Political/Government General Discussion : Libertarian Socialism

The Infidel Guy Show
The Debate Hour Show
Faith and Freethought
3 Podcasts, One Feed

or visit this page.

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Live Video and Chat Room

Freethought Videos

Blogs

Weblogs News

Embed Our Player

~ TIP JAR ~

Libertarian Socialism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 27, 28, 29 Next

AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Political/Government General Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

FlatEarth1024
Moral Assassin

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 3369
Local time: 4:26 AM

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject:

aitm wrote:

gnosis wrote:

OK, OK, I'm sorry I asked you if you were a republican Knight. But I have just one more question for you.

Are you black?

(pokes gnosis) if he is.....ask him why the bro's wear sunglasses at night,,,,,never understood that.

For the same reason I do. When you're cool, the sun shines on you 24 hours a day.
_________________

Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master

Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2216
Local time: 11:26 PM

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

"More than 86 percent of rapes against Native American women are carried out by non-native men, most of them white, according to the Justice Department."

As of 2005 in the United States of America.

Don't ask the Justice Department to actually DO anything about it, they're too busy protecting their OWN people from prosecution...

Bush league justice for ya.

Either pick up some lube or pick up your coherency. You should take some time to reformulate and strengthen your argument. I am not even sure of the argument you are putting forth. What is your premise?

gnosis
Forum Leader

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 1701
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: California

Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject:

Gettin' In Tune wrote:

gnosis wrote:

I am simply replying to Hillbilly's statement about Mount Rushmore, did some research on the subject. I wasn't addressing you OR Knight, Getting in Tune. Looks like we got some serious ego goin on in this thread! Rolling Eyes

Jumping in on the "rape" bandwagon too eh? Sexually frustrated much boys? Wink

If you're in the mood for some gay lubing you should probably just google it.

OK you're right though, let's get back on track and on to libertarian socialism.

I think that it may be possible that socialism and capitalism are not as polar opposites as some "free market" fanatics would like to have us think, even some Marxists believe that capitalism will naturally progress towards socialism due to technological factors in society, such as freedom of access to information and production.

From the Wikipedia on Karl Marx:

Critics argue that the Soviet Union's numerous internal failings and subsequent collapse were a direct result of the practical failings of Marxism. Most Marxists on the contrary claim that it was precisely the abandonment of Marxism in the Soviet Union that led to its demise, due to its isolation in a backward country not ripe for socialism according to Marx. Marx saw more advanced modes of production as growing out of mature capitalism, and needing widespread education and democratic apparatuses to allow the eventual control of the state by the people themselves (and eventually, the "withering away of the state" under a truly mature communism) - only possible with a well educated and democratic populace. Marx did not appear to suggest that a stage of economic development could simply be skipped over, as the Soviet ideology implied. Rather, no nation should realistically be able to achieve socialism (let alone a mature communism) until it had developed a modern capitalist system, and mature communism was supposed to require a level of wealth and technology that would allow the basic material needs of all citizens to be produced with very little labor, on average, per person in a given time period. That achievement would then free people's time and energies to fully participate in the democratic running of society, and then to finally overcome the alienation that the pattern of technological revolutions had caused throughout history—a giant arc in which societies developed from the "primitive communism" of small bands that had little or no structural inequality, through the great agrarian empires (usually involving slavery at one end and the richest monarchs at the other) which Marx considered to be the pinnacle of inequality, through feudalism and capitalism to the socialist organisation of society in which all can participate equally due to this technological development. The "elites" of feudal and capitalist society become less able to dominate others either through economics or ideology - their role in society is finished - as the working class develops its strength and becomes the "gravedigger" of capitalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx#Philosophy

With robotic assembly lines and the internet total freedom of information and production is actually coming into the realm of possibility. Notice the mention of slavery. There is your relevancy. Agrarian societies where fields are tended are generally built on a backbone of slave labor. Agriculture and capitalism are brief moments in history when you look at the time span human beings have been on this planet, we were hunter gatherers for almost 10,000 years before agriculture even came around.

If even some Marxists believe that socialism and capitalism aren't necessarily competing forces, what about the more "center" socialists? I think a broad blanket of indentifying every single concept that Marx spoke about with Soviet communism is a mistake. Soviet communists were all about the limitation of access of information and production, which is exactly what pure Marxism or socialism is SUPPOSED to be working against. They just dressed the wolf of government up in a different costume. Soviet communists aren't really all that different from the oppressive forces in the United States who also want to control you, just in a different way.

The libertarian socialist concept is that someday limitation of government will come from the power of the people to limit it themselves due to their own access to information and production. That is the concept that actually cuts across the "small government" line between libertarian conservativism and libertarian socialism. It's just how and who is doing the "limiting". I guarantee you there is no way you are going to get a politician to "limit government", which is the classic conservative line.

Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master

Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2216
Local time: 11:26 PM

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:52 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

Looks like we got some serious ego goin on in this thread! Rolling Eyes

I see idiocy, while you see ego. The fact is your ego needs lickin'.

Quote:

OK you're right though, let's get back on track and on to libertarian socialism.

Huh, what was I right about? Do you ever explain yourself?

Quote:

I think that it may be possible that socialism and capitalism are not as polar opposites as some "free market" fanatics would like to have us think, even some Marxists believe that capitalism will naturally progress towards socialism due to technological factors in society, such as freedom of access to information and production.

Marx was a fucktard. He was not much of an economist. I do not give him much credit besides placing economics at the base of the social super structure and fucking up society for decades. You can keep on shouting that communism failed and that we are ever evolving towards it, but are continuously pushed aside from capitalist propaganda. The cold hard fact is CAPITALISM CANNOT EVOLVE INTO SOCIALISM.

One promotes the individual while the other does not. "Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is ideological diarrhea.

Quote:

From the Wikipedia on Karl Marx:

Quite quoting wikipedia. I can read. Either provide a summarization or quote a more reputable source. Ok.

gnosis
Forum Leader

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 1701
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: California

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:07 am Post subject:

Gettin' In Tune wrote:

One promotes the individual while the other does not. "Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is ideological diarrhea.

Doesn't strengthening the individual also strengthen the collective? I would argue that empowering the individual with education would have a social benefit. Access to information leads to more informed decisions, more people making more informed decisions means a better direction for society, does it not?

Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master

Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2216
Local time: 11:26 PM

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:10 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

Doesn't strengthening the individual also strengthen the collective?

Yes, but how does a society reach this mean?

1. Through individual voluntary transaction.
2. Through government coercion.

Quote:

I would argue that empowering the individual with education would have a social benefit.

It does.

Gettin' In Tune
Forum Master

Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 2216
Local time: 11:26 PM

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:19 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

What if the "government" itself is shaped by individual voluntary transaction?

It is shaped by voluntary transaction as long as it does not impede on others voluntary transactions.

josephpalazzo
Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 7436
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: D-brane

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:00 am Post subject:

cheapsuprise wrote:

josephpalazzo wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

I bet you can't think of even one thread to quote mine for illogic on my part either.

Here fucking moron, I took one of your post at random (It was easy, there are hundreds like this one)

From: http://www.atheistforums.com/libertarian-socialism-t6503.html#141873

You took a post at random from THIS thread? Don't work to hard now.

cheapsuprise wrote:

Your a communist. Case closed.

Quote:

Where's the fucking logic, asshole?? Godless Red Scum--

Think about the above sentence for a few moments.

Quote:

ask you to demonstrate his views to be dogmatic, paranoid, apocalyptic, and Manichean. How do you respond? By labelling him a communist???

Yep. That's how I responded.

Quote:

If that's what you calll logic, you are a fucking true imbecile.

Is that what YOU call logic? I call that quote mining. Here is a question for you...
WHERE is the chocolate cake in the above statement? I don't see any, so I guess you failed.

Quote:

Here's another one:

From http://www.atheistforums.com/state-of-the-union-t5909-30.html#130437

cheapsuprise wrote:

munky99999 wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

munky99999 wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Fascinating... So how was your analogy not false? Are you going to learn that having a BIG FUCKEN MOUTH does not make questions go away?

Well thanks for your opinion. The unfortunate fact is that you opinion is uninformed and ignorant.

Prove it. Explain how your analogy was not false. This should be easy for you. I've asked you three times and you still haven't done it.

Quote:

Nobody fights against facts like you do.

You mean, I PUT UP a fight, where as you will shoot off your mouth, and if some one challenges what you said, you just bitch, insult, evade, have a tantrum-- ANYTHING to avoid actualy backing up your assertions, cuz you don't actualy know what the fuck your talking about half the time.

You fucking discount reality.

No I don't. Reality is on my side. Your analogy sucked. It was false. I showed how it was false. Your just to arrogant/ignorant/fucken lazy to respond properly.

How does logic apply to an analogy???

You tell me. You chose this quote.

Quote:

Logic applies to factive statements. Period. Only factive statements have truth-values.
Worse you claim: Reality is on my side. WTF? Now you are God or what?

That's what happens when you go quote hunting. You don't read carefully, and you get mixed up.
When I said reality was on my side, I meant that the FACTS were on my side. IOW the facts supported my argument.

Munky's analogy was false. Do you know what a false analogy is? Are you reading the word "false" and getting it's usage confused?

Quote:

Here's one more, from: http://www.atheistforums.com/new-rule-proposal-t6275-150.html#139479

cheapsuprise wrote:

munky99999 wrote:

Quote:

So you support the war in Iraq then. According to the above "criteria" it was fully justified as self defence, and now it's fully justified as peacekeeping. Here is a hint, they had bullshit back in the 1860's too.

actually no it wasnt self defence or the UN would sanction it. As for peacekeeping... again nato or the UN or similar backs that up... which isnt happening really in iraq. Afghanistan yes it is.

I support the operation in afghanistan.

So clearly, what constitutes a real *justification* is a mater of argument, and if you care to examine the details of any given justification, more closely-- even a popularly believed justification, IE: "911 + Iraq + ((WMD?< democracy) X Saddam Humane) / terrorism = WAR"... you may find that it's in fact bullshit.

Get my point?

That has to be the most moronic statement I ever encountered. Do you think you can come up with a mathematical formula in regard to what is happening in the world?

Nope. Take note of the text that I enlarged above. Read backwards, then forwards, then read it again-- carefully.

That was my dramatic parody of the sort of mathematics the Bush administration attempted. I was CRITISISEING that kind of argument. That should be patently obvious to anyone who isn't desperately searching for a quote to misrepresent me with.

Quote:

Your logic is so screwed up, I guess that IF you were born intelligent, education ruined you. I suspect the premise in that IF statement is also false.

Well IF you can find a post where the bad logic involved isn't some interpretive straw-man dance on your part, I will be impressed.

What a fucking moron you are.

cheapsuprise wrote:

Your a communist. Case closed.

Asshole, there are millions of communists in the world. Since when do they form a monolith group? Throwing that as an argument is fucking bullshit. You are so fucking ignorant, it's unbelievable.

Your style of debate:

Hey, you're an atheist. Case closed.

Hey, you're a theist. Case closed.

Hey, you're a liberal. Case closed.

Hey, you're a Republican. Case closed.

Congrats, great way to debate... **Sarcasm off**

So in your great tradition:

You're a fucking moron. Case Closed.

Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster

Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 9284
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:58 am Post subject:

gnosis wrote:

I am simply replying to Hillbilly's statement about Mount Rushmore

With what?

Look, I realize that you want me to validate you, but that's your problem. Get over your man-crush.

gnosis wrote:

I think that it may be possible that socialism and capitalism are not as polar opposites as some "free market" fanatics would like to have us think

They are. Your utter lack of knowledge in this area is laughable.
_________________
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"

Knight_of_BAAWA
Jedi Slackmaster

Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 9284
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: USA

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 7:59 am Post subject:

Gettin' In Tune wrote:

One promotes the individual while the other does not. "Each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is ideological diarrhea.

gnosis wrote:

Doesn't strengthening the individual also strengthen the collective?

Not when you make other individuals weaker.
_________________
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"

kmisho
Stochastic

Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4258
Local time: 2:26 PM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 8:15 am Post subject:

Gettin' In Tune wrote:

gnosis wrote:

Doesn't strengthening the individual also strengthen the collective?

Yes, but how does a society reach this mean?

I don't know. But a precondition must be the recognition of value in both.

Quote:

1. Through individual voluntary transaction.
2. Through government coercion.

3. Individual coercion
4. Voluntary government
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057

You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896

"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998

Poetry, Art, Music

gnosis
Forum Leader

Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 1701
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: California

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:34 am Post subject:

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

Look, I realize that you want me to validate you, but that's your problem. Get over your man-crush.

No, I'm here do debate you Knight. You thinking that I want you to validate me is incorrect, and it is YOUR problem. Debating involves putting up points and counterpoints, not moronic vulgar shouting matches. Your utter lack of ability to do this is laughable. Honestly, the degree to which you spout vulgarity and scream through your keyboard is getting amusing at this point. I just hope I haven't caused any property damage at your end because of these tantrums you're throwing. I admit I've baited you a couple times and I'll apologize to the community for that, but not to you. Actually I find it pretty entertaining. Anyway, on to my point:

The whole point of libertarianism is reduction of government. My point is that it is absolutely ridiculous to expect a politician to limit government, they ARE the government. Never expect someone who has been given power to limit their own power. The only way to limit government is by empowering of the individual, or the "people" to replace its functions. The only way this will ever be possible is through free and equal access to information for each and every individual. The empowered and informed individual will naturally become more involved in society in a beneficial way, thus gradually eliminating the need for government to fill the gap.

Government is there to protect us from idiots and wackos (like Knight). The answer to reducing government is reducing the number of idiots and wackos (like Knight). Reducing idiots is done by free and equal access to information, or education. Reducing the number of wackos is done by free and equal access to mental health services (take a fuckin chill pill dude). Completely eliminating government from the top down while there are still a ton of idiots and wackos running around is madness.

gnosis wrote:

I think that it may be possible that socialism and capitalism are not as polar opposites as some "free market" fanatics would like to have us think

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

They are. Your utter lack of knowledge in this area is laughable.

I hope this doesn't injure your obviously fragile ego Knight, but you simply saying "it is so" does not make it so. Even someone as well read as you obviously are has the capacity to be wrong. Look at George W. Bush, graduate of Yale, Harvard.

Socialism is basically "a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.". The mistake of socialist government is thinking that this is achievable by government, while in actually it is the exact opposite. It is only achievable by LACK of government, and the only way to eliminate government is to empower the community. The way to empower the community is by empowering each and every individual of that community. Capitalism is basically "an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated" Capitalism can be a function of empowerment of each individual, which will naturally progress us towards the socialist ideal of all of those individuals determining the direction of society as a functioning community, instead of a centralized government.

Last edited by gnosis on Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:12 am; edited 2 times in total

Godless Red Scum
Will Do Moose Stuff 4 Money

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 836
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: Concrete Jungle

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:07 am Post subject:

Really good discussion on the Civil War/slavery/CSA taking place here. Perhaps it too deserves its own spin-off thread? _________________ "You're just a part of everything that's happening tonight, and it's all bad"-- Swan to Mercy in The Warriors

cheapsuprise
disgraced, in exile.

Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 7045
Local time: 8:26 PM
Location: Next door.

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:52 pm Post subject:

josephpalazzo wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Well IF you can find a post where the bad logic involved isn't some interpretive straw-man dance on your part, I will be impressed.

What a fucking moron you are.

Awwww? No more quote mining? You said there were thousands of examples.
Fuck, your lazy.

Quote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Your a communist. Case closed.

Asshole, there are millions of communists in the world. Since when do they form a monolith group?

LO-FUCKEN-L !!!

Thank you for that.

Quote:

Throwing that as an argument is fucking bullshit.

So is dressing a red-herring up as a strawman, and beating it into a pulp to distract people from that slap in the face I gave you for being a rude ass hole to Ivan. If anyone gave a damn in the first place, all your accomplishing now is to remind them how I slapped you, and how badly it hurt your feelings.

You big baby.

Quote:

You are so fucking ignorant, it's unbelievable.

Your style of debate:

Hey, you're an atheist. Case closed.

Hey, you're a theist. Case closed.

Hey, you're a liberal. Case closed.

Hey, you're a Republican. Case closed.

Congrats, great way to debate... **Sarcasm off**

Joe, It's called a "hasty generalization".
AMAZINGLY, you managed to commit that very fallacy as you attempted to articulate it.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone do that before. Well done.

Now, I'm not even good at arithmetic, never mind logic. I've never made a secret of my learning disability. It's well known here.
SO, if you think attaching MY knowledge of logic is a good way to get back at me for slapping you for being rude to Ivan...
You should AT LEAST develop the vocabulary-- assuming your interested in not looking like an idiot.
_________________
"-- 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

josephpalazzo
Illusion Master

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 7436
Local time: 11:26 PM
Location: D-brane

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject:

cheapsuprise wrote:

josephpalazzo wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Well IF you can find a post where the bad logic involved isn't some interpretive straw-man dance on your part, I will be impressed.

What a fucking moron you are.

Awwww? No more quote mining? You said there were thousands of examples.
Fuck, your lazy.

Quote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Your a communist. Case closed.

Asshole, there are millions of communists in the world. Since when do they form a monolith group?

LO-FUCKEN-L !!!

Thank you for that.

Quote:

Throwing that as an argument is fucking bullshit.

Quote:

It's not a hasty generalization when your posts are awashed with these generalizations and the labelling of people instead of providing counter-claims.

Second, what's wrong with Ivan? He can't defend himself? Since when are you his lawyer? Do you have a lawyer's licence to practice? Even if you did, with your single digit IQ, one would be foolish to hire you or let you speak in his/her name.

Note, that my post was addressed to Moloth, not to you. But Ivan still corrected what was happening -- a derailment of the thread -- and promptly splitted the thread, to his credit. But you, fucking moron, had to jump on this occasion to throw mud in my direction. Guess what? That is a two-way street.

cheapsuprise wrote:

josephpalazzo wrote:

From http://www.atheistforums.com/state-of-the-union-t5909-30.html#130437

cheapsuprise wrote:

munky99999 wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

munky99999 wrote:

cheapsuprise wrote:

Fascinating... So how was your analogy not false? Are you going to learn that having a BIG FUCKEN MOUTH does not make questions go away?

Well thanks for your opinion. The unfortunate fact is that you opinion is uninformed and ignorant.

Prove it. Explain how your analogy was not false. This should be easy for you. I've asked you three times and you still haven't done it.

Quote:

Nobody fights against facts like you do.

You fucking discount reality.

No I don't. Reality is on my side. Your analogy sucked. It was false. I showed how it was false. Your just to arrogant/ignorant/fucken lazy to respond properly.

How does logic apply to an analogy???

You tell me. You chose this quote.

Quote:

Logic applies to factive statements. Period. Only factive statements have truth-values.
Worse you claim: Reality is on my side. WTF? Now you are God or what?

An analogy can be badly constructed or irrelevant to a discussion, or may have other attributes, BUT NOT A FALSE ATTRIBUTE.

IN LOGIC, ONLY FACTIVE STATEMENTS HAVE TRUE/FALSE VALUES.

How many times do you need to be told that in order for you to understand this elementary concept? Analogy may contain a series of statements. Some of them may be factive. But T/F values would apply only to those factive statements. The analogy, as a whole, CANNOT be false. Get it, fucking moron...

Display posts from previous:

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Political/Government General Discussion	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 ... 27, 28, 29 Next
Page 13 of 29

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum