Semantics for the fail.

Because it's easy..

Artificial:

contrived by art rather than nature; "artificial flowers"; "artificial flavoring"; "an artificial diamond"; "artificial fibers"; "artificial ...artificially formal; "that artificial humility that her husband hated"; "contrived coyness"; "a stilted letter of acknowledgment"; "when people try to correct their speech they develop a stilted pronunciation" not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwnMan-made; of artifice; False, misleading; Unnaturalen.wiktionary.org/wiki/artificial

Eeehh, we've been breeding numerous animals and crops for hundreds or even thousands of years. Recently, we've begun to genetically modify them. If this makes the banana "artificial," then much if not most of what you eat is going to be articificial.

Edit: Woot! I can make intelligent comments when we're not talking about politics.

 Regardless of this, all of you still have cholera.

Calling Somalia libertarian is like calling North Korea "tourist friendly." Silly at best...

What's strange is that gadfly is arguing that a 'natural' economic and social system is inferior to an 'artificial' one. While with food and other things 'natural' things, it usually implies superior quality.

Bears will die of hunger and disease because they live in a natural environment. While a socialist 'artificial' environment for humans could possible allow us to live without these problems. But I still don't see how this is the case.

Working at times toward a common goal is an intermediate step to work toward one's ultimate own 'selfish' goals. It's like in Survivor, they only give the money to one person, so everyone is working for themselves. But you have to go through the intermediate stages of cooperation with your competitors to get to that point.

All economic transactions are between "selfish bastards", but they still take place even though both parties are only interested in what they can get out of it.

But actually selfish and unselfish have no real meaning if everyone one is selfish and every action is selfish right. Words like 'selfish', 'coward', 'compassionate' really have no meaning other than tools to get people to conform the goals of the group or others.

But by appearing to be compassionate and helping others, one can achieve our selfish goals. Plus helping others can feel good. But if you do something to feel good, how is that not still selfish? That's why socialism is so popular, one can appear compassionate and convince yourself you're compassionate. But it's without sacrifice, it's other people's money. So it's like a free drug.

What is a corporation with a group of shareholders? What is the Republican party? Seems like they have a common goal.

It seems that socialism as it's proposed is just wealth redistribution, punishing success and rewarding failure in the marketplace. I'm a proponent of a form of social cooperation and social contracts that allows us to share the earth's resources. I think the other forms of socialism fail to acknowledge that we're all self- interested bastards at our core. They try to basically shame people into not being this way. But they will fail because they ignore the reality of human nature.

I disagree because fear is a great motivator. With minimum wage and guaranteed healthcare, food and housing, the fear of death is gone or is equal among all employees. So once the fear is removed, there is a giant step function, the motivation is not double for double the income. The only motivation is luxury items. Also, you can't can't provide for the low without taking from those at the high end(that's why we have progressive income tax) which reduces their motivation even more.

The other thing socialist don't get is that nature puts a premium on conserving energy(mental and physical). So being lazy often pays off, so people will become content with doing the minimum to get by because you guarantee their survival and right to breed. Look at all the busy professionals, they have no time or energy for a social life or family.

HUH? What kind of bait and switch bullshit is this, EXC?

Who says my method of protecting the bears in their environment will cause their population to explode and become unsustainable?

Who says I haven't already considered unsustainable numbers and factors that might cause that to happen within the framework of my initial plan as a threat to the species?

Who says I haven't already successfully prevented overpopulation?

You?

So you can move the goal posts and pretend it's a relevant point made against taking care of people?

Weak.

and hoard all the resources to themselves.

"The other thing socialist don't get is that nature puts a premium on conserving energy(mental and physical). So being lazy often pays off, so people will become content with doing the minimum to get by because you guarantee their survival and right to breed. Look at all the busy professionals, they have no time or energy for a social life or family."

Funny how capitalists don't get that this happens in capitalism. People get peanuts for work, so they have no motivation to work harder. It's natural. When work and work quality improves, income remains the same. Whereas socialism rewards more work and better quality of work. That doesn't mean everyone will want to, but it provides at least threefold more motivation than capitalism.

In some cases when monopolies are allowed.

And how does minimum wage law in combination with progressive income tax help the situation? With minimum wage you have enough to survive and little incentive to try to make more.

And people need a motive to work more with more quality. Progressive income tax is a disincentive. A fine on more work and efficiency. We fine traffic violators and criminals to discourage this behavior. So why do so many socialist seem to have no problem with progressive income tax? Tax inefficiency and usage of government services and natural resources instead.

Through minimum wage requirements and progressive income tax??? It's a reward for low job skills and a penalty on quality work.

I'm in Alice in wonderland. What motivation does minimum wage and progressive income tax provide?

Mind explaining how it can pay for all these free government services like healthcare? Why then do these socialist models like Denmark have extremely high progressive income and profit tax and VAT sales taxes. Do you agree that governments only source of revenue should be user fees for government provided services and resource usage?

No you don't explain how you get the money to take care of those in need while still motivating people to work and pull themselves out of poverty.

You didn't ask me to explain how I would stop the bear population exploding.

You asked me what would be my plan if I was "given the task of making sure that no bear in the park ever went hungry or died of a curable disease".

You've made no valid points here EXC, it's just one big informal fallacy exposing your piss weak argument.

And if overpopulation makes the "cubs go hungry" then preventing overpopulation is mandated. Isn't it.

No, EXC.

You're just trying to put words into my mouth for me.

Fail.

I answered this point on the previous page. The logistic growth equation is not a biological law that we must abide by no matter what. It's just a differential model of how a highly extrapolated population will behave given a few parameters.

We are not bound to it.  It doesn't represent the entire system. It doesn't even necessarily represent any of the system at all.

No, you need to explain how you suddenly know that the assumptions of population growth models are absolutely and unquestionably the final authority on real world populations.

But I never said I was going to "supply food and medical treatment" to the bear population.

I'm not angry, EXC. But I am getting a bit sick of the crap.

You don't know the answer to that because your idea of a socialist system is a Straw Man, and you are stubbornly unwilling to let go of him.

Since you are otherwise intelligent, I must assume the latter. Work or gtfo = motivation. If work, then no poverty. It's really quite simple.

OK then, the financing of the Canadian health care system is wrong, because it depends on income tax and not a user fee, right?

Basically you tell people just show up for work at a low skill minimum wage job, and you get quality health care, food and shelter, right? So to survive and support as many kids as I want to have, all I got to do is get out of bed in the morning.

And you don't explain how you support the low skill people with out taking from the rest of society. So you're just doing wealth redistribution, no matter how you try to mask it.

OK then, so if you don't work then healthcare, food stamps, housing can no longer be supplied by the government? Fear for one's survival is still a motivator? So then ClockCat is wrong when stating that healthcare must be a human right? And Canada should let some people die for lack of medical treatment if they've refused to work or get training?

to do and what you're good at. Some of your work you might choose for yourself completely, other work you'll choose from what is available and necessary, based at least partially on your capabilities and work effort.

"And you don't explain how you support the low skill people with out taking from the rest of society. So you're just doing wealth redistribution, no matter how you try to mask it."

So you think the average minimum wage worker doesn't accomplish enough to support themselves. You'd like to see them all enslaved, living in shacks and caves with no ammenities. Fighting for food and water while the rich throw scraps to see what happens.

"OK then, so if you don't work then healthcare, food stamps, housing can no longer be supplied by the government?"

You don't work and you're on your own. Though I wouldn't prevent charitable actions by the members of society. Maybe someone will feel sorry for you and give you some money or a room to stay.

You're insufferable because you can't see, after five or six posts, you haven't pointed out anything except that your own position is so weak you can't make a straight argument for it.

I suppose since these are your hypothetical bears, they'll do what you imagine them to do.

Where have I attacked you? I haven't attacked you, I've attacked your argument for what it is, so damn weak and shallow that you have to move the goal posts and throw red herrings repeatedly to make it sound worth even saying.

You're the one using ad hominem, seeing as though I've answered all your questions and shown this ridiculous pretend debate far more respect than it ever deserved already.

WTF.

Just a few things to say about that:

1. We're not talking science here EXC, we're talking politics. (The scientific method? What the hell? )

2. I have answered every single question you've asked about Socialism, and in every answer demonstrated a logical plan, which you, obviously, must have ignored or you wouldn't feel the need to ask for it. 

3. You brought science into this with the argument that since the solution curve of the logistic equation rises sharply toward K, Biological law (sic) dictates that all species will overpopulate given the chance. I have corrected your science mistake and that's as scientific as I'm going to bother getting on the matter. Ya dig?

I'm no expert on Bears, EXC, and moreover, as I said before, these are your hypothetical bears, no matter what I say you'll just move the goal posts again, right?

At any rate, this isn't even about bears at all, it's about humans and overpopulation, that's the direct question you're trying to ask without directly asking, since you've already asked the direct question and I've already answered it and you'd rather not admit that you're asking the same question over and ignoring a perfectly valid answer, already given, to which you have no reply. (page 3 post# 132)

WHat ARE YOu ON ExC? ! ?

We should test our political and economic theories on Mice now?

This just proves how utterly irrational your right wing prejudice truly is, don't you think?  Do you even hear yourself?

There could be innumerable ways of doing this that did not include direct supply of food and medical benefit, but these are your bears and Oh look you moved the goalposts again - it was prevent them dying of curable diseases, now it's just dying of diseases.

The only real answer to your question is as I have been saying all along. Population growth models are generally built on simplistic assumptions. This is not because biologists are simplistic, but because the dynamics of interacting populations are enormously complex. You can't generalise how to protect all species of organisms, you need to know the particular species that you want to protect, and your plan needs to be particular to that species.

You've been told innumerable times what else there is, and you are just being obstinate pretending that you haven't.

I've answered these questions too.

Socialism does not "promote laziness", this has been methodologically investigated, fear is a bullshit motivator and capitalists are wrong to assume that they have the monopoly on motivational systems. Did you even read the abstracts of the papers i linked?*

Socialism is not inefficient, (this argument was debunked in 1930 FFS where's your head at EXC?) All of the countries currently enjoying socially provided services attest to it's efficiency, as has been pointed out to you at least a thousand times in the last three months.

And as for "education in areas the economy does not need" What does that even mean?

*ASIDE: this fear of other people being lazy is just a sad hypocritical control issue, aren't you supposed to be arguing for libertarianism? For free will? Why do all the so-called libertarians feel such a need to impose their personal standards on everyone else, why do you need a system that controls others with fear and how can you call your self libertarian when you do? You're actually advocating a dictatorship, the demands for control over everyone else are just hidden behind the socially acceptable prejudices and bigotries of the times, as is done in dictatorships.

You are the one that trotted out an equation that is somehow supposed to convince me that overpopulation is not a problem. That is science and you are the one trying to use science to defend you position that Socialism will work. So I want to see an experiment where the animals are given all the food they want and cured of disease but not given birth control where the population does not explode and the animals do not become dependent on the providers.

Since we're not talking science, why are you trotting out an equation that is supposed to convince people that overpopulation is not a problem under your socialist utopia? And where is the verification of this population growth model?

Where's the experimental results then that verify your version of socialism does not produce overpopulation and dependency? There is none so we can all assume your science is BS. If you give mice unconditional food and healthcare, you have a population growth. This is such common sense the experiment is not even worth doing.

What the hell does your socialism do except guarantee entitlements for doing nothing? There is no point in debating you unless you spell out exactly what you do.

Wow, I really would have liked to get involved in this thread, but it would take me a day to read it. I guess I'll just have to stay a Libertarian and love it.

"Where's the experimental results then that verify your version of socialism does not produce overpopulation and dependency?"

Show me your studies that say an educated (comparable to highschool graduation in North America) and healthy human population has uncontrolled growth.

But I've never seen a version of socialism that requires one to get an education and to get an education in a field that is in demand. If someone doesn't want to make the effort to study, you can just get minimum wage with healthcare and subsidies and get by with having a many kids as one can conceive. And if you get an education you just go into a higher tax bracket. And the leftist don't want to improve schools with competition and privatization. So the schools suck because of teacher's unions and no private vouchers.

So socialism is rewarding a low education and punishing a high education. If this is not your version of socialism, it seems your biggest enemy should be leftist that promote this and not the conservatives and capitalists you seem to hate so much.

Hong Kong is a nation? roflmao

Hong Kong is an island of capitalism ripping flesh from the bones of the rest of China. Hong Kong has all the rights of spending, while the rest of China has the right to work the skin off their backs and go fuck themselves afterwards. And all of it is only possible with full cooperation from the government in the capital. Hong Kong has about as much to do with libertarian ideas and "values" as dingle berries have to do with fruit.

Iceland just sunk beneath the waves of economic idiocy and exploitation by the few "free men" and officially went bancrupt a year ago, or did you miss that? As long as cretenous and economically illiterate fucktards like you write praise to policies in places mentioned, its to be expected that half your population will retain shit-for-brains attitude well into the 21st century. Yes offense.

The rest of you excuse my language.

In this case, the war/overloards are acting as a socialist government. They are demanding payment of 'taxes' while providing no services. They point a gun at your head and take it if you don't accede. That's what the socialist and communist parties have to do to stay in power.

In a truly free society all exchanges of property would be voluntary and the citizens would be armed to enforce these rules. So the citizens would eliminate anyone that tries to shake you down to take your earned property whether it's mafias, warlords, socialists or communists.

You're projecting your view of a position onto others - stop.

"libertarian capitalist"? I've never heard of that before. Is it different from capitalism?