Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Finally a solution to all problems

PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:05:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What is it that truly divides our world? Is it race? Possibly, but there are many notable exceptions that would disprove such a hypothesis (e.g. Yao Ming, Eminem, and Tiger Woods). So, what about education level? Could education be what is separating the world? This is also possible, though numerous exceptions disprove this hypothesis as well. So, if not race and if not education level, what separates us more than any other factor in this world? The answer is economic status. Here in America, the top one percent owns more than the bottom seventy-five combined. Globally, this disproportionate distribution of wealth is even worse, with the top one percent owning forty percent of the wealth and the bottom fifty owning less than one percent. Thus, the obvious solution to this disparity is to burn all the world's money and possessions and to join hands in a massive Kumbaya sing-a-long! Not only would this make us all love one another more, but it would create an unbeatable artistic achievement. In addition, as the sky fills with the smoke of our former possessions, there will no longer be class warfare; one cannot fight if one is singing! I believe this is the only solution--the final solution--and anyone who disagrees simply dislikes world peace.

So, who's with me?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:37:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:05:21 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
What is it that truly divides our world? Is it race? Possibly, but there are many notable exceptions that would disprove such a hypothesis (e.g. Yao Ming, Eminem, and Tiger Woods). So, what about education level? Could education be what is separating the world? This is also possible, though numerous exceptions disprove this hypothesis as well. So, if not race and if not education level, what separates us more than any other factor in this world? The answer is economic status. Here in America, the top one percent owns more than the bottom seventy-five combined. Globally, this disproportionate distribution of wealth is even worse, with the top one percent owning forty percent of the wealth and the bottom fifty owning less than one percent. Thus, the obvious solution to this disparity is to burn all the world's money and possessions and to join hands in a massive Kumbaya sing-a-long! Not only would this make us all love one another more, but it would create an unbeatable artistic achievement. In addition, as the sky fills with the smoke of our former possessions, there will no longer be class warfare; one cannot fight if one is singing! I believe this is the only solution--the final solution--and anyone who disagrees simply dislikes world peace.

So, who's with me?

the potlatch to end all potlatches?

unfortunately, those were actually ginormous displays of prestige so you still fail altruism. :/
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:43:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Division isn't a problem, it's a solution to the problem of there being peeps like OP on this planet.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:43:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Division isn't a problem, it's a solution to the problem of there being peeps like OP on this planet.

Ragnar, here's a hypothetical situation for you.

If there existed some tiny community which bought and owned private property, yet practiced say, communal community living on it, would you or would you not march in and arrest/terminate the lives of/make "disappear" the members of such a commune if they started growing in size and popularity.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:56:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:50:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/22/2010 10:43:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Division isn't a problem, it's a solution to the problem of there being peeps like OP on this planet.

Ragnar, here's a hypothetical situation for you.

If there existed some tiny community which bought and owned private property, yet practiced say, communal community living on it, would you or would you not march in and arrest/terminate the lives of/make "disappear" the members of such a commune if they started growing in size and popularity.

They bought the property?

They are, like, say, most communes in the US, letting children born on the property walk out if those children choose, and not forcing anyone to come in?

Then as far as I'm concerned it's nothing more than a corporation that follows a business model I believe to be stupid, and my only job is to stay away.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:58:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Incidentally, collectivists pooling together their property for a commune is an EXAMPLE of the statement "Division isn't a problem, it's a solution to the problem of there being peeps like OP on this planet." They are doing their own thing, dividing themselves away from the capitalists :P
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 10:59:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:56:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They bought the property?

They are, like, say, most communes in the US, letting children born on the property walk out if those children choose, and not forcing anyone to come in?

Then as far as I'm concerned it's nothing more than a corporation that follows a business model I believe to be stupid, and my only job is to stay away.

However, what if they continue to grow in number, enough to become a viable political force that would go against any uber-libertarian policy? Would you take forceful or violent steps to undermine it?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:03:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 10:59:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/22/2010 10:56:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
They bought the property?

They are, like, say, most communes in the US, letting children born on the property walk out if those children choose, and not forcing anyone to come in?

Then as far as I'm concerned it's nothing more than a corporation that follows a business model I believe to be stupid, and my only job is to stay away.

However, what if they continue to grow in number, enough to become a viable political force that would go against any uber-libertarian policy? Would you take forceful or violent steps to undermine it?
Do I take steps to undermine gun possession simply because it happens to be a big enough gun to kill someone?

No. I undermine people who prove that they are willing to use their guns in such a manner. The mere fact of their commune being a big number is none of my business. They are innocent of political force until proven guilty.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:06:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:03:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do I take steps to undermine gun possession simply because it happens to be a big enough gun to kill someone?

No. I undermine people who prove that they are willing to use their guns in such a manner. The mere fact of their commune being a big number is none of my business. They are innocent of political force until proven guilty.

So, say that they are big enough to affect some policy. For instance; their sheer numbers allow for enough votes to bring in some sort of collectivist policy, assuming we're still in a democracy. Would you criminalize such an act, or in an attempt to head off such an event, use measures which include violence and force?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:10:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:06:04 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/22/2010 11:03:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Do I take steps to undermine gun possession simply because it happens to be a big enough gun to kill someone?

No. I undermine people who prove that they are willing to use their guns in such a manner. The mere fact of their commune being a big number is none of my business. They are innocent of political force until proven guilty.

So, say that they are big enough to affect some policy. For instance; their sheer numbers allow for enough votes to bring in some sort of collectivist policy, assuming we're still in a democracy.
LAWLASSUMPTION. Well, I suppose it's technically possible for a semblance of limited democracy to be compatible with my system, but it's annoying and unlikely.

Would you criminalize such an act
What act? The act of having big numbers? That's not even an act.

or in an attempt to head off such an event
Yeah, by having a constitution that forbids them to vote such an event in.

use measures which include violence and force?
After they vote collectivist or prove an intent to vote collectivist, perhaps. But that is a different question from merely "living in a big commune."
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:15:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:10:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
After they vote collectivist or prove an intent to vote collectivist, perhaps. But that is a different question from merely "living in a big commune."

Alright, lets go one step further; the fact that they have such a collectivist ideology could pose some sort of threat, especially considering that political forces do tend to coalesce around certain groups willing to take up an ideological cause. Even though such a political force doesn't exist yet, the possibility remains. Would you take pre-emptive violent action against those in a commune, simply because their ideology and numbers could pose a future threat?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:27:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:15:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/22/2010 11:10:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
After they vote collectivist or prove an intent to vote collectivist, perhaps. But that is a different question from merely "living in a big commune."

Alright, lets go one step further; the fact that they have such a collectivist ideology could pose some sort of threat, especially considering that political forces do tend to coalesce around certain groups willing to take up an ideological cause. Even though such a political force doesn't exist yet, the possibility remains. Would you take pre-emptive violent action against those in a commune, simply because their ideology and numbers could pose a future threat?
No more than I'd take action against people who own guns that criminals tend to coalesce around. Again, innocent until proven guilty.

Let's see what I'd accomplish with such a preemption policy anyway. People are advised to hide the fact that they are collectivist in ideology, meaning I will be caught by surprise by where the revolt comes from... And, collectivists don't have their commune to pacify them, meaning they are much more likely TO end up thinking a revolt worth it.

Besides, it undermines the principle of property rights to not let people fill their own damn heads with whatever worthless tripe they choose to formulate.

And letting them do so keeps one immune from charges of hypocrisy in case one is ever again on the outside in looking to regain office for liberty.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2010 11:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:27:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No more than I'd take action against people who own guns that criminals tend to coalesce around. Again, innocent until proven guilty.

Let's see what I'd accomplish with such a preemption policy anyway. People are advised to hide the fact that they are collectivist in ideology, meaning I will be caught by surprise by where the revolt comes from... And, collectivists don't have their commune to pacify them, meaning they are much more likely TO end up thinking a revolt worth it.

Besides, it undermines the principle of property rights to not let people fill their own damn heads with whatever worthless tripe they choose to formulate.

And letting them do so keeps one immune from charges of hypocrisy in case one is ever again on the outside in looking to regain office for liberty.

So, you're saying you do not support pre-emptive strikes if you believe it may prevent something undesirable later on, correct?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 12:19:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/22/2010 11:31:21 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/22/2010 11:27:07 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No more than I'd take action against people who own guns that criminals tend to coalesce around. Again, innocent until proven guilty.

Let's see what I'd accomplish with such a preemption policy anyway. People are advised to hide the fact that they are collectivist in ideology, meaning I will be caught by surprise by where the revolt comes from... And, collectivists don't have their commune to pacify them, meaning they are much more likely TO end up thinking a revolt worth it.

Besides, it undermines the principle of property rights to not let people fill their own damn heads with whatever worthless tripe they choose to formulate.

And letting them do so keeps one immune from charges of hypocrisy in case one is ever again on the outside in looking to regain office for liberty.

So, you're saying you do not support pre-emptive strikes if you believe it may prevent something undesirable later on, correct?

Believe?

No.

If you can prove intent (for example, you encounter documents planning to implement a collectivist government), it's a different story.

Still wonder what you're getting at. :P.
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.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 4:10:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ron pual is with you and the lindenburg group and world bankers who designed this are against you...!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:02:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 12:19:44 AM, Ragnar_R
Believe?

No.

If you can prove intent (for example, you encounter documents planning to implement a collectivist government), it's a different story.

Alright, just wanted to be clear on that.

Still wonder what you're getting at. :P.

Just curious as to how far you're willing to defend your interests.