The Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan???

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Oh "rockandroll."

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts.  God bless you!  You write well.  Your thoughts are clear.  You will do fine on your exam.  I know it.  I wish you the best on getting that amazing milestone accomplished.  Please continue to accept challenge to the ideas you have expressed.  You have the capacity to go further on this.

Thanks. Always happy to accept a challenge! 

[Bean Bag]

Thanks. Always happy to accept a challenge!   

Me too!  An open mind craves information and perspective.

God does not give any rights.

When I say that God gives rights, that means they're there from birth.  It exists with or without you.  You have them.  Just like we have hands and feet.  And gravity.  It's all natural.  But unlike the obvious gravity, people often deny them.

Rights are hard-won and fought for in any societies with a power structure, which is why people have different rights now than they had during the feudal period.

Almost.  Remember, I'm saying "Rights are natural."  Therefore, what is hard fought is not the Right -- but accepting them.  That is what is denied.

And I have proof (and you're not gonna like it!)

By definition (and as exemplified by their actions) the powerful, who denied people of their Rights during the Feudal years, must have believed that Rights must be fought for -- as do you.  By virture of them only acknowledging people's Rights with the defeat of their own ideology they could not have believed what I believe, which is -- everybody has these Rights by virtue of existing.

Therefore, perception of the origin of our Rights should become paramount to this discussion.  And my perception is superior.  Because I believe that our Rights come from God, they are a product of our creation -- you can't add to them -- you can't take them away.  The only other option is denial.

Yes, People were denied of Rights during the Feudal period.  These rulers (deniers), like you, believed that the serfs were not born with any Rights.  Reality dictates... they must have believed what you believe -- that Rights are only to be fought for.  If they believed otherwise they would not have demanded a fight!  They would have accepted the Rights as natural and moved on.  Any other option is illogical and wrong.

This is not semantics.  It's fundamental.  Understanding this will help untwist your mind.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think, perhaps, you misunderstand me and maybe I misunderstood you too.

I believe that there are such things as basic, fundamental human rights. With that in mind though, I'm opposed to your use of the term "God given" not just because of the "God" part but also because of the "given" part because it seems to me that rights are never given. If one happens to be born into a world where there is no slavery, it's not because they are born with that right but because they are born into a world where that right was fought for. And I say this because if you look at history what you'll see is what I said - in the majority of societies with political power, whatever rights people had, had to be fought for. That is, rights are rarely ever granted magnanimously by the dominant, empowered elite.

In the Feudal period, people in fact truly believed that rights were God-given. That is, people were born into positions of power, or non-power because they were meant to - it was by design. You are correct when you said that Feudal leaders "believed that Serfs were not born with any Rights" but that was because they believed that they themselves had all the rights and that was precisely because God determined their place in the social hierarchy, hence the notion of Divine Right. People who believe they have a Divine Right to rule certainly don't believe that rights are to be fought for - believing so would negate the very meaning of the term. So, no, Feudal lords did not believe as you suggest that "Rights are only to be fought for" because it was assumed that the social hierarchy was part of the natural order of things and therefore fighting for rights wouldn't do much good anyway.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

They would have accepted the Rights as natural and moved on.  Any other option is illogical and wrong.

Many did accept the Rights as natural just as people today accept their own subordination and domination as natural. That's how systems of repression perpetuate themselves. It's only because people realized that they had to fight for their rights, rather than assume that rights were accorded by Divine will, that we live in a different kind of world today.

[Bean Bag]

So, no, Feudal lords did not believe as you suggest that "Rights are only to be fought for" because it was assumed that the social hierarchy was part of the natural order of things and therefore fighting for rights wouldn't do much good anyway.

Hence what they actually believed in were not Rights, at all.  It was actually a perverted (and therefore demonic) version of Rights.  Either way, whether it was:  "Rights are only to be fought for/must be won," or "Right are evidenced by the 'social hierarchy'" -- doesn't matter.  Both demonic.  One in the same.  But it made sense to everyone, as you suggest.  Absent the correct definition or the Divine reality (that Rights actually applied to everyone - given to us, as a gift from God) people will remain hopelessly subjected to a demonic interpretation and interruption of Rights and the oppression that lies therein.

To suggest that any Right is man-made -- is wrong.  I have the right to free speech.  To say whatever I want.  I have that.  I didn't win it.  I didn't create it.  It just happened.  I was born screaming, as they say.  Sure, if I exercise it, someone may slap me.  But that's their fault.  Sometimes the slapping was allowed by law.  And sometimes it wasn't slapping.

So, "God given" or Divine is important.  It's powerful.  Therefore -- the understanding of what God given or Divine actually means must present in our leaders.  How could I be wrong?  These are not terms to use lightly.  Yes, misuse is prevalent -- as our President Obama has exampled by championing a demonic concept of Salvation called:  "Collective Salvation".  Scarey stuff, Collective Salvation is.  Run away.  It's guiding his every move. 

I digress...

Thankfully our founders had this discussion.  Great men, flawed as you and I, but they were great.  If you think you can arrive at a better conclusion, be it a system or government -- one more logical and scientific -- don't bother (I've already read your thoughts pertaining to Capitalism).  As well, if leaving Divinity out of it you are, by definition, you'll just be playing the role of the Divine.

"Tonight, the role of God will be played by..."     Fill in the blank.  Doesn't matter.  Hoax.  Not Divine.  Demonic.

We should be thankful that the founders did not listen solely to folks of your opinion on these matters.  They decided to identify the source of our Rights -- God given.  Our Rights come from God.  Not man.  Yes, people continually (always?) oppose this and as a result the realization of divinity gets stunted.  That's why slavery lasted for a few more generations.  They couldn't get all the founders to see the divinity of it all.

So, no -- We do not have a Right to Health Care if that's what you're wondering.  That would be a man-made Right (demonic) to someone's services (Doctor's, Nurses, etc.).  You do not have that Right -- cause it's not a Right.  A Right to someone's services does not exist.  We call that slavery -- and slavery is very much not a Right.  It is Demonic.  A Doctor has the Right to treat you and you have the Right to allow the Doctor to do so.  God wants the Doctor to choose to do the right thing and do so -- and the good Doctor does so.  Anything forced in this agreement is demonic.  Ah...Collective salvation...we meet again...

...and that's what happened with the Beach Boys and Ronald Reagan!   

[Chocolate Shake Man]

As this conversation plays out, I sense that we are reaching what are probably going to be insurmountable roadblocks. The reason for that is because I don’t believe in God, nor am I prepared to engage in a discussion on the matter. Since much of what you have to say here is dependent on the presupposition that there is a God, there is simply not much that I can really say.

Hence what they actually believed in were not Rights, at all.

Agreed.

Either way, whether it was: "Rights are only to be fought for/must be won," or "Right are evidenced by the 'social hierarchy'" -- doesn't matter. Both demonic. One in the same.

It was neither of those and my post doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. Rather, the Feudal period was marked by a belief that Rights were accorded by Divine will. Rights are not “evidenced by the social hierarchy” rather the social hierarchy and the rights or non-rights that come with it, are part of a larger design. Again, it was understood in the Feudal period that rights were God given.

Absent the correct definition or the Divine reality (that Rights actually applied to everyone - given to us, as a gift from God) people will remain hopelessly subjected to a demonic interpretation and interruption of Rights and the oppression that lies therein.

If this is the case, then “our Founders” whom you praise as “great men” further in your post were equally guilty of a “demonic interpretation and interruption of Rights” since they certainly did not believe that the right to liberty extended to black people, nor did they believe that the right to participate in the political process extended to women.

To suggest that any Right is man-made -- is wrong. I have the right to free speech. To say whatever I want. I have that. I didn't win it. I didn't create it. It just happened.

That is genuinely insulting to the people who indeed fought, sometimes with their lives, for the free speech that you claim “just happened” that you are taking for granted when you make such a claim.

I was born screaming, as they say. Sure, if I exercise it, someone may slap me. But that's their fault. Sometimes the slapping was allowed by law. And sometimes it wasn't slapping.

Having the ability to speak and having the right to free speech are two entirely different things, and while this distinction is something easily forgotten in a country where free speech rights have been fought for and won, it is a distinction well known in places where there are less free speech rights. Even in the darkest days of Soviet repression, people could speak to their heart’s content, as long as it was reinforcing particular ideological viewpoints. Assuming that because we have vocal cords, and a brain that is hard-wired for language, does not logically follow that we have been given the right to free speech, it simply means that we have the ability to speak coherently and understand others who are speaking. What happens as a consequence of these abilities is entirely up to us. Incidentally, your definition is really questionable. Not only is a baby screaming not exercising his or her right to free speech, the baby is not even using speech at all, as far as any definition of the term that I am aware of.

So, "God given" or Divine is important. It's powerful.

I agree – the notion of God given rights is so powerful that it worked to subordinate the serfs under Feudal rule for hundreds of years. What God really wants or what God really means is always subject to the dominant ideological viewpoints of a given society at a given time.  

Yes, misuse is prevalent -- as our President Obama has exampled by championing a demonic concept of Salvation called: "Collective Salvation". Scarey stuff, Collective Salvation is. Run away. It's guiding his every move.

No, it isn’t. Obama is a right-wing, pro-business, ultra-capitalist who only serves the elite interests of concentrated power. It is that ideological mindset that is not only guiding his administration but also every administration for decades. But both parties have turned sharply more to the right since the early 90s, which is why Nixon would have been to the left of Obama on certain issues. In the real world, there is nothing remotely close to anything resembling “collectivity” in Obama’s policies though those on the extreme right would have you believe that because anything short of totalitarian corporate rule must be characterized as socialism since it works as a nice buzzword to get people afraid.

Thankfully our founders had this discussion… We should be thankful that the founders did not listen solely to folks of your opinion on these matters. They decided to identify the source of our Rights -- God given. Our Rights come from God. Not man.

You mean founders like Thomas Jefferson who said that he could not find “one redeeming feature” in “orthodox Christianity”? Or John Adams who referred to Christianity as “the most bloody religion that ever existed”? Or Benjamin Franklin who said that “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason”? Or James Madison, who saw in ecclesiastical establishments, “a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority”?

So I don’t think the Founding Father’s notion of rights had much to do with God, and moreover, I certainly don’t believe that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. have the market cornered on Rights. In other words, what I consider to be basic, fundamental human rights often has little to do with what they considered to be rights. And that’s because they came from a particular time period and had the values of that time period. Those who framed the constitution and the laws at the outset of the country did not believe that certain rights applied to everyone – namely women, blacks, and Natives. The belief was that a particular class of people were entitled to particular rights, and everyone else would be subservient to those people. This was recognized by the key players in the drafting of the American constitution. So, for example, James Madison made the extraordinarily anti-democratic statement that the constitutional system should work to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” The world that the framers of the U.S. constitution envisioned was not all that different from the Feudal society we have been talking about.

If you think you can arrive at a better conclusion, be it a system or government -- one more logical and scientific -- don't bother (I've already read your thoughts pertaining to Capitalism).

And your point is, what exactly? Since you have provided no quotations from “my thoughts” nor provide any critique for anything I’ve said on the matter, I ultimately fail to see the relevance of you bringing it up.

As well, if leaving Divinity out of it you are, by definition, you'll just be playing the role of the Divine.

I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re getting at here either. Please elaborate.

So, no -- We do not have a Right to Health Care if that's what you're wondering. That would be a man-made Right (demonic) to someone's services (Doctor's, Nurses, etc.). You do not have that Right -- cause it's not a Right. A Right to someone's services does not exist. We call that slavery -- and slavery is very much not a Right.

I agree with you if you are suggesting that we are living in a society that is completely uncivilized. In a civilized society, one would be able to say something along the lines of, “I have medical expertise and I will gladly use my expertise to save your life.” Or, “I grow potatoes and I will gladly give you some of my potatoes.” Or, “I build houses and I will gladly build a house for you with other people who can build houses.” But, of course, we don’t live in a civilized society like that. Rather, someone who builds houses cannot offer their services because they have no control over their services. Again, under a capitalist model, no laborer has control over their labor. They have absolutely zero rights when it comes to what they do, how they do it, when they do it, how long they do it, who they produce for, etc. If your concern is that no one at all has the right “to someone’s services” then you are calling for the end of capitalism because if capitalism is anything it is exactly controlling and owning someone’s else’s work. This is why it has been a long tradition in conservative philosophy to equate the capitalist model with slavery.

Furthermore, you need to brush up a bit on economics. The reason is that your objection to socialized medicine seems to rest on the assumption that laborers get paid by customers for their labor. But that’s not what happens in a capitalist system. In a capitalist system, laborers don’t get paid by customers at all – they get paid by owners. The people who own and control the work that other people do are the people who get paid by customers. So the idea that you shouldn’t have a right to someone services is not only hypocritical, as you indeed very much support a system wherein someone’s services are owned and controlled by others, but is also misguided since you, as a member of the consuming public are not paying people for their labor in the first place.

[Bean Bag]

The Founders knew their imperfections.  Thankfully, they recognized Rights come from the man upstairs, not men, who partook in slavery.

By penning and signing the documents they did...they, in effect, put the stake in the heart of your religion -- the "Rights come from Man/must be earned from tyrants" religion.  Your monster was dead.  In this country, within these borders -- it was over for you guys.  Sure, that ghoul has died a slow death.  You got lawyers.  We got lawyers.  But the die was cast.  To resurrect your feudal system of man-made perfection, you must destroy the founders and their documents.  I understand that.  You gotta burn them documents!

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!!  Hahaha!
 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!!  Hahaha!
 
[/color]

Good. Well, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of comprehending your points, then we can just call this a day.

[GreatUrduPoet]

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!!  Hahaha!
 
[/color]

Good. Well, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of comprehending your points, then we can just call this a day.

See ya later on the road to serfdom...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!!  Hahaha!
 
[/color]

Good. Well, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of comprehending your points, then we can just call this a day.

See ya later on the road to serfdom...

What's that supposed to mean?

[AndrewHickey]

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!!  Hahaha!
 
[/color]

Good. Well, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of comprehending your points, then we can just call this a day.

See ya later on the road to serfdom...

What's that supposed to mean?

It's a reference to the book The Road To Serfdom by the liberal economist Friedrich Hayek, who argued that Nazism and Communism were both direct results of state control of the economy, and therefore *any* state intervention in the economy, however slight, would lead to tyranny. I think the poster there is saying that your views will lead you to be enslaved, as Hayek predicted.

(Personally, I think the other great Liberal economist of that time, John Maynard Keynes, was much closer to the truth, and even Milton Friedman though that Hayek was a little extreme...)

The problem with free markets, absent government intervention, is that they work in much the same way that gravity works -- gravity works to make things go lower, just as free markets work to make things more efficient, but in both cases they can get trapped in local maxima rather than global ones. Also, while there is government-enforced ownership of natural resources such as land, there is not even the possibility of a free market in the sense in which an economist would use the term. As long as there are any government-granted economic rights at all (such as the ownership of land, the printing of currency, and so on) then market forces serve to magnify those inefficiencies, rather than to minimise them.

Government provided healthcare might not be cheaper than a true 'free market' solution, but there will be no free market in healthcare as long as there are any regulations on who can practice as a doctor, who can sell medicine, and so on. While such government regulations (which pretty much everyone is agreed are a good thing) exist -- while I'm prevented from setting up shop as a brain surgeon unless and until I have actually got a medical degree and been properly certified -- then talk of free market efficiency is a nonsense. And I, for one, am all in favour of surgeons being forced to have the proper training before they operate...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's a reference to the book The Road To Serfdom by the liberal economist Friedrich Hayek, who argued that Nazism and Communism were both direct results of state control of the economy, and therefore *any* state intervention in the economy, however slight, would lead to tyranny. I think the poster there is saying that your views will lead you to be enslaved, as Hayek predicted.

Perhaps though I would have liked to see the poster explain exactly why.

The problem with free markets, absent government intervention, is that they work in much the same way that gravity works -- gravity works to make things go lower, just as free markets work to make things more efficient, but in both cases they can get trapped in local maxima rather than global ones.

Again, though, it's impossible to really say for sure whether or not "free markets work to make things more efficient" because, like you say, there's just never been anything like it for us to judge with any certainty, in the first world at least. I might agree that in some abstract world we could discuss the possibilities of it (and even then I would be skeptical that it would be more efficicent than other economic systems) but I think it is impossible to make that judgement given the evidence we have. Ultimately though, with the evidence that we do have, I agree with World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz who noted that "unfettered markets are not efficient and can be characterized by persistent unemployment."

[Bean Bag]

And you don't understand a thing I'm saying!!!!  Hahaha!
 
[/color]

Good. Well, since I am clearly intellectually incapable of comprehending your points, then we can just call this a day.

I avoid such conclusions.  On the basis of emotion people form solid convictions, around which our intellect wraps itself as added protection.  So, quite often, overcoming the mere intellect simply exposes nothing more than an even less penetrable defense.

In other words, just because you don't understand what I was saying does not reflect the measurement of your intellect.  I was basically agreeing with your earlier statement that we've reached an impasse -- or as I call "the beginning."  (Yes, I also recognize that you were being sarcastic -- but I happen to also accept sarcasm dollars, even though they're worth less than honesty dollars).

In the end...what needs to be understood is "wisdom," for the lack of a better term.  Wisdom implies knowledge through experience.  Outside the lab, if you will.  Much of the ideology espoused by socialists, liberals, communists and the dastardly Progressives lack wisdom.  It works only in the lab.  It's brilliant except that it doesn't work.  Therefore it's not that brilliant -- but rather elitism.  It leaves out one humungous factor -- human nature.  Or all things organic.  Human spirit.  People.  God.  All the things that defy science.  What the founders recognized as the "pursuit of happiness."

So, you are correct -- we could spend hours debating.  I could go through line by line and impugn with authority the fallacy of your old, 19th century failed thinking.  Progressivism and Marxism IS feudalism.  Socialism and Communism are a hoax.  They don't work.  But that's really boring.  I prefer to get past all that.  I tend to jab just a little bit deeper.  Less of the "maybe if we let people keep 27.6% of their income, rather than 76.2% -- we'll be a more perfect society" -- and more of the "why do you mistrust your fellow man so much that you feel you get to decide what they keep?"

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In the end...what needs to be understood is "wisdom," for the lack of a better term.  Wisdom implies knowledge through experience.  Outside the lab, if you will.  Much of the ideology espoused by socialists, liberals, communists and the dastardly Progressives lack wisdom.  It works only in the lab.  It's brilliant except that it doesn't work.  Therefore it's not that brilliant -- but rather elitism.

So far only one of us has claimed a particularly special knowledge that the other doesn't have. If anyone here is taking on the position of the elitist, it's you, since claiming to have a wisdom that others with their mindset can't possibly have is precisely a textbook definition of elitism.

Wisdom implies knowledge through experience.  Outside the lab, if you will.  Much of the ideology espoused by socialists, liberals, communists and the dastardly Progressives lack wisdom.  It works only in the lab.

And you get to define what constitutes "experience"? Is experience only experience if it leads one to come to the same conclusions as you? It's impossible for any human being to avoid experience, whether they are in a lab or not. Don't pretend that "socalists, liberals, communists and Progressives" don't have experience and if you are going to pretend that, don't expect me to go along with such a farcical charade. You're simply privileging a particular kind of experience over another in order justify your ideologically-driven beliefs. It's nothing more than a rhetorical trick.

It leaves out one humungous factor -- human nature.  Or all things organic.  Human spirit.  People.  God.  All the things that defy science.  What the founders recognized as the "pursuit of happiness."

What the "founders recognized as the 'pursuit of happiness'" was purely an echo or reverberation of the European philosophical movement of the Enlightenment and that movement was the result of a reaction against Catholic counter-reformation. The "founders" notion of what happiness was (along with liberty, freedom, etc.) was one that was defined by those philosophers. In other words, the liberal and sovereign nation-state could have only come about as a concept at that time because it was a product of Enlightenment thinking. All the values that went along with the nation-state were likewise part and parcel to the ideas that were in the air at that time. The notion that people suddenly started understanding what was God-given is simply a fabrication of historical reality. People came to believe in concepts of happiness, liberty and freedom in particular ways because of socio-historical conditions, and for no other reason.

I agree that there is such a thing as a human nature but, if anything, science has been reaffirming that for years.

So, you are correct -- we could spend hours debating.  I could go through line by line and impugn with authority the fallacy of your old, 19th century failed thinking.

Making up false equivalences and distorting the historical record is not doing anything "with authority."

 Progressivism and Marxism IS feudalism.

Only because, according to you, they are relying on man-made rules rather than God-made rules. But here's the unfortunate reality: every rule, every law, every right, every concept is man-made. Whether you're talking about the revolution of the proletariat, the Divine Right of Kings, the right to free speech, the ten commandments, etc. they all have one thing in common - man came up with all of them. The fact that you can claim some special insight as to what God really wants is, I'm afraid, unconvincing. After all, that's what the Feudal lords believed too and they were as equally convincing.

But establishing this false premise as you have done has allowed you to make these false correlations. In reality, progressivism isn't anything like Marxism and neither are anything like Feudalism. Marxism for example couldn't have ever happened in the Feudal period. The idea simply couldn't have occurred to anyone because there wasn't a proletariat in the Feudal system. The socialist revolution could only come after a capitalist revolution.

Socialism and Communism are a hoax.  They don't work.

Really? And prey tell, what are your examples of that, then? As far as I know the only truly socialist society that has ever existed without interruption for a lengthy period of time was in Catalonia and Aragon, Spain in the 1930s and they were working extremely well until the Soviets destroyed them.

 But that's really boring.  I prefer to get past all that.  I tend to jab just a little bit deeper.  Less of the "maybe if we let people keep 27.6% of their income, rather than 76.2% -- we'll be a more perfect society" -- and more of the "why do you mistrust your fellow man so much that you feel you get to decide what they keep?"[/color]

In that case, you hate the capitalist system. In capitalism it is precisely the owner who feels they get to decide how much a laborer gets to earn from his or her labor. So, I take it you're calling for an end to the capitalist system?

[Bean Bag]

I'm sensing some hostility...so I'll continue.   

The "experience" and "wisdom" lacking in socialist/progressives/ or which ever "ism" they're hiding behind today, is common sense.  The only other possibility is, not a lacking, but rather a denial thereof.

So at the very least, they're denying reality.  These systems deny that human beings want to pursue happiness and be rewarded for their hard work.  They deny the desire to climb out of the mud -- out of serfdom -- and make a better life for themselves.  They deny that they're human beings!

Basic human rights cannot coexist with these dated forms of government.  Because they're not human systems -- they're class systems.  You're not working to better yourself...your f.u.c -- k.e.d.  Is it any wonder which political side is totally obsessed with class structure?  The middle class drives these elitist-types absolutely crazy!  To an elitist there are only supposed to be "ranchers" and "cattle."  Royals and serfs.

--- As an aside --- I have to ask you...do you and your liberal friends enjoy scoffing at middle class folk enjoying their RVs and expensive toys? ---

Capitalism, however, allows people to pursue and prosper.  It's all natural because it better models human nature.   Works with it -- doesn't deny it.  You're working for yourself.  And it creates sharing of wealth, it requires it.  It produces it.  (eh-hmm, middle class?).

Elitist systems don't share.  They take.  They deceive and keep people down.  They tell people what they're good for.  Those who do not accept this are eliminated.  If they're lucky they escape and come here (America).  This is reality.  This is common sense.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The "experience" and "wisdom" lacking in socialist/progressives/ or which ever "ism" they're hiding behind today, is common sense.  The only other possibility is, not a lacking, but rather a denial thereof.

So at the very least, they're denying reality.  

I'm sure you're aware that part of having common sense means being able to exhibit sound judgement. I'm sure you're likewise aware that making the kind of sweeping generalizations that you have made in this quotation without providing a single example from reality is the opposite of sound judgement and therefore the exact opposite of common sense. Now, it's not as if I don't understand that the term "common sense" has been hijacked by the American extreme right and emptied of its actual meaning so that it could be evoked in order to indoctrinate people into supporting the status quo, but that's not the actual meaning of the term. In fact, the term common sense, as is usually understood outside of the ideologically-warped misunderstanding of the term, is rooted in the long philosophical and scientific tradition of empiricism - meaning that theories must be tested against observations. In other words, anyone who truly had common sense would know that you can't simply make absurd reductive statements about large groups of people and rest their case based on such a reduction.

These systems deny that human beings want to pursue happiness and be rewarded for their hard work.

Quite the contrary. So take Marxism, for example. In Marx's theory, genuine human happiness can only come when the working man breaks free from the shackles that he is enslaved by by the inherently exploitative capitalist system and begins to have real control over the work they do. And when one has control over the work they do instead of being a wage slave and beholden to their owner and beholden to the power structure, only then can one be happy. And furthermore, only then can can a worker actually be rewarded for their work, because it is only then where they can actually prosper directly from what they do. Remember, as I've already said, in a capitalist system, no one is rewarded for hard work. No consumer ever pays a laborer for producing a product. Under capitalist system, a worker gets paid for their labor time not for the work they do (and this includes the caliber of their work). This is why it is impossible to work as a wage laborer and get a fair wage. The fact that you’re getting a wage at all means it’s already unfair because it means, exactly, that you are not being rewarded for your work but rather for being the X that fills the space that has been alloted amongst the expenditures for the owner. Again, this is why the current capitalist model is a system of wage slavery and that's why it has been recognized as such, mostly from conservative philosophical movement for hundreds of years.

From my own perspective, as an anarchist, it seems to me that the kind of society that would bring the greatest amount of happiness to the most amount of people is the one that is fully liberated - liberated from the control of tyrannical forces that shape day-to-day existence. It seems to me that people would ultimately be happiest if they were able to participate to the full in their society, helping to shape the major decisions, doing the kind of work that they want to do, on their terms, and having a real responsibility for the way the society operated.
  

They deny the desire to climb out of the mud -- out of serfdom -- and make a better life for themselves.  They deny that they're human beings!

This is incorrect. In actual leftist political models, it is precisely the working class who have control of things and in particularly left wing societies, the working class is everyone. I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with these political models rather than come to these erroneous conclusions that have absolutely nothing to do with these political systems whatsoever.

Basic human rights cannot coexist with these dated forms of government.  

In my view, basic human rights will only be fully realized once the tyranny of power can be overcome, and this is simply impossible in a capitalist society.

--- As an aside --- I have to ask you...do you and your liberal friends enjoy scoffing at middle class folk enjoying their RVs and expensive toys? ---[/i]

As an aside, I'm not a liberal or anything close to one. I've said that countless times in this thread alone.

Capitalism, however, allows people to pursue and prosper.

In what sense? In the United States, real prosperity typically comes as a result of massive government intervention - a system wherein the risks of research and development are subsidized by the public until a product is deemed profitable, at which time the profits are privitized as the product is placed under some kind of corporate ownership. This is the story of economic prosperity in the United States. The story in fact goes back as far as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England and Germany, but takes its real roots in the United States in the 19th century wherein the U.S. Army, typically under the pretext of defense, took on the lion's share of managing the more complex industrial systems, one of which was the railroad, for example. This crucial intervention of the state into technological and industrial development in the 19th century was what, in effect, set the stage for and allowed for some of the major achievements of the early 20th century, like the automotive industry which itself relied heavily on years of publicly subsidized research and development. After WWII this system of state intervention was ramped up even further and what resulted was one of the most powerful periods of economic growth but it was very much a state sponsored growth: computers, electronics, telecommunication, aviation, all of these came under the domain of the State at one point of another - again, during the crucial risk period. Once a product was deemed profitable, it would be placed into private hands. The public pays for the development of the product and is then prohibited from sharing in the profits for that which wouldn't have existed without their crucial support. And this is a familiar story throughout the first world. Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of prosperity in first world countries but it is a consequence of a heavily publicly subsidized economic system of state intervention.

Where you see a different story, in fact, is where capitalism has been violently shoved down the throats of the third world. There, those countries don't have the luxury of state intervention because they are not meant to be prosperous for themselves but rather for the country who has shoved this economic system down their throats. So, Haiti and Nicaragua which had a more genuine capitalist system, ended up being the poorest countries in the hemisphere wherein the only people who could pursue and prosper were the small number of powerful owners.

 It's all natural because it better models human nature.   Works with it -- doesn't deny it.

Which is why capitalism is typically forced on people, violently.

The fact is, while there may be a human nature it is really impossible to say what it is for sure at this point, and while I do believe the humans inherently have a desire for some kind of shared moral code, a desire for liberation, freedom, independence, survival, I also believe that human nature is subordinate to the human mind (which is why we grow out of most of our instinctual behavior within the first eight months of life) and the human mind, clearly, has been capable of civilizing even the most base instincts. What would be ultimately appealing to humans then is not simply something that would feed into human nature but, rather, some kind of rational system that is thought out and preferably thought out with as large amount of people as possible. If history tells us anything, it's that humans have a fantastic capacity for self-improvement and that is specifically a consequnce of the human mind.

 

You're working for yourself.

In a capitalist system, you are not. You are working for the profits of your owners.

Elitist systems don't share.  They take.  They deceive and keep people down.  They tell people what they're good for.  Those who do not accept this are eliminated.  

That's as about as good of a description of capitalism as I could write myself.

If they're lucky they escape and come here (America).  This is reality.  This is common sense.[/color]

Of course people escape to go to America. If I were in a country that had been terrorized by America or American-sponsored terrorists and held under their thumb, I'd much rather live with the oppressor rather than risk continuing to be oppressed. Of course, one of the many American myths is that people come to America because they revere their freedom but that demands a great deal of ignorance of America's role as a leading terrorist state and the central repressive force of freedom in the world.

[Bean Bag]

the term "common sense" has been hijacked by the American extreme right

That's funny right there.

We'll give it back...but show me the money first -- and no funny business!  Or the "common sense" gets it!

Remember, as I've already said, in a capitalist system, no one is rewarded for hard work.

Yes, I remember.  And it's still delusional.  But still funny!  Remember what I said though?  Something about real world experiences?  Ah...nevermind...

...it seems to me that people would ultimately be happiest if they were able to participate to the full in their society, helping to shape the major decisions, doing the kind of work that they want to do, on their terms, and having a real responsibility for the way the society operated.

Kind of like we can do now?  Free market system?  I have a choice of where I spend my money.  Representative Republic?  I choose my Representatives.

In actual leftist political models, ...the working class who have control of things and in particularly left wing societies, the working class is everyone.

Sure they do.  The good peoples of Cuba have all the control.  Yeah...that's sane.  I do agree that everyone is "working class" though...well...if there's jobs.  But that's a minor detail...

I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with these political models...

Isn't there enough pain and suffering?!  I need to familiarize myself?!  You know, your allegiance to the Dark Side is cute and everything -- but to paraphrase something you said of me earlier -- that is so incredibly offensive to all the people risking their lives to get the hell out of your "political models." At some point, I suggest, YOU need to familiarize YOURSELF with your beloved political models.

Put down the commie pamphlets and textbooks.  Walk outside and familiarize yourself with reality.  Go slow, the air is rich.

In my view, basic human rights will only be fully realized once the tyranny of power can be overcome, and this is simply impossible in a capitalist society.

Maybe you just need a job.  You know, it's not that bad.

As an aside, I'm not a liberal or anything close to one. I've said that countless times in this thread alone.

That's fine.  But give me some credit -- I've made allowances for that, when I said "whatever you're calling yourselves today..."  Basically, to liberty-loving free peoples -- there's what works and what doesn't.  Whether you're a European Socialist or a Progressive -- it's all the same murky depths.  And I mean that, I'm not being flippant.  That's an important distinction many have come to accept.  All these systems result in failure and suffering.  Liberalism, Progressivism.  Socialism, Communism, Nazism.  I know there are differences between Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Sangor...I just don't care.  The body count is just too staggering -- the results are too macabre to spend time mulling over the finer points of these dreadful human catastrophes.

In the United States, real prosperity typically comes as a result of massive government intervention

Yeah, you see...right there.  You need to nip that in the bud.  That's looney tunes.  No one's going to take you seriously saying wild stuff like that.  Common sense (installed in our proverbial motherboard at the factory) will cause people to quickly understand you're either dishonest or gravely misinformed.  Neither are to your benefit.

Which is why capitalism is typically forced on people, violently.

Like we ultimately did to Japan?  Or like Japan when bombing Pearl Harbor?

humans inherently have a desire for some kind of shared moral code

Hey man...don't go bringing religion into this!   

I also believe that human nature is subordinate to the human mind

And therein lies the foundation of Leftist religions.  Because there's always somebody smarter, etc...

(which is why we grow out of most of our instinctual behavior within the first eight months of life) and the human mind, clearly, has been capable of civilizing even the most base instincts. What would be ultimately appealing to humans then is not simply something that would feed into human nature but, rather, some kind of rational system that is thought out and preferably thought out with as large amount of people as possible. If history tells us anything, it's that humans have a fantastic capacity for self-improvement and that is specifically a consequnce of the human mind.

...and those who don't outgrow and self-improve, typically go to camps.  To git thur minds right!

In a capitalist system...You are working for the profits of your owners.

What's this paycheck they keep sending me for?  Again, a job might help clear this up.  As well, becoming an owner -- starting your own venture -- would really clear this up.  Plus it's so rewarding.  I have my own business on the side.  It's great.  I have no employees, it's just me, so that way I'm not oppressing anyone.   

Of course people escape to go to America. If I were in a country that had been terrorized by America or American-sponsored terrorists and held under their thumb, I'd much rather live with the oppressor rather than risk continuing to be oppressed. Of course, one of the many American myths is that people come to America because they revere their freedom but that demands a great deal of ignorance of America's role as a leading terrorist state and the central repressive force of freedom in the world.

Ok.  Ok.  I'm a ... ok.  So...by your logic...I should prefer to live with the Taliban -- because they aim to be America's oppressor?

You know what, forget about it.  I'll just savor this last quote as the glittering jewel of Looney Toon Leftism that it is.  I can't make this stuff up.  In fact, if I had said Leftist's believe everything you just said -- they attack me.  I know because it's happened to me before!  Just like how back in the 80's I realized the Left were just a bunch of Commies (or Commie sympathizers).  People scoffed and told me I was the one who was nuts.

Who's laughing now?!  I am.  I'm laughing now.  You Flat Earth'ers are totally hilarious!!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We'll give it back...but show me the money first -- and no funny business!  Or the "common sense" gets it![/color]

The term "hijacked" is entirely appropriate for how the term has been used by the right and deprived of its meaning. Now what counts as "common sense" are simply the tacit assumptions made by a given society that are determined by the people who exercise power and domination. Appeals to common sense, then, are typically appeals to reinforce the status quo, the beliefs that are not necessarily true, but are widely accepted as 'true' and function as 'true.' This, of course, has nothing to do with actual common sense, but is instead merely a tactic of ideological control.

Remember, as I've already said, in a capitalist system, no one is rewarded for hard work.

Yes, I remember.  And it's still delusional.

In fact, it is an exact description of what capitalism is - how it operates and how it functions. I'm not particularly interested in making a case for or against the version of capitalism that you have made up, which has no bearing on the reality of the system. My interest is purely in discussing the real system. And in the real system, a laborer is not paid for the work they do, they are paid for their labor time. This is why two people who work doing the same thing for the same company typically earn the same pay, as long as they work the same hours. People are not paid for their work, a wage is set for a particular job before someone even does any work. A worker simply fills that particular space. This is elementary Economics 101. If you don't understand the basics of capitalism then you are really not in any position to discuss the matter.

 But still funny!  Remember what I said though?  Something about real world experiences?  Ah...nevermind...
[/color]

Yes, and what I said in response holds just as true now - you're merely drawing an arbitrary line in the sand in order to privilege one form of "real world experiences" over others. Like I said, it is impossible for a human to avoid real world experiences - you're simply placing yourself in a position where you can determine what counts as real world experiences and what doesn't. Of course, it's a completely fraudulent exercise because there is no such thing as "non-experience" or "non-real world experience" and so the only real reason to pretend like some line exists is to play a rhetorical game to make it appear as if certainly beliefs are legitimate while others aren't.

...it seems to me that people would ultimately be happiest if they were able to participate to the full in their society, helping to shape the major decisions, doing the kind of work that they want to do, on their terms, and having a real responsibility for the way the society operated.

Kind of like we can do now?  Free market system?  I have a choice of where I spend my money.  Representative Republic?  I choose my Representatives.

No, you don't really have "a choice of where" you spend you money. And if you think you do, try buying out Big Oil or General Electric or Goldman Sachs. Unless you're actually a multi-billionaire you won't be able to do it. So from the start, you choices are always deeply constrained by your position in the economic hierarchy. Furthermore, especially in the United States, brands are typically controlled by a select few companies. Those few companies (like, say, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft, Coca-Cola) own and control countless products that have been given other brand names, concealing their ownership and creating the illusion of choice. So, for example, Ruffles Chips, Lays Chips, Doritos, Fritos, Tostitos, Sun Chips, Rold Gold Pretzels, Cheetos, Miss Vickie's, and so on, are all in fact Pepsi. You are not choosing one over the other - in each case, you choose to pay the same company. Typically, while it seems like you are choosing from a multiplicity of options, you're really only choosing from a very select group of elite corporations.

You're also evoking the fraud of democracy in the United States too. Yes, you get to pull a lever or something every couple of years and this is the extent of your involvement in the political organization of your life. Like I noted earlier with the quote from James Madison, the system was designed this way, to protect the interests the slim minority of wealth from a large majority of democratic interests of the population. What I'm talking about is actual participation - being able to decide what really happens in your society, rather than leaving it in the hands of the small percentage of concentrated wealth and power who make most of the day-to-day decisions in the country. I'm also talking about having actual control over the work you do, rather having your work controlled in a top-down system of owners and subordinates.

In actual leftist political models, ...the working class who have control of things and in particularly left wing societies, the working class is everyone.

Sure they do.  The good peoples of Cuba have all the control.  Yeah...that's sane.

The good people of Cuba have been the victims of a 50 year long terrorist campaign carried out by the United States in a program of economic strangulation, specifically targeted at the population because they or their forebears made the wrong democratic decision a half-century ago. I would say that it is quite difficult to run a successful society when the most powrful country in the world has had its boot on your throat for decades.

I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with these political models...

Isn't there enough pain and suffering?!  I need to familiarize myself?!

So far you haven't exhibited that you have much of an understanding of the economic systems we're talking about. And I would prefer to talk about reality rather than the assumptions you have made up in your head.

You know, your allegiance to the Dark Side is cute and everything -- but to paraphrase something you said of me earlier -- that is so incredibly offensive to all the people risking their lives to get the hell out of your "political models." At some point, I suggest, YOU need to familiarize YOURSELF with your beloved political models.

Again, where are you talking about? Cuba is a good case for precisely what I talked about above. If I were a Cuban, I would rather be on the side of the oppressor (the US) than the oppressed (Cuba).

Put down the commie pamphlets and textbooks.  Walk outside and familiarize yourself with reality.  Go slow, the air is rich.[/color]

You mean that I should accept the egregious distortions that you keep maintaining?

In my view, basic human rights will only be fully realized once the tyranny of power can be overcome, and this is simply impossible in a capitalist society.

Maybe you just need a job.  You know, it's not that bad.

Are you seriously going to go with that out-dated chestnut?

As an aside, I'm not a liberal or anything close to one. I've said that countless times in this thread alone.

That's fine.  But give me some credit -- I've made allowances for that, when I said "whatever you're calling yourselves today..."

In that case, you're not making any sense since liberalism and anarchism are entirely opposing political systems and philosophies born out of entirely different traditions. Nobody who calls themselves a liberal would ever call themselves an anarchist, nor would they have ever done that, and vice versa. This demands an elementary understanding of these systems and these traditions, though.

 Basically, to liberty-loving free peoples -- there's what works and what doesn't.  Whether you're a European Socialist or a Progressive -- it's all the same murky depths.  And I mean that, I'm not being flippant.  That's an important distinction many have come to accept.  All these systems result in failure and suffering.  Liberalism, Progressivism.  Socialism, Communism, Nazism.  I know there are differences between Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Sangor...I just don't care.  The body count is just too staggering -- the results are too macabre to spend time mulling over the finer points of these dreadful human catastrophes.[/color]

In that case, I assume you oppose capitalism too since it has ranked up a staggering body count as well.

In the United States, real prosperity typically comes as a result of massive government intervention

Yeah, you see...right there.  You need to nip that in the bud.  That's looney tunes.  No one's going to take you seriously saying wild stuff like that.

Especially when you ignore the very real historical facts that proved that statement. It is telling that you have chosen to ignore those facts. Since you have chosen to overlook them, I am forced to re-paste them here:

The story in fact goes back as far as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England and Germany, but takes its real roots in the United States in the 19th century wherein the U.S. Army, typically under the pretext of defense, took on the lion's share of managing the more complex industrial systems, one of which was the railroad, for example. This crucial intervention of the state into technological and industrial development in the 19th century was what, in effect, set the stage for and allowed for some of the major achievements of the early 20th century, like the automotive industry which itself relied heavily on years of publicly subsidized research and development. After WWII this system of state intervention was ramped up even further and what resulted was one of the most powerful periods of economic growth but it was very much a state sponsored growth: computers, electronics, telecommunication, aviation, all of these came under the domain of the State at one point of another - again, during the crucial risk period. Once a product was deemed profitable, it would be placed into private hands. The public pays for the development of the product and is then prohibited from sharing in the profits for that which wouldn't have existed without their crucial support. And this is a familiar story throughout the first world. Yes, there has been a tremendous amount of prosperity in first world countries but it is a consequence of a heavily publicly subsidized economic system of state intervention.

Now, you can either like the fact that the story of economic prosperity in the United States is the result of an aggressively protectionist and interventionist economic system based mostly on the public subsidizing the risks and developments of some of the most instrumental products of commercial development, or you can not like it, but ignoring the facts doesn't change them.

 Common sense (installed in our proverbial motherboard at the factory) will cause people to quickly understand you're either dishonest or gravely misinformed.  Neither are to your benefit.[/color]

Well, I've provided the facts, so please feel to find some that prove otherwise. Until then, the factual evidence and historical record that I have given will stand.

Which is why capitalism is typically forced on people, violently.

Like we ultimately did to Japan?  Or like Japan when bombing Pearl Harbor?

I was thinking more along the lines of the anti-communist US-supported Indonesian coup of 1965-66 which resulted in a bloodbath of 750,000 murders under Suharto in what was ultimately a successful attempt at bringing Western-style economic policy to the region. Suharto, again with crucial US support, tried to carry out the same policy in expanding into East Timor, ushering in an age of genocide and resulting in the murder of 1/3rd of the East Timorese in efforts to impose Western-style capitalism in the region. Or, how about in Nicaragua where the United States committed to a terrorist campaign for which they were condemned by the World Court for unlawful use of force. You can also take the support of pro-capitalist guerrillas in El Salvador, responsible for about 60,000 deaths, or the "Scorched Earth" campaign in Guatemala which led to 100,000 deaths. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Ultimately we can go back to the post-WWII Grand Area plans where the United States reconstituted much of the world so that it was now under US control. This involved, in many cases re-installing old, repressive regimes, blocking the anti-fascist resistance movement in Greece, crushing labor unions and independent media outlets in Europe and Japan, etc. Yes, the history of capitalist imposition is a brutal, violent and forceful one.

humans inherently have a desire for some kind of shared moral code

Hey man...don't go bringing religion into this!  

I'm not. Morality is not the exclusive providence of religion.

I also believe that human nature is subordinate to the human mind

And therein lies the foundation of Leftist religions.  Because there's always somebody smarter, etc...

I'm not talking about religions - again, I'm assuming you are adopting the logical fallacy of the false equivalent again. And no, there isn't "always somebody smarter" - I think we're pretty much at the point now where we can safely say that they are all born with the same innate capacity for the same kind of intelligence.

(which is why we grow out of most of our instinctual behavior within the first eight months of life) and the human mind, clearly, has been capable of civilizing even the most base instincts. What would be ultimately appealing to humans then is not simply something that would feed into human nature but, rather, some kind of rational system that is thought out and preferably thought out with as large amount of people as possible. If history tells us anything, it's that humans have a fantastic capacity for self-improvement and that is specifically a consequnce of the human mind.

...and those who don't outgrow and self-improve, typically go to camps.  To git thur minds right!

Did people "typically go to camps" when we grew out of enslaving people? Did people "go to camps" when women got the vote? Did people "go to camps" when the socialist movement got the 5-day work week? Did people "go to camps" when we created free speech laws? Shall I go on?

In a capitalist system...You are working for the profits of your owners.

What's this paycheck they keep sending me for?

I made this perfectly clear in the last thread and for your sake I repeated it in this thread above and I'll repeat it here again: you are being paid for your labor time. Again, if you were being paid for your "hard work" as you implied, you wouldn't be getting "sent a paycheck", you would be paid directly by the people who buy the object that you worked on. But that's not what happens. All the money goes to the owner and the owner has already decided how much he'll spend on his instruments (in this case, labor). In the same regard, how much money a worker makes comes down to the same factor as how much money your company decides to pay for, say, computers or telephones or cell phones, etc. It has nothing to do with how hard you work, the caliber you work, and so on. Again, this is elementary economics.

 Again, a job might help clear this up.

I haven't not had a job since I was 15 - that's 16 years in a row with a job, and all sorts of jobs too - working minimum wage customer service jobs, working in accounts for a high-end corporation, teaching, etc. But even if I didn't, it wouldn't matter since the way a capitalist system works is a matter of fact and easily accessible knowledge to anyone - it doesn't require you having to work a day in your life to understand it. Economic systems are economic systems. This is why I don't pull the same petty, absurd rhetorical trick of demanding that you have to work in a communist system before you can understand it. I simply ask that you do understand it before you talk about it, which is hardly an unfair demand.

As well, becoming an owner -- starting your own venture -- would really clear this up.  Plus it's so rewarding.  I have my own business on the side.  It's great.  I have no employees, it's just me, so that way I'm not oppressing anyone.   [/color]

That's fine, it's good to know you have a socialist system you've worked out for yourself, but nevertheless, if capitalism is going to function properly, it requires a majority of an exploitable work force whose labor is to be exploited by ownership. The system wouldn't work if everyone could be an owner - because if everyone was an owner, that would be socialism.

Ok.  Ok.  I'm a ... ok.  So...by your logic...I should prefer to live with the Taliban -- because they aim to be America's oppressor?

The Taliban don't aim to be American's oppressor. Their aims are ridiculous, to be sure, but those aren't them. But putting reality aside, aiming to be an oppressor and being an oppressor or two different things. Consequently, your analogy is nonsense - I didn't say people wanted to live in America because America "aimed" to oppress other nations. Rather, they want to live in America because America is very much the oppressor in many places of the world. Americans are not oppressed by any outside force - they are the world's leading oppressors. Consequently, why would anyone, given this current paradigm want to live outside of the United States.

You know what, forget about it.  I'll just savor this last quote as the glittering jewel of Looney Toon Leftism that it is.  I can't make this stuff up.  In fact, if I had said Leftist's believe everything you just said -- they attack me.  I know because it's happened to me before!  Just like how back in the 80's I realized the Left were just a bunch of Commies (or Commie sympathizers).  People scoffed and told me I was the one who was nuts.

That's probably because, like I said, the extreme right uses the word "communist" and "socialist" for anyone who is not on board with total, unfetted corporate tyranny. Anyone to the left of the extreme right (including, mostly those on the Right) are called "Leftists" (like liberals [hence your misguided conflation above] and Democrats) and thus, "Commies (or Commie sympathizers)". Certainly, not everyone to the left of the extreme right are communists which may account for the reaction against your smear tactic. And in fact, I am neither a Communist nor a "Commie sympathizer" myself, but again, that is a consequence of understanding what communism actually is, and basing my critiques on the system on the system itself rather than the imaginary construction of the system that I dreamed up.

Who's laughing now?!  I am.  I'm laughing now.  You Flat Earth'ers are totally hilarious!![/color]

It's funny. My most long-lasting debates have been with defenders of capitalism and conspiracy theorists and at some point one group always lumps me in with the other. I hope you don't mind, but the conspiracy theorists believe me to be a gatekeeper of capitalist power just as much as you believe me to be a conspiracy theorist.  

[Bean Bag]

I don't think you're as a conspiracy theorist.  Because, unless you're the dark lord himself, I don't believe these theories to be yours.     I'm not even sure I'd call'em theories. 

I do defend Capitalism.  I cannot defend all the people and actions within in a free society (for example Liberals) -- but Capitalism I defend.  Crony-Capitalism is not Capitalism.

I believe in liberty, freedom and small government.  People can and will always do bad things.  Bad deeds are not the fault of not enough government, too much liberty or unchained freedom.  Bad deeds are the result of individuals doing bad deeds.  A grounding in an Almighty, is an understanding that we are allowed a choice -- because we are.  I choose to believe, you choose to NOT believe, do you not?  Am I wrong?  A free society and system of gov't that best mimics that basic reality is best and most natural.  (This of course assumes you want a system to begin with.  Total anarchy does not ensure a five day work week). 

By definition -- In a free society, you are free to setup a Leftist utopia in a town, county or state (if you can convince enough sorry sacks with no dreams of their own).  I however cannot setup a free society within a controlled Leftist society.  Interesting, eh?  This proves my system is closer to the Almighty -- more divine, or simply just closer to reality.

You are free to disagree (in my system).

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't think you're as a conspiracy theorist.

In that case, why did you call me a Flat Earther?

 Because, unless you're the dark lord himself, I don't believe these theories to be yours.    I'm not even sure I'd call'em theories.  

They're not theories. I'm using factual evidence to reinforce my claims.

I do defend Capitalism.  I cannot defend all the people and actions within in a free society (for example Liberals) -- but Capitalism I defend.  Crony-Capitalism is not Capitalism.

I'm not really talking about crony capitalism though I have mentioned in passing the special relationship between corporate power, concentrated wealth, and government which has existed in the US since its inception and has been the primary factor in the way that wealth has been created in the country and the way its been distributed. Mostly, though, I'm talking about the inherently unfair and exploitative nature of the capitalist system, as described by capitalist economic philosophers. The capitalism that you have been talking about often has very little to do with actual capitalism, as I understand it. Case in point, you appear to be conflating capitalism with democracy here by evoking the term "free society." In fact, capitalism and democracy are two very separate concepts and in my view, capitalism when functioning properly serves to thwart the democratic process from functioning properly. Only a society that is not dependent on hierarchal force relations (as does capitalism) could ever actually really be democratic and free.

I believe in liberty, freedom and small government.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, those beliefs are not echoed in the world of concentrated wealth. For what it's worth, I desire a system of liberty, freedom, and no government, at least not as it is traditionally understood.

People can and will always do bad things.  Bad deeds are not the fault of not enough government, too much liberty or unchained freedom.  Bad deeds are the result of individuals doing bad deeds.  A grounding in an Almighty, is an understanding that we are allowed a choice -- because we are.  I choose to believe, you choose to NOT believe, do you not?  Am I wrong?

I think you are, yes. I also believe that "we are allowed a choice" and that our choices are severely limited and constrained in a capitalist system. In this respect, I agree with Adam Smith who we are supposed to revere for being the Godfather of the free market but not actually read since he believed that the divsion of labor makes people "ignorant and stupid" because in such a system, people are reduced to performing "a few very simple operations" and even then, those operations are basically dictated by a dominant force. So yes, I believe that we should support a system that supports freedom of choice which to me, means opposing capitalism and I don't need "an Almighty" to tell me that.

 A free society and system of gov't that best mimics that basic reality is best and most natural.  (This of course assumes you want a system to begin with.  Total anarchy does not ensure a five day work week).  

No, in fact, it means that people could work more than five days a week, if they want.

By definition -- In a free society, you are free to setup a Leftist utopia in a town, county or state (if you can convince enough sorry sacks with no dreams of their own).

In a free society you could yes, which is why in the United States, by no means a glowing symbol of a "free society", leftists have been systematically disenfranchised, marginalized, targeted with political oppression, and leftist movements have been destroyed by political force.

 I however cannot setup a free society within a controlled Leftist society. Interesting, eh?

Not just interesting but flat out wrong.

Leftist societies, particularly socialist libertarian ones are by their nature free, since they function to abolish political power, and hierarchal structures, unlike capitalist systems which depends on a forceful system of power relations. Furthermore, in a leftist political system, you would be much freer to establish your own society. Anarchist societies are meant to be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations. In other words, in order for them to function properly they must allow for the construction of endless amounts of societies wherein people can either choose to participate or create their own community.

  

This proves my system is closer to the Almighty -- more divine, or simply just closer to reality.

That depends on two things - one, that I accept your definition of what constitutes "human nature" which is grounded in absolutely no verifiable evidence. You've simply concocted a definition of human nature that jives nicely with capitalism. It's completely and utterly fallacious and unconvincing as a result. Second, it depends on your gross micharacterization of how leftist political systems function. Since your characterization has zero bearing on the actual political systems, it should be taken for the nonsense that it is.

[GreatUrduPoet]

I don't think you're as a conspiracy theorist.

In that case, why did you call me a Flat Earther?

 Because, unless you're the dark lord himself, I don't believe these theories to be yours.    I'm not even sure I'd call'em theories.  

They're not theories. I'm using factual evidence to reinforce my claims.

I do defend Capitalism.  I cannot defend all the people and actions within in a free society (for example Liberals) -- but Capitalism I defend.  Crony-Capitalism is not Capitalism.

I'm not really talking about crony capitalism though I have mentioned in passing the special relationship between corporate power, concentrated wealth, and government which has existed in the US since its inception and has been the primary factor in the way that wealth has been created in the country and the way its been distributed. Mostly, though, I'm talking about the inherently unfair and exploitative nature of the capitalist system, as described by capitalist economic philosophers. The capitalism that you have been talking about often has very little to do with actual capitalism, as I understand it. Case in point, you appear to be conflating capitalism with democracy here by evoking the term "free society." In fact, capitalism and democracy are two very separate concepts and in my view, capitalism when functioning properly serves to thwart the democratic process from functioning properly. Only a society that is not dependent on hierarchal force relations (as does capitalism) could ever actually really be democratic and free.

I believe in liberty, freedom and small government.

Fair enough. Unfortunately, those beliefs are not echoed in the world of concentrated wealth. For what it's worth, I desire a system of liberty, freedom, and no government, at least not as it is traditionally understood.

People can and will always do bad things.  Bad deeds are not the fault of not enough government, too much liberty or unchained freedom.  Bad deeds are the result of individuals doing bad deeds.  A grounding in an Almighty, is an understanding that we are allowed a choice -- because we are.  I choose to believe, you choose to NOT believe, do you not?  Am I wrong?

I think you are, yes. I also believe that "we are allowed a choice" and that our choices are severely limited and constrained in a capitalist system. In this respect, I agree with Adam Smith who we are supposed to revere for being the Godfather of the free market but not actually read since he believed that the divsion of labor makes people "ignorant and stupid" because in such a system, people are reduced to performing "a few very simple operations" and even then, those operations are basically dictated by a dominant force. So yes, I believe that we should support a system that supports freedom of choice which to me, means opposing capitalism and I don't need "an Almighty" to tell me that.

 A free society and system of gov't that best mimics that basic reality is best and most natural.  (This of course assumes you want a system to begin with.  Total anarchy does not ensure a five day work week).  

No, in fact, it means that people could work more than five days a week, if they want.

By definition -- In a free society, you are free to setup a Leftist utopia in a town, county or state (if you can convince enough sorry sacks with no dreams of their own).

In a free society you could yes, which is why in the United States, by no means a glowing symbol of a "free society", leftists have been systematically disenfranchised, marginalized, targeted with political oppression, and leftist movements have been destroyed by political force.

 I however cannot setup a free society within a controlled Leftist society. Interesting, eh?

Not just interesting but flat out wrong.

Leftist societies, particularly socialist libertarian ones are by their nature free, since they function to abolish political power, and hierarchal structures, unlike capitalist systems which depends on a forceful system of power relations. Furthermore, in a leftist political system, you would be much freer to establish your own society. Anarchist societies are meant to be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations. In other words, in order for them to function properly they must allow for the construction of endless amounts of societies wherein people can either choose to participate or create their own community.

  

This proves my system is closer to the Almighty -- more divine, or simply just closer to reality.

That depends on two things - one, that I accept your definition of what constitutes "human nature" which is grounded in absolutely no verifiable evidence. You've simply concocted a definition of human nature that jives nicely with capitalism. It's completely and utterly fallacious and unconvincing as a result. Second, it depends on your gross micharacterization of how leftist political systems function. Since your characterization has zero bearing on the actual political systems, it should be taken for the nonsense that it is.

What in heaven's name is a "socialist libertarian"? Do they come from the same universe as the 'vegetarian carnivores' and the 'atheist fundamentalists'? How can you make a coherent argument when you throw out such gibberish terms? ALL 'real-world' Leftist/Socialist systems MUST be coercive on some level primarily because they involve human beings. Actual 'large L' Libertarians are on the far Right of the political spectrum, as are the true Anarchists (as opposed to the Leftists/Socialists like Emma Goldman who erroneously referred to themselves as "Anarchists"). If you characterize Anarchists as 'Left wing' and Fascists as 'Right wing', you are being duped by an old Stalinist canard that dates back to the disillusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. Catch up, hoss...it's 2012 now.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

What in heaven's name is a "socialist libertarian"? Do they come from the same universe as the 'vegetarian carnivores' and the 'atheist fundamentalists'? How can you make a coherent argument when you throw out such gibberish terms?

Because I'm using the actual term "libertarian" rather than the perverted and bastardized version of the term that is en vogue in the US right now. The term itself  dates to the mid-19th century and comes from Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his form of anarcho-communism from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a fellow anarchist. The two philosophical positions were similar but Déjacque felt that his form of anarchism was different enough that it needed a new name. Anarchism itself is a kind of variation on the socialist and communist models without the dicatorship of the proletariat.

In the US, the term started being used in the 1950s but at that point in the US it was simply inconceivable to imagine the possibilities of that kind of a society - the ideology had already been shaped radically by the business-led ruling class. So the term meant something else - namely to let the business class do whatever it needs to do without the interference of government. Well, that of course, is nothing like what actual libertarianism is but it picked up enough steam that libertarian candidates started running on this bastardized interpretation in the 70s and this mischaracterization of real libertarianism has been sort of consistent like that ever since but only within the confines of the United States. Outside of the US, libertarianism is still understood for what it actually is - namely a sort of shade of of anarcho-socialism.

This wikipedia article is a pretty good summary of what I'm referring to, if only for this nugget: "The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

ALL 'real-world' Leftist/Socialist systems MUST be coercive on some level primarily because they involve human beings.

I really don't know what that's supposed to mean.

Actual 'large L' Libertarians are on the far Right of the political spectrum, as are the true Anarchists (as opposed to the Leftists/Socialists like Emma Goldman who erroneously referred to themselves as "Anarchists"). If you characterize Anarchists as 'Left wing' and Fascists as 'Right wing', you are being duped by an old Stalinist canard that dates back to the disillusion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1941. Catch up, hoss...it's 2012 now.

Actually, the meaning of the terms I'm using date back well before Stalinism. Emma Goldman, who you mention, was a noted anarchist well before Stalin came along, and was herself extremely critical of the Leninist Soviet revolution for being exactly what it was - a right-wing deviation of Marxism. The facts are that both anarchism and libertarianism were indeed both born out of a left wing tradition, and continued with a left wing tradition. The central figures behind these movements (the aforementioned Dejacque, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin) all developed the philosophies of libertarianism and anarchism in the 19th century based on the principles of socialism and/or mutalism. This is the tradition of these movements, it is the tradition as it was understood by those who adopted the cause of these movements (like Goldman, and her associates, who were perfectly correct in using the term anarchism in its actual sense) and it is only a matter of fantasy to pretend as if these movements had anything to do with the right. As far as I know, they never had any associations of the sort and only after the principles behind these philosophies became grossly mischaracterized and distorted within the US, did you start to see the Right start to falsely claim some sort of association with them, but that was only well after the terms had been emptied of their real meanings and their traditional understanding. In much the same way, the Bolsheviks hijacked terms like socialism and Marxism to conceal their drive for authoritarian state power. So if catching up means to accept these gross mischarcterizations and perversions, I'm afraid I am not on board.

[Wrightfan]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link 

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk 

[rab2591]

Ah, this seems like the place for this link 

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/11/beach-boys-singer-bruce-johnston-barack-obama-socialist-ahole/

To be fair, he thinks both parties have schmucks running around. I think the kids today call that "real talk 

HA! I was just gonna post this.

Good for him. Though I don't think this will shed too positive a light on the reunion

[SBonilla]

Sorry, redundant post. sb