Total Posts:171|Showing Posts:91-120|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Libertarianism a Form of Asperger's?

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:30:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:29:07 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:25:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:00:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...


Freedomsquared wrote:
The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force
Umm, no, that's pacifism dude. Libertarianism is against the use of initial force.

I'm sorry, my first quote was unclear. What I meant was that libertarians are against the use of coercion in the context of property (and thus rights) or the market.

So if someone tries to take your property, you're against coercing them not to? :)
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: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Can't go letting a libertarian get away with that, we need much clearer definitions if we're to avoid Charlesian accusations of hypocrisy :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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:33:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:08:39 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 5:52:15 PM, Wnope wrote:
So....I'm guessing you just read what wikipedia said about the DSM and not the actual DSM?

If "DSM" means nothing to you, please stop talking about clinical diagnoses.

I don't believe that I claimed to be making a clinical diagnosis.

That's a bit like saying: All libertarians have Fibromyalgia, and by that I mean that they think situations are more painful than they really are.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:38:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:30:10 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:29:07 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:25:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 4:06:45 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 4:00:56 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:56:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/17/2011 2:51:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
coming from morons confusing the language...


Freedomsquared wrote:
The whole of libertarian doctrine is against coercion and the use of force
Umm, no, that's pacifism dude. Libertarianism is against the use of initial force.

I'm sorry, my first quote was unclear. What I meant was that libertarians are against the use of coercion in the context of property (and thus rights) or the market.

So if someone tries to take your property, you're against coercing them not to? :)

That's not fair, you trapped me. :P
Yes, the use of force is acceptable when protecting one's property, but that is not what I consider coercion, that is simply defense. Coercion (very simply put, as there are many more attributes to it) is forcing some type of transaction upon someone else (or hindering an existing transaction in some way). I know the issue is much more complicated than I put it, but that's the best I can simplify it.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:43:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So... prison for a murderer, is that coercion?

And what's your alternative if so?
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: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:44:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
and btw, defense of property definitely hinders a transaction, it just wasn't a voluntary transaction.
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.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:48:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:44:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and btw, defense of property definitely hinders a transaction, it just wasn't a voluntary transaction.

An involuntary transaction is only happening because of coercion in the first place.


So... prison for a murderer, is that coercion?

And what's your alternative if so?


A murderer has forfeited his rights by taking away someone else's life (which is the exclusive property of that person unless he has also done something to lose his rights).
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:51:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 2:14:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/17/2011 1:52:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:23:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
1. Many people start out as liberals or conservatives, but over time become libertarians. How does that fit in to your analysis?

Finding the political ideology and camp that best suits one's psychological orientation is a process that can take time. One's mental tendencies and attitudes need to crystallize into conscious political opinions, and then one needs to make the acquaintance of a philosophy or party that shares and validates those opinions. Again, this can all take a bit of time, and can be an experimental process. One may very well try out other philosophies and parties before finding the best fit.

In that case, the situation of John Stossel doesn't make much sense. He started as a liberal consumer reporter attacking big business, but over time and exposure to government regulation, believed that regulation only made things worse. Is such an event incompatible with your understanding of libertarianism?

2. Many libertarians donate considerable portions of their income to charity, and still participate in fundraisers and such things. How does that fit into your analysis?

And there are mafiosi who consider themselves to be staunch Roman Catholics, and who charitably support their church, so what?! Human beings are mentally complex and dichotomous creatures, capable of practicing charity with one hand, and working to do away with the compassionate social safety net of society with the other.

But surely you must realize that for many libertarians, they are only what you would classify as Asperger's when it comes to government control. Is is really inconceivable to you for someone to believe that a small government would make everyone better off, so that any desire to shrink government control can only be a result of malintent?

Well, shall we judge the mental and moral character of philanthropic libertarians by their private benevolence, or their atrocious-from-a-humanistic-point-of-view advocacy of the abolition of society's public benevolence?

Should we judge a man by what he is willing to do with his own money, or what he would like to force other people to do with theirs?

When it comes to mobsters there's no question that their cruel crimes outweigh their contributions to charity & church. Likewise, I think that the intensity of the dogmatism of libertarian uncompassion says a good deal more about the mentality of libertarians than does their commendable donations to their pet charities.

You condem mafiosos for commiting acts of force against others, which makes sense. You condemn libertarians for wanting government to minimize acts of force agaisnt others, which makes no sense.

3. What percentage of libertarians do you think are libertarians because of a psychological self-centeredness?

Psychological self-centeredness, an unempathetic individualism, an alpha dog's attitudinal opposition to helping society's underdogs, a cold and obsessive logicality employed to intellectualize and justify one's attitudes, etc., all gel into libertarianism. You can't isolate one particualr Aspergerarin trait as the key factor in turning a certain percentage of libertarians to the dark side, so to speak.

I'll clarify. Do you think I, a self-professed libertarian, am a victim of some psychological self-centeredness? Do you believe that it is at all possible for one to be a libertarian without selfish intentions?

Finally, a few comments:

One cannot force capitalism upon someone else; in fact, it's just about the only economic system that cannot be forced upon someone else, as communism forces all to contribute to a commune, and socialism forces all businesses to subject themselves to government control.

You're talking ivory-tower ideology here again, in the empirical real world capitalism is a system in which an economic elite forms who use their control of economic wealth and the means of producing it to exercise considerable power, economic, social, cultural, and political. This power is most certainly used to impose and perpetuate the capitalist status quo, and if your philosophy is unable to forthrightly take account of this inconvenient little fact, and unable to deal with it more effectively, then I would politely submit that your philosophy suffers from a major weakness.

In the empirical real world, we have an ugly mixture of socialism and capitalism, so I'm afraid your response is misdirected. However, even in this mixture, you're free to start your own communistic community that will work together; just don't expect to be handed the resources necessary to build it, because that would involve forcing your economic structure upon others.

Additionally, you say that libertarians are impatient, but I can assure you that an impatient person would not have the attention span necessary to read your posts.

Ah, but perhaps what's in play for some of my detractors here is the libertarian's Asperger's-like tendency to fixate on things that strike their interest, such as criticisms of their politico-economic beliefs?

So if they ignore your posts, they have Asperger's, but if they respond to them, they also have Asperger's? Surely you must see the flaw here.

Also, their logicality clearly becomes engaged, witness the way some of them meticulously dissect the supposed argumental and logical lameness of my posts.

Some of them is not all of them; I'm sure I could find numerous examples of liberals acting like total jerks, but I'm not going to frame the entire ideology of liberalism around intolerance.

Ping.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 5:53:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 4:25:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 12:47:58 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
"And, moreover, contrary to their professed belief in freedom, libertarians yearn to impose this self-centered orientation & orthodoxy on the rest of us, by promoting capitalism in its most antisocially individualistic, Darwinianly competitive form."

I profess I am a bit confused by the above statement. I do not understand how promoting one's views in a non-coercive way constitutes imposing one's will on others.

Capitalism is an inherently coercive system, i.e. it's inherently inclined to coercively impose an unequal & unjust status quo on ordinary people. Now then, right-libertarians and other pro-capitalists promote such a coercive system, ergo they can't be held to be untainted with the sin of coerciveness.

If it is inherent, then you should be able to point out specific examples. You demanded proof from freedomsquared, so it is only fitting that you prove your own claim first. Your first claim is that capitalists coercively impose a status quo. How? Where in the free market does the coercion lie?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:02:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:48:36 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:44:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and btw, defense of property definitely hinders a transaction, it just wasn't a voluntary transaction.

An involuntary transaction is only happening because of coercion in the first place.
True, but not relevant to the question of whether the defense also constitutes coercion.



So... prison for a murderer, is that coercion?

And what's your alternative if so?


A murderer has forfeited his rights by taking away someone else's life (which is the exclusive property of that person unless he has also done something to lose his rights).
In other words, you're in favor of coercing them. Which is great. So am I. Which means we need to distinguish aggression from coercion, and say that libertarianism forbids the former, not the latter. ^_^.
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.
freedomsquared
Posts: 450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 6:59:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 6:02:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:48:36 PM, freedomsquared wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:44:33 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
and btw, defense of property definitely hinders a transaction, it just wasn't a voluntary transaction.

An involuntary transaction is only happening because of coercion in the first place.
True, but not relevant to the question of whether the defense also constitutes coercion.



So... prison for a murderer, is that coercion?

And what's your alternative if so?


A murderer has forfeited his rights by taking away someone else's life (which is the exclusive property of that person unless he has also done something to lose his rights).
In other words, you're in favor of coercing them. Which is great. So am I. Which means we need to distinguish aggression from coercion, and say that libertarianism forbids the former, not the latter. ^_^.

Good enough for me.
But it's Norway, sort of the Canada of Europe."
-innomen

http://www.debate.org...
-humorous debate with brian_eggleston

http://www.debate.org...
-tournament debate, need votes
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 5:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
If it is inherent, then you should be able to point out specific examples. You demanded proof from freedomsquared, so it is only fitting that you prove your own claim first. Your first claim is that capitalists coercively impose a status quo. How? Where in the free market does the coercion lie?

Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth, and control the means of producing it. This, after all, is why the system is called "capitalism" and not "workerism" – it's a system in which capital (i.e. money) and the capitalists who wield it as a form of power dominate the game.

Now then, this ability of capitalists to dominate the game of society with their money-power extends beyond the strictly economic sphere into the political, into society's media and means of communication, into education and academia, into technology and its ability to shape our modern lives. That is, the economic hegemony of the rich enables them to purchase politicians and subvert the democratic process, to use the mass media to mold our worldview and behavior, to use our public schools and institutions of higher learning in the same way, and to control the technology that increasingly controls our world.

Quite simply, the capitalist status quo is one in which capitalists enjoy decisive advantages and forms of power that make them a de facto ruling class. Said status quo is also one in which capitalists exploit their power to maintain it. Sometimes in an economically coercive fashion, using their wealth to directly implement their will. Of course their use of coercion also routinely takes a legal & institutional form, i.e. the laws of our vaunted system of laws work to preserve the status quo with, you guessed it, the force of law. Law and government (and the military of course) are bulwarks of the power structure, and they will protect it in a very overtly coercive manner, i.e. with tear gas, and policemen's nightsticks, and guns & bullets when we the people become too uppity for the liking of the aforementioned ruling fat cats.

Mm-hmm, capitalism's status quo can be subtly or crudely coercive, and anyone who doesn't recognize this, who asks with a straight face to have capitalism's coercive nature explained, is living more in his/her invory-tower free-marketarian ideology than in the empirical world where real capitalists play hardball, play dirty, and play for keeps and to dominate the socioeconomic field of play.
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.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth, and control the means of producing it. This, after all, is why the system is called "capitalism" and not "workerism" – it's a system in which capital (i.e. money) and the capitalists who wield it as a form of power dominate the game.

This explains so much about your posting habits.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:39:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 5:53:24 PM, mongeese wrote:
If it is inherent, then you should be able to point out specific examples. You demanded proof from freedomsquared, so it is only fitting that you prove your own claim first. Your first claim is that capitalists coercively impose a status quo. How? Where in the free market does the coercion lie?

Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth, and control the means of producing it. This, after all, is why the system is called "capitalism" and not "workerism" – it's a system in which capital (i.e. money) and the capitalists who wield it as a form of power dominate the game.

They must first earn the wealth before locking it up, and if they earn the wealth, they have a right to it, not you or anyone else.

Now then, this ability of capitalists to dominate the game of society with their money-power extends beyond the strictly economic sphere into the political,

Which is why this mix of socialism and capitalism only benefits big business; they are able to buy regulations and restrictions against their smaller competitors. It is hardly a reason for more regulation.

into society's media and means of communication,

There are more than enough means of communication and media for you to have free choice. No business can force its website, product, or news upon you, because it has competitors.

into education and academia,

Education is currently largely a monopoly due to government control, forcing a single curriculum upon entire states. More vouchers allows for more options of schooling, cutting into the coercion of government. How this is the fault of capitalism, you do not say.

Academia has numerous private sources of funding so that no one group can fund a large portion of it. Besides, they cannot force this academia on you, so why does it matter?

into technology and its ability to shape our modern lives.

Capitalism has forced technology upon you? How so?

That is, the economic hegemony of the rich enables them to purchase politicians and subvert the democratic process,

All the more reason to weaken lobbyists and politicians, rather than strengthen them.

to use the mass media to mold our worldview and behavior,

Mass media is currently a competitive marketplace with numerous major stations, none of which you have to watch.

to use our public schools and institutions of higher learning in the same way,

That's because they're public and forced upon students. Vouchers would open up more private schools that big business cannot control.

and to control the technology that increasingly controls our world.

How do they exert coercion through this technology.

Quite simply, the capitalist status quo is one in which capitalists enjoy decisive advantages and forms of power that make them a de facto ruling class.

It is not "de facto." The "capitalists" earn their wealth by producing goods and services that the people want. I can only earn a million dollars to purchase resources with if I have contributed a million dollars worth of goods and services to the economy.

Said status quo is also one in which capitalists exploit their power to maintain it. Sometimes in an economically coercive fashion, using their wealth to directly implement their will. Of course their use of coercion also routinely takes a legal & institutional form, i.e. the laws of our vaunted system of laws work to preserve the status quo with, you guessed it, the force of law. Law and government (and the military of course) are bulwarks of the power structure, and they will protect it in a very overtly coercive manner, i.e. with tear gas, and policemen's nightsticks, and guns & bullets when we the people become too uppity for the liking of the aforementioned ruling fat cats.

How do the police disguise these acts, then?

Mm-hmm, capitalism's status quo can be subtly or crudely coercive,

You've only listed speculation and generalization, not facts.

and anyone who doesn't recognize this, who asks with a straight face to have capitalism's coercive nature explained, is living more in his/her invory-tower free-marketarian ideology than in the empirical world where real capitalists play hardball, play dirty, and play for keeps and to dominate the socioeconomic field of play.

As a student, I guess I wouldn't be considered to live in the "empirical world."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.


Now then, this ability of capitalists to dominate the game of society with their money-power extends beyond the strictly economic sphere into the political, into society's media and means of communication, into education and academia, into technology and its ability to shape our modern lives. That is, the economic hegemony of the rich enables them to purchase politicians and subvert the democratic process, to use the mass media to mold our worldview and behavior, to use our public schools and institutions of higher learning in the same way, and to control the technology that increasingly controls our world.
Purchase and coercion are two different things, speech and control are two different things, whether it be media speech or school speech.


Quite simply, the capitalist status quo is one in which capitalists enjoy decisive advantages and forms of power that make them a de facto ruling class.
The status quo isn't capitalist.

Sometimes in an economically coercive fashion, using their wealth to directly implement their will.
By shooting gold bullets? Trading is not a direct means of will implementation, it's indirect.

Law and government (and the military of course) are bulwarks of the power structure, and they will protect it in a very overtly coercive manner, i.e. with tear gas, and policemen's nightsticks, and guns & bullets when we the people become too uppity for the liking of the aforementioned ruling fat cats.
The present government makes its living stealing money from those who produce wealth.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:45:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.


Now then, this ability of capitalists to dominate the game of society with their money-power extends beyond the strictly economic sphere into the political, into society's media and means of communication, into education and academia, into technology and its ability to shape our modern lives. That is, the economic hegemony of the rich enables them to purchase politicians and subvert the democratic process, to use the mass media to mold our worldview and behavior, to use our public schools and institutions of higher learning in the same way, and to control the technology that increasingly controls our world.
Purchase and coercion are two different things, speech and control are two different things, whether it be media speech or school speech.


Quite simply, the capitalist status quo is one in which capitalists enjoy decisive advantages and forms of power that make them a de facto ruling class.
The status quo isn't capitalist.

Sometimes in an economically coercive fashion, using their wealth to directly implement their will.
By shooting gold bullets? Trading is not a direct means of will implementation, it's indirect.

Law and government (and the military of course) are bulwarks of the power structure, and they will protect it in a very overtly coercive manner, i.e. with tear gas, and policemen's nightsticks, and guns & bullets when we the people become too uppity for the liking of the aforementioned ruling fat cats.
The present government makes its living stealing money from those who produce wealth.

Once again, a libertarian confronts the empirical realities of capitalism with trite free-market theory. I suppose you would come to a gunfight with a knife, too?
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:52:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:45:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
Once again, a libertarian confronts the empirical realities of capitalism
What you empirically see is not capitalism. Marx was in no position to define capitalism, so ignore his definition. It is the role of capitalists to define capitalism.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 9:55:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:52:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:45:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
Once again, a libertarian confronts the empirical realities of capitalism
What you empirically see is not capitalism. Marx was in no position to define capitalism, so ignore his definition. It is the role of capitalists to define capitalism.

And capitalists do indeed define capitalism, by the way they ruthlessly and coercively play the game, i.e. their behavior defines capitalism to be precisely what I relate in my above description.
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
7/18/2011 9:59:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it odd that you went straight to Ragnar_Rahl's shorter post rather than tackle my longer one. I also still have another post (#43, in this thread or the other one) that you have yet to respond to, and probably many more.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:45:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.


If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:20:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:55:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:52:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:45:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
Once again, a libertarian confronts the empirical realities of capitalism
What you empirically see is not capitalism. Marx was in no position to define capitalism, so ignore his definition. It is the role of capitalists to define capitalism.

And capitalists do indeed define capitalism, by the way they ruthlessly and coercively play the game
I said capitalists, not businessmen. Capitalism is an ideology. Capitalists are the adherents of that ideology. Does "Communists" refer to people in charge of a 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.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:34:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 9:55:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:52:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:45:48 PM, charleslb wrote:
Once again, a libertarian confronts the empirical realities of capitalism
What you empirically see is not capitalism. Marx was in no position to define capitalism, so ignore his definition. It is the role of capitalists to define capitalism.

And capitalists do indeed define capitalism, by the way they ruthlessly and coercively play the game, i.e. their behavior defines capitalism to be precisely what I relate in my above description.

So when Soviet Russia claims to be communist, they are establishing the definition of communism to be an awful system rife with corruption and poverty? And because they are the communists, this definition is unquestionable? Sweet.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:43:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.

Well, you quoted Ragnar, so it looked as if it were directed towards Ragnar.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2011 10:45:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/18/2011 10:43:43 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:12:35 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/18/2011 10:10:02 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:40:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/18/2011 9:25:25 PM, charleslb wrote:
Okeydokey, I'll state some elementary facts for you. Capitalism is a system in which a relatively small faction of society, i.e. the fat cats, to use a technical term, control and lock up most of the economic wealth
No, capitalism is a system in which the creator of wealth decides what is done with it unless contracted otherwise, regardless of the resulting distribution.

If a society uses common currency to exchange commodities, and the only barrier to trade is the price decided by the buyer and seller, what would you call the economic system?

Capitalism. That seems easy enough.

That was towards charleslb.

Well, you quoted Ragnar, so it looked as if it were directed towards Ragnar.

My bad on that. N00b fail.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:08:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I ignored it anyway because it didn't make sense for it to be directed to me, as it was an alternate way to say something similar.
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:31:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 4:27:10 AM, belle wrote:
hmm. is a political position you disagree with a mental disorder? sounds like a fruitful question!

Yes. But my own opinions are a mental disorder as well. So I usually don't find cause to point it out.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 12:33:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/17/2011 3:41:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:41:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:38:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:28:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:23:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
One cannot force capitalism upon someone else; in fact, it's just about the only economic system that cannot be forced upon someone else, as communism forces all to contribute to a commune, and socialism forces all businesses to subject themselves to government control.

How can one spend so much time on DDO and still say something like this?

By existing?

It's always best to reply to a redundant question with another one, isn't it? :D

You mean rhetorical right?

No, not really. Rhetorical would mean I didn't expect an answer, which I did. Rather, I made a redundant, which is to say unnecessary, comment that leads nowhere meaningful.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,299
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2011 1:24:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/19/2011 12:33:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/17/2011 3:41:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:41:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:38:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:28:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 7/16/2011 10:23:46 PM, mongeese wrote:
One cannot force capitalism upon someone else; in fact, it's just about the only economic system that cannot be forced upon someone else, as communism forces all to contribute to a commune, and socialism forces all businesses to subject themselves to government control.

How can one spend so much time on DDO and still say something like this?

By existing?

It's always best to reply to a redundant question with another one, isn't it? :D

You mean rhetorical right?

No, not really. Rhetorical would mean I didn't expect an answer, which I did. Rather, I made a redundant, which is to say unnecessary, comment that leads nowhere meaningful.

Redundant implies not just unnecessary, but repetitive. Redundant systems in some cases can actually serve a useful function-- adding more components than the system needs in case one fails.

But lol at your characterization of your own question nonetheless.
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.