| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sultan Borat
Royal Citizen
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Knight_of_BAAWA wrote: | | I say that shit is shit, regardless of the texture, color, or smell. |
But sometimes you can find a diamond buried in that shit.
I prefer parliamentary Canadian shit , because at least if they suck they can be punished for sucking unlike yours that need a 3 year jury trial at a huge expense just to prove he was a criminal sometimes just being incompetent doesn't make you criminal which for the U.S.A would mean you have to wait till he expires and leaves, Where as we in Canada we can have a vote of no confidence and since executive office is not sheltered from "endless heckling" the chopping block for cabinet ministry's is allot tighter, But ours is noisy and nauseating to listen to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:08 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi lumpymunk.
This is probably destined to be one of those threads that dosn't realy stay on topic. I just remembered that I actually owe you a big, giant post on Objectivism. I actually almost finished spell checking a response, and saved it. Later I got drunk and thought I had posted it, but I in fact had not. Then I got distracted, then lost interest.
It hardly maters anyway as I was planing on conceding to most of your points so that I could derail the thread after this interesting bit at the end of your last response to me:
| lumpymunk wrote: |
| cheapsuprise wrote: |
Well maybe I'll pick it up, but my objection stems more from the fact that Rand endorses TO MUCH government, not to little.
|
The case is made in that book for what Government should contain as well as what it should not. |
This is realy far more important than any topical politics.
That's the fascinating subject that we never got a chance to touch on. I was talking about NO government.
I don't think any government is necessary. Government, in-fact any authority worship is demeaning and damaging to humanity.
And to keep things slightly on topic I will give you an example. I could not watch much of this video without realizing that I was wasting time.
Please explain to me why I should watch that you-tube link beyond 5:00.
This guy has some problems. Sort of like Denis Miller perhaps. (IMO) 911 hurt his feelings, and when he didn't get an emotionally satisfying message from "liberals" he threw his lot in with a different bunch of ass holes who could give it to him. Consequentially he feels comfortable with the fallowing bullshit (and this bullshit is not my opinion. He realy did fuck up):
Firstly, at about 3:17 I realised that this guy has probably never cracked a history book in his life.
Secondly it realy ceases to become arguable, and simply becomes fallacious, at about 4:18:
"Give the modern liberal the choice between Sedam Husein and the united states..."
False dichotomy.
"Given the choice between teenage abstinence and teenage promiscuity..."
False dichotomy.
...And the he goes on to associate Hollywood "They" with liberals. "There movies". Real smart. Yeah that's not even coherent enough to be a fallacy of weak relevance. Like Bush: "we took on big Hollywood!" Oh like Viacom, and Fox? (fucken moron)
"Given the choice between the %^$*! vicious %^$#$ mass murderer Yasser Arafat, and the tiny beautifully democracy of Israel..."
Again, false dichotomy. This guy is doing what low brow politics is best at. Creating two diametrically opposed fictions and demanding a choice. Well fuck that political bitch.
He is asking you to submit to his particular brand of irrational obedience. Don't get me wrong I DID skim the rest of the video, but it seamed like every discrete time index the player landed on was in the middle of a straw-man or it's close relative.
If the way he framed his opening statements was supposed to be satire, He failed. In the free market of ideas he failed in his pitch to me. Perhaps he isn't interested in new sales, just making rent so to speak.
Well fuck that. If that's the best he has to offer in his opening few minuets, you tell me why I should watch more. Has he got more to offer? Dose he have something astonishingly brilliant, or at least non fallacious to say half way through?
Please say what, and give an approximate time reference because I don't have a lot of time for people who speak on the premise that I should already agree with them. Lazey mother fuckers.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: |
That's the fascinating subject that we never got a chance to touch on. I was talking about NO government.
I don't think any government is necessary. Government, in-fact any authority worship is demeaning and damaging to humanity.
|
I understand completely that you meant no government. I submit that a case can and has been made (although not on this forum yet) for the existence of severely limited government who's purpose and function must be centered around protecting individual freedoms, as a mediator for resolving disputes, because average people often cannot do it on their own, and as a representative and organizer of our geographic region on a global scale. Other functions as well I'm sure, but these are the most immediate and easily justifiable functions of a government.
As I said before, within The Capitalist Manifesto you'll find the complete justification and case, if thats what you're looking for.
This YouTube video isn't about debating politics, or debating the single situations of each example he uses. We could do that, and tare him apart easily revealing half truths and overgeneralizations, as we could do every other political figure and pundit. I agree with you in that there are some problems with his perspective and perhaps his approach is too vague. You have to discard all of the aprehension you feel about listening to him, because his views are different than your own, and realize he isn't trying to classify all liberals as evil people, or stupid people. He makes general statements and then immediately announces that they are not all encompassing. He specifically and freely admits that not all liberals think in this way. He says so in the video that he is overgeneralizing.
He reaches a point where he is trying to find a common fundamental, the blue print eutopia of liberal thought is how he phrases it. I think he has accurately described the very core and heart of modern liberalism, thats what he was trying to do, as well as how destructive and unrealistic it is through his comparison with John Lennon's - Imagine. Art is very powerful, and it's a very beautiful song, it doesn't reflect my worldview but I can easily see it's appeal. Getting completely offended and apprehensive about the video only 3 minutes in, 5 minutes in, hurts your ability to comprehend the fundamental meaning of what he is trying to convey. Examples and stories can be fine tuned to more accurately help the listener in understanding, but when you get offended and apprehensive so quickly you lose the ability and the desire to understand and move into a mode of premature critique. You become blinded by all of the assertions you disagree with and are left unable to focus on the message of the story.
The meat, the theme, the point of what the man is trying to convey begins about 25 minutes in when he discusses the concept of indescriminateness and how that moral underpinning of indescriminateness leads followers invariably as a vehicle for attacking standards and demolishing value just because it is a standard or is a value. Attacking standards and demolishing value is recognized as being something that isn't in the forfront of the mind in a liberals head, it's not their intention. Easily referenced as the difference between a black and white worldview as differentiated from infinite shades of grey type of worldview. Like in any abstract speech, he is attempting to lead the listener through his thought process in an attempt to convey his understanding and how he understands it. This time it's through a type of reverse engineering of their policy making, the news stories they run, the entertainment they advertise, the way they spin the articles they present.
I think it is so important to evaluate this speech based on his grasp of the often undefinined, under the rug, foundation of liberal thought. I think he has accurately encapsulated it, while some of the facts he references aren't open books and take some understanding of the issue to understand, the abstract driving point is concrete and well laid out. I could make the same arguement, use different examples, phrase it a little differently, encorporate his references to hollywood and the media a little more concretely and be 100% more effective.
If I could ask a liberal to agree with a conservative about one point brought up in this video, it would be this... "Has the speaker accurately defined the "blue print eutopian ideal" that is the fundamental of liberalism?"
I think he has.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | lumpymunk wrote: | This is the political version of...
"Don't listen to rational arguments, it's just the devil talking!"
| Quote: | | I don't pay attention to pundits. |
What do you mean by.. "The broad brush" ? |
This "pundit" just blanketed every liberal of thinking America deserved 9/11 within the first 3 minutes. Please, if you're going to give me bullshit at least make it LOOK like it isn't bullshit. |
As I've said, although many of you chose to ignore it, the man clearly ammends his blanket statements with a preface and a postscript acknowledging that not all "liberals" fall under the category. You're simply chosing to ignore when he says that because cherry picking the truth is easier than change.
What he does attempt to do is accurately describe a fundamental part of "the left" that a grand majority accept implicitly, without being fully aware of it at the time or when they regurgitate it.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sultan Borat
Royal Citizen
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Watch the full movie before you open your mouth and comment on this video!
just to help those with poor attention spans , The dude in the video still considers himself "Liberal". What he is lecturing about is Iliberalism just like someone is illiterate he is saying they are liberal like someone trying to comment on a newspaper article without knowing how to read. He is trying to say a old school liberals sought to improve themselves and society he is trying to make the claim that Iliberalism promotes self destructive indulgent behaviors through inverted morality and seeks only to make the world so unaffected by anything that the only thing wrong is stating that something is wrong.
Just to add I don't agree with all his views like "Iraq" or this was probably made prior to the rush to war, I think a number of us pit ourselves in the camp argument of not supporting a counterproductive war that would lead to a unsustainable outcome where the primary goal was never realistic would make matter worse. But he isn't talking about us he is mentioning those that opposed the Iraq war on dubious grounds like anti Americanism to the point they began to sympathize with Saddam Hussein to the extent of desiring to aid against the U.S forces with human shields. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:08 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: |
That's the fascinating subject that we never got a chance to touch on. I was talking about NO government.
I don't think any government is necessary. Government, in-fact any authority worship is demeaning and damaging to humanity.
|
I understand completely that you meant no government. I submit that a case can and has been made (although not on this forum yet) for the existence of severely limited government who's purpose and function must be centered around protecting individual freedoms, as a mediator for resolving disputes, because average people often cannot do it on their own, and as a representative and organizer of our geographic region on a global scale. Other functions as well I'm sure, but these are the most immediate and easily justifiable functions of a government. |
Except that we don't need government to fulfill those functions.
| Quote: |
As I said before, within The Capitalist Manifesto you'll find the complete justification and case, if that's what you're looking for. |
I was hoping you might tell me because I don't plan on buying another book in the near future.
I don't see any justification for even a minarchy. Who is going to pay for it? It better not be compulsory, and if it isn't than why call it government? Why not PBS?
Ever wonder why Detroit Public Television is so good? (by good I mean that It's worth checking once in a while.) It's so good that I have Detroit Public Television, and I live on the other side of the continent. There are some government grants I'm sure, but otherwise it's "with the gifts of various foundations, and the viewers like me and you."
Individual Pledges are just as good an indicator of what the market wants, as some sample based rating system. Better I think.
If it's good enough for PBS it can be good enough for the police, courts, and infrastructure.
A government, IOW a mandated bureaucracy, is only going to expand it's powers over time. It's not a conspiracie, it's a phenomenon. People who live in democracies, especially Americans like to take comfort in the idea that they can overturn there government in an election. The problem is that you aren't realy overturning the government. Your turning over different legislators. These legislators have already LEGISLATED. The next bunch will do the same. It's like trying to stop the growth of an ant colony by switching out the ants. The actual bureaucracy remains in place.
| Quote: | | This YouTube video isn't about debating politics, or debating the single situations of each example he uses. We could do that, and tare him apart easily revealing half truths and overgeneralizations, as we could do every other political figure and pundit. |
All right. I'll watch the rest of the video later tonight. However, (and this is a no cash bet) he has given no indication that he is about to say something that is even sound, never mind arguable.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Specus_Meretricis
Peddler of Bombast
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 2754
Local time: 11:08 PM
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I just had an interview at DPT. They have this very very SWANK new building. Every room, chair, elevator, coffee cup says "This is the Elen Fikelstien Pencil" or something. I really hope I get to work there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sultan Borat wrote: | | The dude in the video still considers himself "Liberal". |
You were wrong about everything from this sentence forward.
A "9/13 Republican" is not a liberal. It's a past liberal who changed because of a specific event, into a different opposing viewpoint. This signifies a movement from the left to the right.
"Everyone agrees in this room, that the democrats are wrong on just about every issue... I'm here to propose to you it's just not about every issue it's quite literally every issue." (3:35 into the video)
he goes on to talk about HOW wrong their views are, "as wrong as wrong can be" "it is diametrically opposed to what is good, right, and successful."
I think it's astonishing, Sultan Borat, that you can make the statement you did, the one I quoted you on to begin this post. He talks about how he used to be a liberal (lower case l) and goes on to explain what that means, he was talking about his past though.
You could probably get any modern republican to call themselves a Classical Liberal, that's as close as he comes.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lumpymunk
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 2141
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheapsuprise wrote: |
I was hoping you might tell me because I don't plan on buying another book in the near future.
|
Capitalist Government is so slandered, blamed, misunderstood, and misrepresented that even if I were to give an honest effort at presenting it to you, I would do an incomplete job without a doubt. Any hole I leave in what I present, you will take as-is and disregard that fact. Then you would probably disregard the unpresented parts of what the entirety of the Manifesto has to say. Once you point out a few holes in what I have presented you will fancy yourself to have done away with the belief and solidify your own belief further. I wish that I could make a strong and complete case on this forum, but doing so would require regurgitating so much of that book, and it would take so much time that I seriously cannot begin to approach a problem like that. I have taken it upon myself to represent the philosophy of Objectivism in another thread because I've been a student of Objectivism for nearly a decade now, my focus on in depth political philosophy hasn't been as concentrated as my studies in ethics and epistemology have. That is not to say I think I lack understanding, but when the something like Capitalism has so many misconceptions floating around about it, it becomes very difficult to be concise and to the point without dozens of red herrings being introduced by our frequent 1 line posters.
To avoid all of that, I gave you a reference to the complete work. I strongly recommend it, and after having read it, I think we could carry on a more constructive conversation about it.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOPu_wU6hs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sultan Borat
Royal Citizen
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 307
Local time: 10:08 PM
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | Sultan Borat wrote: | | The dude in the video still considers himself "Liberal". |
You were wrong about everything from this sentence forward.
A "9/13 Republican" is not a liberal. It's a past liberal who changed because of a specific event, into a different opposing viewpoint. This signifies a movement from the left to the right.
"Everyone agrees in this room, that the democrats are wrong on just about every issue... I'm here to propose to you it's just not about every issue it's quite literally every issue." (3:35 into the video)
he goes on to talk about HOW wrong their views are, "as wrong as wrong can be" "it is diametrically opposed to what is good, right, and successful."
I think it's astonishing, Sultan Borat, that you can make the statement you did, the one I quoted you on to begin this post. He talks about how he used to be a liberal (lower case l) and goes on to explain what that means, he was talking about his past though.
You could probably get any modern republican to call themselves a Classical Liberal, that's as close as he comes. |
Forget I ever said it, I know I may be flip flopping here that there is some things I don't agree with thats generally held as sacred by modern liberalism in the west, But that is my opinion. I was mistaken by ever advocating that modern liberalism was all inverted or iliberal I apologize. Please forgive me 
The only thing I got out of it that I agreed with is that there is some hypocrites who consider themselves liberals who have inverted views on things like America being deserving of 9/11 I have heard some say these things he isn't making it up, but I don't agree that all liberals are self indulgent hippie douche bags that think John Lennon song lyrics need to be brought to reality by promoting Amoral behaviors as being good .
Now this guy who made this speech is still a homophobic Cretan who sucks George Bushes cock regardless of whatever few good points I may credit him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:08 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | cheapsuprise wrote: |
I was hoping you might tell me because I don't plan on buying another book in the near future.
|
Capitalist Government is so slandered, blamed, misunderstood, and misrepresented that even if I were to give an honest effort at presenting it to you, |
I'm asking why capitalism needs government.
| Quote: | | I would do an incomplete job without a doubt. Any hole I leave in what I present, you will take as-is and disregard that fact. Then you would probably disregard the unpresented parts of what the entirety of the Manifesto has to say. Once you point out a few holes in what I have presented you will fancy yourself to have done away with the belief and solidify your own belief further. |
You have basically spent a paragraph predicting how I would respond to you.
I could give my justification for anarchy in a similar sized paragraph. Is it such a big chore to communicate the basic justifications for your opinion?
| Quote: | | I wish that I could make a strong and complete case on this forum, but doing so would require regurgitating so much of that book, |
I'm just going to suggest that this might be a sign that some one has gone through an ass load of trouble to make a special plead fly. Sort of like a cosmological argument.
| Quote: | and it would take so much time that I seriously cannot begin to approach a problem like that. I have taken it upon myself to represent the philosophy of Objectivism in another thread because I've been a student of Objectivism for nearly a decade now, my focus on in depth political philosophy hasn't been as concentrated as my studies in ethics and epistemology have. That is not to say I think I lack understanding, but when the something like Capitalism has so many misconceptions floating around about it, it becomes very difficult to be concise and to the point without dozens of red herrings being introduced by our frequent 1 line posters.
To avoid all of that, I gave you a reference to the complete work. I strongly recommend it, and after having read it, I think we could carry on a more constructive conversation about it. |
Well, forgive me if I don't find this a compelling response.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
redraiderdude187
The Madcap Laugher
Joined: 19 Jan 2007
Posts: 1152
Local time: 10:08 PM
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm asking why capitalism needs government. |
Capitalism needs a government because the individuals that run corporations are crooks, that's why. If they weren't accountable to anyone then an anarchy would turn into an aristocracy. Certain people, especially the rich businessmen, must be accountable to someone or they would rape an entire society.
_________________
Above the hive, beyond the lynch mob, where two and two always make four. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 10021
Local time: 9:08 PM
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aren't the businessmen accountable to their customers? Why yes--yes they are.
And aren't those in government crooks as well? Why yes--yes they are.
_________________
aa #51, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:08 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
On to part 2.
| lumpymunk wrote: | | The meat, the theme, the point of what the man is trying to convey begins about 25 minutes in when he discusses the concept of indescriminateness and how that moral underpinning of indescriminateness leads followers invariably as a vehicle for attacking standards and demolishing value just because it is a standard or is a value. Attacking standards and demolishing value is recognized as being something that isn't in the forfront of the mind in a liberals head, it's not their intention. Easily referenced as the difference between a black and white worldview as differentiated from infinite shades of grey type of worldview. Like in any abstract speech, he is attempting to lead the listener through his thought process in an attempt to convey his understanding and how he understands it. |
SO... Is this guy trying to explain the error BY EXAMPLE? Is this supposed to be an ironic speech?
Firstly he dosn't restrain himself from extreme use of straw men. IE: If an american was against the war in Iraq in 03, it might have been because they didn't see how there tax dollars and possibly the lives of there fellow citizens should be spent in such a conflict. The issue is arguable, so calling that particular view "Siding with evil" is not only thoughtless, it's fallacious, and it's hard to decide what fallacy is more prevalent in each case.
His argument about attacking standards is a case of begging the question. That's a major fuckup if your trying to make a moral argument. I agree that some things are right and some things are wrong. This guy is trying to tell me that Liberals try to equalise within the gap between the two opposites, and I'm afraid that he has a shit load more work to do before I will swallow that, and it's going to be CASE BY CASE, not universal. I mean who is trying to homogenise moral questions here? If he could actually show how liberals hold that all behaviours must be considered equal, it would help, but he dosn't. It's just assumed. More over, It dosn't help that he can't even keep his OWN standard straight during his explanation. IE:
At 6:35 "how do they think they are making the world better by siding with Saddam Husein, by keeping his rape and torture rooms open?"
Skip to 11:41 and you will hear him rationalise rape and torture. According to him, Abu Ghraib is an "obscure prison for terrorists". (I thought terrorism was important enough to name a war after the issue) This is the SAME prison which saw some of Saddam's abuses, which supposedly justify the loss of american lives and funds. Most shockingly, apparently some one has to be killed, or "seriously hurt" in order for abuse to be WRONG, enough- to be important... morally.
I guess rape and torture are on a sliding scale of wrongness. This guy is hypocritical, if he's not a complete prick. Morally confused. He is exactly guilty of what he accuses his theoretical liberals of, only inverted.
He gets that fucked up again at 33:18, BTW.
Also, I have to say that putting down Super Tramp for there choice of band name, is pretty limp wristed.
He didn't even get a laugh from his soft audience on that one.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7247
Local time: 7:08 PM
Location: Next door.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| redraiderdude187 wrote: | | Quote: | | I'm asking why capitalism needs government. |
Capitalism needs a government because the individuals that run corporations are crooks, that's why. If they weren't accountable to anyone then an anarchy would turn into an aristocracy. Certain people, especially the rich businessmen, must be accountable to someone or they would rape an entire society. |
This is meant as encouragement. Try to imagine arguing against what you have just said.
I've counted four critical weaknesses in your argument.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
