Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-04-2008, 02:47 PM
John Scott's Avatar
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Communist View Post
Delusional: Someone who doesn't think that state control of certain pivotal public services is necessary.
State control of what? Which? Aren't you one to fart them claim that it stinks.
__________________
Japan Car Auction
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #22 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2008, 01:22 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
The commies sent my family to Siberia, where my great grandmother starved herself to death to make sure my dad and aunt had enough to eat.

Your level of debate is apt for the schoolyard, but your grasp of political reality is somewhat lower. Apparently you don't see it's possible that Republicans and Democrats can have good policies between them. And anyone who thinks they can is apparently a Communist. Right. Right.

It must be tough trying to hang on to a rigid, hidebound, ideological stance in the face of all reason and logic... how are you coping with that so far?
__________________
Clean, Fast and Tight
 
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2008, 10:31 AM
John Scott's Avatar
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
The commies sent my family to Siberia, where my great grandmother starved herself to death to make sure my dad and aunt had enough to eat.
Shouldn't you be applauding the commies?? They did it for the collective good. You believe that the collective has the right to coerce the individual, on penalty of prison, so really you can't complain about the commies sending anybody to prison. It's quite hypocritical.
__________________
Japan Car Auction
 
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2008, 01:35 PM
Rankenstein's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
You believe blah blah some twaddle or other.
No, I don't. So you're saying your an anarchist? Nobody should form governments and make rules for the people? Or at least not rules that send people to prison. I can understand why you might be against that, it's all beginning to make sense now.
__________________
Clean, Fast and Tight
 
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 03-05-2008, 01:43 PM
John Scott's Avatar
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
No, I don't. So you're saying your an anarchist? Nobody should form governments and make rules for the people? Or at least not rules that send people to prison. I can understand why you might be against that, it's all beginning to make sense now.
You're not very well read, are you? The question is not one of government versus anarchy. It's one of individualism versus collectivism.
__________________
Japan Car Auction
 
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2008, 02:58 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
You're not very well read, are you? The question is not one of government versus anarchy. It's one of individualism versus collectivism.
No man is an island, nor should he be. The idea of a collective good should not be confused with collectives.

You think it's fine to pay the government (well, let's be blunt, they'd take money for it even if you didn't like it) for an army to defend the nation, but not for them to take money for an army of doctors to defend your own personal health? How does that work? You're in support of the Iraq War which has no tangible benefit to US citizens (it's detrimental in some ways), and yet opposed to healthcare which has immediately and obviously demonstrable benefits to US citizens. Again, how does that work?
__________________
Clean, Fast and Tight
 
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 03-06-2008, 12:55 PM
John Scott's Avatar
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
No man is an island, nor should he be. The idea of a collective good should not be confused with collectives.

You think it's fine to pay the government (well, let's be blunt, they'd take money for it even if you didn't like it) for an army to defend the nation, but not for them to take money for an army of doctors to defend your own personal health? How does that work? You're in support of the Iraq War which has no tangible benefit to US citizens (it's detrimental in some ways), and yet opposed to healthcare which has immediately and obviously demonstrable benefits to US citizens. Again, how does that work?
Wow. Amazing. Never heard of John Stuart Mill, Hayek, Milton Friedman or classic liberalism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Locke
Nobody can give more power than he has himself.
How can I forfeit the rights of another person when I do not have rights over that person to begin with?
Quote:
You think it's fine to pay the government for an army to defend the nation, but not for them to take money for an army of doctors to defend your own personal health?
The individualist social contract states:

I will not impinge upon your freedom in exchange for your guarantee not to impinge upon my freedom. Furthermore, I will defend your freedom against aggressors in exchange for your guarantee to defend my freedom against aggressors.

So, defense is in the contract. Defense of individual liberty is not an "option". It's an obligation and a duty.

Health care? Let's see what the contract would look like if we re-wrote it to accommodate that.

I will not impinge upon your freedom, except where I see it to be beneficial to me or to certain racial, gender or age groups. If I want to impinge upon your freedom in order to grant positive rights to certain groups, you will collaborate with this violation of your rights in order to serve the collective good.

In short, all of your individual rights and all of your resources, time and labor are to be placed at the disposal of the "collective good".


Collectivism. Horrific collectivism. Collectivism, which has murdered hundreds of millions. Collectivism, which says the majority gets to deny rights to the minority. Like, gay marriage. The majority says they don't want to marry gays, so let's just deny their rights. It's for the collective good.

Intellectually, collectivism has no ground to stand on. It's simple stupid greed and intolerance.

And the dumbasses who promote coercive collectivism are missing out on the power of true democracy. If they didn't try to coerce people, they could set up a non-coercive version of national healthcare - a "healthcare union" - and we'd all have health care decades ago.

Instead of doing a voluntary version based on community charity and individual choices, they want to force incompetent governments to fund it with money that they haven't got, in a collectivist violation of individual rights. Truly stupid.
__________________
Japan Car Auction
 
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2008, 03:10 AM
Ferre's Avatar
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-15-03
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,897
iTrader: 0 / 0%
On a side note;

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/index.php?news=1058
 
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2008, 03:17 AM
Rankenstein's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 11-14-05
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3,140
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Scott View Post
Wow. Amazing. Never heard of John Stuart Mill, Hayek, Milton Friedman or classic liberalism?

How can I forfeit the rights of another person when I do not have rights over that person to begin with?

The individualist social contract states:

I will not impinge upon your freedom in exchange for your guarantee not to impinge upon my freedom. Furthermore, I will defend your freedom against aggressors in exchange for your guarantee to defend my freedom against aggressors.

So, defense is in the contract. Defense of individual liberty is not an "option". It's an obligation and a duty.

Health care? Let's see what the contract would look like if we re-wrote it to accommodate that.

I will not impinge upon your freedom, except where I see it to be beneficial to me or to certain racial, gender or age groups. If I want to impinge upon your freedom in order to grant positive rights to certain groups, you will collaborate with this violation of your rights in order to serve the collective good.

In short, all of your individual rights and all of your resources, time and labor are to be placed at the disposal of the "collective good".
Cute. But that's only how it would look if it was rewritten by you to make it look stupid, without any attempt to discuss the real issues, and simply projects irrational fears onto a misunderstood topic.

In the real world, the social contract is an agreement of responsibilities between citizen and government, with the explicit understanding that the government will take money to carry out certain services. What those services may be is moot. The government doesn't ride roughshod over the citizenry - we have healthcare laid on in the UK and our putative social contract certainly doesn't deal with demanding the total violation and subjugation of the populace. Maybe you got that part out of a dream you had, I don't know.

I don't care about the individualist contract, or whatever you're saying about collectives, or death tolls, they have nothing to do with the social contract. I mean, arbitrarily chucking defense into the individualist contract? Fine. In that case, the contract should also say, if I'm ill, you'll look after me, in return I'll look after you when you're ill.

Otherwise, your contract basically says 'I'll defend you if you're attacked, but if you break a leg in the attack, f**k you, make your own crutches.' This makes no sense whatsoever, however you spin it.
__________________
Clean, Fast and Tight
 
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 03-07-2008, 12:28 PM
John Scott's Avatar
Individualist
 
Join Date: 09-27-03
Location: Wherever I want.
Posts: 28,046
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
Cute. But that's only how it would look if it was rewritten by you to make it look stupid, without any attempt to discuss the real issues, and simply projects irrational fears onto a misunderstood topic.
No, it's exactly how it would look. By definition, your socialist aims must be supported by a collectivist argument that subjugates individual rights to "the (perceived) collective good".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
In the real world, the social contract is an agreement of responsibilities between citizen and government, with the explicit understanding that the government will take money to carry out certain services. What those services may be is moot.
So a blank check to the government? Scary. Any service it the majority deems necessary, the government can provide.

That would be quaint if the government had a well from which it could draw funds to pay for those services. But as it is, the government violates individual rights to pay for those services. And it's by design. It's not accidental. It's socialism by taxation instead of ownership of the means of production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
The government doesn't ride roughshod over the citizenry
Of course it does. Every collectivist government has ridden roughshod over individual rights. From the Gulag to the killing fields, and everything in between. You think if it's just throwing somebody in prison, it's okay?

"Those that would sacrifice Freedom for Security deserve neither."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
the total violation and subjugation of the populace.
It's not total subjugation of the population when the government takes over half of every cent the people earn? At what point would it be total subjugation? Should the government have to sit atop you and suffocate you with a pillow before you admit that it's total subjugation?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
I don't care about the individualist contract
This part should say "I don't care about individual rights".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
Otherwise, your contract basically says 'I'll defend you if you're attacked, but if you break a leg in the attack, f**k you, make your own crutches.' This makes no sense whatsoever, however you spin it.
Do the individual liberty promoters say that? The people who get harmed while defending freedom have earned healthcare. Unlike, say, socialists like you who want the government (i.e., higher earners) to pay for their healthcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankenstein View Post
I mean, arbitrarily chucking defense into the individualist contract? Fine. In that case, the contract should also say, if I'm ill, you'll look after me, in return I'll look after you when you're ill.

You're not a thinker, are ya?

Arbitrarily throwing in defense? The entire purpose of the social contract is to move society from the state of lawless nature to a state of mutual defense. Arbitrary? Have you ever thought? Is this the first time you ever thought about the social contract? Arbitrary? Hello? That's the whole purpose of the social contract.

And then to say that it should require us to sacrifice individual rights to the collective good, is a total violation of the rights that the social contract was meant to defend against.

**** dude. For once, think about the logical conclusion of your statements. It's a population of serfs.
__________________
Japan Car Auction
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
having a hard time pasting image onto black background .. 1more Graphic Design Forum 9 04-12-2007 02:06 PM
Can Google cause a recession? John Scott Google Forum 10 10-27-2003 05:18 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Escalate Media




Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.