Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Socialism a form of oppresion

headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:47:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I refer to it as a weak form of communism the idea that everybody shares their wealth equally makes it sound like a welfare state. It's all good when you are on the receiving end of the let's share everything. Socialism is oppressive because it gives those that do not work or contribute to the economy to continue to be lazy.

If their were 20 people and 11 of them worked and earned minimum wage and 3 of them were rich had money out the wazooo and 6 of them did nothing is it really fair that those who do nothing have a part of the others wealth? socialism gives little weight to personal effort or lack thereof as a vital contribution to people's personal economic circumstance and personal condition.

thoughts?
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled. Too much socialism is a bad thing though as it can kill incentive. Really, why work hard when you're not even getting what you deserve for it?
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:55:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
what social programs help the disabled?
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 2:58:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled.

It may be necessary for the disabled, but a political principle of "occasionally help the disadvantaged by whatever means necessary" can often be inconsistent with itself. It begs the question of why you would support some social programs, but not others. Why you support taking money from some to give to others at all. Why you support the state as an agent of coercive redistribution, but not poor acting as agents on their own behalf, robbing others to supplement their own income so long as their victims are wealthier.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:17:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:58:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled.

It may be necessary for the disabled, but a political principle of "occasionally help the disadvantaged by whatever means necessary" can often be inconsistent with itself. It begs the question of why you would support some social programs, but not others. Why you support taking money from some to give to others at all. Why you support the state as an agent of coercive redistribution, but not poor acting as agents on their own behalf, robbing others to supplement their own income so long as their victims are wealthier.

I suppose you are dealing in absolutes no? when you ask do you want this program or that one. I would favor neither but if I was in politics and had to give an appearance with what the voters think is "good" then I would choose the program that benefits the people or those that are going to be in that program.

However I will say that the "poor" acting as agents broke a social norm or did something that is considered bad which I do consider btw. they therefore should be punished. Like robinhood's motto steal from the rich and give to the poor he should've been shot when you continue to break a social norm (being it is not ok to steal) you should be punished with something that is proportionate to your crime.

of course shooting him would be a bit excessive how about putting him to work for those he stole from of course that would never happen I would be totally open to cutting off his hands
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:48:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:17:38 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:58:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled.

It may be necessary for the disabled, but a political principle of "occasionally help the disadvantaged by whatever means necessary" can often be inconsistent with itself. It begs the question of why you would support some social programs, but not others. Why you support taking money from some to give to others at all. Why you support the state as an agent of coercive redistribution, but not poor acting as agents on their own behalf, robbing others to supplement their own income so long as their victims are wealthier.

I suppose you are dealing in absolutes no? when you ask do you want this program or that one. I would favor neither but if I was in politics and had to give an appearance with what the voters think is "good" then I would choose the program that benefits the people or those that are going to be in that program.

However I will say that the "poor" acting as agents broke a social norm or did something that is considered bad which I do consider btw. they therefore should be punished. Like robinhood's motto steal from the rich and give to the poor he should've been shot when you continue to break a social norm (being it is not ok to steal) you should be punished with something that is proportionate to your crime.

of course shooting him would be a bit excessive how about putting him to work for those he stole from of course that would never happen I would be totally open to cutting off his hands

... What?
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:54:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand we should chop off robin hoods hands although I don't know my line of thinking and I don't remember how I reached that.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:58:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled.

It may be necessary for the disabled, but a political principle of "occasionally help the disadvantaged by whatever means necessary" can often be inconsistent with itself. It begs the question of why you would support some social programs, but not others. Why you support taking money from some to give to others at all. Why you support the state as an agent of coercive redistribution, but not poor acting as agents on their own behalf, robbing others to supplement their own income so long as their victims are wealthier.

Some issues vary with importance, such as subsidizing essential medical services vs subsidizing big screen TV's. Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:01:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:58:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled.

It may be necessary for the disabled, but a political principle of "occasionally help the disadvantaged by whatever means necessary" can often be inconsistent with itself. It begs the question of why you would support some social programs, but not others. Why you support taking money from some to give to others at all. Why you support the state as an agent of coercive redistribution, but not poor acting as agents on their own behalf, robbing others to supplement their own income so long as their victims are wealthier.

Some issues vary with importance, such as subsidizing essential medical services vs subsidizing big screen TV's. Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable, so we let the government do it legally.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:58:24 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 2:52:06 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
I generally agree with this. However, I feel that at least some social programs are a necessity, particularly to help the disabled.

It may be necessary for the disabled, but a political principle of "occasionally help the disadvantaged by whatever means necessary" can often be inconsistent with itself. It begs the question of why you would support some social programs, but not others. Why you support taking money from some to give to others at all. Why you support the state as an agent of coercive redistribution, but not poor acting as agents on their own behalf, robbing others to supplement their own income so long as their victims are wealthier.

Some issues vary with importance, such as subsidizing essential medical services vs subsidizing big screen TV's.

The only difference is that, in the former case, more need is present. Doesn't seem like much of a justification to me.

Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:29:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Some issues vary with importance, such as subsidizing essential medical services vs subsidizing big screen TV's.

The only difference is that, in the former case, more need is present. Doesn't seem like much of a justification to me.

It's because in the former case, a person's life and/or well-being is on the line, while in the latter case, it's simply a luxury -- and it's more easily obtainable in various ways than health services (cheaper, watch at a friend's place, etc). Although it does boil down to extra need, when looking at the details, the distinctions become more relevant when justifying wealth redistribution. Or, to put it in another way, the devil is in the details.

Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

Well, people only give around 2-5% of their income to charity, while they might pay anywhere from 10%-40% in taxes. Even if people believed wholly in state intervention, it's incredibly unlikely that they'll be dishing out that much money at their own disposal, and there's of course the free-rider issue. And yeah, Paris Hilton may prefer to buy a 4th yacht, but poor Joe Schmo needs his medicine more.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:32:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

I was just weighing two alternatives. If people could steal from one another in an organized and relatively peaceful manner, while providing the essential services that the government used to provide, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:37:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
what's wrong with that? lol

Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.

Can I do whatever I want as long as there is minimal damage? Or is the government magical?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:38:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:32:14 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was just weighing two alternatives. If people could steal from one another in an organized and relatively peaceful manner, while providing the essential services that the government used to provide, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Would you have a problem with me shooting someone who tried to steal from me?
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:38:04 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:32:14 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
I was just weighing two alternatives. If people could steal from one another in an organized and relatively peaceful manner, while providing the essential services that the government used to provide, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Would you have a problem with me shooting someone who tried to steal from me?

nope
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:41:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

I don't think it is good at damage control already inflation is to much of a problem so we simply print out more money to compensate which in turns brings the value down idiotic if one thinks about it.
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:43:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:29:41 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Some issues vary with importance, such as subsidizing essential medical services vs subsidizing big screen TV's.

The only difference is that, in the former case, more need is present. Doesn't seem like much of a justification to me.

It's because in the former case, a person's life and/or well-being is on the line, while in the latter case, it's simply a luxury -- and it's more easily obtainable in various ways than health services (cheaper, watch at a friend's place, etc). Although it does boil down to extra need, when looking at the details, the distinctions become more relevant when justifying wealth redistribution. Or, to put it in another way, the devil is in the details.

It's a question of whether need ever justifies employing political power to rob other people of their means. It may make you feel better about accomplishing (seemingly) egalitarian goals, but I'm more concerned with the kind of society you're creating with principles like that, rather than individual incidences of warm, fuzzy goodness you can point to on the micro level.

Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

Well, people only give around 2-5% of their income to charity, while they might pay anywhere from 10%-40% in taxes.

First, people would have more to give if they weren't being taxed. :P

Second, citing those statistics is unrepresentative both of the actual numbers given to charity, and to the non-financial efforts also given. It's unlikely that charity will ever solve every problem, sure--but state intervention and massive entitlement programs don't seem to have done a much better job.

This, of course, says nothing about that whole "billionaire fortune pledge" business, private organizations who collect and donate, and things like that. There's also the problem of 2-5% being a statistical average, which doesn't say anything about individual cases, and is therefore not representative of the way charity works or why it works the way it does--not in any useful way, anyhow.

Third, private entities have also far outclassed states in terms of foreign aid, so, if you're concerned about that...

Even if people believed wholly in state intervention, it's incredibly unlikely that they'll be dishing out that much money at their own disposal, and there's of course the free-rider issue.

Usually, people who support intervention are happy to spend a lot of other people's money so that they have enough left for themselves.

And yeah, Paris Hilton may prefer to buy a 4th yacht, but poor Joe Schmo needs his medicine more.

There was actually a program put into place several years ago, sort of like entitlement programs, called HealthPlus. It was free, funded by doctors and hospitals volunteering time and resources. They would treat patients who would otherwise go to the ER for treatment (since the state mandates the ER to take needy patients). They would do it for free, in less time, and often to better results. Very few people actually signed up, despite the fact that it was far more advantageous than the alternative. Before you talk about the ways in which private charity is inadequate, you may first want to reexamine the kinds of conditions that subtle state intervention in the health care market, and the kinds of attitudes that patients have consequently internalized.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:51:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:32:14 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

I was just weighing two alternatives. If people could steal from one another in an organized and relatively peaceful manner, while providing the essential services that the government used to provide, then I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Why would you want a society where people can just steal from another as long as the victim is wealthier? I would really hate living in a place where poor people can just rob me whenever by virtue of their neediness.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 4:52:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

It makes for an incredibly sh*tty society where you're basically policed and oppressed and have no reason to live. No real "wrong" in the moral sense, but I don't know how you could want to live in a place like that. It would only be fun if you were at the top of the power hierarchy.

Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.

Practically, sure. But, really, the government can do whatever it wants so long as it has the power to. No reason it has to be minimal damage, brah.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:02:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

It makes for an incredibly sh*tty society where you're basically policed and oppressed and have no reason to live. No real "wrong" in the moral sense, but I don't know how you could want to live in a place like that. It would only be fun if you were at the top of the power hierarchy.

Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.

Practically, sure. But, really, the government can do whatever it wants so long as it has the power to. No reason it has to be minimal damage, brah.

Anarcho Gov't lol
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:05:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

It makes for an incredibly sh*tty society where you're basically policed and oppressed and have no reason to live. No real "wrong" in the moral sense, but I don't know how you could want to live in a place like that. It would only be fun if you were at the top of the power hierarchy.

Is that not then, the ultimate form of motivation? Surely we critize socialism because it saps motivation and allows people to be lazy. What better way to drive motivation than having your very lives, safety, and freedom be dependent upon it?


Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.

Practically, sure. But, really, the government can do whatever it wants so long as it has the power to. No reason it has to be minimal damage, brah.

That then goes against the original premise that the government will be minimizing damage, and so is not what we are talking about.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:13:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:05:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

It makes for an incredibly sh*tty society where you're basically policed and oppressed and have no reason to live. No real "wrong" in the moral sense, but I don't know how you could want to live in a place like that. It would only be fun if you were at the top of the power hierarchy.

Is that not then, the ultimate form of motivation? Surely we critize socialism because it saps motivation and allows people to be lazy. What better way to drive motivation than having your very lives, safety, and freedom be dependent upon it?


Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.

Practically, sure. But, really, the government can do whatever it wants so long as it has the power to. No reason it has to be minimal damage, brah.

That then goes against the original premise that the government will be minimizing damage, and so is not what we are talking about.

Well, there are two different senses of the term. In one sense, the government is minimizing damage to minimize risk of rebellion. In the other sense, it sounds like "government is [morally?] justified in doing whatever so long as it minimizes damage necessary to its ends."
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:27:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:05:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

It makes for an incredibly sh*tty society where you're basically policed and oppressed and have no reason to live. No real "wrong" in the moral sense, but I don't know how you could want to live in a place like that. It would only be fun if you were at the top of the power hierarchy.

Is that not then, the ultimate form of motivation? Surely we critize socialism because it saps motivation and allows people to be lazy. What better way to drive motivation than having your very lives, safety, and freedom be dependent upon it?

I completely glossed over this. I'm starting to go retard now that my brain is shutting off. Had two finals today. Let me properly address the point, though.

I criticize socialism because it's inconsistent, economically stupid, and politically bankrupt. In this case, I'll repeat something Ragnar said to me a long, long time ago: your philosophy basically boils down to hatred for hatred's sake.

You hate people, have a cynical view of human nature, and are somehow using that as a justification for, in essence, creating a totalitarian police state where everything sucks. Even if I grant almost all the socialist criticisms of a libertarian society, it would still suck less than what you're proposing, which no one in their right mind has a reason to accept.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:28:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:13:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:05:05 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:52:49 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:34:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:10:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 4:06:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 3:55:39 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Also, institutionalized wealth redistribution can be limited and controlled, while legally allowing everyone to rob the richer guy standing next to them could very well result in increased violence, chaos, or some other outcome that isn't generally preferable.

Wealth redistribution isn't inherently chaotic, but it's certainly violent and not-preferable for the people being stolen from. And, for those who don't mind being stolen from, state intervention is unnecessary.

I should also note, on the point of chaos/"getting out of control", that using "how likely it is to lead to widespread panic" isn't a very good indicator of whether a state gets the green light to act. By that logic, we may as well sit back and let the government do whatever it likes as long as it's good at damage control. :P

what's wrong with that? lol

It makes for an incredibly sh*tty society where you're basically policed and oppressed and have no reason to live. No real "wrong" in the moral sense, but I don't know how you could want to live in a place like that. It would only be fun if you were at the top of the power hierarchy.

Is that not then, the ultimate form of motivation? Surely we critize socialism because it saps motivation and allows people to be lazy. What better way to drive motivation than having your very lives, safety, and freedom be dependent upon it?


Government can do what it wants so long as there is minimal damage.

Practically, sure. But, really, the government can do whatever it wants so long as it has the power to. No reason it has to be minimal damage, brah.

That then goes against the original premise that the government will be minimizing damage, and so is not what we are talking about.

Well, there are two different senses of the term. In one sense, the government is minimizing damage to minimize risk of rebellion. In the other sense, it sounds like "government is [morally?] justified in doing whatever so long as it minimizes damage necessary to its ends."

It's really the same thing, only different reasons for the actions (and I do place value in reasons).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:31:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:28:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:13:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:05:05 PM, OreEle wrote:

That then goes against the original premise that the government will be minimizing damage, and so is not what we are talking about.

Well, there are two different senses of the term. In one sense, the government is minimizing damage to minimize risk of rebellion. In the other sense, it sounds like "government is [morally?] justified in doing whatever so long as it minimizes damage necessary to its ends."

It's really the same thing, only different reasons for the actions (and I do place value in reasons).

So, I'm an ethical nihilist. You've agreed with my points on normative contingency. Let's cut the moral crap, then, and talk about the practical politics.

Why do you advocate this? I have a strong inclination that you're trolling, but, on the off-chance that you're serious, I'm genuinely curious what you hope to achieve.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:34:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 2:47:59 PM, headphonegut wrote:
I refer to it as a weak form of communism the idea that everybody shares their wealth equally makes it sound like a welfare state. It's all good when you are on the receiving end of the let's share everything. Socialism is oppressive because it gives those that do not work or contribute to the economy to continue to be lazy.

If their were 20 people and 11 of them worked and earned minimum wage and 3 of them were rich had money out the wazooo and 6 of them did nothing is it really fair that those who do nothing have a part of the others wealth? socialism gives little weight to personal effort or lack thereof as a vital contribution to people's personal economic circumstance and personal condition.


thoughts?

You completely misunderstand what Socialism is. Socialism is not redistributionism, though many Socialists are redistributionists. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production; economic democracy. It means the economy is controlled by the public instead of individual businessmen.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2011 5:36:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/10/2011 5:31:30 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:28:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:13:59 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/10/2011 5:05:05 PM, OreEle wrote:

That then goes against the original premise that the government will be minimizing damage, and so is not what we are talking about.

Well, there are two different senses of the term. In one sense, the government is minimizing damage to minimize risk of rebellion. In the other sense, it sounds like "government is [morally?] justified in doing whatever so long as it minimizes damage necessary to its ends."

It's really the same thing, only different reasons for the actions (and I do place value in reasons).

So, I'm an ethical nihilist. You've agreed with my points on normative contingency. Let's cut the moral crap, then, and talk about the practical politics.

Why do you advocate this? I have a strong inclination that you're trolling, but, on the off-chance that you're serious, I'm genuinely curious what you hope to achieve.

I don't advocate it, merely asking "what is wrong with it." If government takes actions to minimize damage (though I suppose "damage" would have to be defined).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"