quit putting words in my mouth. I was showing that your hatred of collectivism and any system that doesn't let one be a selfish asshat is founed
Splinter: Liberty and Fascism, Equality and Supremacy
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
quit putting words in my mouth. I was showing that your hatred of collectivism and any system that doesn't let one be a selfish asshat is founed
Mod Hat - Lennon, McCartney, and Bugs: Sages for the ages
Mod Hat — Intervention
Oh, come now, people. It's Father's Day and I'm off to a beer festival in a short while. Oh, wait, I guess that just speaks for me.
Okay, look: Remember, don't let him under your skin; then you begin to make it better.
Easy enough. You want me to quote Bugs Bunny instead? "Mommy! Look at the funny fish!"
It's not always a matter of putting words in one another's mouths. Sometimes, that complete lack of comprehension is all a person is capable of. They need your mercy, not your angry judgment.
There must be an answer: Let it be, let it be.
Mod Hat — Intervention
Oh, come now, people. It's Father's Day and I'm off to a beer festival in a short while. Oh, wait, I guess that just speaks for me.
Okay, look: Remember, don't let him under your skin; then you begin to make it better.
Easy enough. You want me to quote Bugs Bunny instead? "Mommy! Look at the funny fish!"
It's not always a matter of putting words in one another's mouths. Sometimes, that complete lack of comprehension is all a person is capable of. They need your mercy, not your angry judgment.
There must be an answer: Let it be, let it be.
Individuals are important. What's the point of collectivism if we violate the individuals within that collective?
Doesn't the "government" exist for the protection of individuals, rather than the other way around?
The apparently not-so-obvious
Such a narrow perspective is a discredit to your name.
What happens when the protection of one individual conflicts with the protection of another?
Yes, government is to protect individuals. But it also must protect the structures that protect individuals.
Dualism works best in myth and allegory, sir. Real life is usually a bit more complicated, and rarely so accommodating.
Norsefire said:
Such a narrow perspective is a discredit to your name.
What happens when the protection of one individual conflicts with the protection of another?
Yes, government is to protect individuals. But it also must protect the structures that protect individuals.
Dualism works best in myth and allegory, sir. Real life is usually a bit more complicated, and rarely so accommodating.
When does the protection of one individual ever conflict with the protection of another? If you have a just establishment, then there should be no reason why the protection of one individual should ever conflict with the protection of another.
Besides, my original point with PJ was regarding debt, i.e, the "debt to society" that many people often talk about and yet I do not think that it is quite so legitimate. You can have a debt toward individuals that voluntarily and willingly agree to benefit you, and that alone; you cannot have a debt toward a vague, abstract, formless, identity-less group like "society", wherein you neither know most of the people nor do they immediately benefit you; and if you say that the non-immediate, non-mutually-consenting benefit still incurs a "debt", then that creates a moral void that would allow slavery, with that logic.
No. People work under the upper class. This is it.
Such silliness ... too bad it's all we can expect
When you ask questions like this, it is very hard to take you seriously.
BP's right to destroy everything in pursuit of profits; Apple is the latest tech company under the gun for its right to make huge profits off sweatshop labor; the U.S. government's right to protect its homeland from imagined threats by starting useless wars and causing real threats ....
You've heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, right? The one generally referred to as "free speech"? Okay, check this: You know those stupid black and white stickers on CD cases that says, "Parental Advisory"? Those came about because of the following debate: "Your right to free speech ends when it treads on my right to not be offended."
If you actually, you know, look around, the proposition is fairly easy to see. If rights did not collide, people would not feel compelled to turn to the state to solve the dispute. I always love witnessing certain labor disputes wherein a worker's right to expect a contract to be fulfilled conflicts with the company's right to refuse to fulfill its obligations for reasons of convenience.
You are, presently, embarrassing yourself, sir. That is, of course, your right.
Norsefire said:
When you ask questions like this, it is very hard to take you seriously.
BP's right to destroy everything in pursuit of profits; Apple is the latest tech company under the gun for its right to make huge profits off sweatshop labor; the U.S. government's right to protect its homeland from imagined threats by starting useless wars and causing real threats ....
You've heard of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, right? The one generally referred to as "free speech"? Okay, check this: You know those stupid black and white stickers on CD cases that says, "Parental Advisory"? Those came about because of the following debate: "Your right to free speech ends when it treads on my right to not be offended."
If you actually, you know, look around, the proposition is fairly easy to see. If rights did not collide, people would not feel compelled to turn to the state to solve the dispute. I always love witnessing certain labor disputes wherein a worker's right to expect a contract to be fulfilled conflicts with the company's right to refuse to fulfill its obligations for reasons of convenience.
You are, presently, embarrassing yourself, sir. That is, of course, your right.
Greatly put.
It doesn't have that right.
Whose rights are being violated here???
Exactly why we should cap the gov't.
There's no such thing as a "right to not be offended".
You're embarrassing yourself by demonstrating that you don't understand what rights are and what rights we have.
There is no such thing as a right to destroy everything or a "right not to be offended". Those are rights that you perceive in your little imagination.
Except it isn't true. We have social mobility and many people have gone from rags to riches throughout history and continue to do so today.
I know you're jealous that the wealthy have money and you're lazy and don't want to work, but don't let that jealous breed an even greater resentment. Come on, now!
The poor always end up working harder than the rich.
Last edited by a moderator:
(Insert Title Here)
I would agree. Obviously, there are others in the world who don't.
The balance in question is the right of tech companies to do business as they see fit versus the workers' right to be treated with decent human respect.
Yes, it's much easier to do that, isn't it, than expect the people to elect a worthwhile government.
I would agree. Obviously, there are others in the world who don't.
One can assert any right they choose. Whether or not that right is real, realistic, or justifiable is a separate question, indeed. Personally, I find it strange that, in the twenty-first century, we have to go through these silly farces every time someone demands the right to be irresponsible and hurt their fellow human beings.
You need to learn, Norsefire, to separate the issues from the people you're arguing against. Just because some aspects of reality interfere with your idyll doesn't mean they aren't real.
As it is, you present yourself in such a manner that the issues are secondary, mere vehicles for your bitter hatred of your fellow humanity. Like your swipe at Geoff:
I mean, really. I've done rounds with the guy before. He and I regard each other in a wildly variable manner. But the absolute lack of subtlety about your attack simply reminds that some basic rhetorical methods outstrip your capabilities. What's more important to you, Norsefire, reality or your petulant need to maintain an abstract, juvenile scoreboard?
Norsefire said:
I would agree. Obviously, there are others in the world who don't.
The balance in question is the right of tech companies to do business as they see fit versus the workers' right to be treated with decent human respect.
Yes, it's much easier to do that, isn't it, than expect the people to elect a worthwhile government.
I would agree. Obviously, there are others in the world who don't.
One can assert any right they choose. Whether or not that right is real, realistic, or justifiable is a separate question, indeed. Personally, I find it strange that, in the twenty-first century, we have to go through these silly farces every time someone demands the right to be irresponsible and hurt their fellow human beings.
You need to learn, Norsefire, to separate the issues from the people you're arguing against. Just because some aspects of reality interfere with your idyll doesn't mean they aren't real.
As it is, you present yourself in such a manner that the issues are secondary, mere vehicles for your bitter hatred of your fellow humanity. Like your swipe at Geoff:
I mean, really. I've done rounds with the guy before. He and I regard each other in a wildly variable manner. But the absolute lack of subtlety about your attack simply reminds that some basic rhetorical methods outstrip your capabilities. What's more important to you, Norsefire, reality or your petulant need to maintain an abstract, juvenile scoreboard?
First off, that's wrong.
But to make a more important point, I'll humor you; explain to me exactly how you expect to eliminate social classes without relying on a central authority such as a government.
If you can do that, I'll give you an e-high five.
Then they're wrong.
Respect isn't given, it's earned; though I understand what you mean in this case.
Still, while it is, in my opinion, low of Apple to treat the workers in that manner, you have to understand something: the workers are not entitled to the jobs provided by Apple. Neither is Apple entitled to the labor of the workers. The workers could be in the most desperate situation possible, but at the end of the day they aren't legally bound to work. And they aren't entitled to Apple's money.
i.e, just because Apple is not giving something does not mean it is taking away something. At the end of the day, nobody is entitled the property of others, and nobody is entitled to a job.
This creates several ideological problems. First off, democracy itself is not a moral system (as opposed to republicanism, which is)
But secondly: if you say that people are greedy and thus must be regulated by the government, that raises several questions. Then,
Are you saying that the government is above greed?
If it is not, then you might next say "Well, the people will keep it in check"
But that puts us back at the situation where the people are greedy and must be regulated; thus these greedy, immoral people will elect a greedy, immoral government; or at least, they will elect a government incapable of regulating them because it cannot be regulated.
Who is regulating who? The people couldn't possibly put the government in check if they are the ones in need of being put in check.
Therefore, we must conclude that either
a) all people are moral, which philosophically eliminates the need for government
b) all people are immoral, which renders government pointless since it will likewise be immoral
c) most people are moral, in which case there is no need for any extensive sort of government
d) most people are immoral, in which case democracy, once again, would fail
Then they're wrong. Like I said.
Nobody should have the right to hurt others. That is the important thing about rights: they are not given to you by others. They are your own in-born natural rights.
What scoreboard?
His jealousy of the successful is despicable and insulting; what he claims, that all people "work for the upper class", should also be an insult to any man in the world that got himself out of poverty and into a successful position.
Look deeper than whatever idyll you're wishing for this week
The problem we face, sir, is that no question is ever allowed to be settled. That is, no matter how obvious something might seem to you or me, there will always be another who comes along and demands the proposition be regarded as if it was absolutely new, has no history, and deserves the benefit of consideration.
If a company wishes to hire labor, Americans, at least, have some expectation of how the labor should be treated. Seeking labor outside the nation's boundaries is an easy way for a company to escape these obligations. It's not a matter of one being entitled to labor or money, but, rather, one of basic respect. Which brings us back to:
To the one, I find it odd that you should say that first part while complaining via VM that I insult you.
To the other, yes, there is a basic respect that people deserve for the simple fact of being human and alive. In common vernacular, this is referred to as "human rights". And therein lies the question. Should a condition for labor be that if someone wishes to earn money, they should forfeit their human rights?
Apparently so, by your logic:
It wasn't so long ago in America that, as a condition for being "rewarded" for your labor, you had to agree to increase your financial debt to your employer. That's where the song comes from, you know? "You load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go; I owe my soul to the company store."
Ernie didn't just pull that one out of his ass, you know.
(chortle!)
Yeah. Republcianism is a "moral system". Tell us another one, please.
Hardly. I would suggest you start dealing with what's in front of you, as opposed to what you want there to be in order to empower your campaign.
Historically speaking—you know, history?—I would suggest the answer is that people, more or less, keep each other in check.
Ever hear of an ouroboros?
And then, ever hear of something called enlightenment?
Many children perform a strange ritual with chores, homework, or other obligations, by which a parent rightly advises them, "You know, you're spending more effort avoiding the task than it would take to actually complete the task."
It's not so much that we outgrow this with age, but, rather, sublimate it into other ideas. We spend more effort, as a society, bitching about corruption than it would take to solve the problem. But then, if we solve the problem, what will we have to bitch about? In truth, there will always be something to complain about, something to fix. But neuroses might be rational in terms of cause and effect, but they do not manifest themselves in rational behavior.
That's a lot of effort to tie yourself into knots of fallacy.
Contradictions, contradictions. You want to be superior, which requires deprivation. That's natural and moral. But nobody should have the right to hurt others. Respect isn't given, it's earned. But rights are natural and inborn.
Reconcile, sir. It seems you're throwing darts simply in hopes of hitting anything at all.
I can't define your rules of scoring for you, but you do seem more interested in petty, superficial crap than anything substantial, useful, or even decent.
You know, Geoff and I have some deep divisions between us, but one thing I can say of him in regard to your point is that it's not jealousy of success, but, rather, contempt for corruption. Success does not equal nobility and propriety. And before you tell me that you already know that, let me pre-empt by saying, simply, that it would be better to allow for that knowledge in your argument. As it is, your tendency to claim knowledge after it is presented to you discredits you.
Norsefire said:
The problem we face, sir, is that no question is ever allowed to be settled. That is, no matter how obvious something might seem to you or me, there will always be another who comes along and demands the proposition be regarded as if it was absolutely new, has no history, and deserves the benefit of consideration.
If a company wishes to hire labor, Americans, at least, have some expectation of how the labor should be treated. Seeking labor outside the nation's boundaries is an easy way for a company to escape these obligations. It's not a matter of one being entitled to labor or money, but, rather, one of basic respect. Which brings us back to:
To the one, I find it odd that you should say that first part while complaining via VM that I insult you.
To the other, yes, there is a basic respect that people deserve for the simple fact of being human and alive. In common vernacular, this is referred to as "human rights". And therein lies the question. Should a condition for labor be that if someone wishes to earn money, they should forfeit their human rights?
Apparently so, by your logic:
It wasn't so long ago in America that, as a condition for being "rewarded" for your labor, you had to agree to increase your financial debt to your employer. That's where the song comes from, you know? "You load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter, don't you call me, 'cause I can't go; I owe my soul to the company store."
Ernie didn't just pull that one out of his ass, you know.
(chortle!)
Yeah. Republcianism is a "moral system". Tell us another one, please.
Hardly. I would suggest you start dealing with what's in front of you, as opposed to what you want there to be in order to empower your campaign.
Historically speaking—you know, history?—I would suggest the answer is that people, more or less, keep each other in check.
Ever hear of an ouroboros?
And then, ever hear of something called enlightenment?
Many children perform a strange ritual with chores, homework, or other obligations, by which a parent rightly advises them, "You know, you're spending more effort avoiding the task than it would take to actually complete the task."
It's not so much that we outgrow this with age, but, rather, sublimate it into other ideas. We spend more effort, as a society, bitching about corruption than it would take to solve the problem. But then, if we solve the problem, what will we have to bitch about? In truth, there will always be something to complain about, something to fix. But neuroses might be rational in terms of cause and effect, but they do not manifest themselves in rational behavior.
That's a lot of effort to tie yourself into knots of fallacy.
Contradictions, contradictions. You want to be superior, which requires deprivation. That's natural and moral. But nobody should have the right to hurt others. Respect isn't given, it's earned. But rights are natural and inborn.
Reconcile, sir. It seems you're throwing darts simply in hopes of hitting anything at all.
I can't define your rules of scoring for you, but you do seem more interested in petty, superficial crap than anything substantial, useful, or even decent.
You know, Geoff and I have some deep divisions between us, but one thing I can say of him in regard to your point is that it's not jealousy of success, but, rather, contempt for corruption. Success does not equal nobility and propriety. And before you tell me that you already know that, let me pre-empt by saying, simply, that it would be better to allow for that knowledge in your argument. As it is, your tendency to claim knowledge after it is presented to you discredits you.
i believe he is refering to republicanism as in form of government being a republic rather than the current version of said party in america though with norse you never know
Or, that would be the case if proponents were actually smart about it. Certainly that's the plan, and the appeal, but I find that most people who'd actually run this game are either too lazy or too stupid to do so carefully. Otherwise, they'd be running with something more substantive and defensible. And so you can easily trip up their image of righteous non-reliance on the Oppressive State with simply examples like "roads" and "firemen." Not that many of them will outright fold at such, but their protestations in favor of private roads and fire control typically do more to discredit them than they do to impress, and so one ends up scoring a win without needing any concessions from the "libertarian."
Or you just wait a few weeks for them to jump on the outrage bandwagon at the latest instance of private abuse where everyone's braying for the state to step into the fray (like the BP oil leak), and politely ask them where they left the convictions they were pounding against the tabletop.
And that's no coincidence - a great deal of "libertarians" (an easy majority, I'd say) are in fact die-hard authoritarians. At least, so long as the authority in question is the "right" one. Note how their screeds against the injustices of cruel statism always include some caveat about how, obviously, everyone knows we have to have a state military, police forces, prisons, intelligence services and homeland security. As if environmental regulations and the estate tax are the end-all-be-alls of oppression, and their favorite examples of evil statism weren't characterized explicitly on the violent means that they do not even think to question.
And, heck, the sociopolitical system advocated by, for example, Atlas Shrugged is a classic authoritarian dictatorship (by the "capable" and "enlightened selfish," of course, but then who else has ever been interested in dictatorship? This is just monarchist rhetoric repackaged for the 20th century, all secular and faux-rational). It's all just a cheap cover, a pretense of being against authority as such, so as to better advance a specific authority. The only real question it provokes is whether to be offended that the proponent thinks you're an idiot, or to feel pity for him for actually being such an idiot.
Turn their backs? You can expect drooling glee at such instances. Another convenience of libertarian rhetoric is that you can alwasy write off any bit of oppression or injustice as deserved by the weakness and mistakes of the victim. I once saw it said somewhere (I think slashdot) that, to paraphrase, it all comes down to a conviction that everyone else in the world is getting more or less what they deserve (though some unnamed cosmic justice) except for me, who is being horribly oppressed and robbed blind.
Along those lines, the previously-mentioned caveats about the necessity of a military, etc. also provide a fallback for the rare instances in which a "libertarian" is cornered: he can say "well, this is one of those rare, exceptional security imperatives that we just have to accept." Having never pinned down what those are, nor how we distinguish them from the unacceptable abuses against the free market, this is the ace in the sleeve. It allows him to appear reasonable and even responsive, all without requiring any fundamental rethinking of any part of the program, or even admitting so much as an oversight. And it is, again, evidence of an authoritarian bent: the proponent seeks to make himself an unaccountable arbiter of fundamental questions like this, and thereby dictate justice to you. And all while blathering on about hard logic and first principles, no less.
An ironic circumstance, but not one I'm too worried about. To wit: the type of person who'd actually do something like that would have to be a real, genuine libertarian. Somebody that committed is overwhelmingly likely to actually think this shit through and come up with a reasonable position (which would be why so few people actually strike out on their own in such a way, despite the apparent prevalence of would-be Omega Men on blogs). The message-board "libertarians," meanwhile, would never be so bold or daring. Their interest in politics begins and ends with rage at paying taxes, which they translate into GRAR on the internet, and that's about it. They don't want to change anything, they just want someone (preferably an authority figure of the correct stripe) to pat them on the head and whisper reassurances to them about how terribly unfair it is that they have to pay for dirty minorities to learn to read.
These people are almost entirely borgeousie (if not outright upper-class), and we note that startling alignment between the pathologies of libertarianism (which depend on a certain obliviousness to major socioeconomic and political forces) and those of privilege (likewise). There's a reason you never hear sweatshop workers equating property taxes with the gulag, after all: they don't have property to pay taxes on, and know perfectly well what an actual gulag looks like. It is further worth noting that many of the most adamant libertarians are to be found amongst the recently-upwardly-mobile. I think this stems from the considerable work that is required to advance (on the one hand) but also a deep aversion to the prospect that luck or, worse, charity had much to do with the elevation out of their erstwhile class (on the other). It's an expression of the shedding of the old class consciousness in the embrace of the new, and this accounts for the zeal we see for it: it becomes conflated with the liberation of moving into the middle class.