Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Unrealism of Capitalism

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 8:24:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some people claim that if capitalism were "properly" implemented, then life will become a practical utopia of every man caring for his fellow man as they skip around in beautiful gardens and watch the sunset.

However, this doesn't account for the fact that no matter what the political structure of a society is, human nature remains the same. Those lazy people that can supposedly ruin a communistic economy can more easily ruin a capitalistic one.

If every person is expected to contribute his "ability," then how does one gauge this "ability"? Some people have a stronger work ethic than others; does this mean that they have more "ability"? Some people have a tendency to doze off while working; do they have less "ability"? What is to stop a person from exerting less "ability" than he truly has? And what is to stop a person from taking some his production for himself, before contributing the rest to the community?

If every person is expected to take his "need," then how does one gauge this "need"? Do those with poor vision "need" glasses? Do those who have a sweet tooth "need" sugar? Does anybody really "need" a television? Cars? Horses? Shoes? What is to stop a person from taking more than he "needs," claiming that he really does "need" it? And what stops a person from taking more than his share?

These are the questions I would like capitalists to answer.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 9:09:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2010 8:24:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Some people claim that if capitalism were "properly" implemented, then life will become a practical utopia of every man caring for his fellow man as they skip around in beautiful gardens and watch the sunset.

Not that I've ever seen.

However, this doesn't account for the fact that no matter what the political structure of a society is, human nature remains the same. Those lazy people that can supposedly ruin a communistic economy can more easily ruin a capitalistic one.

How so?

If every person is expected to contribute his "ability," then how does one gauge this "ability"?

Every person can most easily gauge his or her own ability. One may gauge ability however they please.

Some people have a stronger work ethic than others; does this mean that they have more "ability"?

Yep.

Some people have a tendency to doze off while working; do they have less "ability"?

Yep.

What is to stop a person from exerting less "ability" than he truly has?

The desire to have wealth and success.

And what is to stop a person from taking some his production for himself, before contributing the rest to the community?

Nothing. Of course, nothing is requiring him to contribute to the rest of the community, either. You aren't very good at asking questions.

If every person is expected to take his "need," then how does one gauge this "need"?

Every person gauges his or her own need.

Do those with poor vision "need" glasses?

If they think they do.

Do those who have a sweet tooth "need" sugar?

If they think they do.

Does anybody really "need" a television? Cars? Horses? Shoes?

That's their opinions.

What is to stop a person from taking more than he "needs," claiming that he really does "need" it?

A government that protects people's property rights, preventing the involuntary transactions of goods.

And what stops a person from taking more than his share?

That same government.

These are the questions I would like capitalists to answer.

Why?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 7:39:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .

Which questions remain unanswered?
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 8:36:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/11/2010 9:09:19 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/11/2010 8:24:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What is to stop a person from taking more than he "needs," claiming that he really does "need" it?
A government that protects people's property rights, preventing the involuntary transactions of goods.
And services.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.
President of DDO
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 9:18:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

Exactly . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 9:19:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 7:39:21 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .

Which questions remain unanswered?

All of thee . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 10:06:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

Unfortunately what happens to our ostensibly representative form of government under capitalism is that the government becomes to a serious extent a facilitator of the special interests of the capitalist elite; i.e. government is scarcely at all of, by, and for the people, it becomes what anti-government folks resent, an external-to-the-people body that exercises power over our lives to benefit itself and the ruling class it fronts for. This is a main reason why government is so bad at doing anything but advancing the agenda of the affluent whose money gives them special access to political power.

Sure, under "communism" human beings are still human beings, and there's a distinct danger that alpha males and females would machinate to gain a position of privilege and power, to set themselves up in a status that would allow them to abuse the system. Of course no system is ever going to be 100% foolproof against abuses, against the will-to-social-dominance that causes human beings to try to abusively wield authority and power over their fellows. And yes, this generalization includes the asocially individualistic non-system that some rightist-anarchists at this site advocate, a non-system which would have an egoistic ethos that would cause it to promptly deteriorate into a dog-eat-dog, Hobbesian "state of nature", rule-of-the-strongest sort of a proposition.

Admittedly then, there's of course no such thing as a perfect system, the word Utopia etymologically means "nowhere" after all, but all in all a democratically socialist society in which the people are enfranchised in both the political and the economic spheres of life, and in which there's at least no legal class of people with a disproportionate amount of wealth that can be used to subvert the democratic process, would be the form of society least susceptible to the abuses of the power-greedy. In other words, communism would not be a perfect, paradisaical system by any means, but it would be the best and most equitable of systems.
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.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 10:09:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 10:06:44 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

Unfortunately what happens to our ostensibly representative form of government under capitalism is that the government becomes to a serious extent a facilitator of the special interests of the capitalist elite; i.e. government is scarcely at all of, by, and for the people, it becomes what anti-government folks resent, an external-to-the-people body that exercises power over our lives to benefit itself and the ruling class it fronts for. This is a main reason why government is so bad at doing anything but advancing the agenda of the affluent whose money gives them special access to political power.

Sure, under "communism" human beings are still human beings, and there's a distinct danger that alpha males and females would machinate to gain a position of privilege and power, to set themselves up in a status that would allow them to abuse the system. Of course no system is ever going to be 100% foolproof against abuses, against the will-to-social-dominance that causes human beings to try to abusively wield authority and power over their fellows. And yes, this generalization includes the asocially individualistic non-system that some rightist-anarchists at this site advocate, a non-system which would have an egoistic ethos that would cause it to promptly deteriorate into a dog-eat-dog, Hobbesian "state of nature", rule-of-the-strongest sort of a proposition.

Admittedly then, there's of course no such thing as a perfect system, the word Utopia etymologically means "nowhere" after all, but all in all a democratically socialist society in which the people are enfranchised in both the political and the economic spheres of life, and in which there's at least no legal class of people with a disproportionate amount of wealth that can be used to subvert the democratic process, would be the form of society least susceptible to the abuses of the power-greedy. In other words, communism would not be a perfect, paradisaical system by any means, but it would be the best and most equitable of systems.

The Unrealism of Capitalism . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 10:15:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 10:06:44 AM, charleslb wrote:
This is a main reason why government is so bad at doing anything but advancing the agenda of the affluent whose money gives them special access to political power.

I agree, which is why it's easier for me to take the an-caps of this site more seriously than the libertarians.

Of course no system is ever going to be 100% foolproof against abuses, against the will-to-social-dominance that causes human beings to try to abusively wield authority and power over their fellows...

Agreed.

Admittedly then, there's of course no such thing as a perfect system, the word Utopia etymologically means "nowhere" after all, but all in all a democratically socialist society in which the people are enfranchised in both the political and the economic spheres of life, and in which there's at least no legal class of people with a disproportionate amount of wealth that can be used to subvert the democratic process, would be the form of society least susceptible to the abuses of the power-greedy. In other words, communism would not be a perfect, paradisaical system by any means, but it would be the best and most equitable of systems.

I can't get behind communism. Perhaps a form of collectivism, syndicalism, etc. then sure maybe. My proposed system would actually be a mixture of several ideologies.
President of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 10:41:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 10:15:25 AM, theLwerd wrote:

I can't get behind communism. Perhaps a form of collectivism, syndicalism, etc. then sure maybe. My proposed system would actually be a mixture of several ideologies.

When you say "I can't get behind communism" is your vision of communism perhaps being unconsciously colored by Marxism-Leninism? I know that you're savvy enough about the subject to be aware that Marxism-Leninism isn't the only form of communism, but is it possible that "communism" has become so much of a negative buzzword that as soon as folks hear it they're unwittingly biased against the ideals that it covers?

In my opinion the word "communism" carries way too much ideological and historical baggage and therefore I don't ordinarily embrace it, I've only embraced it here at this site because the libertarians here have affixed the label to me and because I whimsically felt like requiting their pro-capitalist stridency by flying the freak flag of "commie". Don't get me wrong, I'm not disavowing the values and ideals of a society based on a sense of community that extends to the communal ownership of the community's economic resources, I just don't think it's a brilliant idea to get locked into a counterproductive label such as "communist".

So, let me ask you, if I eschewed the word "communism" and instead simply described a system of society based on both political and economic egalitarianism and a good degree of social as opposed to private ownership, something like the Israeli kibbutzim on a national scale, would this be less viscerally off-putting? (And needless to say, this question is for theLwerd and anyone else out there who isn't a staunch libertarian or free-marketeer, I already know that free-marketeers viscerally react in a negative fashion to the idea of kibbutz-like communities, they need not respond. I'm interested to know if those who do not have a strong ideological bias in favor of capitalism would respond more favorably to the basic concept of socio-economic equalitarianism than they would to the C-word? I'm interested in knowing this because socio-economic equalitarianism is all I really advocate.)
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.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 1:06:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

This has always been somewhat of an issue, but here's the government that I'd set up:

The government, by default, does nothing. For the government to have any legal power, some strong majority of the people (perhaps 75%, 80%, 90%, I don't know) must be in favor of its actions. Things like murder, rape, thievery, and other rather obviously immoral and dangerous actions would be quickly made illegal; however, things like the seizure of property, tax increases, business regulations, etc. would be extremely difficult to accomplish.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 1:52:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 1:06:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

This has always been somewhat of an issue, but here's the government that I'd set up:

The government, by default, does nothing. For the government to have any legal power, some strong majority of the people (perhaps 75%, 80%, 90%, I don't know) must be in favor of its actions. Things like murder, rape, thievery, and other rather obviously immoral and dangerous actions would be quickly made illegal; however, things like the seizure of property, tax increases, business regulations, etc. would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Government must tax . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 2:04:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 1:52:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:06:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

This has always been somewhat of an issue, but here's the government that I'd set up:

The government, by default, does nothing. For the government to have any legal power, some strong majority of the people (perhaps 75%, 80%, 90%, I don't know) must be in favor of its actions. Things like murder, rape, thievery, and other rather obviously immoral and dangerous actions would be quickly made illegal; however, things like the seizure of property, tax increases, business regulations, etc. would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Government must tax . . .

The people will realize that there must be some taxes in order for government to do anything. Any vote for government action would naturally be accompanied by a method of funding it. A regular income tax would probably work most effectively.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 2:10:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 2:04:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:52:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:06:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

This has always been somewhat of an issue, but here's the government that I'd set up:

The government, by default, does nothing. For the government to have any legal power, some strong majority of the people (perhaps 75%, 80%, 90%, I don't know) must be in favor of its actions. Things like murder, rape, thievery, and other rather obviously immoral and dangerous actions would be quickly made illegal; however, things like the seizure of property, tax increases, business regulations, etc. would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Government must tax . . .

The people will realize that there must be some taxes in order for government to do anything. Any vote for government action would naturally be accompanied by a method of funding it. A regular income tax would probably work most effectively.

Army and foreign relations . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 2:30:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 2:10:30 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 2:04:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:52:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:06:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

This has always been somewhat of an issue, but here's the government that I'd set up:

The government, by default, does nothing. For the government to have any legal power, some strong majority of the people (perhaps 75%, 80%, 90%, I don't know) must be in favor of its actions. Things like murder, rape, thievery, and other rather obviously immoral and dangerous actions would be quickly made illegal; however, things like the seizure of property, tax increases, business regulations, etc. would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Government must tax . . .

The people will realize that there must be some taxes in order for government to do anything. Any vote for government action would naturally be accompanied by a method of funding it. A regular income tax would probably work most effectively.

Army and foreign relations . . .

The creation of an army would be voted on. The declaration of war would be voted on. A group of commanders may be delegated the role of managing the army; however, only an 11% vote is necessary to remove their power.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 2:31:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 9:19:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 7:39:21 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .

Which questions remain unanswered?

All of thee . . .

But I have answered them...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 3:18:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 2:31:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 9:19:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 7:39:21 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .

Which questions remain unanswered?

All of thee . . .

But I have answered them...

With shandy minded answers . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 3:20:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 2:30:48 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 2:10:30 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 2:04:58 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:52:08 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 1:06:45 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 8:45:09 AM, theLwerd wrote:
One question I have is if government is so bad at doing anything/everything else, why do you assume it is capable of rightly and justly protecting/enforcing property rights? If the argument against communism is that people will inevitably abuse the system, then the same can be said about people acting within a capitalist system. Once you give someone any leverage in power, i.e., through "government" [monopoly on force] which has more leverage than wealth even in a capitalist system, the same abuses can and will arise as we've seen.

This has always been somewhat of an issue, but here's the government that I'd set up:

The government, by default, does nothing. For the government to have any legal power, some strong majority of the people (perhaps 75%, 80%, 90%, I don't know) must be in favor of its actions. Things like murder, rape, thievery, and other rather obviously immoral and dangerous actions would be quickly made illegal; however, things like the seizure of property, tax increases, business regulations, etc. would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Government must tax . . .

The people will realize that there must be some taxes in order for government to do anything. Any vote for government action would naturally be accompanied by a method of funding it. A regular income tax would probably work most effectively.

Army and foreign relations . . .

The creation of an army would be voted on. The declaration of war would be voted on. A group of commanders may be delegated the role of managing the army; however, only an 11% vote is necessary to remove their power.

I will crush your nation with my massive army which was not voted on and was trained upon tax dollars and I will instate myself as supreme commander of your nation and put you under my direct control and bring you back to my 3rd way government policy . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 3:35:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 3:20:41 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

I will crush your nation with my massive army which was not voted on and was trained upon tax dollars and I will instate myself as supreme commander of your nation and put you under my direct control and bring you back to my 3rd way government policy . . .

Good luck. Everybody in my nation has the freedom to own a rifle. When we got news of your approach, rifles became very, very popular. Good luck controlling these people. They'll shoot your oncoming armies to smithereens.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 3:36:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 3:18:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 2:31:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 9:19:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 7:39:21 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .

Which questions remain unanswered?

All of thee . . .

But I have answered them...

With shandy minded answers . . .

But they're the correct answers.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 3:48:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 3:36:19 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:18:14 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 2:31:14 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 9:19:54 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 7:39:21 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/11/2010 11:02:36 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/11/2010 9:10:04 PM, mongeese wrote:
Well, I've answered your questions; can you please answer mine?

Thou hast not . . .

Which questions remain unanswered?

All of thee . . .

But I have answered them...

With shandy minded answers . . .

But they're the correct answers.

They are not . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 3:56:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 3:48:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

They are not . . .

The questions were related to my ideology. You asked how my ideology would handle things. Any answer I gave would be a correct answer. Now can you please stop trolling?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 4:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 3:35:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:20:41 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

I will crush your nation with my massive army which was not voted on and was trained upon tax dollars and I will instate myself as supreme commander of your nation and put you under my direct control and bring you back to my 3rd way government policy . . .

Good luck. Everybody in my nation has the freedom to own a rifle. When we got news of your approach, rifles became very, very popular. Good luck controlling these people. They'll shoot your oncoming armies to smithereens.

Everyone in my army has an arsenal of nuclear and biological weapons, we have an orbital combat system, spent uranium ammo, drones, tanks, and automated land units how could you possibly win, plus remember you are untrained we have well trained professional soldiers. Also account for the population who is not allowed to own guns, my army will cut off all trade to your nation, create massive inflation by production of fake currency, sell crack to your nation, poison all of your water and food, and send you back to the stone ages. I will slaughter all of your people who do not surrender. Those who do surrender on the other hand will be clothed, fed, reimbursed for their property (in my currency which is worth far more than yours), and will have all of the rights of the citizens of my nation (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe upon another persons rights). People will flock to my government funded transport, education, basic health care, sanitation, etc . . . etc . . . and they will love it more than your cesspool of a nation . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 4:02:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 3:56:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:48:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

They are not . . .

The questions were related to my ideology. You asked how my ideology would handle things. Any answer I gave would be a correct answer. Now can you please stop trolling?

I have the right to troll, are you against ones rights to troll? *cough, Marxist*
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 4:23:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 4:01:23 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:35:50 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:20:41 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I will crush your nation with my massive army which was not voted on and was trained upon tax dollars and I will instate myself as supreme commander of your nation and put you under my direct control and bring you back to my 3rd way government policy . . .

Good luck. Everybody in my nation has the freedom to own a rifle. When we got news of your approach, rifles became very, very popular. Good luck controlling these people. They'll shoot your oncoming armies to smithereens.

Everyone in my army has an arsenal of nuclear and biological weapons
How did you even obtain those? And even if you win, what will you have won? Nuclear waste? Disease-ridden land?

we have an orbital combat system, spent uranium ammo, drones, tanks, and automated land units
How?

how could you possibly win, plus remember you are untrained we have well trained professional soldiers.
I have freedom-loving rifle owners. Enough are trained to put a dent in your attack.

Also account for the population who is not allowed to own guns
Funny, my government never got around to banning guns. As I said, freedom-loving.

my army will cut off all trade to your nation
Well, as my country is key to international trade, you've just angered the entire developed world.

create massive inflation by production of fake currency
Fake gold? Sorry, but we can tell the difference.

sell crack to your nation
How dumb do you think this nation is? Privately sponsored anti-drug campaigns enlightened the country.

poison all of your water and food
And you intend to do this how? Also, in war time, poison detection technology becomes in huge demand.

and send you back to the stone ages.
A fat lot of good that will do you.

I will slaughter all of your people who do not surrender.
Good luck getting to them. They have rifles enough.

Those who do surrender on the other hand will be clothed, fed, reimbursed for their property (in my currency which is worth far more than yours)
Hah, your country is probably in loads of debt to afford this unreal military.

and will have all of the rights of the citizens of my nation (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe upon another persons rights)
In your government? Empty words. Why should they believe you. You've already declared yourself a tyrant, Mr. Supreme Commander.

People will flock to my government funded transport, education, basic health care, sanitation, etc . . . etc . . . and they will love it more than your cesspool of a nation . . .
Funny, your government already went bankrupt with all of this military spending.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 4:24:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 4:02:49 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:56:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:48:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

They are not . . .

The questions were related to my ideology. You asked how my ideology would handle things. Any answer I gave would be a correct answer. Now can you please stop trolling?

I have the right to troll, are you against ones rights to troll? *cough, Marxist*

You have the right to troll only as the moderator allows you to troll. Regardless, morality dictates that you shouldn't troll, regardless of your right to.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2010 5:13:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/12/2010 4:24:26 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 4:02:49 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:56:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/12/2010 3:48:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

They are not . . .

The questions were related to my ideology. You asked how my ideology would handle things. Any answer I gave would be a correct answer. Now can you please stop trolling?

I have the right to troll, are you against ones rights to troll? *cough, Marxist*

You have the right to troll only as the moderator allows you to troll. Regardless, morality dictates that you shouldn't troll, regardless of your right to.

Morality is subjective hence bearing no weight and the moderator gives me the right to troll . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.