I misread?

I suggested Madison agreed with you that America was never intended to be a Democracy and you disagree. Not because anything contradicted your position, in fact they aligned with your assertion about American Democracy, but because I said it, you just had to disagree.

That's flat out bullshit. You didn't post your Madison quote to show he agreed with me. You posted the Madison quote to show that the creation of the US -for- the land owners and to keep the decisions in the hands of the wealth of nations wasn't an agenda that was hidden. You then implied that the fact that I would call it so meant I was ignorant of my own country's history, and in a rather passively snide manner. The quote was:

The agenda was not hidden. Madison wrote:

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
Statement (1787-06-26) as quoted in Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787 by Robert Yates.

Elsewhere Madison is quoted saying "power must be in the hands of the wealth of the nation, the more responsible set of men. "

Not a very hidden agenda but I wouldn't expect any American to have studied their own history or government.

Really? The agenda wasn't hidden, then several quotes to show that he wanted power in the hands of wealthy land owners, and your point was simply to agree with me about democracy and not to rebut my claim that, if the country was built for the land owners, it was a hidden agenda? Holy shit, man, that's a stretch. You definitely worded it as though it was meant to rebut that point.

Nevertheless, I'll go -way- out on a limb and give you the benefit of the doubt and apologize for making a baseless assumption that you were directing those quotes at the argument of mine that you quoted directly prior to them, and a baseless assumption that the hidden agenda references were anything but a complete coincidence. You were, apparently, just trying to show me that you agreed with a post prior to the one that you actually quoted, here, despite all the evidence that seems to suggest that you were rebutting the one you -did- quote.

And when you said you weren't surprised that I hadn't studied my own history, it was to imply that you agreed with my astute observation that America wasn't intended as a democracy. Yeah, that makes sense.

I'm sorry for the baseless accusation. The obvious conclusion is that I simply disagreed because it was you saying it. Totally.

So given these examples, you are not worth your time. If you want to stop being garrulous and stick to one idea per post then we can get somewhere but if you keep responding like you are this is not worth your time. I too will stick to one idea per post: my suggestion is addressing your Marxist slur and why you think it's valid. It would help determine if you are capable of recognizing or defending your assertions. Just because I've read Marx doesn't make me a Marxist, just because you read the bible doesn't make you a Christian.

Sorry, bud, but I'm not going to drop to one idea at a time if you're going to throw a massive blanket of accusations at me that are, each and every one of them, incorrect.

At no point did I stop reading what you were saying and respond on emotion. Above, I've clearly illustrated my reasoning for everything you've tried to say was a misrepresentation of your argument or a blind expression of anger based on my disliking of you. I have literally spelled my reasoning out to show you the logic driving my statements. If emotion was the true driving force, then the flaws in logic should be pretty simple for you to point out, and so your next post, logically, wouldn't have to be a flat statement that I'm an emotional illogical hater. You'll actually be able to point out exactly WHY, right?

Conversely, if you want to back off of the bullshit accusations yourself, feel free to cut the next post down to arguing the wealth = freedom angle. That's the only part of this post where I wasn't rebutting your piss poor attempts at implying that my arguments aren't based in reason. If you'd like to accept that I'm being honest when I spell out my reasoning and stop ignoring it to tell me I'm just a hater spouting hatred or that I'm a rich kid who can't understand the poor or that I'm ignorant of my own history or that I haven't read the philosopher to which I'm comparing your views, then there's really only one point of contention left in this entire post: Wealth vs freedom

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."

Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.

When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?

Wow, are you serious? After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?

His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.

And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor. Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.

For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.

If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."

Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.

When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?

Wow, are you serious? After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?

His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.

And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor. Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.

For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.

If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.

I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.

No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.

Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.

All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.

No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc. Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?

Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).

I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.

 

[dnsmith35]

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

And yet capitalism is the best of all the systems we have. It may not be good in your mind, but it beats Socialism and Communism hands down. There has never been a successful socialist or communist system which produced the over all prosperity as has capitalism. Even the least equal economically are still better off than 4 or 5 billion of the rest of the world.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

"Do yourself a favor and stop with the self pity."

Why make this about me instead of reality? I never once alluded to my situation so check your foolish assumptions at the door please. This isn't about me. This isn't about individuals. It is the revolutionary force of our economic policy that subsidizes certain people and not others. This is about policy.

When was the last time you lived in or engaged with a low income working class setting? Oh, you never have? If you haven't then no wonder it's so easy for you to say what you did without having any meaning because it literally has no meaning to you (the concept of low income is evacuated of meaning because you assume it's a description you give on a message board, not the life of a human being) so why would it have a different meaning for someone else? The reality is, it does. And it does for so many that nearly 60% of Americans know what I am saying. You apparently do not have the capacity so you can easily dismss low income as a description, not a possibility for you. Have you spent one minute engaged with low income neighborhoods? It's likely from your language that you spent your whole life avoiding them and locking your doors. Am I right?

Wow, are you serious? After all that shit you just tried to heap on me about supposedly not reading what you said, this is seriously your response to dnsmith's post?

His entire post was about his impoverished beginnings as a young adult in a shitty area of town and having to upgrade from there.

And you spout on at him, like you did at me, about how he's never been near a low income working class situation and he could never understand being poor. Clearly, you read the last sentence of his post alone and ran with it.

For someone I initially took to be eloquent and a reasonably logical debater, you can really be a hypocritical and presumptuous prick.

If you're going to wrongly accuse people of not reading your posts before tossing out angry accusations at you, you should probably start reading peoples' posts before tossing out angry accusations.

I never claimed I read everything, and you clearly don't either. We do this because it makes no sense to waste time like that. I claimed that for you and I to engage each other we must assess what we are responding to and I noted you seemed to not read me clearly. I asked you re-read what I wrote if you want to respond clearly. You call me a hypocrite when I didn't read someone else's post who was attacking my character out of the blue. That's fine but his attack was wholly unfounded since I have no pity for anyone and especially self-pity. It was a snide remark that was asserting his inflated ego and I reacted similarly though as soon as I posted it I wanted to delete it but just closed the page instead.

No to mention his entire post was one single example of a human being. Am I to take this lone example as the truth of the general class of all low income folks? I know he isn't so ignorant to assume his example is remotely possible for all low income folks. He is merely proud of his material gain where he was able to compete and beat out the competitors for his spot of "glory." Sounds like someone just needs some validation and they achieve that through attacking someone they don't know.

Are there enough jobs for all low income people to do whatever Army boy did? No. It's a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume his case is representative of America. In order to make a reasonable case you need to demonstrate many if not all cases fall within a certain parameter, namely, that all low income folks always have a happy ending. We know that's not even remotely close to reality. Taking the outlier examples to prove some non-existent point about the American Dream is really deficient logic. And he ought to know better since he came from self-defined poverty where he couldn't afford meat. The sad part is now that he has supposedly "climbed" out of his poverty, he doesn't care to understand what it's like anymore, he'd rather participate in bellicose ignorance and low income bashing to feel validated. Major props on his astronomical achievement of leaving the ranks of low income but you'd have to be insane to think this is how low income is in general so his point is utterly invalid.

All people try to do what they can to live and make money, and if you assume it's a failing on the individuals part, you simply have no clue what obstacles are pitted against low income as opposed to the overflowing opportunities of rich and well-to-do children. And to ignore those obstacles because it suits a personal attack is just self-delusion.

No one of this message board has a clue who I am just as I don't claim to understand anyone on here etc. Yet you feel adquately qualified to call me a Marxist. In the context you used it, it was utilized as an attack. If you notice, I asked if you had read Marx. I doubted that you had because those who throw the word Marxist around for personal attacks are really pathetic people. I expected better of you. And so you said you read the Manifesto etc. Well done. So how does it make me a Marxist?

Oh, just because I was defending the commons you call that Marxist. I think that's a pretty loose reason to call me a Marxist. I've read a moderate amount of Marx and I don't know what Marxism is in a coherent description (though I've read enough to know Marxism is not just the Paris Commune). Apparently you've read a fair amount too, well, then, I'd be ashamed to use the term so loosely especially since you divorced Marx from Marxism and replaced it with the idea of the commons which existed long before Marx. In fact, private property is extremely recent phenomena but somehow I'm Marxist for defending the idea of the commons which is clearly laid out in the Magna Carta in 1215 (Marx lived 600 years after in case you didn't know).

I think you need to avoid your nomenclature of people, especially those with whom you disagree and just speak about ideas and their validity. It really detracts from the conversation to constantly pitch derogatory terms with flimsy intentions. If I may suggest another item, let's stick to one post one idea. My suggestion is why do you think property is valid? You can ignore this suggestion.

I may not read every post word for word, but what you did was read -1- sentence and then fly off with a mass of assumptions that were actually debunked by the post you quoted.

I at least read enough that I don't fire off arguments against shit someone didn't even say, or fire off assumptions that they've already stated to be false.

Your continued argument about why I referred to you as a Marxist, for instance, takes 1 of 3 reasons I just gave you for that assumption, says that 1 reason isn't enough, and then continues to accuse me of using it as an unfounded, derogatory remark.

You're still accusing me of shit without reading the shit I -just- said to the contrary.

I think we're done here. I had you pegged wrong. There's plenty of eloquence to your posts, but no logic behind them. Just a mass of obvious, psychological defense mechanisms. You're right, this isn't worth my time.

 

[georgephillip]

A select few?

Really?

It has nothing to do with income. if you wanted to you could get a second part time job and use that pay to save for your future. It doesn't even have to be 350 a month you could start with 100 a month the point is you have to start.

And lack of will power is a personal flaw and has nothing to do with capitalism.

Why would you think someone should have to work two jobs in order to be entitled to retire? When I began working forty years ago, a single minimum wage job provided all I needed. At that time the richest among us earned about 8% of US income every year; today they earn nearly a quarter of all US income. That redistribution, abetted by both major parties, explains why many of my generation exist on >$1000 a month.
You're solution to devote more hours of my life to those who control the means of production sounds like an endorsement of servility, to me.
Really.

It's not just to retire it's to start a process of creating generational wealth.

Up until the last few years I worked at least 2 jobs since I was 16. I saved and that allowed me and my wife to open a business. It's not servitude when you are working to better your own position.

And hey if you want to retire on the 1200 a month you'll get from social security then be my guest but that's your choice and if you make that choice then you have no right to whine about inequality because you chose it it was not forced upon you.

Actually, I've retired on 30% less than $1200 a month and that was forced on me by the redistribution of income over the past 40 years from the working class to the investor class. If you feel "successful" in what you've accomplished, you're welcome to it, but you might want to consider the possibility that the "process of creating generational wealth" is leading to the Sixth Extinction.

 

[gnarlylove]

6. Therefore, capitalism is an impossibility. No wonder it doesn't exist because it can't for any steady amount of time.

And yet capitalism is the best of all the systems we have. It may not be good in your mind, but it beats Socialism and Communism hands down. There has never been a successful socialist or communist system which produced the over all prosperity as has capitalism. Even the least equal economically are still better off than 4 or 5 billion of the rest of the world.

1. You failed to address the argument. What premise do you disagree with? You cannot disagree with 6 because it deductively follows from the previous 5. So which do you disagree with? Or do you not understand how logic works?

2. Saying "its the best we got" means you don't know of any better system. The fact that you don't know of any better system mean there is no better system? So you have all the knowledge to conclude no other system is better? Turns out there are 200+ countries with different economic arrangements than America and America has thee worst poverty, homelessness, mental illness, drug addiction and violent society among ALL of the developed nations. You're telling me that's the best?

You have clearly never spent one second thinking critically about this and have spent your whole time being a cheerleader for an idea you refuse to think critically about. If you cannot examine an idea than it isn't worth much. Ideas are either valid or not. They are to be weighed appropriately and determined to be valid or not. If you cannot look at capitalism with a critical eye, than naturally you will support it so long as you shut your brain down when criticism arises. What a smooth tactic! Too bad it's infantile.

3. The fact that we call our system capitalism does not mean it resembles capitalism just like the USSR called itself communist but did not resemble communism. Just because the American propaganda system calls it X does not mean it is X. But since you don't want to think about capitalism in a critical manner you would never know that since you are among the gullible millions who cheerlead something they don't understand.

4. State socialism is not socialism. All developed nations, including the US are state socialist nations. They provide welfare to their citizens. This is central to state socialism. Anyone who denies that simply lacks education on what socialism and capitalism is. We do not have free markets except in 1 or 2 markets.

The question is does America re-distribute welfare to the low income or to the super rich? If you've paid attention at all to politics, you'll know it turns out America gives outrageous deals to the super rich through monumental tax breaks and subsidies (Verizon received close to a billion at tax time thereby having an effective tax rate of negative 3%--what worker can do that? None).

So just because you've been brainwashed into thinking capitalism is equivalent to God does not mean it is so. And until you decide to ask questions about capitalism, you'll just be another drone and cheerleader that has no value. Societys collapse because people don't ask questions. Maybe you are right about it being the best system but before that is to be determined we need to actually think about it instead of shouting from on high "Capitalism is God's Gift to Humanity!"