Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10

 

2006-05-16 15:26:31
topal63
. . .
+533|6947

Xietsu wrote:

Wow, you are such a pompous fool.   . . .   The fact is that the reasoning for acceptance of my idea hold sophistication, not the idea itself. Had you even read my reponse to whittsend (the one he quotes below me, which I posted just a wee bit back), you'd understand. Clearly, you're still the foolish fool you were 20 minutes ago.
LOL, homey can play that game [even though I see no reason too?]. . . your demonstratively a MORON or maybe the The VILLAGE IDIOT or better yet  - A Naive Buffoon.

(a) Your idea is discordant with everything that is our system of government - and is our economic system.

(b) Your idea only amounts to possible social commentary - but it fails to be reasonable; nor is it something that can or will be implemented.

(c) It is an arbitrary system - and arbitrary in conception.

(d) It is unjustified; as it is arbitrary; and not based upon past historical precedence.

(e) It is naïve social criticism in the extreme.

(f) You don’t understand the need for the corporate entity and subsequently personal wealth & ownership.

(g) A need to reform a system should be based upon the factors that have lead to the decline of the system.  Not some personal radicalism you simply let “flow” from your depthless intellect.

(h) Social commentary and reform are NOT simply a “why”; or value judgment; they are a “how”; and your “how” is NOT sophisticated. You have not remotely thought out the actual consequence of such an arbitrary & personal conception.

(j) There is an air of “mob-mentality” in your manner of expressing yourself (philosophically speaking).

(h) You have no idea what you are talking about! REALY! When referring to morals, ethics, civic, government, etc.

(j) Yes I’ve read what you posted - it is nonsense; not even good sophistry. Hear let me MOCKINGLY give it a try:

There is a social status that has developed into a psychological meme, which by all accounts has infected the modern American mind. Let me elucidate the complex into a form that is tangle to those poets and laureates with an ear for the exegesis of truthful civic speaking. There is a duty; thus civics; thus the civic-man; and for this civic-man to surrender that which by all accounts can not be accounted for as true ownership; or capitol; as rendered from any real verifiable beginnings; as if any beginning can in fact be determined! That is - can it be said anyone is entitled to own anything? Of course that question answers itself with an honest and stub statement - NO. But being that all truth such as this is self-evident and beyond logical reproach - we instantly move beyond the logical as that would only affect that which cannot be affected; pure logic. Thus as natural self-evident reasoning has already demonstrated that ownership is not a matter of logic but rather pure & natural logic; clinging to any old world concept that is inherently un-civic in nature - the modern “civic-man” must renounce his false and un-civic claim to ownership. Cleary the civic-man; or civic minded man can see that the collective is dominant as a structure and that he is merely a member. Government is the modern collective and as such the civic man (mere member) must by voluntary means surrender that which he purely, by pure & natural logic; beyond the common logical approach; understands he in fact does not own. But seeing this is also a statistical problem as well; there statistically will be those of the un-civic mind-set, as a meme of this magnitude with much historical inertia - will not be eradicated in its entirety upon the pure conception of this truth. Thus is the duty for the Government to wield away from all individuals (un-civic members) the ownership by forcible means if necessary. As this is simply a dispute of the morally & civically correct against those that are not - the case is closed; as the core majority is in essence a civic minded set. Thus it should be easy to implement this brilliant, sophisticated and self evident truth as a norm for our modern and generally civic minded society (even as example for other Nations to follow)!

Last edited by topal63 (2006-05-16 15:52:45)

2006-05-16 15:58:30
Xietsu
Banned
+50|6785

topal63 wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

Wow, you are such a pompous fool.   . . .   The fact is that the reasoning for acceptance of my idea hold sophistication, not the idea itself. Had you even read my reponse to whittsend (the one he quotes below me, which I posted just a wee bit back), you'd understand. Clearly, you're still the foolish fool you were 20 minutes ago.
LOL, homey can play that game [even though I see no reason too?]. . . your demonstratively a MORON or maybe the The VILLAGE IDIOT or better yet  - A Naive Buffoon.

(a) Your idea is discordant with everything that is our system of government - and is our economic system.

How the fuck does this matter? That is completely irrelevant. The mode of alteration is truly just as plain as it sounds.

(b) Your idea only amounts to possible social commentary - but it fails to be reasonable; nor is it something that can or will be implemented.

And how is this unreasonable? Identify for me the part where my system shows distaste for the corporate enterprise. This is a proposal of private income if you haven't caught that by now. And clearly, you haven't.

(c) It is an arbitrary system - and arbitrary in conception.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

(d) It is unjustified; as it is arbitrary; and not based upon past historical precedence.

Hmm, I was concerned that change somehow always had to have that garsh darn precedence. I must be wrong. I'm glad you helped clarify this for me. /le sarcasme

(e) It is naïve social criticism in the extreme.

Yeah. And this is so how? Thanks for providing support to your "arguments". So convincing.

(f) You don’t understand the need for the corporate entity and subsequently personal wealth & ownership.

(g) A need to reform a system should be based upon the factors that have lead to the decline of the system.  Not some personal radicalism you simply let “flow” from your depthless intellect.

Radical only because of your idiotic adherence and attachment to your civics in the selfish regard. IMHO, it is truly radical, rash, and partisan to denote my views as radical given the circumstance.

(h) Social commentary and reform are NOT simply a “why”; or value judgment; they are a “how”; and your “how” is NOT sophisticated. You have not remotely thought out the actual consequence of such and arbitrary & personal conception.

You assume this why? Oh, I forgot, topal is the all-knowing oracle of wisdom. Thanks for reading my mind. When should I make my next appointment?

The point of this thread is to establish how harmless, if the proper initiative is taken in institution, this would be. And conversely, how productive this would be.

(j) There is an air of “mob-mentality” in your manner of expressing yourself (philosophically speaking).

Oh yes, that mob-mentality. Because everyone likes to use that exact term you somehow find a place for in each of your posts. ~_~;

(h) You have no idea what you are talking about! REALY! When referring to morals, ethics, civic, government, etc.

Clarification? Examples?

(j) Yes I’ve read what you posted - it is nonsense; not even good sophistry. Hear let me MOCKINGLY give it a try:

There is a social status that has developed into a psychological meme, which by all accounts has infected the modern American mind. Let me elucidate the complex into a form that is tangle to those poets and laureates with an ear for the exegesis of truthful civic speaking. There is a duty; thus civics; thus the civic-man; and for this civic-man to surrender that which by all accounts can not be accounted for as true ownership; or capitol; as rendered from any real verifiable beginnings; as if any beginning can in fact be determined! That is - can it be said anyone is entitled to own anything? Of course that question answers itself with an honest and stub statement - NO. But being that all truth such as this is self-evident and beyond logical reproach - we instantly move beyond the logical as that would only affect that which cannot be affected; pure logic. Thus as natural self-evident reasoning has already demonstrated that ownership is not a matter of logic but rather pure & natural logic; clinging to any old world concept that is inherently un-civic in nature - the modern “civic-man” must renounce his false and un-civic claim to ownership. Cleary the civic-man; or civic minded man can see that the collective is dominant as a structure and that he is merely a member. Government is the modern collective and as such the civic man (mere member) must by voluntary means surrender that which he purely, by pure & natural logic; beyond the common logical approach; understands he in fact does not own. But seeing this is also a statistical problem as well; there statistically will be those of the un-civic mind-set, as a meme of this magnitude with much historical inertia - will not be eradicated in its entirety upon the pure conception of this truth. Thus is the duty for the Government to wield away from all individuals (un-civic members) the ownership by forcible means if necessary. As this is simply a dispute of the morally & civically correct against those that are not - the case is closed; as the core majority is in essence a civic minded set. Thus it should be easy to implement this brilliant, sophisticated and self evident truth as a norm for our modern and generally civic minded society (even as example for other Nations to follow)!

Sure, a great rousing for communism, but my proposal is so barely representational of the core principles behind this set of beliefs that you attribute my concept as having affiliation with.
2006-05-16 16:08:02
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6924|NJ

topal63 wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I don't even belive in the cap, I'm all for you reap what you sew. As in you make your own wealth, obviously people who come from money should get the benefits from their parents fortunes while growing up. But when they pass away if they don't have a hand in it like the Hiltons(sorry but I just think it's the best example) the empire that has been grown should be dispersed to the people controling it. If it is the Hiltons sisters running the business after their father passes away they will have the possiblity of mantaining the business.  I'm a self made person I have made my own money in my life and don't expect much from my parents, I'm just very against people who haven't done anything to obtain money to get a handout.

I'm not missing the point of the cap at all, I just feel that this people need to be preped to be a usefull piece of sociaty.
There's nothing wrong with having a personal worth & work-ethic, but that remains a personal thing. It is good that you have one - but you are confusing concepts - no offense intended.

There is no reason why a family's wealth should be redistributed to some other entity based upon some suspect notion of the common-good.

Suppose Paris Hilton is the sole heir and she in her 40's ended up running the Hilton Hotel Chain - and ran it into the ground - dead & gone - Hilton no MORE! It is neither ethical nor legal for the government to step in and sever her from the reins of something she rightfully owns - even if she is utterly incompetent at the job (not mentally incompetent; that is something else). Nor is it ethical or legal to disperse this wealth from her just because someone on the board, has a minor individual vested interest, nor redistribute the stock (wealth) to the employees upon her parents demise.

I own my own business; and ownership is different than running it. I could retire and continue to own it; if I could not continue to own it; based upon some arbitrary system or law; I would dissolve it and sell of the assets. Explain how forcing the wealthy (or merely anyone in a corporate ownership position) to dissolve the entity upon which employees depend is a good thing? And they would if such an arbitrary thing existed; even if seemingly; being a good idea to you; based upon your good personal worth & work-ethic - BUT it is a mistake to extend your personal ethic into a system, that ethic is to be carried out by YOU (the individual) and not the GOVERNMENT, with regard to personal property anyway.

And in a sense our constitution represents that need of the individual to be protected from such arbitrary, hostile and unethical acts/ideas - that would inhibit personal freedom or the right to personal prosperity.
And in owning your own business I'm sure that you are going to prep your child to run it if you seem so fit.
And no matter how unethical it is, if Paris was taking the Hilton hotels down the tubes the government would step in and save it. Because if they went under and abadened think about the layoffs and the lose revenue.

Well anyone our government is the corperation that makes the money and it is their money, . I'm still saying the caps is a stupid thing sorry xietsu, but I think there should be guidelines to covering stupid people getting lots of money.
2006-05-16 16:42:28
IRONxWyvern
Member
+14|7070|Atlanta, GA
Xietsu,

I really have no interest in this topic and could care less, however, I find you pompous and arrogant.  Have a nice day.
2006-05-16 16:44:24
topal63
. . .
+533|6947
Let me make it clear for you Xietsu, on what are you basing your idea? This arbitrary cap.

It is not a consensus - of opinion thats for sure!
It is not a reason - it appears to be an emotional stance (or fit).
It is - as it appears - only as self-righteousness - and in socialist's clothing.
When I said arbitrary I did not soley mean the "cap" - I meant as a means of limiting personal wealth period.
It will affect the necessary corporate entity - explain how it wont.
The only way a cap at any level will work - will be to limit ownership - it is a FACT. Else you never owned it. IF the majority of value; or proceeds; basically go to the government. Explain how this is FALSE - you can't.
I personally do not see the government as the paragon of social order (as is it is just "made of people!" non-soylent green type), and as it is made up of people they are the paragon - and only hopefully the government will reflect them and not the other way around.
Your personal distaste for status, wealth, etc or those you deem to be unethical, uncivic, immoral, by your personal standards - only goes to prove the weakness of your conception.

Opps . . . [EDIT] forgot this:


THE ORACLE HAS SPOKEN!

Last edited by topal63 (2006-05-17 09:13:33)

2006-05-16 16:51:10
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7000|PNW

Got Sieg Heil®, Xietsu?

Your idea is silly. Nothing would be worse for the economy than an income cap. I can't put it more plainly than that.

Xietsu wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

Wow, you are such a pompous fool.   . . .   The fact is that the reasoning for acceptance of my idea hold sophistication, not the idea itself. Had you even read my reponse to whittsend (the one he quotes below me, which I posted just a wee bit back), you'd understand. Clearly, you're still the foolish fool you were 20 minutes ago.
LOL, homey can play that game [even though I see no reason too?]. . . your demonstratively a MORON or maybe the The VILLAGE IDIOT or better yet  - A Naive Buffoon.

(a) Your idea is discordant with everything that is our system of government - and is our economic system.

How the fuck does this matter? That is completely irrelevant. The mode of alteration is truly just as plain as it sounds.

(b) Your idea only amounts to possible social commentary - but it fails to be reasonable; nor is it something that can or will be implemented.

And how is this unreasonable? Identify for me the part where my system shows distaste for the corporate enterprise. This is a proposal of private income if you haven't caught that by now. And clearly, you haven't.

(c) It is an arbitrary system - and arbitrary in conception.

Thanks for stating the obvious.

(d) It is unjustified; as it is arbitrary; and not based upon past historical precedence.

Hmm, I was concerned that change somehow always had to have that garsh darn precedence. I must be wrong. I'm glad you helped clarify this for me. /le sarcasme

(e) It is naïve social criticism in the extreme.

Yeah. And this is so how? Thanks for providing support to your "arguments". So convincing.

(f) You don’t understand the need for the corporate entity and subsequently personal wealth & ownership.

(g) A need to reform a system should be based upon the factors that have lead to the decline of the system.  Not some personal radicalism you simply let “flow” from your depthless intellect.

Radical only because of your idiotic adherence and attachment to your civics in the selfish regard. IMHO, it is truly radical, rash, and partisan to denote my views as radical given the circumstance.

(h) Social commentary and reform are NOT simply a “why”; or value judgment; they are a “how”; and your “how” is NOT sophisticated. You have not remotely thought out the actual consequence of such and arbitrary & personal conception.

You assume this why? Oh, I forgot, topal is the all-knowing oracle of wisdom. Thanks for reading my mind. When should I make my next appointment?

The point of this thread is to establish how harmless, if the proper initiative is taken in institution, this would be. And conversely, how productive this would be.

(j) There is an air of “mob-mentality” in your manner of expressing yourself (philosophically speaking).

Oh yes, that mob-mentality. Because everyone likes to use that exact term you somehow find a place for in each of your posts. ~_~;

(h) You have no idea what you are talking about! REALY! When referring to morals, ethics, civic, government, etc.

Clarification? Examples?

(j) Yes I’ve read what you posted - it is nonsense; not even good sophistry. Hear let me MOCKINGLY give it a try:

There is a social status that has developed into a psychological meme, which by all accounts has infected the modern American mind. Let me elucidate the complex into a form that is tangle to those poets and laureates with an ear for the exegesis of truthful civic speaking. There is a duty; thus civics; thus the civic-man; and for this civic-man to surrender that which by all accounts can not be accounted for as true ownership; or capitol; as rendered from any real verifiable beginnings; as if any beginning can in fact be determined! That is - can it be said anyone is entitled to own anything? Of course that question answers itself with an honest and stub statement - NO. But being that all truth such as this is self-evident and beyond logical reproach - we instantly move beyond the logical as that would only affect that which cannot be affected; pure logic. Thus as natural self-evident reasoning has already demonstrated that ownership is not a matter of logic but rather pure & natural logic; clinging to any old world concept that is inherently un-civic in nature - the modern “civic-man” must renounce his false and un-civic claim to ownership. Cleary the civic-man; or civic minded man can see that the collective is dominant as a structure and that he is merely a member. Government is the modern collective and as such the civic man (mere member) must by voluntary means surrender that which he purely, by pure & natural logic; beyond the common logical approach; understands he in fact does not own. But seeing this is also a statistical problem as well; there statistically will be those of the un-civic mind-set, as a meme of this magnitude with much historical inertia - will not be eradicated in its entirety upon the pure conception of this truth. Thus is the duty for the Government to wield away from all individuals (un-civic members) the ownership by forcible means if necessary. As this is simply a dispute of the morally & civically correct against those that are not - the case is closed; as the core majority is in essence a civic minded set. Thus it should be easy to implement this brilliant, sophisticated and self evident truth as a norm for our modern and generally civic minded society (even as example for other Nations to follow)!

Sure, a great rousing for communism, but my proposal is so barely representational of the core principles behind this set of beliefs that you attribute my concept as having affiliation with.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-16 16:52:51)

2006-05-16 17:19:31
dubbs
Member
+105|6860|Lexington, KY

Xietsu wrote:

...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.

(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)
How about no.  Sounds like you support a Socialist society.  Remeber this did not work that well for the USSR.

BTW:  Gates states that he wishes that he did not make a lot of money, and he gives a lot (I have heard up to half) away to the William and Melinda Gates Foundation.  He is very willing to help people out that do not have a lot of money.  For example, he gives full scholarships to high school students that come from inner-city schools.  He also has given every shool distric (maybe even school) in Washington a computer.  From my personal view, Gates gives more to the American econmy then anyone else, not only does the company that he co-founded give the US econmy a boost, but he helps those in need also.
2006-05-16 17:29:58
ckaplan
Member
+7|6826

Xietsu wrote:

...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.

(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)
[sarcasm]
Why stop there.  Let's just let the government tell us how to live our lives and provide what they think is necessary for us to be happy.  Then we can all live in harmony.  After all the government really knows what is best.  Right?
[/sarcasm]

Worst idea ever.
2006-05-16 17:50:29
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7058|Grapevine, TX

Erkut.hv wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

...and use all proceeds from the cap for redistribution towards all domestic needs of the government at all levels.

(Come on, does Bill Gates really need his house to be the size of a museum? Okay, so maybe we up the cap to 100 million so that Bill Gates can still support his property value of 113 million.)
How about no. I hear Cuba is nice this time of year.... you should move there.

If I make 100 mil a year, I'll be damned if I am supporting a bunch of lazy bastards, junkies, and other types looking for a handout.
Head shot +1, -1 for being such, well nevermind.

Torin wrote:

Maybe our government should just take responsibility for the money that IS available, and spend it more on domestic issues, and less on rebuilding Iraq.

We don't need a workaround to get more money for domestic issues when the money we COULD and SHOULD be spending on them is spent elsewhere.
QFE

Erkut.hv wrote:

Xietsu wrote:

This country wasn't built ''on the values of free economy''. You should try rereading your last sentence there, max, and then apply it to yourself. You'll understand (I hope). Honestly, regulating this one - albeit, large - thing, doesn't automatically intend that our government is no longer what it is, but that it is a government with logical priorities. I never knew a man who could truly make use of 2 million. What type of over-indulgence must people need? All "communist" societies have never ever really been truly communist.

(BTW, domestic funding, fractionalized, is so barely composed of "handouts".)
Any taxes I pay to pay for welfare, I consider handout money. Social securit yincluded. I want to invest my own money the way I see fit.

And I don't care if I can use 2 mil a year or not, I earned it. Nobody else did. Don't tell me how to use my money.
Are you an American, and you learned US History, where?
'This country wasn't built ''on the values of free economy''.  What moon orbiting Pluto are you from? Where in left field are you really coming from Xietsu? 2 Million US Dollars is more money than I have personally earned, but it is not a lot of money. Do you have lot of money? There is an old legend of and a true "Robin Hood" , life doesnt imitate that story. The US Government will not ever have the power to limit what a person can achieve through hard work, and just maybe a little luck.
2006-05-16 18:27:22
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6865|Westminster, California
Dudes, if we institute socialism then you can't upgrade your video card until everybody upgrades their video card. Redistribution is just wrong.
2006-05-16 22:56:44
(T)eflon(S)hadow
R.I.P. Neda
+456|7058|Grapevine, TX

yerded wrote:

Dudes, if we institute socialism then you can't upgrade your video card until everybody upgrades their video card. Redistribution is just wrong.
LOL, +1 for you, another headshot 4 Xieus....
2006-05-16 23:41:07
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6903|Canberra, AUS
Um, how about no? This is why I try to keep away from the traditional 'left-wing' philosophies wuch as socialsm. How about: I am a staunch supporter of Sparkism! Or Whatever-suits-you-bestism!

Communist systems rarely work. The remaining communist systems in the world realised their economies were getting buttraped, so they tried to 'liberalise' them (term used very looksely).

Redistribution is a horrible idea.

- 1. If I earn two cents, I want to fucking be able to use that two cents anyway I like!

- 2. What do you think TAXES are for? Why do you think high-earners have to pay so much? Isn't that redistribution in a sense?

- 3. Redistribution would have a massive slowdown effect on economies. Once you start placing restrictions on free enterprise, business stagnates, jobs are lost and the economy goes into the shitter. Also, redistribution itself costs lots of money - money the government can't afford to waste.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-17 02:53:35
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7000|PNW

<{SoE}>Agamemnar wrote:

Communism is actually a very bright and utopian idea on paper... problem is, Humans are too evil to make it work the way it's supposed to.

When man is ready to stop being greedy, communism will be the preferred form of government.
Hmm...I don't think so. I still want to be able to move where I want and change my job without asking permission. Massive volunteer charity contributions would be a more ideal situation.

Bubbalo wrote:

Out of curiosity, what's everyone's beef with communism?
Got troll?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-17 03:12:10)

2006-05-17 03:05:53
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790
Out of curiosity, what's everyone's beef with communism?
2006-05-17 03:40:44
vedds
Member
+52|6983|Christchurch New Zealand
This thread is based around an arbitrary idea that people should have a certain amount of posessions or net value, and the rest should be redistributed to those who are unable or unwilling to reach the same level of income/posesions.

Its the typical socialist utopia favored by most leftists and as always the real world consequences get left out of the equation.  (explanation below)

The capitalist system is a meritocracy - meaning that if you have a lot you merited it at some point now either thats through work or in some cases luck(or inheritance , but that just means your forebears merited it). In addition to this it also enshrines freedom as a vital part of the workings of the capitalist world. (eg Paris hiltons father is free to leave her as much as he chooses to.) The state takes a cut to support communal assets and services. Typicaly the achievers pay more towards and use less of these services. to disincent them furthur by placing a barrier at which they can earn no more will cause the degradation of the system of govetnment and simply remove the High income individuals who contributre over the odds anyway(they will either leave the country or simply ensure that they do no more than the cap) and the supposed benefactors will be worse off because theres simply less money in the system.

Simple maths guys: 40% of $10M is better than 100% of 0



(Waits for pinko's to start the flaming)
2006-05-17 03:52:09
DonFck
Hibernator
+3,227|6860|Finland

Erkut.hv wrote:

If I make 100 mil a year, I'll be damned if I am supporting a bunch of lazy bastards, junkies, and other types looking for a handout.
And with that ideology, if you don't (make the 100 mil a year), you just might end up like this guy here.. Also with your ideology, it would be impossible to get you life back on track.

https://www.nhccnm.org/Resources/homeless.jpg
I need around tree fiddy.
2006-05-17 04:18:51
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790
vedds:  Capitalism is only a meritocracy in theory.  Those born into poverty do not have a chance to get a good level of education and make money.  By the same token, those who are born into wealth typically have to work less for better results.
2006-05-17 04:43:08
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6903|Canberra, AUS

Bubbalo wrote:

Out of curiosity, what's everyone's beef with communism?
Name one communist system that has been economically successful. I expect to hear the 'Oh. Ok.' quite soon.

And no, changing the system to be more capitalist is an instant disqualification.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-05-17 05:25:47
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790
How about you name one communist system that has been unsuccesful *and* unhindered by a vastly more powerful nation?

Scratch USSR and co., they were always more committed to dictatorship and communism came second.
Scratch China, which was never really fully communist, and which is now capitalist in all but name.
Scratch Cuba, which was both succesful and hindered by America.

Go ahead.
2006-05-17 06:34:53
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA

Xietsu wrote:

(P.S. No good nights! You aren't done yet.)
Yeah, I think I am.  Looking at your posts, it seems you aren't remotely interested in justifying your proposal.  You believe your end alone justifies it.  That is recursive thinking, and if you are resigned to it, you will not be reasoned with.  Fortunately, even the tyrannical masses of this country will not accept anything so radical, so it is a moot point.

In any case, there isn't much to discuss here.  The fact is you are proposing an arbitrary system (by your own admission) aimed at the elusive goal of improving government performance.    I, quite simply, disagree with just about everything you have said.  I disagree that more money will improve government performance (you cannot guarantee this will happen with the injection of additional billions, as government is swimming in money now and can't find it's collective ass with both collective hands - it is unlikely that additional funds will solve the problems of government).  We disagree regarding the existence of Natural Rights (I say there are, you say there aren't).  I disagree with any system that allows the government to infringe upon the rights of the individual - you clearly have no problem with it, believing that improvinng government is its own reward, and that individual rights are essentially granted by the government in any case (you did not say this, but if follows from your arguments).  The list continues, and it is all based on one's opinon of various ideas...but here's the heart of it:

It is your opionion that one can be coerced into accepting a solution which improves the efficiency of government.  It is my opinion the initial use of force is always wrong...and it flows from this that the use of coercion to enforce your opinion is wrong.  These are two widely divergent views, and we can freely disagree with each other; yet in disagreeing with your opinion I am employing the principles embodied in my opinion, and in disagreeing with me, you are employing the principles embodied in....my opinion.

Bubbalo wrote:

Out of curiosity, what's everyone's beef with communism?
Communism is a system doomed to failure, and here is why:  It is human nature to desire sole posession of property.  Communism is at odds with this.  For communism to work, everyone within the system must rise above the base desire to have sole posession of anything.  This will never occur, but the communist system requires it, so the communist system MUST compel its citizens to comply.  This compulsion is where the system fails.  Essentially, to have a successful communist state, the state must be a police state, but in becoming one, the communist goals of the proletarian utopia are lost.  That is why every communist state has ended up as a police state, and why every future communist state will end up as a police state.
2006-05-17 06:46:58
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6924|NJ
All I have to say is everything you read about middle america is true. America is basically becoming a country with city states(the rich and famous) and Serfs, and all the serfs are sitting around saying well at least we have a chance to become rich. Well you know what that's the america of old, now a freaking speeding ticket is an average persons weekly paycheck if you don't want the points. Everyone on this thread is ripping into Xietsu for having a say into it.

I'm proud to be an American, our country was created to get away from persucition in europe. I think the American Indians would have been doing a much better job running it they we do. 

I don't feel any safer with an idiot in the white house. Here's a shocker, our politicians don't actually care about the values or welfare of the masses. Any law that has been created in the past, has been created by the RICH and doesn't reflex the common man. We spend money on a useless war while going down the same exact road as Russia. China has a stronger econimy and floats ours so they can sell cheap goods. If you weren't born rich, you will not be rich, your kids will not be rich chances are is they're going to be poorer then you. A real Communistic rule has as much chance as a real Democracy. A good part of your tax dollar is thrown away every year on structors that could never work.

Rant over
2006-05-17 06:52:34
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|6924|NJ
THIS NEEDED IT'S OWN POST.

IT'S BROKE, AND IF YOU DON'T SEE IT YOUR AN IDIOT.

We don't live in our parents America any more, our family values are going to corporate values.
2006-05-17 07:12:05
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6865|Westminster, California

Bubbalo wrote:

vedds:  Capitalism is only a meritocracy in theory.  Those born into poverty do not have a chance to get a good level of education and make money.  By the same token, those who are born into wealth typically have to work less for better results.
My family accepted food assistance from the state of Utah when I was young. I've been working full time sinse I was  fifteen.
     While not "rich"  , I will be if I want.  My company, ran by two dullards ( me and step dad ) is now worth about a million bucks.
     Like someone once said "  if you are not a liberal when your young you don't have a heart, but if your not a conservative when your old you don't have a brain."
     I was able to pay cash for this 5K computor, I got 60K in the bank, and no wet behind the ears punk as still living with mommy can talk with any sort of creditability about redistribution.
    When you've earned something you'll get pretty uptight when somebody suggests you don't deserve it or should share with everybody.
    I find these pro socialism threads highly entertaining.
2006-05-17 07:26:48
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6865|Westminster, California
communism sure worked for Castro, it was put out that he is worth 900 million dollars.
Pffft.

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard