Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Am I a Socialist?

JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:28:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
.........Obvious answer is obvious.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Definitely a capitalist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:34:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:28:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
.........Obvious answer is obvious.

It's not obvious to the people on the other forum though.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:36:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:34:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:28:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
.........Obvious answer is obvious.

It's not obvious to the people on the other forum though.

Well, F*ck them.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:37:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:36:36 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Considering all the issues on your profile say "undecided" I have nothing to go off of to figure this out.

Except my posts/threads, if you have ever read them.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 1:38:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:36:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:34:19 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:28:36 PM, OberHerr wrote:
.........Obvious answer is obvious.

It's not obvious to the people on the other forum though.

Well, F*ck them.

You should go drag them away, I guess.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 2:52:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

Do you consider a copyright office to be government intervention on the economy? It forceably stops individuals from making and selling their own products simply because another individual registered a similar idea with a centralized authority at some previous date.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 2:54:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 2:52:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

Do you consider a copyright office to be government intervention on the economy? It forceably stops individuals from making and selling their own products simply because another individual registered a similar idea with a centralized authority at some previous date.

To a degree, yes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 2:55:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 2:54:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:52:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

Do you consider a copyright office to be government intervention on the economy? It forceably stops individuals from making and selling their own products simply because another individual registered a similar idea with a centralized authority at some previous date.

To a degree, yes.

Guess that makes me an interventionist capitalist.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 3:08:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

What? What? No, socialists by common definition of the word necessitates major socialisation. Otherwise I'm calling people who want a nationalised defence force socialists from now on. Or even a nationalised judicial system. The original question is not of particular ideology socialism but of a total ideology, and thus saying any national institutions makes one socialist is simply McCarthyist or misunderstandings of the original question.

Socialism means a complete distrust in the market. Socialists want to do away with, or at the least majorly reform (social democrats) the market system.

Class conflict is essentially the major factor, along with claiming the economic system fatally flawed under Capitalism. Socialism is strange as it is quite general like liberalism but without too much underpinnings.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 3:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you some how think you are "entitled to something you didn't work for" just because you were born or "didn't pay an ungodly amount of taxes earned in a private sector job or business" you are a socialist in my book. Govt jobs don't count as govt has to take money from the private sector to pay you if you have a govt job.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 4:00:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 3:08:06 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

What? What? No, socialists by common definition of the word necessitates major socialisation. Otherwise I'm calling people who want a nationalised defence force socialists from now on.

The military is not a private industry. The military is one of the natural roles of the state. The natural role of the state is the defense of life, liberty, and property. In other words, firemen, cops, and police are not private industries. Private security forces and mercenaries are private industries. Prior to the formation of a standing army, militia were used for defense. Prior to the creation of the New Model Army in England, the military consisted of knights, men-at-arms and yeomanry. Men-at-arms were Landed gentry who fought to protect their land, and to increase their social status. If a Landed gentry did well they could be knighted, which would double their pay. In 1485 King Henry VII established the yoemenry, which was made up of lower class farmers. Yoemen made up the majority of the military. The red uniforms of the Yoemen were a precursor to the red uniforms of the New Model Army. The militia act of Militia Act required mandatory service for all property owners. In short the military is meant to protect property; one can argue that a standing army is socialist because it hires people to protect other property (but I would be more inclined to call it nationalist). The role of the state is the protection of it's citizens.

Or even a nationalised judicial system. The original question is not of particular ideology socialism but of a total ideology, and thus saying any national institutions makes one socialist is simply McCarthyist or misunderstandings of the original question.

The judiciary is a branch of government. The opposite of a Nationalized judiciary is a localized judiciary; in other word you are not talking about private vs public, you are talking about local government vs national government.
Socialism means a complete distrust in the market. Socialists want to do away with, or at the least majorly reform (social democrats) the market system.

Social Democrats aka Democratic Socialists want to achieve socialism through democratic means. In other words, they want the majority to decide on what capital to nationalize.
Class conflict is essentially the major factor, along with claiming the economic system fatally flawed under Capitalism. Socialism is strange as it is quite general like liberalism but without too much underpinnings.

Socialism is the exact opposite of liberalism (at least in the classical sense).
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 4:13:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 3:44:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
Govt jobs don't count as govt has to take money from the private sector to pay you if you have a govt job.

This leads to a destruction of wealth, as those government employees are employed inefficiently. If these bureaucrats are not retained in office, the taxpayers will be permitted to keep the money that was formerly taken from them for the support of the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats will then have to seek employment in the private sector, where they will be employed efficiently.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 4:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

All people are socialists. Some people just haven't realised it yet.

Honestly though even though I have read alot of what you have written on the forum it is hard to say, because it depends on a large number of things. The most important is how one deffines socialisme and what they see as the most important part of the ideology.
DanT seems to belive that the most importent characteristica is about who owns the capital, you seem to see it as a contrast to capitalisme and free market, while I belive that the most importent thing about socialisme is freeing the individual from the necessity of performing alienating work.
It is three very different ways to look at socialisme and each of them would properly give a different answear.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 4:59:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 4:14:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You're Anarcho-Capitalist if you ask me.

Well...

no, I wouldn't go that far. I feel that responsible government is necessary to protect the free market.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 5:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 4:00:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 3:08:06 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

What? What? No, socialists by common definition of the word necessitates major socialisation. Otherwise I'm calling people who want a nationalised defence force socialists from now on.

The military is not a private industry. The military is one of the natural roles of the state.

Similar to looking after its citizens, which is a reason for nationalisation of healthcare. But the "role of the state" doesn't make it so in any practical sense.

The natural role of the state is the defense of life, liberty, and property.

In a liberal parliamentary society, yes. But now we might as well start presupposing this already.

In other words, firemen, cops, and police are not private industries.

And many libertarians disagree.

Private security forces and mercenaries are private industries. Prior to the formation of a standing army, militia were used for defense.

Militias were mostly made up of mercenaries. Mercenaries were so commonplace that they were in almost all armies. e.g. gallóglaigh mercenaries.

Prior to the creation of the New Model Army in England, the military consisted of knights, men-at-arms and yeomanry.

What? Before the Model Army and during and after in fact, the armies were mostly conscripts and mercenaries led by knights and barons. The feudal system meant the barons needed to get a sufficient number of knights to fight for their quota, and each knight raised a brigade to fight under them.

History about Yeomanry

Or even a nationalised judicial system. The original question is not of particular ideology socialism but of a total ideology, and thus saying any national institutions makes one socialist is simply McCarthyist or misunderstandings of the original question.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

Again, only under a liberal parliamentary system of government. Fascist regimes, Absolute Monarchist regimes and Orthodox Communist regimes did not separate these branches.

The opposite of a Nationalized judiciary is a localized judiciary; in other word you are not talking about private vs public, you are talking about local government vs national government.

I don't know why we're know equivocating decentralisation with privatisation, but OK, whatever.

Socialism means a complete distrust in the market. Socialists want to do away with, or at the least majorly reform (social democrats) the market system.

Social Democrats aka Democratic Socialists want to achieve socialism through democratic means. In other words, they want the majority to decide on what capital to nationalize.
Class conflict is essentially the major factor, along with claiming the economic system fatally flawed under Capitalism. Socialism is strange as it is quite general like liberalism but without too much underpinnings.

Socialism is the exact opposite of liberalism (at least in the classical sense).

Though I can understand why some people make these contrasts, but I don't see a dichotomy. At best, there's the trichotomy between fascism-communism-liberalism, but there's not much more than that. But still, claiming it to be the opposite doesn't hold much value. No major values of either group directly contrast with each other.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 5:31:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 3:44:46 PM, sadolite wrote:
If you some how think you are "entitled to something you didn't work for" just because you were born or "didn't pay an ungodly amount of taxes earned in a private sector job or business" you are a socialist in my book. Govt jobs don't count as govt has to take money from the private sector to pay you if you have a govt job.

So you're against the fourteenth amendment providing citizenship for someone just because they happened to be born in America? They need to earn it ever new generation (come on, people aren't entitled to citizenship because their PARENTS were given it, that's socialist)?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 5:32:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 4:59:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/3/2012 4:14:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You're Anarcho-Capitalist if you ask me.

Well...

no, I wouldn't go that far. I feel that responsible government is necessary to protect the free market.

You'd be either a classical liberal or a conservative then. Not socialist in any way.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 5:32:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The people who think are Socialist must be pretty... um... not intelligent if they actually look at your posts, which are quite clearly libertarian.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 5:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 5:32:25 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
The people who think are Socialist must be pretty... um... not intelligent if they actually look at your posts, which are quite clearly libertarian.

Well, I'm not going to argue with that. I had people calling me an Obama-apologist, becuase I explained that his 'you didn't build that' comment likely was in reference to 'roads and bridges'. Then I explained why the whole section of that speech, in-context, was stupid, demeaning, and anti-capitalist...

Because, you know, criticizing people the wrong way is now apologizing for them.

Some of the people on this forum(not DDO, the other) are as bad as DUers... so hypocritical, double-standards, and uninterested in truth. I can say something, and cause I'm new, I get criticized for being a troll. Then an established member says literally, word for word, the same thing, and they get '+1' 'I agree' 'Awesome post'.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:18:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 4:59:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/3/2012 4:14:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
You're Anarcho-Capitalist if you ask me.

Well...

no, I wouldn't go that far. I feel that responsible government is necessary to protect the free market.

All that's necessary to protect the free market is private property rights. Private arbitrators can enforce that.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:19:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you generally agree with these principles?

Principle 1. The life of each individual is an absolute and universal moral value. No non-aggressive individual's life, liberty, or property may be legitimately sacrificed for any goal.

Principle 2. Every individual owns his body, his mind, and the labor thereof, including the physical objects legitimately obtained through such labor.

Principle 3. Every individual has the right to pursue activities for the betterment of his life - including its material, intellectual, and emotional aspects - by using his own body and property, as well as the property of consenting others.

Principle 4. The rights of an individual to life, liberty, and property are inherent to that individual's nature. They are not granted by other human beings, and they cannot be taken away by any entity.

Principle 5. The initiation of physical force, the threat of such force, or fraud against any individual is never permissible - irrespective of the position and character of the initiator. However, proportionate force may be used to retaliate and defend against aggression.

Principle 6. The sole fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals by engaging in actions specifically delegated to the government by its constituents. Government is not the same as society, nor is the government entitled to sacrifice some non-aggressive individuals to advance the well-being of others.

Principle 7. Every individual has the absolute right to think and express any ideas. Thought and speech are never equivalent to force or violence and ought never to be restricted or to be subject to coercive penalties. Specifically, coercion and censorship on the basis of religious or political ideas are not acceptable under any circumstances.

Principle 8. Commerce, technology, and science are desirable, liberating forces that are capable of alleviating historic ills, improving the quality of human life, and morally elevating human beings. The complete freedom of trade, innovation, and thought should be preserved and supported for all human beings in the world.

Principle 9. Accidents of birth, geography, or ancestry do not define an individual and should not result in manmade restrictions of that individual's rights or opportunities. Every individual should be judged purely on his or her personal qualities, including accomplishments, character, and knowledge.

Principle 10. There are no "natural" or desirable limits to human potential for good, and there is no substantive problem that is necessarily unsolvable by present or future human knowledge, effort, and technology. It is a moral imperative for humans to expand their mastery of the universe indefinitely and in such a manner as will reinforce the survival and flourishing of all non-aggressive individuals.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:26:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'll give this a shot myself.

At 9/3/2012 8:19:58 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Do you generally agree with these principles?

Principle 1. The life of each individual is an absolute and universal moral value. No non-aggressive individual's life, liberty, or property may be legitimately sacrificed for any goal.

No.

Principle 2. Every individual owns his body, his mind, and the labor thereof, including the physical objects legitimately obtained through such labor.

Yes.

Principle 3. Every individual has the right to pursue activities for the betterment of his life - including its material, intellectual, and emotional aspects - by using his own body and property, as well as the property of consenting others.

Yes.

Principle 4. The rights of an individual to life, liberty, and property are inherent to that individual's nature. They are not granted by other human beings, and they cannot be taken away by any entity.

Yes.

Principle 5. The initiation of physical force, the threat of such force, or fraud against any individual is never permissible - irrespective of the position and character of the initiator. However, proportionate force may be used to retaliate and defend against aggression.

Yes.

Principle 6. The sole fundamental purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals by engaging in actions specifically delegated to the government by its constituents. Government is not the same as society, nor is the government entitled to sacrifice some non-aggressive individuals to advance the well-being of others.

No.

Principle 7. Every individual has the absolute right to think and express any ideas. Thought and speech are never equivalent to force or violence and ought never to be restricted or to be subject to coercive penalties. Specifically, coercion and censorship on the basis of religious or political ideas are not acceptable under any circumstances.

Yes and no. Gossip needs to be outlawed (in such cases as a public defamation).

Principle 8. Commerce, technology, and science are desirable, liberating forces that are capable of alleviating historic ills, improving the quality of human life, and morally elevating human beings. The complete freedom of trade, innovation, and thought should be preserved and supported for all human beings in the world.

Yes.

Principle 9. Accidents of birth, geography, or ancestry do not define an individual and should not result in manmade restrictions of that individual's rights or opportunities. Every individual should be judged purely on his or her personal qualities, including accomplishments, character, and knowledge.

Geography?

Principle 10. There are no "natural" or desirable limits to human potential for good, and there is no substantive problem that is necessarily unsolvable by present or future human knowledge, effort, and technology. It is a moral imperative for humans to expand their mastery of the universe indefinitely and in such a manner as will reinforce the survival and flourishing of all non-aggressive individuals.

I'm not a philosopher.
----------

There. Psychoanalyze that.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 8:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 5:30:13 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/3/2012 4:00:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 3:08:06 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/3/2012 2:49:05 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

Do you believe the government should not intervene in the economy?
If the answer is yes than you are in favor of a free market; if the answer is n than you are a interventionist.

Do you believe in private ownership of capital?
If the answer is yes you are a capitalist; if the answer is no you are a socialist.

It's probably good to note that socialists don't necessarily believe in nationalizing all forms of capital. For example someone who wants to nationalize medicine is a socialist, even if they don't want to nationalize housing. Someone who wants to nationalize housing may be a socialist even if they don't want to nationalize medicine. Also a public national bank is socialist, while a private national bank (like the fed or the bank of the united states) is nationalist.

What? What? No, socialists by common definition of the word necessitates major socialisation. Otherwise I'm calling people who want a nationalised defence force socialists from now on.

The military is not a private industry. The military is one of the natural roles of the state.

Similar to looking after its citizens, which is a reason for nationalisation of healthcare. But the "role of the state" doesn't make it so in any practical sense.

It's illogical to claim that national defense (which has never been a private enterprise) is socialist if it is not privatized. One could argue that the a standing army is socialist, and that the military needs to be made up of mercenaries (men-at-arms) or militia (yeoman), but one cannot argue that the state is not charged with providing for the national defense; national defense has never been a private enterprise.
The natural role of the state is the defense of life, liberty, and property.

In a liberal parliamentary society, yes. But now we might as well start presupposing this already.

I's the only logical role of the state. I'm planning on writing a book with a chapter about it, maybe you should read it when I'm done. It's too long of an explanation and posts on the forum have character limits. In short the state is legitimized by their ability to lead. Leaders are chosen by their followers, and therefore legitimized by their followers. If the state does not represent the entire community, it is illegitimate. If it represents the minority, the majority has a right to abolish the government. If it only represents the majority, the minority has a right to break the political bonds, and form a separate state. The only way to represent the entire community is to limit the authority of the state to the protection of life, liberty, and property. Historically that has been the original role of the state (minus religious leadership, which has historically caused injustice). When a nation is conquered the original state is illegitimate because they failed to defend the populace, but the new state must also earn the respect of the populace in order to become legitimit leaders of their new subjects.

In other words, firemen, cops, and police are not private industries.

And many libertarians disagree.

anarchists maybe
Private security forces and mercenaries are private industries. Prior to the formation of a standing army, militia were used for defense.

Militias were mostly made up of mercenaries. Mercenaries were so commonplace that they were in almost all armies. e.g. gallóglaigh mercenaries.

actually men-at-arms were made up of mercenaries, militia were either volunteers or conscripted citizens. Men-at-arms could become knights, in which case they would no longer be mercenaries. The kind divided the kingdom among his nobles who were raised armies of mercenaries (men-at-arms or foreign mercenaries) and yeomen (volunteered and conscripted farmers). There was no standing army until the new model army; prior to the new model army there wasn't even a standard uniform.
Prior to the creation of the New Model Army in England, the military consisted of knights, men-at-arms and yeomanry.

What? Before the Model Army and during and after in fact, the armies were mostly conscripts and mercenaries led by knights and barons. The feudal system meant the barons needed to get a sufficient number of knights to fight for their quota, and each knight raised a brigade to fight under them.

yes, that's what I said. Men-at-arms were comprised of mercenaries and knights. Knights made double the wage of the mercenaries.
History about Yeomanry


Or even a nationalised judicial system. The original question is not of particular ideology socialism but of a total ideology, and thus saying any national institutions makes one socialist is simply McCarthyist or misunderstandings of the original question.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

Again, only under a liberal parliamentary system of government. Fascist regimes, Absolute Monarchist regimes and Orthodox Communist regimes did not separate these branches.

yes, but the judiciary powers till belonged to the government. If two branches of government are fused into 1 branch, it's still a government power. Say the government is a monarchy, and therefore the monarch has power over all 3 branches of government; the Monarch has power over the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, regardless of whether or not they are separate powers, they still exist as distinct government powers.
The opposite of a Nationalized judiciary is a localized judiciary; in other word you are not talking about private vs public, you are talking about local government vs national government.

I don't know why we're know equivocating decentralisation with privatisation, but OK, whatever.

You are the one making that equivalency. I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing.
Socialism means a complete distrust in the market. Socialists want to do away with, or at the least majorly reform (social democrats) the market system.

Social Democrats aka Democratic Socialists want to achieve socialism through democratic means. In other words, they want the majority to decide on what capital to nationalize.
Class conflict is essentially the major factor, along with claiming the economic system fatally flawed under Capitalism. Socialism is strange as it is quite general like liberalism but without too much underpinnings.

Socialism is the exact opposite of liberalism (at least in the classical sense).

Though I can understand why some people make these contrasts, but I don't see a dichotomy. At best, there's the trichotomy between fascism-communism-liberalism, but there's not much more than that. But still, claiming it to be the opposite doesn't hold much value. No major values of either group directly contrast with each other.

(n) liberalism (an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) socialism (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2012 10:32:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 1:23:18 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
Help me settle an issue. Some people on another forum think I'm a socialist, because I changed my profile here so I would be listed in the top 10 for an ideology when the lists were brought up.

Would you call me a socialist, or in favor of capitalism and free markets?

You must be a totalitarian fascist. I mean, you firmly believe the government should strongly guide, if not fully control, the economy rather than just let the free market work its magic. You believe that citizens should not be allowed to own guns or weapons of any kind, and that the government should be almost completely blindly trusted and given the benefit of the doubt in all cases.

Obvious is obvious.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 6:09:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/3/2012 8:47:04 PM, DanT wrote:
At 9/3/2012 5:30:13 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

Similar to looking after its citizens, which is a reason for nationalisation of healthcare. But the "role of the state" doesn't make it so in any practical sense.

It's illogical to claim that national defense (which has never been a private enterprise) is socialist if it is not privatized. One could argue that the a standing army is socialist, and that the military needs to be made up of mercenaries (men-at-arms) or militia (yeoman), but one cannot argue that the state is not charged with providing for the national defense; national defense has never been a private enterprise.

OK, so you've essentially said that 1) Nationalism beyond excess makes you socialist 2) A national military can be committed through private industry, and 3) Privatised defence is not socialist.

That's an inconsistent triad. National militaries can be committed through private industries (mercenaries) as we know through practice (Qin Dynasty was maintained in a mercenary army, Gallowglass mercenary armies, Swedish Foreign Legion, Hannibal's mercenary armies), but more importantly many Libertarians claim it can be maintained through a private industry (see: The Libertarian Manifesto, Glenn Beck http://www.examiner.com... etc. It's not an anarchy-only idea.


In a liberal parliamentary society, yes. But now we might as well start presupposing this already.

I's the only logical role of the state. I'm planning on writing a book with a chapter about it, maybe you should read it when I'm done. It's too long of an explanation and posts on the forum have character limits. In short the state is legitimized by their ability to lead. Leaders are chosen by their followers, and therefore legitimized by their followers. If the state does not represent the entire community, it is illegitimate.

If it represents the minority, the majority has a right to abolish the government. If it only represents the majority, the minority has a right to break the political bonds, and form a separate state. The only way to represent the entire community is to limit the authority of the state to the protection of life, liberty, and property.
Historically that has been the original role of the state (minus religious leadership, which has historically caused injustice). When a nation is conquered the original state is illegitimate because they failed to defend the populace, but the new state must also earn the respect of the populace in order to become legitimate leaders of their new subjects.

This would make sense, apart from:

1) The more oppressive states dominate the less oppressive states. See: Macedon v Athens ; Pherae/Sparta v Athens ; etc.

2) States which invade for the primary reason to invade these liberties e.g. more land by taking it away from the populace [historically]. e.g. Mongols, Timurids, Scramble for Africa. Historically, the state worked best either when crushing all opponents in force, or crushing all competitors in trade (Hanseatic League, etc.).

3) The States worked for most of history (until the last few hundred years) to represent the minority and the minority only: land owners etc. Liberal values do not necessarily lead to any democratic values. Feudalism, for example, is the dominant political view, looking atemporally.

4) is-ought problem; what is the criterion for claiming that these values are what the state should be aiming to promote? Primarily, stability and defence may be better, in which case nationalist authoritarianism would be more productive, for example.

In other words, firemen, cops, and police are not private industries.

And many libertarians disagree.

anarchists maybe

See above: Libertarian Manifesto, etc.


actually men-at-arms were made up of mercenaries, militia were either volunteers or conscripted citizens. Men-at-arms could become knights, in which case they would no longer be mercenaries. The kind divided the kingdom among his nobles who were raised armies of mercenaries (men-at-arms or foreign mercenaries) and yeomen (volunteered and conscripted farmers). There was no standing army until the new model army; prior to the new model army there wasn't even a standard uniform.

1) The New Model army was a fair proportion mercenaries

2) Although all knights were men-at-arms, not all men-at-arms were knights, nor could become one.

3) All this highlights is how private mercenaries were commonplace: my original point.

yes, that's what I said. Men-at-arms were comprised of mercenaries and knights. Knights made double the wage of the mercenaries.

Depending on the time period, knights weren't traditionally paid in wage, but that's more of an aside: OK, then this essentially concludes, again, mercenaries were staple part of any army.

The judiciary powers till belonged to the government. If two branches of government are fused into 1 branch, it's still a government power. Say the government is a monarchy, and therefore the monarch has power over all 3 branches of government; the Monarch has power over the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, regardless of whether or not they are separate powers, they still exist as distinct government powers.

Alright, then: how, do tell, does merging the two together make them distinct? If they are merged together, as they were in most nations hundreds of years ago, laws were applied whenever one desired them to be used, and usually made up if one wanted to punish someone (or just not made up altogether), similar to a 1984-esque Ministry of Love (sans the sci-fi powers). We could easily make the branches 4 and claim that burger-flipping is a new branch of government. In short, defining government as 3 branches of government not just implies or necessitates a separation of powers and thus a liberal parliamentarian democracy.

The opposite of a Nationalized judiciary is a localized judiciary; in other word you are not talking about private vs public, you are talking about local government vs national government.

I don't know why we're know equivocating decentralisation with privatisation, but OK, whatever.

You are the one making that equivalency. I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing.

OK, let me put it this way: the government doesn't care anymore about crime. They focus on border protection. Some private industry takes over the judicial system in order to commit to crime and punishment. Hence, privatised judiciary.


(n) liberalism (an economic theory advocating free competition and a self-regulating market)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(n) socialism (an economic system based on state ownership of capital)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

Are we honestly going to say that dictionary definitions fully encompass the complexity of the two ideologies?

After all, I'll just do this:

liberalism (a political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

I define liberalism and socialism by what they are, rather then what they seem to be. Liberal Socialism still exists
www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2010/744_451.pdf

Liberalism is the promotion of the individual, as well as promoting a tolerant, free, just, reason-based society. Socialism is based on promoting the community, creating a free, fraternal society to promote co-operation against class politics. Envisioning socialism as an economical model is a viable definition, but in the context of the OP, again, it's not the "correct" one. The better definition is as its general creed.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...