Join the Anti-Party Movement! End the Bias!

[Uncensored2008]

Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^

CDZ

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.

You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?

 

[gnarlylove]

Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^

You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?

You sound extremely butthurt. Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps? I know I am like that. Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.

The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.

 

[Asclepias]

You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?

You sound extremely butthurt. Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps? I know I am like that. Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.

The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.

People like that are morons. Unfortunately they exist in order to feed the political machine. Shades of gray people.....shades of gray.

 

[gnarlylove]

Moron indeed. It takes just a post or two to discover who is capable of critical analysis. Most of those saying they are right, rational etc. are trained to use those words like Pavlov's doggy. Sadly the government and corporate media are wet with excitement over simply how many Americans are morons who are incapable of articulating their position. So they usually define the opponent as irrational right off the bat so there's no threat to undermining their flimsy worldview of veneers.

This makes for a very open playing field for the affluent with grand visions of a two tiered society (them v. everybody else) and I suspect fascism is a step away in this country. The beliefs are there, and the actions are right behind. We own the world only though military might and so we will continue to do so until our military weaponry (drones) are turned against us just as all weapons are eventually turned on their makers.

 

[BobPlumb]

I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.

You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?

That would be the Pro-Movement Party.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.

You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?

That would be the Pro-Movement Party.

Nah, if people are having regular movements, they don't need the product....

 

[Avatar4321]

Guys this is the Clean Zone, Name calling is unnecessary and prohibited.

 

[Asclepias]

So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.

Use your critical thinking skills. How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Since humans do not have the right to water (therefore are denied life), some people get to live and others do not. How do we determine who dies and who lives (how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't)?

By the way, determining who dies and lives is an act of a sincere tyrant.

In addition, the CEO of Nestle in 2005 said the same thing, that water is not a human right. Soon after the statement was retracted because a global boycott was sparked. Nestle still says water is a human right. Personally I do not have a strong opinion on the matter but I am very interested in hearing how we determine who dies?

I'm gonna go backwards because your CEO argument is my fucking -favorite-

The fact that there was a worldwide boycott doesn't affect my opinion in the -slightest-. The fact that you imply that worldwide opinion denotes the probability of correctness leads me to believe that you're probably not possessed of the logical ability to have a substantive conversation regarding abstract subject matter, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and continue to debate this.

Next up, determining who lives and dies -is- in fact the desire of a true tyrant. I desire no such thing.

Saying someone doesn't have the -right- to water is not denying them water. This is one of the worst straw men I've seen on the board -ever-, which makes it quite a fuckin scarecrow! Your implication is that people either have the -right- to water or don't get to have it at all. How fuckin silly are you?

Do I have the right to internet access or a computer? No, I don't. Yet somehow, here I am posting political opinions on an online message board. Weird. You mean I'm able to have a computer even though I don't have the right to a computer? People are able to acquire things that aren't automatically their's by right? WHAT A CONCEPT!

The way we determine who gets to have water and who doesn't? Why, we don't determine that at all. We let everyone determine whether or not they go get their water. The ones who aren't able to acquire it will be the ones who don't have it. That simple. That doesn't require me to be a tyrant, it requires me to leave everyone to their own devices. That's the whole idea of individual freedom, which is my highest standard. By that standard, the only time we force people to behave against their desires is when their desires include the subjugation of anyone else's.

Your highest standard is collective "well-being", and the reason I put it in quotations is because it's based on your opinion of what is "good" for that collective. The problem with that desire, in my opinion, is that it subjugates the will of any individual with a different idea of what is "good". This is roughly the same value as that in the UN document, except that they probably (hopefully, for the sake of my opinion of your cognitive functions) have different opinions on the particulars of what is "good". Even as fellow collectivists, the UN's rule would likely subjugate your will to many standards that aren't your own.

You are very intelligent and I respect your cogent replies. A brief comment about your claim that I "imply" the logical fallacy ad populum: that is, that it's false. I did not imply that. I merely noted how there is universal, cross cultural disagreement with your position. I thought you should know, not that it should influence your belief. Then it is you who nicely and neatly arranges the strawman for I made no such claim or overt implication.

As your my strawman, you misunderstand the issue. I respect your position and given your current understanding of how the world works, you would be accurate. I insist however that your understanding is misguided and false. There is obviously enough water on the planet to sustain 8 billion humans otherwise there cannot exist 8 billion humans. So I want to be extra clear on my logic so let's convert this shit into syllogistic form:

If there are 8 billion humans living, then there must exist sufficient water for their living.
There are 8 billion humans living.
Therefore there must exist sufficient water for their living.

So now that we both understanding there is sufficient water on earth for humans we must ask the vital question why do people become water insecure? Maybe you were unaware that water insecurity even existed let alone is growing throughout the world. The answers are varied but a pattern emerges that people become water insecure because of the bottom line: they cannot afford it. So they loose access to this vital nutrient of life. Why can human A say to B that B can no longer access water which supported B's life? Because A owns the water and therefore is not required to make it available to anyone whatsoever.

But how did person A come to own the property of a specific source of water? He drew up a document and international courts, set up and configured by those who have interests in property, granted him legal protection upon his drawing up of this document. So now person B can be legally denied access to water that he could access hours before the document was written up.

So your whole basis for saying water is not a right is because, though there is enough water on this planet to sustain 8 billion humans, they may be denied access due to a arbitrary document that alters nothing whatsoever in the physical or natural world. This sounds to be a really specious way of denying water.

What if B instead had written the document first and had it made official? Well, it would never happen because B is not among the class of people who can do that. Thus, the distribution of water is not determined by human need but by profits. So yep, people are de facto denied water and we determine that they are denied because they cannot afford it.

Let's turn to another vital question: why is B not among the class of people who can do claim property? Because B lacks the money. But why does B lack money? B was simply born in the wrong family and the wrong place. So according to geographic happenstance of where B was born B can be denied access to water, not because there is insufficient water to supply B, but because B has been dealt a bad hand.

I'd understand if you said B should make something of himself but you need to realize capitalism does not operate that way. Capitalism keeps wages low by having a reserve army of unemployed laborers so that when someone demands better conditions, they can fire them and hire someone who will not make that complaint. There must be a mass of people who are not doing well in order for those few, 5% can do exceptional. If you lived under a different system of distribution, I can understand you'd say water is not denied but in this system of capitalism, it must be denied because it's what the market will bear. But we know the market is an artificial creation of private property (a written deed is an artificial claim that has been made institutional) and therefore necessitates that some people will have abundantly and others will not to the point of lacking vital access to water. But being an artificial institution, it is preventing access and is made by human decision.

And the facts of the world about water back me up here in that there are indeed lots of people in the world that, though sufficient water exists, it is not supplied and therefore is denied.

"By 2025, 800 million people will be living in countries or regions with absolute water scarcity, and two-thirds of the world population could be under stress conditions."

"According to Nature (2010), about 80% of the world's population (5.6 billion in 2011) live in areas with threats to water security."
Water security - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So my premise that water is denied because it is not a right is true. So how do we determine who gets water and who doesn't? The answer is already obvious: corporations.

So lets ask why corporations get to be the tyrants? No one can vote for corporations so this was obviously not a political act on the part of the public. So why are corporations the tyrants?

Okay, first my straw man.

I gotta say that my assumption being baseless strikes me as -highly- unlikely. The Nestle boycott was literally half your post. You made one argument, clarified the point of that argument, then said, "In addition," and then made the statement about Nestle. Especially with the "in addition" it seems to be intended to further your argument, and the ultimate purpose of any intellectual debate is to sway opinion. However, despite that all signs point toward that having been intended as a supporting piece of evidence, I'll take you at your word that the "In addition" was misplaced and you were simply posting a fun anecdote to spice up the conversation. I apologize for my straw man.

Now then.

I'll start by saying I disagree fundamentally with your take on property rights, but I absolutely -love- that you cut right to the quick on this argument and went straight to the lowest common denominator of our split in philosophy, so to speak. It saves time and implies that you and I are on the same page at least insofar as acknowledging that a moral opinion on a fundamental philosophical principle is the ultimate basis on which both of our philosophical constructs are built.

That said, I hesitate to let this turn into an all-out argument on the validity of any particular setup of ownership. That's a much more complex and blurry thing to argue, so I'll keep this to a short summary of my view.

Ownership is inevitable. Humans, like most land-based animals, are instinctively possessive and territorial. If no society forms to organize material ownership, then literal physical power will determine who owns what. This is one of the basic reasons we form societies.

Humans, aside from being territorial, are instinctively individualistic, which seems like it would come with the territory of having an individual consciousness as opposed to a communal one, like worker ants. Other than the instincts related to procreation (and even including most of these) a human being's instincts are all based in individual self-interest.

Therefore, my belief is that not only property rights, but -individual- property rights, are the organization of material management that most suits Humanity as it is the system of organization that allows for the least denial of our natural urges. IT leaves us free to pursue the individual material dominance that we naturally desire while only tempering our methods with whatever particular ethics one's society deems binding.

Contrary to this, any form of communal ownership necessitates universal adherence to dogmatic principles that are diametrically opposed to our innate desires.

That said, my aversion to the demand of universal adherence to a morality is, in and of itself, dogmatic in nature. This, as I said, as you seem to understand, ultimately boils down to a moral opinion: Individualism or Collectivism?

Onto the primary focus.

Regardless of how you feel about the validity of individual ownership, the ownership of water is, at least in my opinion, less than arbitrary for a number of reasons.

In most of the places where water is scarce and, indeed, in most modern cities and towns, water is delivered to the consumer by man-made constructs to eliminate the need to get that fresh water from highly inconvenient sources. The convenience of these sources depends on various factors. Some places get their drinking water from underground water tables and other places treat water from above-ground sources so that it's adequately safe for human consumption.

My point is, in -most- modern places and spots where water is scarce enough to be a commodity, someone had to exert material and effort to make that water both drinkable and accessible. It's not that they own the bodies of water so much as that they own the means of delivery.

Now, let's take a place like Hawaii. Ocean-locked by 2500 miles. The population on Oahu is significantly greater than what any above-ground fresh water sources on the island could ever -hope- to accommodate. The drinking water on Oahu is pumped out of massive underground water tables, as it is in many modern cities.

Underground water tables aren't something that your average human could easily dig to for the sake of filling their buckets with fresh, drinkable water. The obvious implication is that the only reason Oahu is able to support her populace with drinking water is that someone put together a physical construct that would make that underground water accessible. They expended capital, effort, and -intellect- in order to irrigate that hard-to-get-to drinking water. If we say that everyone on Oahu has the right to water, this means that the people who've now expended the capital to own and maintain that irrigation system simply -owe- it to people to allow them to access that construct's benefits. You're proposing a system that forces them to obey your people-over-profits morality, and one that therefore forces them to give up, for free, the product of -their- intellect, provided that society deems that product necessary to basic human maintenance.

You're proposing a system of ownership under which "need", as is decided by "society", is all that's needed to enslave the product of someone else's effort and intellect.

This implies the utter removal of incentive to develop our most important technologies from anyone who doesn't -honestly- share your morality or have a set of values that can be met in an environment dominated legally by your morals. Even by declaring a right to drinking water, you aren't guaranteeing access in places of scarcity for the very practical reason that the incentive for the upkeep of the irrigation systems that make drinking water accessible in many of these places is largely removed, as is the incentive for the implementation of irrigation where it's still needed. Maybe it's a flaw in the human psychological system, but love of money (they physical representation of literal capacity. You can easily replace the word money with the word power) gets a lot more shit done than love of our fellow man, historically speaking. It's is inarguably the more effective incentive, when applied to our species.

Bottom line: Yes, there is enough water on this planet to sustain everyone that's currently here. However, much of that sustenance requires that someone make that water drinkable and accessible. If you don't allow that someone to make a profit doing so, how can you rely on anybody actually expending the effort to make drinking water that widely available? How could you reasonably expect it of anyone, other than by the mandate of -your- morality?

Then comes the other question. Even if you irrigate by act of government, the building and maintenance of the constructs and the treatment of the water has to be done by -someone- and still requires that materials are expended. These things have a cost, and that cost is generally covered by taxes. That means society, as a whole, pays for its access to drinking water. If you're paying for it, it's not a right. You can call it a right, but if it costs something, that's an illusion.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are logical rights because they're things that an average human being can achieve in a vacuum and, more importantly, without the cooperation of anyone else. Each person, as an individual, is possessed of the basic capacity to gather and consume food and water. We've got our own hands, teeth, and digestive systems to manipulate these things. We also breathe without help, and our self-initiative is automatic and requires no outside cooperation.

The right to water, if you live in a place without an accessible above-ground source, is an illusion because, unless someone cooperates to help you get it, most people wouldn't be able to acquire the stuff.

When you say that the corporations (your blanket term for whoever controls the significant majority of the resource in question) get to be the tyrants via this system, you're presupposing that the owners of the irrigation systems -owe- sustenance to anyone who's thirsty and can't get water. You're assuming that, in a vacuum, all those people would be able to access all that water, which is often not the case, and/or you're assuming that having the power to sustain someone and not doing it is tantamount to denying them sustenance, which again boils down to moral opinion.

My moral opinion says they're not tyrants, as all they're doing is asserting control over material things that, by the traditional property rules of their respective societies, -they- acquired. How that affects anyone else, in my moral opinion, is not their responsibility. Everyone is his or her -own- responsibility, or the responsibility of their parents. That a portion of my blood could sate the thirst of a man in need does not factually, morally necessitate that I open my wrist and let him drink.

Now, if this hasn't gotten longwinded enough already, let's take this one step further down the road of material rights. Water's a fun one, because in theory a lot of people -would- be able to acquire it in a vacuum. Let's try a commonly proposed material right that draws a more contrasting picture between your view and mine: Healthcare!

There are plenty of naturally occurring plants, funguses, and bacteria with amazing healing properties that anybody with a little common know-how could access and apply. That said, modern medicine largely requires the processing of active chemicals in these things into concentrations and combinations targeted more efficiently and effectively at specific health related effects. This requires monumental amounts of research and development which requires monumental amounts of capital, and that's before you factor in the cost of producing the drugs that said research turns out.

Past that, the administration of modern medicine requires massive amounts of natural dexterity, intellectual capacity, and -acquired knowledge-. The acquisition of the knowledge required to be a legal healthcare provider (doctor) in modern society requires, almost universally, just shy of a -decade- of intense secondary and post-secondary education and the potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars required to pay for that education (knowledge passed on from people who've spent comparable amounts of time and capital to have said knowledge to teach).

When you say that people have a right to healthcare, you're saying that they have a right to subjugate the intellectual property of the people who gathered insane amounts of knowledge, time, capital, and effort for anyone who can't or won't provide the cost of their own healthcare.

When you say they have a right to healthcare, you're saying they have the right to DIRECTLY SUBJUGATE nearby, available doctors simply by having a need for their services and nothing substantial to offer in trade.

You're saying that if someone with considerable natural talents takes the even more considerable time and effort to develop those talents to the point that they can effectively treat difficult ailments, they automatically subject themselves to enslavement by anyone with the convenient combination of need and lack.

The right to anything material, -especially- healthcare, means the enslavement of the capable to the needs of the incapable. I am morally opposed to this concept in all of its forms.

Not2BSubjugated isn't just an off-the-cuff handle

 

[BobPlumb]

You own stock in Ex-Lax or something?

That would be the Pro-Movement Party.

Nah, if people are having regular movements, they don't need the product....

But Ex-lax would be pro-movement. If I am anti-movement then I would want to keep people from taking Ex-lax.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?

You sound extremely butthurt. Could it be that on most issues he disagrees with Reps? I know I am like that. Reps have some good ideas about some fiscal matters but they suck butt on almost everything else.

The trouble in listening to what you said is that it forces them to clarify their position and they don't like doing that..they prefer to assert that your a liberal so they can automatically classify you as the enemy, the irrational evil of the world. They stand for just freedom based in property rights and will not tolerate disagreement. If you disagree, whether you agree with liberals or not, you automatically become liberal according to their official pronouncements. These are the sorts of people that cannot tolerate dialogue: you must listen and agree with what they say or you are without a brain.

You should take your own advice.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.

Use your critical thinking skills. How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?

By reading their posts.

 

[Asclepias]

So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.

Use your critical thinking skills. How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?

By reading their posts.

Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.

 

[gnarlylove]

Not2bSubjugated I dig the reply and appreciate the clarity with which you delineated the strawman and stress on the phrase "in addition."

A unique defense of property: not that it's actually an inherent thing but has descriptively developed through evolutionary means. The contract and legal system we have depends on property. It arranges distribution and the like in legal terms though I think those terms are favoritist and can be traced back to the interests of those setting up the legal framework which is at odd with the majority of human beings on the planet. But as you speak of property allow me to continue: we will continue to evolve and it's entirely likely that property will be subjugated by a mega corporation or conglomerate and it will be opposed to the interests of all the people. Either way, evolution will end property and continue with something else.

Also notice the descriptive fact we adopted private property is not a good argument to adopt the notion.

You also hinted that we will have lowered incentives without property. This is true if humans are taught to pursue wealth forgetting all but self. However, most humans do not live according to this radically anti-human proposition and even those who adhere continue to concern others in their decision making. The one's who don't are clinically diagnosed as pathological and these are the sorts of people who make big bucks on wall street (search on WSJ "lessons of a brain damaged investor").

But if we taught people to adhere to their internal principles of community and social activity, we would naturally develop interchange that is akin to the dialectical process of life that leads to technological advancement. We have been advancing and regressing all the while long before property and profit-maximization were thought up, let alone utilized. Albeit we have seen the most rapid development, this development has not been without cost. Computers were funded for decades before they were turned into private hands. The costs to develop them were funded by the public and once they became marketable we transfered them to Gates and the like. The public reaps the benefits by paying Gates for something they helped create? Odd way of technological advancement. Make people pay more for what they already paid for.

I would keep going as your reply deserves much attention but I must sadly announce I do not have it in me to devote the proper time. Instead I will praise you for your cogent reply and ask what is your educational background for shits and giggles?

I tend to associate your lucidity with a philosophical background but your actual position is usually found among untrained layman or CEOs. I figure you are neither, so why are you defending a position that has no practical value to you and that you must understand as having shortcomings (like water insecurity). I really enjoyed your section on water not existing in certain areas and most people not having access. It was a really eloquent and accurate portrayal that I left out of my reply though I didn't expect you to understand with such precision. Despite our disagreement on this topic, I would like to venture to other areas of interest because you are definitely not to be subjugated (neither am I)!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Use your critical thinking skills. How do you know what someone does or does not do unless you are a stalker?

By reading their posts.

Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.

Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.

But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.

 

[Asclepias]

By reading their posts.

Hate to break it to you but that only tells you so much and proves you are not too bright for thinking a post is the same as someone spilling their guts to you. You keep proving your grasp on certain dynamics is questionable.

Since the discussion is about what he posts, not what he thinks, it shows enough.

But, please, feel free to pretend I said something so stupid that only you can explain how stupid it is.

Yet no where in the post I responded to does it say what he "posts". Feel free to explain why you wrote something so stupid an infant could pick it out. Let me know when all actions like hating the right are confined to what you post on a messageboard.

So lets get this right.... If you ONLY hate the right, only attack the right only criticize the right and NEVER, not once make any complaint or disagreement with the left that makes you anti party? You people are beyond stupid and such poor liars.

 

[AntiParty]

I'm more in favor of being part of the anti-movement party.

And where does that leave you.

 

[AntiParty]

So basically, you're an OWS shitter who WOULD vote 100% democrat, IF you ever managed to get out and vote.

You're "anti-party" because you're really pissed that Obama didn't confiscate the wealth of the top 1% and give it to you, as you were convinced he would when you were worshiping him on TV when he was in Denver, in '08...

Check out this crazy kid that doesn't understand self thinking^^^

You are NOT anti party, you openly support defend and refuse to criticizes democrats. You ONLY attack the right. You only criticize the right. You only bemoan one of the parties. You have NEVER, not once, ever said anything against the democratic party. Not once.

Or perhaps THIS time you can point me to where you have ever said anything against the democrats?

YOu keep stating this over and over in my thread. It's clear by now that you don't know how to see responses to your inquries.

I don't believe in abortion, soda limits, gun grabbing, big spending, illegal immigration and voting without ID.

You will later repeat what you just stated because you won't read this, again. You hear what you want to hear and repeat what is good for your argument.