Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not a liberal in the sense thatcher and reagan were... I regard capitalism with the utmost defiance and capitalists as bad people.
what sense of libbo are you calling me by?

I was referring to lak. The liberal enlightenment referred to social liberalism largely. So in that regard, many social progressives support social liberalism to varying degrees too. It's usually conservatives who oppose liberalism.

[Svartalf]

[quote="Svartalf]"As for joining a political party, it makes you an acknowledged tool of the elite,

That's a view that I'm not unsympathetic to. And it is at least able to be reasonably defended. But in the case of Corbyn, Sanders et al, these people are overtly anti-elite. So supporters of them can hardly be elite, let alone a tool of the elite. The reasonable question is: does the political system we have inevitably lead to corruption and elitism? I kind of suspect that it does, and the events in Greece and Syriza selling out bear truth to that.

MMmh, AFAIK, whether they are pro or anti elite in words, they are elite in fact, and their followers intend to use that support as a springboard to improve their lot, i.e. become more elite than they currently are.

I don't buy this. If you or I decided to run for politics for altruistic reasons, would that make us automatically elitist? Of course not. The question is, as I said: would we wind up as elites eventually. If we stuck around, we'd have to if we wanted to get to any position of authority, I suspect.

Unless I see corbyn et al do something serious to reduce inequalities, and in particular bring the current elites, starting with the political classes, down closer to the level of normal people, I'll regard any anti elite discourse as political lies, and their utterers as populares ready to bring Rome down crashing on its inhabitants' heads to fulfill their ambitions.

[/quote][/quote]

Well he needs to be given a chance first. He can't do much from opposition.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
I tend to be very revolutionary in this regard... guillotine all politicos first, then listen to what they had to say, if anybody is left to explain it.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not utterly opposed to that idea either...

[MrJonno]

Top 1% of the world, income over $32,400 ~ £21k

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pe ... -world.asp

I don't for one minute think that luck doesn't play a large part in me being part of that 1% but I sure intend to do everything to stay that way.

It's great living in a 1st world capitalist country and I do feel sorry for people who don't but not sorry enough to compromise my elite status, because that would be stupid

As I said to Svarty, it's fairly irrelevant what your position is in relation to other societies. It your position within your own socio-political system. You simply are not an elite, Jonno. You wield almost no political power. Strange that you are so desperate to call yourself an elite now, given how derisive of them you were earlier. Well, it would be strange, if your arguments had any overall coherence to them.

I wield a stupid amount of money compared to someone living in Africa, that's power sure other people have more but Rupert Murdoch quality of life may be ahead of mine but not as far ahead as I am of an African peasant. As for being derisive or not the reality is I have no interest in claiming a moral high ground, that's what people with too much time on their hands do.

I am privileged , I do very well out of an 'unfair', unequal world and I'm fully happy to support any method required to keep me in that situation because in the end I'm not stupid. Of course just about everyone else in the 1st world feel exactly the same but they tend to hide their dishonesty (to themselves) with bollocks morality

[pErvinalia]

This is as idiotic as Seth's claim that the vast majority of people are secret Marxists.

And once again, you don't address what I wrote. You do have way more money than the average African, but that doesn't afford you any power as you don't interact with them directly. You do however interact directly in your own socio-political system, a system in which you have very little power at all. You are slave to the elites in your society. Exactly how you like it, of course.

[pErvinalia]

....

[laklak]

@Lak... But this view of humans as inherently selfish and destructive goes against the tenants of Liberalism which you are supposed to espouse as a libbo, I would have thought.

I see Libertarianism as a sort of religion. It's about ought, not is.

I will admit to a certain jaded outlook, inevitable after 6 decades, IMO.

[MrJonno]

This is as idiotic as Seth's claim that the vast majority of people are secret Marxists.

And once again, you don't address what I wrote. You do have way more money than the average African, but that doesn't afford you any power as you don't interact with them directly. You do however interact directly in your own socio-political system, a system in which you have very little power at all. You are slave to the elites in your society. Exactly how you like it, of course.

Seth hides behind psuedo moralistic bullshit while being a selfish cunt (sorry Seth not meant to be an insult in this case) , I'm just a selfish cunt like everyone else

[MrJonno]

@Lak... But this view of humans as inherently selfish and destructive goes against the tenants of Liberalism which you are supposed to espouse as a libbo, I would have thought.

I see Libertarianism as a sort of religion. It's about ought, not is.

I will admit to a certain jaded outlook, inevitable after 6 decades, IMO.

Libertarianism tries to come up with a moral framework to justify people being unpleasant, I just accept people are unpleasant and do myself to prosper in such an environment

[Seth]

This is as idiotic as Seth's claim that the vast majority of people are secret Marxists.

Hm? Did someone invoke me? Very well, now you shall see the wages of your sin!

I don't claim that the vast majority of people are Marxists, I clam that socialism is Marxism, which is the absolute truth enunciated by Marx himself. As for the "vast majority of people," only those who are, or approve of socialism have nexus to Marx, but they aren't actually Marxists, a category limited to those who are smart enough to places themselves in the elite leadership status of Marxist socialism, instead that vast, seething majority of socialist swine are the useful idiots Marx referred to who spend their lives mindlessly slopping at the trough of socialism, too innately stupid to understand that they are being fattened up for the slaughter.

That said, I agree with you rEv, being "elite" is very, very subjective. Those who actually are elite know it and don't mention it. Those who aren't at all elite label those who are better off than themselves as "elite" as a part of the practice of class warfare that Marx touted as the way to get the proletarian masses stirred up enough to kill the bourgeoisie merchant class, who themselves suffered under the thumb of the privileged aristocracy by rule of law.

[Seth]

@Lak... But this view of humans as inherently selfish and destructive goes against the tenants of Liberalism which you are supposed to espouse as a libbo, I would have thought.

I see Libertarianism as a sort of religion. It's about ought, not is.

Of course it is, just like liberalism, conservatism, Marxism and socialism are also religions that focus on the ought not is. In that respect, every political party holds and practices religious beliefs about how society ought to be and objects to the way that society is.

I will admit to a certain jaded outlook, inevitable after 6 decades, IMO.

No reason not to be jaded as nothing's going to change. The new guys are just the old guys again and around and around it goes. There is nothing new in politics and never will be. Since the time of the Greeks and before there has been only two kinds of society: Collectivist and Individualist. That's all there will ever be because human nature is fundamentally very simple. Either you believe that somebody else owes you something or you don't.

It's just exactly that simple. Always has been, always will be.

[MrJonno]

Well blaming other people for all your problems predate Marx by a long way, anyone in the who earns about $30k is in the top 1% of economic power, sure you might not be in the top .1% or the top 0.01% but it sure beats being in the bottom 99% and the other reason people who are in the elite want blame even more elite people is quite simply guilt.

They prosper from the system but they can ease their own guilt by blaming others who prosper even more, such high morality. Tonight a few African children will die tonight due to starvation, I might put a small donation into a charity shop, a few coins in the charity collection but beyond that I'll get over it and so will the morons who claim to be on the high moral ground, they care no more than I do because if they did they wouldn't be on these forums they would be in Africa risking their necks

[Seth]

This is as idiotic as Seth's claim that the vast majority of people are secret Marxists.

And once again, you don't address what I wrote. You do have way more money than the average African, but that doesn't afford you any power as you don't interact with them directly. You do however interact directly in your own socio-political system, a system in which you have very little power at all. You are slave to the elites in your society. Exactly how you like it, of course.

Seth hides behind psuedo moralistic bullshit while being a selfish cunt (sorry Seth not meant to be an insult in this case) , I'm just a selfish cunt like everyone else

A socialist describing someone as a "selfish cunt" is based on the as-yet unsupported assertion that as a precondition to social intercourse the individual somehow owes society more than what he consumes of society's benefits.

Libertarianism on the other hand holds that the individual owes nothing to anyone as a precondition of participation in social intercourse unless he/she voluntarily undertakes such an obligation and thereby becomes bound to that contract, either express or implied.

It's not really all that hard to understand. If I don't make use of some public (or private) social benefit, then I cannot be dunned for the cost of providing that public social benefit against my will. On the other hand, if I do make use of social benefits provided by others, then I am implicitly (or explicitly) contracting to pay my fair share of the costs and may be compelled to fulfill that contractual obligation.

There's nothing at all "selfish" about that.

Your definition of "selfish cunt" relies upon the presumption that every individual owes every other selfish cunt in the community some amount of labor and property merely for the "privilege" of existing, even if he or she does not make use of any of the paid-for benefits of the community. Now THAT is the ultimate in "selfish cuntishness" on the part of everyone else in the community.

I'd still love to hear one of you socialists try to actually rationally justify the socialist assumption that every individual owes a debt "according to his ability" to provide for the needs of everyone else "according to their need." I've never yet seen one of you actually even attempt to do so. Ever. In nearly three decades of trying.

The best any of you can do is to engage in classic Marxist/Alinsky tactic of studiously ignoring the actual question and resorting instead to calling anyone who questions the Marxist dialectic nasty names.

You up to actually defending your ideology or not?

[MrJonno]

I just act in my best self interest it doesn't bother me if I'm called a selfish cunt or not but it obviously bothers others

I've come to the conclusion the best way you win a political argument is to be everything your opponent despises and thinks you are. If someone calls a politician an evil murder then that politician should say yes I'm an evil murder, I'm a fucking good one and this country needs an evil murderer. When they get elected on that basis where does your opponent have to go?

[Seth]

Well blaming other people for all your problems predate Marx by a long way, anyone in the who earns about $30k is in the top 1% of economic power, sure you might not be in the top .1% or the top 0.01% but it sure beats being in the bottom 99%

And it is the top tier who, by the way, are generally tasked with supporting the bottom 99%.

and the other reason people who are in the elite want blame even more elite people is quite simply guilt.

I rather doubt that.

They prosper from the system but they can ease their own guilt by blaming others who prosper even more, such high morality. Tonight a few African children will die tonight due to starvation, I might put a small donation into a charity shop, a few coins in the charity collection but beyond that I'll get over it and so will the morons who claim to be on the high moral ground, they care no more than I do because if they did they wouldn't be on these forums they would be in Africa risking their necks

So why be a hypocrite? Why don't you just admit that starving children in Africa are not your responsibility in the first place? They aren't. They are the responsibility of their parents, who chose to create them into privation and poverty. They are the guilty parties here. I don't feel guilty because I am not guilty. What you are feeling is the Marxist dialectic at work, which tells you that you ought to feel guilty because someone else has less than you do and therefore you ought to "share" it with them...and if you won't do it yourself then Marxism will FORCE you to do so "according to your ability." Public shaming is a huge component of the Marxist dialectic, in case you didn't know it.

I don't feel guilty at all because I did nothing to create the problem and therefore bear absolutely no responsibility for it. What I do feel is compassion, altruism, charity and rational self-interest which motivates me to contribute to the well-being of others as I am able to do so. It's not guilt however, because guilt necessarily implies responsibility for the condition, something which I utterly and completely reject because I am not in fact responsible.