Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for the Statists

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?
How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people? 100 million? Well then are you an anarchist, since government have killed more than that? 200 million? 300? Then you are still an anarchist. Or does government have to obliterate 90% of the population until you throw off the shackles of statism? Or should the whole world get destroyed by government because of the FEAR and superstitious belief that without government the whole world will get destroyed? In short, how much damage does government have to do until you will reject it or are you just a religious fundamentalist and will advocate government no matter how much destruction it causes?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:20:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?
How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people? 100 million? Well then are you an anarchist, since government have killed more than that? 200 million? 300? Then you are still an anarchist. Or does government have to obliterate 90% of the population until you throw off the shackles of statism? Or should the whole world get destroyed by government because of the FEAR and superstitious belief that without government the whole world will get destroyed? In short, how much damage does government have to do until you will reject it or are you just a religious fundamentalist and will advocate government no matter how much destruction it causes?
Government isn't necessarily responsible for killing millions of innocent people. Unlimited power is. Authority is just a tool that the evil use as means to an end. Thats why we have a system of checks and balances.

Guns have been used for millions of killings. Should we then reject all weapons? Of course not. What we reject is their abuse.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:20:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

What does "failure" mean to you?
Tsar of DDO
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 3:54:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How many times does George Washington have to shoot you with a musket until you realize we need limited Constitutional government with divided powers of a Republic.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

100 million? Well then are you an anarchist, since government have killed more than that? 200 million? 300? Then you are still an anarchist. Or does government have to obliterate 90% of the population until you throw off the shackles of statism?

Again, who are you calling statists? Everyone who would like to take advantage of the fact that government enjoys a wee bit of relative autonomy (breathing room) from our corporate leviathans and capitalist ruling class and can be used to rein them in a bit through regulation and taxation? In other words, can your anti-statist diatribe be reduced to: "Being a staunch pro-capitalist I viscerally find big government to be vile and villainous because it sometimes imposes rules and restrictions on big business."?

Or should the whole world get destroyed by government

Well, if our "civilization" persists in its ecologically-disastrous capitalist ways, i.e. in capitalist behaviors that cause climate change, well, then it's capitalism that stands a much better chance of ending the world as we know it.

because of the FEAR and superstitious belief that without government the whole world will get destroyed? In short, how much damage does government have to do until you will reject it or are you just a religious fundamentalist and will advocate government no matter how much destruction it causes?

If we abolish government without also abolishing the capitalist power structure of our society in favor of a thoroughly egalitarian form of life we'll only be making matters considerably worse.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?

100 million? Well then are you an anarchist, since government have killed more than that? 200 million? 300? Then you are still an anarchist. Or does government have to obliterate 90% of the population until you throw off the shackles of statism?

Again, who are you calling statists? Everyone who would like to take advantage of the fact that government enjoys a wee bit of relative autonomy (breathing room) from our corporate leviathans and capitalist ruling class and can be used to rein them in a bit through regulation and taxation? In other words, can your anti-statist diatribe be reduced to: "Being a staunch pro-capitalist I viscerally find big government to be vile and villainous because it sometimes imposes rules and restrictions on big business."?


Or should the whole world get destroyed by government

Well, if our "civilization" persists in its ecologically-disastrous capitalist ways, i.e. in capitalist behaviors that cause climate change, well, then it's capitalism that stands a much better chance of ending the world as we know it.

Yep, the soviet government that caused the world's worst nuclear disaster did a great job at maintaining the environment.

because of the FEAR and superstitious belief that without government the whole world will get destroyed? In short, how much damage does government have to do until you will reject it or are you just a religious fundamentalist and will advocate government no matter how much destruction it causes?

If we abolish government without also abolishing the capitalist power structure of our society in favor of a thoroughly egalitarian form of life we'll only be making matters considerably worse.

You mean voluntary communism? Good luck with that, I'll personally be stockpiling weapons and ammunition for the day that a few reds come and try to steal my property.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?

Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.
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
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:57:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?


Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.

You're right, and when Charles brings up countries like Somalia and African-Capitalist nations and how they are exploited by the western 'bourgeois' and 'elite', that is a terrible example of how capitalism is supposed to work ideally. So ultimately, turnabout=fair play.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 5:59:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 5:57:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?


Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.

You're right, and when Charles brings up countries like Somalia and African-Capitalist nations and how they are exploited by the western 'bourgeois' and 'elite', that is a terrible example of how capitalism is supposed to work ideally. So ultimately, turnabout=fair play.

Fair enough. I rarely read his posts so I didnt catch that, but what you said just caught my eye. Carry on.
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
3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.
"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
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 6:27:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.

Wrong, as a leader your job is not to vest your own personal interests, it is to uphold the sovereignty and constitution of the US. Trampling on it for your own personal preferences/reasons is pitiful and detrimental to the nation's freedom, only a liberal democrat would say that it's justified to impose your will against others.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 6:36:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 6:27:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.

Wrong, as a leader your job is not to vest your own personal interests, it is to uphold the sovereignty and constitution of the US. Trampling on it for your own personal preferences/reasons is pitiful and detrimental to the nation's freedom, only a liberal democrat would say that it's justified to impose your will against others.

I don't think you understood what you read. My point was that desire is the supreme motivator and there is no cogent ethical claim which can transgress that principle. There is no objective way to determine that "one ought to respect rights," because ethical claims are never objective.
"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
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 6:38:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 6:36:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:27:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.

Wrong, as a leader your job is not to vest your own personal interests, it is to uphold the sovereignty and constitution of the US. Trampling on it for your own personal preferences/reasons is pitiful and detrimental to the nation's freedom, only a liberal democrat would say that it's justified to impose your will against others.

I don't think you understood what you read. My point was that desire is the supreme motivator and there is no cogent ethical claim which can transgress that principle. There is no objective way to determine that "one ought to respect rights," because ethical claims are never objective.

You are right! That's why we have this great document written by old men in wigs called a constitution, they outlined those basic morals for us! (I know, most people have no clue what this ancient document is).
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is pretty easy to debunk. All one has to do is demonstrate that government evil is on a continuum and that only on the high end of the spectrum (State-Socialism et al) is responsible for the 7-digit death tolls. Government in a more acceptable form only kills in the 6-digit range (Republic et al). Government in the least evil form kills seldom, but continues to extort and kidnap.
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
3/12/2013 7:09:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 3:54:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
How many times does George Washington have to shoot you with a musket until you realize we need limited Constitutional government with divided powers of a Republic.

Probably 7. I love when slave owners lecture me on ethics.
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
3/12/2013 7:16:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

I agree to a certain extent.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

Well, at least you concede that government is amplifies human cruelty.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.

I think people should care, because this discussion is integral to human flourishing. In my opinion, I think each of the 50 US States should be set aside to try different forms of government (Libertarian Minarchy, Venus Project, Republic, Voluntaryist, etc). In 25 years, whichever states are found to produce the best results for a given criteria are expanded.

Or you could just have voluntaryism and people could voluntarily join any system of government they choose (provided they were free to leave--sorry State-Socialism!).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:33:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 5:57:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?


Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.

You're right, and when Charles brings up countries like Somalia and African-Capitalist nations and how they are exploited by the western 'bourgeois' and 'elite', that is a terrible example of how capitalism is supposed to work ideally...

But they're a quite damning example of what historical, actually-existing capitalism looks like to its victims. That is, they're empirical confirmation of what capitalism in the real world has an inexorable propensity to degenerate into. But of course you'd much prefer to remain in your comfy ideologue's ivory tower engaging in intellectual masturbation about the elegance and perfection of the market without being annoyed by any critical feedback from leftist gadflies such as yours truly. My sincere apologies for spoiling your cerebral self-gratification; by all means, go back to mentally spanking your monkey to images of an ideal free-market economy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:38:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:33:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:57:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?


Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.

You're right, and when Charles brings up countries like Somalia and African-Capitalist nations and how they are exploited by the western 'bourgeois' and 'elite', that is a terrible example of how capitalism is supposed to work ideally...

But they're a quite damning example of what historical, actually-existing capitalism looks like to its victims.

Like Communism?

That is, they're empirical confirmation of what capitalism in the real world has an inexorable propensity to degenerate into.

Once again, like communism?

But of course you'd much prefer to remain in your comfy ideologue's ivory tower engaging in intellectual masturbation about the elegance and perfection of the market without being annoyed by any critical feedback from leftist gadflies such as yours truly. My sincere apologies for spoiling your cerebral self-gratification; by all means, go back to mentally spanking your monkey to images of an ideal free-market economy.

I would say the same for you, go back to daydreaming (not going to use vile language like my adversary to get my point across) about how everyone is going to willingly give their property and economic freedom up for some feel good cause.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:38:00 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:33:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:57:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?


Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.

You're right, and when Charles brings up countries like Somalia and African-Capitalist nations and how they are exploited by the western 'bourgeois' and 'elite', that is a terrible example of how capitalism is supposed to work ideally...

But they're a quite damning example of what historical, actually-existing capitalism looks like to its victims.

Like Communism?

That is, they're empirical confirmation of what capitalism in the real world has an inexorable propensity to degenerate into.

Once again, like communism?


But of course you'd much prefer to remain in your comfy ideologue's ivory tower engaging in intellectual masturbation about the elegance and perfection of the market without being annoyed by any critical feedback from leftist gadflies such as yours truly. My sincere apologies for spoiling your cerebral self-gratification; by all means, go back to mentally spanking your monkey to images of an ideal free-market economy.

I would say the same for you, go back to daydreaming (not going to use vile language like my adversary to get my point across) about how everyone is going to willingly give their property and economic freedom up for some feel good cause.

In point of fact I didn't employ any vulgarity.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:48:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:38:00 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:33:41 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:57:55 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:54:55 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 5:00:20 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 4:17:09 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?

Firstly, not everyone whom you would derogatorily and dismissively classify as a "statist" deserves that label.

You are a statist if you believe the gov't should control economic or social policy, you think they should control economic policy as a communist, so you 'deserve' the label.


How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people?

How many people does our form of economic system and its elite have to impose suffering and premature death on, often via governments that function as the instrument of plutocracy, to turn you off on capitalism?

Yes, the communist governments that killed 20 million here (stalin), 30 million there (mao), 1 million there (Pol Pot), the 1-3 million in the DPRK, the 100,000-300,000 in Romania, the 50,000-100,000 in Bulgaria, the 80,000-100,000 in East Germany, the 200,000-900,000 in Vietnam, and he half million in the red terror in Ethiopia are all just collateral damage so the great, humanitarian communistic regimes could be set up, right?


Those nations were communist in name only; true communism is stateless. I'm definitely not a communist, but I also hate bad arguments and blindly saying "USSR WAS COMMUNIST" is not only incorrect and intellectually dishonest, but makes your position (which is also mine) look bad.

You're right, and when Charles brings up countries like Somalia and African-Capitalist nations and how they are exploited by the western 'bourgeois' and 'elite', that is a terrible example of how capitalism is supposed to work ideally...

But they're a quite damning example of what historical, actually-existing capitalism looks like to its victims.

Like Communism?

That is, they're empirical confirmation of what capitalism in the real world has an inexorable propensity to degenerate into.

Once again, like communism?


But of course you'd much prefer to remain in your comfy ideologue's ivory tower engaging in intellectual masturbation about the elegance and perfection of the market without being annoyed by any critical feedback from leftist gadflies such as yours truly. My sincere apologies for spoiling your cerebral self-gratification; by all means, go back to mentally spanking your monkey to images of an ideal free-market economy.

I would say the same for you, go back to daydreaming (not going to use vile language like my adversary to get my point across) about how everyone is going to willingly give their property and economic freedom up for some feel good cause.

In point of fact I didn't employ any vulgarity.

You claimed I whack off to my ideals, a little explicit for the kids eh? Now reply to the things I said that matter.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:29:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 6:38:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:36:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:27:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.

Wrong, as a leader your job is not to vest your own personal interests, it is to uphold the sovereignty and constitution of the US. Trampling on it for your own personal preferences/reasons is pitiful and detrimental to the nation's freedom, only a liberal democrat would say that it's justified to impose your will against others.

I don't think you understood what you read. My point was that desire is the supreme motivator and there is no cogent ethical claim which can transgress that principle. There is no objective way to determine that "one ought to respect rights," because ethical claims are never objective.

You are right! That's why we have this great document written by old men in wigs called a constitution, they outlined those basic morals for us! (I know, most people have no clue what this ancient document is).

dude that isnt responsive at all. Ikes argument: Desire is always going to be the main motivator in any political system, so why should I care? Rights arent objective, theyre just subjectively what you want. Your response: The constitution rules.

You didnt refute his arg at all
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
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 6:40:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 8:29:34 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:38:56 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:36:22 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:27:49 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/12/2013 6:12:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
1. It seems like the same people who look down upon the popular liberal/conservative dichotomy, are the ones pushing an anarchist/statist dichotomy - equally as truncated and inaccurate, and just as likely to encourage tribal mentality in political discourse.

2. But that's just an aside. What you people don't seem to understand is that people are not philosophical. People are not consistent. People WANT to control others - and government is the vehicle of that collective will. Joe Smith knows that he doesn't like it when people run outside naked, so joe wants the law to imprison people who do so. Period. Joe doesn't care about the rights involved or anything beyond the ends he has established.

3. Furthermore, I have a hard time being convinced to adopt the label "anarchist" simply because your argument lacks an ethical foundation. The only necessary objection to what you've argued is the question "why should I care?" and frankly you can never answer that question because there is no transcendental non-contingent reason for anyone to care about what you're arguing. I am not a liberal. I am not a statist. And I am certainly not an anarchist. I'll go the way of Joe Smith and simply support that which I simply prefer to occur in the world - there can really be no other reason to support anything. Consistency begs the question.

Wrong, as a leader your job is not to vest your own personal interests, it is to uphold the sovereignty and constitution of the US. Trampling on it for your own personal preferences/reasons is pitiful and detrimental to the nation's freedom, only a liberal democrat would say that it's justified to impose your will against others.

I don't think you understood what you read. My point was that desire is the supreme motivator and there is no cogent ethical claim which can transgress that principle. There is no objective way to determine that "one ought to respect rights," because ethical claims are never objective.

You are right! That's why we have this great document written by old men in wigs called a constitution, they outlined those basic morals for us! (I know, most people have no clue what this ancient document is).

dude that isnt responsive at all. Ikes argument: Desire is always going to be the main motivator in any political system, so why should I care? Rights arent objective, theyre just subjectively what you want. Your response: The constitution rules.

You didnt refute his arg at all

You're right, the constitution is subjective, but I would rather have a well-written subjective document written by some of America's most intelligent men then a mob-rule government where everyone's subjective morals are imposed unfairly upon others. (i.e, "The majority doesn't like this person because he is mean, the majority vote to hang him and steal his money and property). Democracy=Subjective mob rule.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 3:24:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/13/2013 6:40:13 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You're right, the constitution is subjective, but I would rather have a well-written subjective document written by some of America's most intelligent men then a mob-rule government where everyone's subjective morals are imposed unfairly upon others. (i.e, "The majority doesn't like this person because he is mean, the majority vote to hang him and steal his money and property). Democracy=Subjective mob rule.

"a well-written subjective document written by some of America's most intelligent men"... I assume you are talking about the constitution.

"mob-rule government where everyone's subjective morals are imposed unfairly upon others. Democracy=Subjective mob rule." So you're talking about democracy.

So to paraphrase your statement: "I'd rather have a [constitution] then a [democracy]".

Was that supposed to make sense?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 3:56:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?
How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people? 100 million? Well then are you an anarchist, since government have killed more than that? 200 million? 300? Then you are still an anarchist. Or does government have to obliterate 90% of the population until you throw off the shackles of statism? Or should the whole world get destroyed by government because of the FEAR and superstitious belief that without government the whole world will get destroyed? In short, how much damage does government have to do until you will reject it or are you just a religious fundamentalist and will advocate government no matter how much destruction it causes?

Where do your numbers come from, and how would my turning the other cheek to a sinner make me anti-Christ?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 7:20:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 3:24:11 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/13/2013 6:40:13 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
You're right, the constitution is subjective, but I would rather have a well-written subjective document written by some of America's most intelligent men then a mob-rule government where everyone's subjective morals are imposed unfairly upon others. (i.e, "The majority doesn't like this person because he is mean, the majority vote to hang him and steal his money and property). Democracy=Subjective mob rule.

"a well-written subjective document written by some of America's most intelligent men"... I assume you are talking about the constitution.

Yes

"mob-rule government where everyone's subjective morals are imposed unfairly upon others. Democracy=Subjective mob rule." So you're talking about democracy.

Yes, Democracy=Rule by the majority with no constitution to limit this rule.

So to paraphrase your statement: "I'd rather have a [constitution] then a [democracy]".

I would rather have both go hand in hand to limit the will of the sometimes ignorant majority.

Was that supposed to make sense?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:58:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 2:49:27 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
A question for the statists: How many times does government have to fail until you no longer accept it as a legitimate institution?
How many innocent people does government have to kill until you no longer accept the idea that government is needed to protect people? 100 million? Well then are you an anarchist, since government have killed more than that? 200 million? 300? Then you are still an anarchist. Or does government have to obliterate 90% of the population until you throw off the shackles of statism? Or should the whole world get destroyed by government because of the FEAR and superstitious belief that without government the whole world will get destroyed? In short, how much damage does government have to do until you will reject it or are you just a religious fundamentalist and will advocate government no matter how much destruction it causes?

A question for the anarchists:

How many people need to die before you become convinced that life is not perfect?

If people did not die, then perhaps I could buy your argument that governments should not fail.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?