Total Posts:167|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Which would you rather have? Why?

Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 8:38:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
(A). A government in which everything that everyone was aloud to do was decided by the collective.

(B). A government like America is now.

(C). A government in which everyone was aloud to do with their property (which includes their bodies) that they wish, so long as that does not infringe upon the ability of anyone else to do with their property what they wish.

(D). No government at all.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:38:22 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
(A). A government in which everything that everyone was aloud to do was decided by the collective.

(B). A government like America is now.

(C). A government in which everyone was aloud to do with their property (which includes their bodies) that they wish, so long as that does not infringe upon the ability of anyone else to do with their property what they wish.

(D). No government at all.

A. As a Marxist, I believe in collective ownership by default.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 8:51:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:38:22 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
(A). A government in which everything that everyone was aloud to do was decided by the collective.

(B). A government like America is now.

(C). A government in which everyone was aloud to do with their property (which includes their bodies) that they wish, so long as that does not infringe upon the ability of anyone else to do with their property what they wish.

(D). No government at all.

Define government.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 8:57:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1) Stop making useless threads.
2) It's "allowed", not aloud.
3) Where did the Rothbard guy come from?

And I'd like C or D, leaning C at the moment.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:00:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:57:45 PM, wjmelements wrote:
3) Where did the Rothbard guy come from?

Damn. I thought that guy was you again - I didn't notice until you just posted. Haha.
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:07:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:56:04 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Fredomaniac - we get it, you're a libertarian. Good for you.

Ok, that came off a little jack@ss-ish, just sayin.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
Freedomaniac
Posts: 365
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:08:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:57:45 PM, wjmelements wrote:
It's "allowed", not aloud.

Thank you, dumb mistake.
I am a moosepotomus, here me quack! *Grr, ruff, moo*

I am my own God and the free market is my Jesus.

http://freedomaniac.wordpress.com...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:32:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 9:04:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
None of those really appeal to me.

It's because you're a big government-loving Fascist. :P
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 9:59:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 9:56:13 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2009 9:32:24 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 11/28/2009 9:04:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
None of those really appeal to me.

It's because you're a big government-loving Fascist. :P

Ehh. Better that than an idealistic libertarian.

http://mises.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:05:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:03:49 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/28/2009 9:59:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
http://mises.org...

I don't like Rothbard. Panarchists are as naive as socialists or communists.

...or anarcho-capitalists.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:08:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:03:49 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/28/2009 9:59:23 PM, Reasoning wrote:
http://mises.org...

I don't like Rothbard. Panarchists are as naive as socialists or communists.

How so?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:09:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:38:22 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:

C. Excluding the no-tax concept. I'll choose option C for rights, and choose an economy system that is Laizze Faire with the exclusion of government intervention to prevent market failure + a total income tax system being a 1/3 less progressive than it currently is and the ending of all government entitlement programs.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:10:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:41:29 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
A. As a Marxist, I believe in collective ownership by default.

LRN2 incentive.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:12:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 8:38:22 PM, Freedomaniac wrote:
(A). A government in which everything that everyone was aloud to do was decided by the collective.

(B). A government like America is now.

(C). A government in which everyone was aloud to do with their property (which includes their bodies) that they wish, so long as that does not infringe upon the ability of anyone else to do with their property what they wish.

(D). No government at all.

None of these choices really appeal to me. For one, people can not be trusted to come up with the collective good.

Number two, no government is self explanatory.

Number three, America's government sucks, as shown through lack of inaction through the past 12 years of my life.

Number four, people's rights need to infringed upon for good reason.

My fifth and final reason is because my ideology on government is a strong single party state.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:13:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:10:16 PM, johngriswald wrote:
At 11/28/2009 8:41:29 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
A. As a Marxist, I believe in collective ownership by default.

LRN2 incentive.

Yeah, anachocommunism is cool and stuff, but there is no incentive to produce and society starves.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:14:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Society doesn't have a belly.

Or the ability to own things.

Ya'll know my answer.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:22:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:12:57 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
My fifth and final reason is because my ideology on government is a strong single party state.

Yikes! So basically no representation(?), just complete domination of a people by whichever random group of power hungry monsters take control.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:22:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:08:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I don't like Rothbard. Panarchists are as naive as socialists or communists.

How so?

It's basically survival of the fittest. The biggest gang will win. Whoever gets the most men, best technology, and most weapons can easily conquer everyone else. Enslavement will follow. Panarchist governments will fail if they can't defend themselves. But obviously there is going to be a stronger gang or entity than most panarchist governments. And the populace of the conquered panarchist governments will be subject to slavery. There is no way to defend against attack and enslavement of bigger foes.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:30:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:12:57 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
my ideology on government is a strong single party state.

So you're facist? Or just prefer to have no opinions other than your own?
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:31:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:22:37 PM, Nags wrote:
At 11/28/2009 10:08:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
I don't like Rothbard. Panarchists are as naive as socialists or communists.

How so?

It's basically survival of the fittest. The biggest gang will win. Whoever gets the most men, best technology, and most weapons can easily conquer everyone else. Enslavement will follow. Panarchist governments will fail if they can't defend themselves. But obviously there is going to be a stronger gang or entity than most panarchist governments. And the populace of the conquered panarchist governments will be subject to slavery. There is no way to defend against attack and enslavement of bigger foes.

If an organization acquired enough men, advanced technology and enough weapons, they could "easily conquer everyone else" anyway.

What do you advocate? Does it involve initiatory coercion, as I define it?

Coercion: physical force or threat of such against persons or property[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:34:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:30:37 PM, johngriswald wrote:
At 11/28/2009 10:12:57 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
my ideology on government is a strong single party state.

So you're facist? Or just prefer to have no opinions other than your own?

Essentially that is how governments govern successfully yes, without any opposition at all.
wonderwoman
Posts: 744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:36:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:22:14 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/28/2009 10:12:57 PM, wonderwoman wrote:
My fifth and final reason is because my ideology on government is a strong single party state.

Yikes! So basically no representation(?), just complete domination of a people by whichever random group of power hungry monsters take control.

Random Group? more like an assigned group. Power hungry? more like order keeping

monsters? Explain.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2009 10:36:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/28/2009 10:31:49 PM, Reasoning wrote:
If an organization acquired enough men, advanced technology and enough weapons, they could "easily conquer everyone else" anyway.

Not under the current system. The monopoly known as the US government would quell any such situation before it could ever possibly happen. There has never even been a town taken over in the US, nevermind the country. It could only happen under forms of anarchy, or panarchy.

What do you advocate? Does it involve initiatory coercion, as I define it?

To a degree, yes, but that was vague. The US gov't is involved in much coercion, which is much preferable than panarchy or anarcho-capitalism.

Unless you can rebut my original post, panarchy is not viable. Good luck.