Rational Politics.
Posted on: August 14, 2008 - 12:18pm
Offline
Rational Politics.
I've come to the conclusion that the current atheist movement is full of so many socialists, neo-Marxists with far left wing political ideals, that there is no way the movement could be considered ‘rational’. It operates just like religions, based on how one wishes the universe operates not on how it actually works. Devotion to dogma is more important than facts. I don't want to have anything to do with this because it's pretty much the same kind of irrational dogma as religion.
I understand the thinking that if government could eliminate poverty and human need that people would need to turn to religion as their only hope. But this is a false idea first that governments could ever do this without going bankrupt. The key to eliminating religion is not making people dependent on government through a welfare state but enabling every citizen to become self-sufficient through an effective education/rehabilitation system.
If there is not a general consensus among rational thinking people in this self-sufficiency principle, I see no point in having anything to do with the so-called rational atheism movement. I think this web site is just going to turn into a haven for irrational neo-Marxist dogma, just as irrational as any right wing religious group. Ignoring how economics and human nature actually work. It’s just changing one form of irrationality for another. It’s just replacing a celestial sugar-daddy (God) for an earthly one (Government). How about no sugar-daddies?
In many ways socialist political values are similar to irrational Theism:
1. Based on wish thinking. The thinking/decision and opinion making is based upon how one wishes the world works, not on how it actually works. Theists and socialists both wish there could be an all-powerful entity with unlimited resouces that could eliminate all problems just by asking it to do so. The only way humans can eliminate problems is with effective education and hard work. Government, the rich and corporations can not be or sugar daddy.
2. Devotion to a dogma and practices that have been proven not to work. Prayer never works for the Theist. Yet they persist. Why it makes them feel good. They feel like they are doing something to help the situation when they are actually doing nothing. They convince themselves that they care as some kind of drug to feel good about themselves.
Socialist liberals do the same thing. They use other people's money to give to benefit someone, they believe they've helped when they've done nothing but make the problem worse. But feeling that they care is they way they make themselves feel good. You point out to socialist the failures of the system. They will ignore the facts. Devotion to the dogma of wealth redistribution/welfare can solve all problems is of supreme value.
3. Demonization of anyone that disagrees with them. Anyone that does not agree with them is labeled as uncaring and cold-hearted. They do this to avoid defending the rationality of their position. The fact is that socialist values are so irrational and destructive that many people are driven towards right wing Christian fundamentalism.
These should be the political goals of every rational thinking person:
1. The main political goal of every rational person should be to have an effective education system that enables every person to become self-sufficient. This includes worker retraining and effective rehabilitation of criminals. Technology and scientific principles must be applied to effectively and efficiently educated and retrain people. Publicly education must be centered first and foremost on enabling people to become self-sufficient. Students can’t be allowed to study whatever they want if it does not enable them to be self-sufficient. Schools and teachers that do not train people to be self-sufficient should be cut off from public financing. Education is the only effective tool to eliminate poverty and human over-population.
2. Welfare can only be a temporary solution while citizens are being educated or rehabilitated. Society needs to make a social contract with its citizens. When one is in a difficult spot, a social worker should evaluate their situation then come up with a plan of action to put the individual/family on a path to self-sufficiency. The help cannot be interminable and only citizens that cooperate with the rehabilitation program can receive benefits.
Socialist seem to be content with a failed education/rehabilitation system. They seem to believe it is impossible to educate a large portion at a level to make them self-sufficient so we then need to pay even more for welfare. How about not accepting failure as an option? Then they want people and businesses with some money to give even more to governments that are failing to properly educate our poor dependent citizens in the first place. This cycle of government failure must not be tolerated.
3. Government mandates for private businesses should be avoided. If businesses are forced to pay high wages and provide services that don't make economic sense, they overall effect will be negative. If businesses are forced by mandate to do these things, they will either pass the costs on to consumer in the form of higher prices or they will go out of business. Either way the poor will be the ones most hurt by these mandates. Government regulation of businesses should be aimed only at preventing fraud and environmental destruction. Businesses will not pay high wages for large numbers of unskilled workers. They will either go out of business or use automation to eliminate jobs.
4. Income and sales taxes should be eliminated or kept very low. Society should move toward being a pay as you go system where self-sufficient people pay for the government services they use. Income tax discourages hard work and investment. If the rich are heavily taxed, they will simply stop investing in job creating enterprises and take their money to places where they can avoid the tax man.
5. Protection of the environment is a high priority. Human activates that pollute the environment or use a large amount of natural recourses should be eliminated or heavily taxed. This will encourage the development of technologies that have a low impact on the environment.
6. Leveling the playing field for all citizens. The way to make the economy fairer for the poor is to eliminate corporate welfare. The exploitation of the environment and natural recourses should not be a protected means of generating wealth. Wealth should be generated though work, investment, and entrepreneurship that solves real problems and meets the real needs of society.
[FORMATTING CORRECTED BY SAPIENT]
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
- Login to post comments
sigh jesus fucking christ...done.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
I've already said how to keep them from "hiding" their wealth under a strong socialist/communist system. Don't let anyone take more than $50,000 out of the country. Ban investment in anything overseas. If someone is suspected of hiding it in their yard or whatever it gets searched and if they're found to be hiding it they get executed or sent to a prison that makes the worst maximum security prison we have here look like club med (ie daily beatings, rotten food, etc. ) That would prevent hoarding.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
...So fisrstthe problem is government intervention and socialists, now that I've brought-up a conteporary example to demonstrate that this is wrong, the problem is actually that there are too many banks?
EXC, rather than shifting goal posts and making-up excuses, perhaps you should consider at this point what your argument actually is. I think free-market systems are excellent; I don't, however, share your dogmatic perspective that they represent the one true way of doing things.
...Get a loan from whom, per chance? The non-existent, liquified money lenders? Or the monopolizing banks that will freeze their credit lending to wait out the crisis?
In reality, depressions aren't short & simple affairs; they're brutal, system-flushing events. Huge unemployment, foreclosures and bankruptcies. It's like an economic hard drive wipe.
The looming hyperinflation crisis will be every bit as nasty, yes; but arguing that one is more favorable to the other based on a dogmatic view is ridiculous.
...And here you bring-up your mysterious bogeyman, 'The Taxman', once again. Do tell; who is this violent and callous monster? The government? The mob?
EXC, this screams of dogmatic scare story. It's Satan, but with goons and firearms rather than demons and pitchforks. You honestly believe that a 1st world government body would send armed agents to your home to hold you at gunpoint and take all of your financial assets?
Can you name a contemporary example where this has occurred? Perhaps in France or Canada, given that we tend to have slightly more socialist policies than in the U.S.?
Or perhaps you simply refer to the fact that if you don't pay your income tax, you're arrested? Curious, if that's the case: isn't everyone just using bloodthirsty intimidation (by proxy) to enforce rule of law, then? Are you a violent hippocrite because you'd (likely) want armed men to lock-away people who shoplift from retailers?
Pecisely. You do realize you've just damned your own argument, correct?
With no rules to regulate them from cheating (as you just described), wealthy and selfish individuals wind-up cheating in order to maximize profits - leading to, of course, economic failure (as not all strata are afforded some degree of ownership) and violent reprisal.
You'll note that this is not a 'Taxman' or government problem at all; it's a problem created by the wealthiest strata. You can blame the government all that you like, just as I could blame every death by way of a fall on gravity - but it's a red herring. The government (like gravity) is only imposing a rule of law; it's up to the individual to obey this law, or suffer the consequences (whether through direct punitive action or crisis).
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Welcome to 1984.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Not really - people still have free speech, free expression, etc - they just don't have the "right" to exploit others.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Welfare for banks created a situation of too many banks, to many workers in the financial services industry.
Well why if these businesses are so profitable, why do they need to get a loan? You want to keep bad businesses going a little while longer. And if you're a good business with low risk, why wouldn't you get a loan? Having easy credit creates more competition in the market making it difficult for even the well run businesses to make a profit and reinvest.
Well there're inevitable when you have imbalances in the market. The bailout is just delaying the inevitable, the crash will come when the US government can no longer borrow money. Then what will we do?
There is a contract between the shoppers and the store not to steal. The shoppers violate the contract when they steal. A contract involves a trade. So charging user fees for government services is a contract, income tax is just armed robbery. When a mafia shakes down everyone with money in a neighborhood is this OK?
Yes but it's never enough. You start out wealth redistribution at a low level, this creates more poverty, less motivation to work your way out of poverty. The rich stop working and investing because of taxes. So the socialists keep coming back for more. The governments borrow money to satisfy all 'the life isn't fair whiners', then it goes broke. The imbalance created by socialism will snowball.
Oh yes, tyranny of the majority. We see that with religion, you want to do the same thing with socialism.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What's to be expected. Bringing Marxism out of fantasyland and into the real world. Just too much to handle.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
yeah, you're right, man. you know you've won an argument when you're so dense that you exasperate the other guy into quitting. i think cicero used that tactic too...
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Kind of like Communism, if hard work makes you tired and exasperated, just quit. The government will take care of you(till it goes broke of course).
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
You're out of your fucking skull, man.
I'm just thankful that you're probably not elligible to vote.
My favorite part about socialism is that it points out the greedy selfish and incompitent nature of business and assumes the government will be any different.
Ha ha, yeah. Well, I guess we're about to find out.
The people are the government, so fix we people, educate, cooperate, help help, love love.
Beatles - Revolution [ count me out version ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yq372R4Ts&feature=related
The count me IN version -
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x6297773
John Lennon: "There were two versions of that song but the underground left only picked up on the one the said 'Count me Out'. The original version which ends up on the LP said, 'Count me in' too. I put in both because I wasn't sure. On the version released as a single I said 'When you talk about destruction you can count me out'. I didn't want to get killed."
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone any how
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
The Beatles -- Help!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibX3TejlZE
We are one race, one earth .... No to the rich ....
Atheism Books.
False. I'm a registered democrat and haven't missed an election since 1992 when I turned 18. Actually I haven't fully described the prison I'd make for the unreformed capitalists that would do that:
1. In their cells 24/7. No showers, exercise or nothing. If they start to smell the guards spray them with a fire hose.
2. When they bring them the food they just throw it in their face. If it goes on the floor tough shit.
3. If they make one sound the guards rush in and beat them with their batons. If they spit on a guard they get all their teeth smashed out with a brick. If they touch a guard they get both their arms and both their legs cut off and beaten unconscious.
4. No TV, no phones, no cigarettes, no books no nothing but a bare cell.
5. Prison is underground in Antarctica to make escape impossible.
This is exactly what most executive types deserve after generations of exploiting the rest of us, especially if they'd try to interfere with a truly fair way of doing things.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Matt, you are a blast , writing to shock, lol, thanks, me jesus, me god ....
That's unfortunate.
So what happens when the prisoners start to develop infections? Spray them with antibiotics and hope it hits the wounds? Or just leave them there to fester and die a slow death?
When the prisoners start vomiting uncontrollably due to food poisoning, then what?
I don't know how familiar you are with the human body, but chances are they'll already be unconscious once you quarter them. No baton party necessary.
This wouldn't be so bad.
A-ha! A J.J. Abrams twist. Ingenious.
Ba ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ha.
I know you're going to follow the masses out to the voting booths on Nov. 4 to vote for the Chosen One, but please, just stick to your pen-and-paper RPGs from there on out. Because that's how your worldview plays out:
"Lock 'em in a dungeon and set the keys on fire!!! Yeah, and if they have to go pee pee, cut their dicks off and shove 'em up their mothers' asses!! And if they complain about being hungry, make 'em eat the warden's day-old poopie pies!! And if they start praying to God, pry their eyelids open and make them watch youtube videos of Dick Dawkins and the Amazing Atheist for a week straight!! And then jack off on their eyeballs!!!"
Yes, this'll show those nasty fat-cat execs the true meaning of justice and fairness.
I'm voting for Obama as he is the closest to my views that has a chance of winning - even Nader doesn't. Those fuckfaces deserve to die painfully. Those AIG executives that used our taxpayer money to go to a resort should have their dicks ground into sausage, be forced to eat them and then have a spear shoved up their ass until it comes out their nose. Most of the rich should be executed and their money redistributed to the poor, religious should be sent to mental hospitals along with fiscal conservatives and anyone who is against abortion anywhere up to birth should have an M-80 detonated inside their ass. I so wish I could be dictator of Earth and make this happen. The torture to death of nearly all CEOs would be shown on TV free to anyone who wanted to watch. And of course the redistribution of wealth so there are no millionaires or anyone who is truly poor.
I personally wish the current financial crisis would get much worse if it would mean more citizens turning on the rich and tearing them limb from limb and replacing the current unfair system with strong Socialism or Communism and real repurcussions against the rich and powerful. I would love to see the next US aircraft carrier be the USS Joe Hill.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
...Backpedalling: The Sequel.
Correct (Well, sort-of. The social contract isn't actually between the shoppers and the shop, but close enough).
...This statement is self-contradictory. Income tax is a service fee; the services the government provides for you are infrastructure and social programs. I imagine that it's the latter category of things you don't personally like, but as we've already discussed, this is essentially paying an upkeep of sorts to keep the economy going. If there are no social programs, society becomes dysfunctional.
When a mob boss does a shake-down, they aren't providing a service. It's strictly browbeating; the money goes into the pocket of the criminal, and that's that. This is hardly analagous to income tax (again, unless you can cite a contemporary example of the government doing just this?)
This is broken-record debating EXC. You can cling to the argument all you want to, but you've been mathematically refuted on this point already. There is no 'social snowball' created by the government; in a worse-case scenario, a few industry giants who can afford to will outsource (not the fault of the government) and move along, opening space in the market for up-and-comers to pave their way (GMC is a good example. Yes, their huge outsourcing campaign unemployed a lot of people - but, on a larger scale, did not drastically effect the economy because competing auto makers like Toyota just grinned at the market share gaining opportunity and rushed to fill the void).
EXC, take a look at this:
- You state that the government messing with the market causes things to destabilize.
- I point out that the laws are put in place in order to prevent the system being ruined by anarchy.
- You counter by saying that the wealthy just find destructive ways around the laws, so the government shouldn't impose them (circular reasoning).
- I point out that the above point actually demonstrates why laws are important to obey and can be quite healthy for a system.
- You counter with the above quote. An ad hominem and a non-sequitor.
...I'd like to know at this point: are you so far gone and hooked to your ideology that you're alright making fallacious arguments for it until you've worn-down the patience of your opponents, are did you genuinely not realize that you were talking out of your ass?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Cap, I hope the following example isn't over your pretty little head:
You, myself and Hambydammit are sitting at a table. There is a large container full of strawberry milkshake in the center of the table, and two glasses. You and I both really want milkshake, and frankly, we don't really like each other. Complicating this, there's just enough milkshake for about half a glass each. Hamby doesn't really want any milkshake at all, and he's pretty pissed at both of us right at the moment, so it's clear there's no favoritism on his part.
Who would you trust more to pour the milkshakes evenly - Hamby or myself?
Personally, I'd go with Hamby.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
In that example, clearly Hamby will re-distrubute the milkshake evenly.
Now consider: Instead of Hamby it's a guy named Tom who's the elected milkshake distrubitor. Now neither of us know Tom, however say I have a friend named Jack. Jack is what you would call a lobbyist. Jack then offers Tom favour in exchange for giving me most of the milkshake. Jack will support Tom throughout his re-election campaign. End result: Tom get re-elected, I get more milkshake (and damn right it's better than yours..) and you get stiffed.
You're so cute when you try to talk politics.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
1) I'm cute all the time
2) So tell me what's your opinion in lobbyist such as say, the ones getting Haliburton no bid contracts in Iraq?
Eat Halibuton ....
Hear hear Pinapple.
You are absolutely right.
Now... just one question.
How do you propose we run things?
To me, your above point reads as every other point you've ever raised here:
People are selfish and evil.
All men are pigs and all women are whores. et.c.
Well guess what: I completely agree with you!
I too think that people are inherently selfish, and that everyone is, esentially, a prostitute: we "sell" ourselves to others, if we percieve a benefit to ourselves from it.
So... What now?
Go on internet forums and piss of perfectly friendly, decent people, with a constant snide attitude, just so we can make the world conform to our perception that nothing good ever comes of anything, ever ever ever!?!?
MAN YOU PISS ME OFF PINAPPLE!
Go out and be happy for fuck's fucking sake!!!
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
Leave them to fester and die a slow death to the 1st, leave them wallow in their own filth to the 2nd. It's what they deserve for leaving so many people impoverished, and paying peanuts while they made millions.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Not at all, the premise behind socialism/communism is that owners of capital(businesses) are making huge profits at the expense of the working/unemployed man. So why do they need to get loans all the time, and why must the government ensure they are able to??? Since they need loans to fund operations, where can they get the money to pay higher taxes under socialism? Either this premise is wrong or it's absurd to ensure businesses can get loans.
Since you are into good reasoning which is the case?
The problem is the income tax just goes into the general fund where its not spent to benefit the people paying the taxes. Look at the case of software development, it doesn't require a lot of infrasture from the government. That's why they'll locate where the taxes are low as in Denmark.
Now when I develop something either a business is paying me so we have to pay an income tax. Or I can develop it myself and try to sell it myself. To get around paying income tax, it makes more sense to develop and try to market it myself. There's no sales tax. The government service that I need is protection against software piracy and patent/copyright infringement. Which the governments don't do shit to stop. It only makes since to have a sales tax to prevent piracy.
So doesn't it just make since to locate where ever taxes are lowest, then try to get around paying taxes that don't benefit me? So even if you think paying high income taxes is fair, it won't work. Unless we have global big brother, in which case I'd just stop working altogether.
Perhaps it could make since to use income tax to fund education. If the education results in higher income. But it would be better to set it up as a student loan contract, where they student must pay it back and not run off to a foriegn country to work.
Agreed. That's why I want an intensive education/rehabilitaion program. Wealth redistribution is a half assed solution. You're giving money to people with bad habits like not learning, drugs, lazinesss, breeding like rabbits. You need a social worker to evaluate every person that is having problems and come up with a total intensive solution. We need education camps where peoples people's bad habits, access to drug, sex, TV, movies, etc... is restricted. You can't let them spend the benefits however they want or study whatever they want.
OK then why didn't the Great Society poverty eradication program work? Why is it that minimum wage must continually be raised? Why is it that income taxes have gone up, but we have more poverty, a worse education system and more government debt? You've been reality refuted.
Laws that prevent theft and fraud prevent anarchy. But even you would agree that a 100% income tax and $1000/hour minimum wage level would ruin the economy and create anarchy.
Depends on the law. Not all laws are good. Now if a community imposes moderate property and sales taxes to fund good schools, police, fire, etc... The rich will move into this neighborhood to enjoy these benefits. If the law is used for wealth redistribution, they'll leave. The majority can become a greedy mob, that all want something for nothing. In this case laws are destructive.
Whenever I bring my argument against socialism/communism into the real world, they just give up in exasperation as Hamby and Iwebeck did. That's what happened, they can't explain how their theories work in the real world. I just piss them off by bursting the bubble of the fantasy.
Just demonstrates that socialism/communism is like a religion. You have an idealized vision of how the world works and you build a fantasy system where you think somehow one group of people will work hard and risk their money for the indefinite benefit of others that will use the money to continue bad habbits. It's like a religious person's prayers, it makes them feel that that care while ignoring the reality that no one's listening.
But it is fascinating to see how both the theist and atheist have this need that they can somehow have a sugar-daddy provider to be their security. That they deserve and can get for nothing. And will both invent and believe in a fantasy world where this is true.
Your 'something for nothing' version of socialism is a social virus and cancer.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I understand your anger, Matt, especially the whole AIG thing. But the truth of the matter is, I've never worked for a poor person. I work for a 100% locally own and run company, and my boss is a self-made multimillionaire. Lots of the folks I work with really have a hard time with that. They're always looking for negative things to point out about him. For instance, he dropped one of our big accounts last month because it just wasn't making sense to keep it, since turnover more than doubled since the day he took it. So when he finally dropped it, a few of the long-time regulars went around telling everyone that he was "losing everything" and that the company was going to fold and all this uneducated, alarmist bullshit. I was like, no, he's the one who dropped the account, not them. It was his decision.
These are all folks who have topped out in life, if you know what I mean. Due to circumstances both in and out of their control, they're doomed to lives of low-paying unskilled labor. Some have accepted this, most have not. Many of them carry the attitude that they deserve to make ridiculous amounts of money, and they sit on their asses because they don't. One of my ex-coworkers was like this. She didn't do a damn thing the entire night except talk on the phone and play with her iPod. I was like, "Those are both portable devices, dumbass. You don't have to sit down for that."
Well, she was slacking so much that I discovered we were in danger of losing the account (and subsequently our jobs). I confronted her about it, and she just shrugged her shoulders and said, "Oh well." So I flipped on her. I said, "I don't know who pays your bills, but I can't afford to lose my fucking job."
I ended up getting her fired less than a week later, and I absolutely don't feel bad about it. She thought the world owed her a living, because up to that point, the world had provided her living, so to speak. She was used to living in a government house with her mother and siblings and having her every need provided by the state. She worked to pay her car payment and to buy candy and pop. I would venture to guess that she spent over $300 a month just on candy and snacks.
I love working for my boss, though. He's this crazy Mormon, and he's so tenacious and smart. He works from sunrise to well after sunset 6 days a week, and wears shorts and short sleeves year-round. And he loves to give people a chance. He hires lots of ex-cons and mentally challenged folks, and if they mess up here and there, it's okay. But if you're of sound mind and body and still refuse to do your job, you get your throat cut pretty fast.
Needless to say, all my liberal colleagues at my university hate him, both for his religious affiliation and his captialist mentality. I wore my uniform to class one afternoon (not enough time to change between), and my professor said, "Where did you get THAT?" When I told him he was my employer, he went on this clueless liberal rant about injustice and capitalism, and it just made me sick. My boss provides the very thing that liberals bitch about but never seem to have a viable solution for--equality for the fringes of society.
So, I'm kind of into capitalism. It works. Completely unrestricted capitalism clearly doesn't work, but when done correctly on the local level, it can be a wonderful thing.
no, you piss me off because you can't explain "my" theories at all. you are woefully misinformed as to what "marxism" and "communism" actually mean and you refuse to be informed. i don't know why i even try at all, but i'll try one more time:
THE "COMMUNISM" WHICH YOU ARGUE ABOUT DOES NOT EXIST. NO ONE HAS EVER ESPOUSED IT AND THAT INCLUDES ME. I STRONGLY DOUBT YOU HAVE EVER READ A SINGLE MARXIST WRITER IN YOUR LIFE. THE REASON WHY I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOUR POINTS AGAINST COMMUNISM IS BECAUSE YOUR POINTS ARE ABOUT SOMETHING FICTITIOUS.
are we communicating now?
if you really want a "marxism for dummies" (which you asked for), try robert c. tucker's the marx-engels reader, or leon trotsky's the essential marx, which is even shorter. they're both widely available on amazon, ebay, half.com, or whatever you favor. i'm sure you can find either one for dirt cheap.
it is essential that you know what you want to attack. because at this point, concerning marxism, and let me be quite explicit, YOU ARE LIKE RAY COMFORT DEBATING EVOLUTION.
a good place to start would be cleaning up your terminology. i would advise you to acquaint yourself thoroughly with the differences between "socialism," "communism," and "marxism," because these terms are not synonymous, yet you use them as though they were. also, it wouldn't hurt, especially if you want to argue the historical angle, to familiarize yourself with the differences between marxism, marxism-leninism, stalinism, and maoism. i posted a very cursory essay on this topic over on the "unofficial faq" thread:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_squad/3322
there are a lot of generalizations and probably even a couple mistakes in that post, so i advise you not to use it as a primary source, but it might be a decent intro.
there. now i don't doubt i've just wasted 7 minutes of my life.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Sounds like you're putting the burden on others to prove others that Marxism/Communism or whatever is irrational. Like the Theist that thinks the Atheist should prove there is no God. The burden is on you to prove it is rational and would work.
You're like RC. You're fixated on the idea that burdens of the working man is the fault of the capitalist. Any society that produces an oversupply of unskilled labor or labor not trained to deal with the needs of the market will have problems. I've never seen a solution to this problem with Communism. The burden is on you to prove this.
So what's the Communist plan? You can't convince people that your system would work and be better for all. People like me are too dense and don't want to devote years of their lives trying to understand Marxism. So you enlightened ones will go on a violent rampage and kill and steal from every business owner. Even thought the majority of business owners are hardworking people that just want to raise their families and enjoy some of the fruits of their own labor. They need to die because they couldn't understand how brilliant Marx, Trotsky, etc.. were.
Why can't you just convince people in a rational way that this is better rather than be angry and violent? That Communism will work is a positive claim, so the burden is on you to prove it and prove the detractor's objections are wrong. Trying to put the proof burden back on me is doing what the Theists do.
It's not up to us Atheists to understand everything there is to know about the Bible before we can say there is very likely no God. It's not up to me to understand everything about Communism before I can claim it very likely won't work.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
you are incredibly thick. how many times--really, anybody out there keeping count?--how many times do i have to say that i'm not trying to "prove" marxism works to you or anyone else here? point to me ONE PLACE in this thread where i argue positively for marxism. the only thing i have ever argued is that you have NO CLUE what marxism is, so i would appreciate it if you stopped popping off about it like you're a goddamn expert.
THAT'S ALL I'M ARGUING.
once again,
THAT'S ALL I'M ARGUING.
the only reason i offered the materials above is that i wanted to make it as easy as possible for you to get an elementary grasp of what marxism is so you will actually be equipped to argue about it at a later time with someone who is actually trying to argue about it (i.e., NOT ME). I DID NOT REFER YOU TO THEM TO "CONVERT" YOU TO MARXISM. I JUST THOUGHT YOU MIGHT LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT REALLY IS, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT YOU'VE PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS.
normally, i would tell anybody it wouldn't take "years of study" to be able to converse competently about marxism, but in your case maybe it would.
PLEASE SPARE ME THE BULLSHIT ABOUT "COMPASSION" AND "HARDWORKING PEOPLE" AND "VIOLENT COERCION" OR WHATEVER YOUR TRIGGER-HAPPY REFLEXES ARE URGING YOU TO TYPE EVEN AT THIS VERY SECOND. I WOULD BE MORE THAN SATISFIED IF YOU JUST ADMITTED, "YES, I HAVEN'T THE FAINTEST IDEA OF WHAT MARXISM MEANS BUT I KNOW IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE IT ISN'T LIBERTARIANISM, SO I DISAGREE WITH IT."
i promise i wouldn't try to explain it to you or convince you it's right.
if you cannot or will not admit that, then please just fuck off and don't talk to me at all. you can even mentally pat yourself on the back for stomping me in a debate. i really don't care.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
As for the solution I don't know. It sure isn't letting the greedy corporations run amuck nor is it to give the greedy government too much power.
Well when the proletariat mobs come looking to slaughter anyone opposed to them, what am I supposed to do? I'm willing to die to defend my right and other's to enjoy the fruits of their own labor and to own property. So if I don't convert to Marxism or whatever you call it, when the apocalypse comes I'm dead.
So we'd better learn to accept it, right? But since we all here want to be rational, it must be proven to work. Don't you think you ought to at least try to prove that it works and is better than capitalism, before you slaughter all of us in opposition?
How are you going to win your revolution taking the tone and attitude you have? Or is it easier just to kill us all to dense and idiotic to understand and convert(al la Al Quada)?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
This is ridiculous. Everything about economics tells us we need variety and specialization. Plus people have likes and dislikes and are willing to make tradeoffs.
Some people are willing to endure a life of poverty to be a musician or artist. Others are willing to design tractors or be a mechanic if that's what the needs of market are and they are well paid. Some people like to live it up when they are young. Others want to save up for their children and retirement.
Some people want to travel around the world with their money, others want to have good medical insurance that can pay for any procedure. Some are willing to be a shoe-shiner if it means not having a boss, not having to study and setting their own hours. Some people want to work their ass off to provide the best for their family. Others want to be single and enjoy free time.
Since everyone is different, your going to have classes. We're human beings, individuals, not fucking ants that want to take our marching orders from Commie central command.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Geezz, all gov systems are imperfect and contain failures, and have simularities to each, and all human action can be related to "religion". This thread seems to be going no where as to solving the obvious problems of this so called democracy capitalist community of emphasis on competition rather than cooperation. What is so complicated, and what is the reason for complication? The unnecessary complication is indeed like the "conspiracy" of religion dogma.
We are all innately guilty of degrees of delusion. Caring EXC, I see you, as we all sometimes do, exaggerating some of your views. Can we please "come together" a bit over our fucked up corrupted system??? ... LOL
This comes mind,
Clip from the movie, "Network" - I'm Mad as Hell - 4 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dib2-HBsF08&feature=related
Atheism Books.
Well we claim to be rational responders. We claim a method of logical rational reasoning which should lead any sane person to the conclusion that there is very highly likely no God. So why can't the same procedures be applied to political/economic systems?
Why can't our highly rational method be applied in other areas? When I try to understand how Communism/Socialism can work in reality, I'm just told what a dense asshole I am. Hardly seems like a RRS to me.
I could be delusional, after all I share pretty much the same DNA as Theists, Communists and Socialists and I live on the same planet. Why can't I see the Communism and Socialism would bring peace and prosperity to everyone, and solve our problems with poverty and overpopulation? Why can't I see that Jesus loves me and has taken the form of a piece of bread that I should eat? Why, if you are God, why oh why can't I see these obvious facts?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
LOL EXC, yeah why ?!!! Lets keep working on it friend. I am way drunk now, but I will be back, if I survive this night. Thanks for caring .... and all your RRS posts.
Atheism Books.
Why can't I see that the rich will willingly fork over their wealth to pay for everyone's social services? Why can't I see that they can be forced to pay good wage to many unskilled laborers and not pass on the costs to consumers? Why am I destined to be a dense asshole my entire life that can't see that the rich would love to turn over their wealth and recieive nothing in return?
WHY AM I SUCH AN IDIOT THAT CAN'T SEE WHAT IS SO OBVIOUS TO THE RATIONAL RESPONERS? WHY O WHY???
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Politics is basically group A gaining advantage at the expense of another group B. What is a rational solution for group A is obviously not going to be a rational solution for group B.
If Group A has more members than Group B and Group A can organise itself to vote its policies will be implemented.
Of course we are members of multiple groups and we try to work out which advantages and disadvantages we get when we combine them. But what is pretty obvious there is no 'right rational solution' for eveyone
Politics has become war by other means.
Humans either cooperate with each other via rational social contracts and agreements, where each party gives in order to recieve. Or humans wage war where we demonize the others, moralize our side and use irrational reasoning and religion to justify our theft and violence.
One is rational the other is not. So if you want to improve things for all, stop grouping according to class(proletariat vs bourgeoisie, imperialist vs. socialist, rich vs. poor) and start grouping according to peaceful rational solution vs. violent irrational solution.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
EXC, just a rant. All us working folks are frustrated, and especially when we think of what the kids are in for. Perfect solutions are unavailable. Radical revolution as anarchy is deadly. A simple partial no brainier solution to the current mess would be a return to the recent Clinton economics. If allowed people will always cheat, so laws and regulation need continued review and revision.
Allowing a super elite rich class is not productive. The resources of our one earth do no not support even our average current U.S life style, let alone the world community.
People are apathetic, uneducated, and don't vote largely because of our rich ruled country. The rich are for being stinking rich and are well organized, and innately keep the poor dumbed down, insecure, and guilt ridden.
Our system is not a democracy. People need vote often on all issues. "National Security" fear propaganda is largely a lie and allows for behind door deals by the controllers, negatively effecting the average people.
In a social community sense, no one is an individual. The earth and resources belong to everyone. The system of work, ownership, security, needs to be more focused on cooperation, not dog eat dog cannibalistic competition
Wanting to be super "rich" is a sickness and goes against cooperation and healthy desire of wanting happiness and equality for all. If we view life as a battle we will live in a personal and collective war against nature mindset, creating insecurity for ourselves, effecting all.
Ethics. It is often said that "love is the answer", which in essence is to understand our true nature, as one connected race on this one starship earth. "All is mind" an ancient buddha said, and Jung talked about the individual mind, collective and sub conscience mind, as we are what we think, as to the extent of how we interact to the natural world and each other. In this sense, all is "religion", our collective world view. That is why I say "we are god", so we might take responsibility for ourselves as a connected one race. Let's all hold hands, and pull up our boot straps. "Come together over WE".....
Atheism Books.
Well Politics is quite obviously about conflict resolution, does anyone think otherwise?. It allows people to resolve their differences without killing each other (resolving of course usually means one group 'surrenders' but tries again with different methods at the next election.
There is nothing undesirable about this , its just very naive to think a society consists of people who just get on with each other. A typical country consists of 100's of different groups that have almost nothing in common bar living in the same country
HEY readers of this thread, read this from nigelTheBold - Post 12,
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/15648#comment-201648
* I would agree with mrjonno, as survival is primal ....
Atheism Books.