Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "you didn't build that" argument

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:18:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
We need a society. That doesn't say anything of government or the State. Any reason why non-State social organizations don't fit the bill in your eyes?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.

However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition.
We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago.

You are, as always, misunderstanding government for society. Just because people could not have the standard of living they do with no division does not mean that they owe anybody anything except what is mutually agreed upon

So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor.

I'll assume by that you mean voluntary relations between individuals

To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy.

Uhh..no. I dont have to credit the inventor of a sink to earn a living as a plumber for example. While it's true that without that actor I would not have my job, I dnt owe him anything because the process leading to the person hiring me having a sink was just a series of contractual relationships

It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system

Just no.

that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone.

No warrant here, just conjecture. Even if I grant you that equality exists in a state of nature (hell fcking no), theres no obligation to ensure equal opportunity.

It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

No. There is no obligation to pay for inefficient government services, they are not contractual relationships. Likewise, I'm not obligated to have a television or electricity if I dnt want to.


That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

No
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:29:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

Holy sh1t, 000ike's a communist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It frustrates me to no end whenever I talk to people at school about Anarchism and they immediately start warning about "survival of the fittest", people shooting each other over minor car accidents, marauding gangs attacking and robbing everyone, and other acts of violence and chaos along with the usual stereotype that we want to abolish civilization and society as we know it and go back to living in caves and starting fires with sticks and flint.

We don't like the government, that doesn't mean we dislike peaceful cooperation between people and advocate for everyone to go out and farm their own food, build their own houses, etc.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:30:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.

in a state of nature man is in constant competition for survival and sexual reproduction. Just because humans will co exist doesnt mean that they're egalitarian... maybe we're talking about differnet ideas of egalitarianism
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:31:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:29:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

Holy sh1t, 000ike's a communist.

If only. I actually kind of respect communism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:33:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:30:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.

in a state of nature man is in constant competition for survival and sexual reproduction. Just because humans will co exist doesnt mean that they're egalitarian... maybe we're talking about differnet ideas of egalitarianism

Yes, but to increase one's survival chance, group formation occurs and it seems from hunter-gather data, that these groups are egalitarian.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:33:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What people fail to realize is that you, the laborer, are not entitled to, nor did you build, the job I pay you to do.

Yes, my business succeeded with labor's help (assuming I had employees), but you wouldn't be employed had I not risked what I risked and built this business.

The "you didn't build that" argument generally is said by those that feel entitled to someone else's money, in the form of wages. How Obama meant it is unclear.
My work here is, finally, done.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:35:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:31:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:29:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

Holy sh1t, 000ike's a communist.

If only. I actually kind of respect communism.

Oh come on, everything there sounded so communist. "Exploitation of labor". "The natural order of life is completely egalitarian." "So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism".

these sound very communist in nature. At the very least socialist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:33:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:30:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.

in a state of nature man is in constant competition for survival and sexual reproduction. Just because humans will co exist doesnt mean that they're egalitarian... maybe we're talking about differnet ideas of egalitarianism

Yes, but to increase one's survival chance, group formation occurs and it seems from hunter-gather data, that these groups are egalitarian.

Well, by a state of nature I meant a world without any groups like that, because I consider those just tiny socieities. Although I suppose it dcould be argued that such extreme individualism is against human nature
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:36:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:18:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
We need a society. That doesn't say anything of government or the State. Any reason why non-State social organizations don't fit the bill in your eyes?

The state, so long as it is to some extent democratic, is a proxy for the collective power and opinion of the common people. It is the enforcer of the rules, and the keeper of order. The state is the security that the legacy and entitlements of our collective establishment are not robbed from us. The rich would otherwise only build on their wealth, exploiting the modern society, technology, currency system etc. that the people built...with no kind of accountability or obligation to ensure that the opportunity aspect is still alive.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:43:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:35:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:33:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:30:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.

in a state of nature man is in constant competition for survival and sexual reproduction. Just because humans will co exist doesnt mean that they're egalitarian... maybe we're talking about differnet ideas of egalitarianism

Yes, but to increase one's survival chance, group formation occurs and it seems from hunter-gather data, that these groups are egalitarian.

Well, by a state of nature I meant a world without any groups like that, because I consider those just tiny socieities. Although I suppose it dcould be argued that such extreme individualism is against human nature

Are you refering to the whole "social contract theory" state of nature thing. That's a load of hogwash in my opinion.

I'm more arguing that egalitarianism exists on the microscale but doesn't exist on a grand scale, if that makes any sense.

I think capitalism has a lot of weird aspects that seem intuitively wrong, but capitalism is the best system for increasing the standard of living. Bryan Caplan has done studies showing that people have a systematic anti-free market bias, which seems to indicate that people are "naturally" more socialist then capitalist.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:43:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:36:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:18:49 PM, socialpinko wrote:
We need a society. That doesn't say anything of government or the State. Any reason why non-State social organizations don't fit the bill in your eyes?

The state, so long as it is to some extent democratic, is a proxy for the collective power and opinion of the common people.

Conjecture and false at that. Public choice theory shows that States have an inherent tendency to approach minority control. Furthermore leaving these sorts of decisions to the people themselves and kicking out the shatty middle man (government) much more closely approaches the actual opinion of the common people. Why do we need a proxy?

It is the enforcer of the rules, and the keeper of order.

Not necessary. But you admit you have no idea what you're talking about so we'll leave it at that I suppose.

The state is the security that the legacy and entitlements of our collective establishment are not robbed from us.

(a) States protect wealth and possession in some instances yes but their entire existence is predicated on massive robbery so they're self defeating and (b) States aren't the only ways in which to protect one's self and possessions. Again though, you admit complete ignorance on the subject.

The rich would otherwise only build on their wealth, exploiting the modern society, technology, currency system etc. that the people built...with no kind of accountability or obligation to ensure that the opportunity aspect is still alive.

Lol the State doesn't stop this, but enables it. See public choice theory or any of our past conversations on the matter.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:44:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.

Do you seriously think this is a sound argument? When I buy a house, I pay for it by paying the people who voluntarily make it. When I sell a product, I am earning wealth because I increasing economic production of goods people desire. That's my "fair share" to society, wealth is gained through production and lost through consumption. So no, no one owes anyone a goddamned thing except for those they contractually engage with.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:46:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:43:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:35:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:33:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:30:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.

in a state of nature man is in constant competition for survival and sexual reproduction. Just because humans will co exist doesnt mean that they're egalitarian... maybe we're talking about differnet ideas of egalitarianism

Yes, but to increase one's survival chance, group formation occurs and it seems from hunter-gather data, that these groups are egalitarian.

Well, by a state of nature I meant a world without any groups like that, because I consider those just tiny socieities. Although I suppose it dcould be argued that such extreme individualism is against human nature

Are you refering to the whole "social contract theory" state of nature thing. That's a load of hogwash in my opinion.

I'm more arguing that egalitarianism exists on the microscale but doesn't exist on a grand scale, if that makes any sense.

I think capitalism has a lot of weird aspects that seem intuitively wrong, but capitalism is the best system for increasing the standard of living. Bryan Caplan has done studies showing that people have a systematic anti-free market bias, which seems to indicate that people are "naturally" more socialist then capitalist.

That's fascinating, and it seems to concur with my personal experiences. Obviously we are less socialistic towards those we dont know and therefore dont care about. That actually makes a lot of sense really, capitalism is best because we are working for those we care for, not working to have our incomes redistributed to others e dont know or care about on any personal level
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:44:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.

Do you seriously think this is a sound argument? When I buy a house, I pay for it by paying the people who voluntarily make it. When I sell a product, I am earning wealth because I increasing economic production of goods people desire. That's my "fair share" to society, wealth is gained through production and lost through consumption. So no, no one owes anyone a goddamned thing except for those they contractually engage with.

Pretty much this. You're assuming that wealth is just created in a vacuum without looking at the actual social consequences i.e., production of things people want and investment.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:49:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:44:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.

Do you seriously think this is a sound argument? When I buy a house, I pay for it by paying the people who voluntarily make it. When I sell a product, I am earning wealth because I increasing economic production of goods people desire. That's my "fair share" to society, wealth is gained through production and lost through consumption. So no, no one owes anyone a goddamned thing except for those they contractually engage with.

The money system is a social establishment as well, without which, you would not have had access to that house.....

You don't pay for a house and then suddenly feel like you've earned it. You haven't earned it, you've only exploited preexhausted labor and a preestablished trading system to gain something you never would have had. If you are lucky enough to succeed, you owe something to the existence of this system and to the base of people on which it exists. You do this by maintaining that window of opportunity for others.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:49:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.

You should be embarrassed.

The voluntary transfer of wealth and exchange of services does not mean that someone else owns another person's wealth. I don't know how you come up with the conclusion that somewhere along the lines, people have less of a right to their money and property simply because they voluntarily exchange for other goods and services.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:46:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:43:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:35:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:33:07 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:30:22 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:28:19 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:24:58 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available.

Immediately incorrect. I'll debate this with you if you please, because there is absolutely no way that mankind is egalitarian in a state of nature.


Hate to agree with 000ike and argue against you, but humans are actually egalitarian. You can actually find demonstrations of this based on behavior economics expeirments plus chimpanzee experiments (chimpanzees most resemble human behavior since they're our closest ancestors).

Egalitarianism works on a small-scale, dunbar's number or if its with people we actually generally care about. If its on a massive sale with people who I don't care about, then egalitarianism breaks down and self-interest dominates.

in a state of nature man is in constant competition for survival and sexual reproduction. Just because humans will co exist doesnt mean that they're egalitarian... maybe we're talking about differnet ideas of egalitarianism

Yes, but to increase one's survival chance, group formation occurs and it seems from hunter-gather data, that these groups are egalitarian.

Well, by a state of nature I meant a world without any groups like that, because I consider those just tiny socieities. Although I suppose it dcould be argued that such extreme individualism is against human nature

Are you refering to the whole "social contract theory" state of nature thing. That's a load of hogwash in my opinion.

I'm more arguing that egalitarianism exists on the microscale but doesn't exist on a grand scale, if that makes any sense.

I think capitalism has a lot of weird aspects that seem intuitively wrong, but capitalism is the best system for increasing the standard of living. Bryan Caplan has done studies showing that people have a systematic anti-free market bias, which seems to indicate that people are "naturally" more socialist then capitalist.


That's fascinating, and it seems to concur with my personal experiences. Obviously we are less socialistic towards those we dont know and therefore dont care about. That actually makes a lot of sense really, capitalism is best because we are working for those we care for, not working to have our incomes redistributed to others e dont know or care about on any personal level

pretty much.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:50:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:49:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:44:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.

Do you seriously think this is a sound argument? When I buy a house, I pay for it by paying the people who voluntarily make it. When I sell a product, I am earning wealth because I increasing economic production of goods people desire. That's my "fair share" to society, wealth is gained through production and lost through consumption. So no, no one owes anyone a goddamned thing except for those they contractually engage with.

The money system is a social establishment as well, without which, you would not have had access to that house.....

lolwut

You don't pay for a house and then suddenly feel like you've earned it. You haven't earned it, you've only exploited preexhausted labor and a preestablished trading system to gain something you never would have had. If you are lucky enough to succeed, you owe something to the existence of this system and to the base of people on which it exists. You do this by maintaining that window of opportunity for others.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:51:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

That's quite the prima facie case. Make it into a debate and I'll tango with you.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:53:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:35:18 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:31:02 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:29:12 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

Holy sh1t, 000ike's a communist.

If only. I actually kind of respect communism.

Oh come on, everything there sounded so communist. "Exploitation of labor". "The natural order of life is completely egalitarian." "So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism".

these sound very communist in nature. At the very least socialist.

Perhaps, but Ike doesn't hold those statements to their logical conclusions. He just proposes some half arsed middle of the way package i.e., markets heavily regulated with forceful distribution of wealth. At least communists take these statements to their logical conclusion i.e., direct collective ownership of mean of production. I'd prefer he convert to actual communism rather than just use their flowery language.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:54:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:49:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:44:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:40:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't see what's so irrational about social justice. You can't ride to the top of a mountain on the golden elevator someone else built, then destroy it when you get to the top. If you really want to feel like you own every penny of your wealth, then remove yourself from the collectivist establishment and build your own house, with your own cut wood, and your own pioneered knowledge, and with your own roads, and your own processed resources, that you made at your own factory that you built from scratch with your own 2 hands.

Do you seriously think this is a sound argument? When I buy a house, I pay for it by paying the people who voluntarily make it. When I sell a product, I am earning wealth because I increasing economic production of goods people desire. That's my "fair share" to society, wealth is gained through production and lost through consumption. So no, no one owes anyone a goddamned thing except for those they contractually engage with.

The money system is a social establishment as well, without which, you would not have had access to that house.....

You mean the federal reserve? Dont support it. Or are you referring to currency as a concept? Just because I prefer to over value a certain good (that is what currency is definitionaly, an over valued good) and others do as well doesnt mean that I owe anything to society.

You don't pay for a house and then suddenly feel like you've earned it.

But I bought it. No ones rights were violated in either the production of my initial wealth or the buildng of the house...so how exactly is it un earned?

You haven't earned it, you've only exploited preexhausted labor and a preestablished trading system to gain something you never would have had.

I dont see how an exchange of goods requires anything non contractual. Membership in society should be voluntary, it was only with the modern nation state that this became untrue.

If you are lucky enough to succeed, you owe something to the existence of this system and to the base of people on which it exists.

1. What if "the system" itself is bad? 2. Still doesnt follow. I owe nothing to anyone I didnt agree to engage with

You do this by maintaining that window of opportunity for others.

Doesnt follow even if all your premises are true. So basically your argument is not even valid, let alone sound
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:51:57 PM, RyuuKyuzo wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:16:09 PM, 000ike wrote:
The natural order of life is completely egalitarian. In nature, no one owns anything. In nature, everyone has equal access to what is immediately available. However this disconnected lifestyle is largely static. We formed societies with the knowledge that only collective human effort can better the human condition. We need interpersonal coordination, we need rules, and we need organized labor to build and sustain something truly massive and beneficial to everyone. And it was from this idea that civilization arose, along with the consequence of social inequality.

So, individual prosperity at any point is entirely dependent on the foundation of collectivism. In the natural order of existence no one human being can ever in his lifetime produce such a standard of living for himself as we have today or even had 2000 years ago. So accumulated wealth arises only from the exploitation of collective labor. To somehow switch to individualism, and feel like you "earned" everything you have, is a great insult to this legacy. It is our civic duty to maintain that collectivist system that traded equality for opportunity, by ensuring that the opportunity aspect is consistently present for everyone. It is moreover, our civic duty, to maintain the collectivist system that built this modern world that we thoughtlessly enjoy, by paying forward the costs that sustain it.

That is,...we need government, we need social programs, and we need to put an end to the selfish ideas of personal independence and individualism.

That's quite the prima facie case. Make it into a debate and I'll tango with you.

Get in line. There are like five other people ahead of you that he won't debate.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 10:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:54:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
I owe nothing to anyone I didnt agree to engage with

You are not owed roads, technology, clean water, food, or anything for that matter. That you use this system to acquire those things is in fact an act of agreed engagement,... acquiescence at least.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2012 11:00:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/12/2012 10:58:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/12/2012 10:54:37 PM, thett3 wrote:
I owe nothing to anyone I didnt agree to engage with

You are not owed roads, technology, clean water, food, or anything for that matter. That you use this system to acquire those things is in fact an act of agreed engagement,... acquiescence at least.

Roads: There is no other option other than government roads. That a gang of thieves forces me to use their goods and pay an extreme price for it is no agreement on my part.

Technology/food/water: Again, contractual agreements. I'm not owed it, but if I produce or inherit money I can contractually purchase these things.

Come on man you can do better
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right