The Political Brain

Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60852
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:51 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Because Seth believes that the US government (past and present) is socialist. Did you miss the bit where he claimed that Bush was a progressive?
Well, progressive doesn't mean "socialist."
Man, this is getting boring very quickly. To Seth, it does. If you are going to jump into Seth and my conversations, at least have the courtesy to read his stuff (as sickening as it is).
rEvolutionist wrote: Anyway, it absolutely is a socialist principle that the government/state provides services through collective taxation.
It's also a principle of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean we have no public taxation and no provision of police forces, militaries, or road/bridge construction.
Think harder. Government monopolies are anathema to capitalism.
rEvolutionist wrote:
It doesn't mean that the gov is socialist, just that socialist principles have influenced it to some degree. All western democracies (US included) are mixed-systems as you have rightly stated. They have a mix of socialistic and capitalistic principles.
Taxation and provision of government services did not originate with socialism. They did it under Monarchies and they did it in the US in 1789.
So? I never said it originated with Socialism. I said that it is reflective of socialistic principles. And it is. And it's certainly not reflective of capitalistic principles when it is in the form of a government monopoly.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60852
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:54 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Well there you go. You've finally learnt those Democrats aren't as left as you thought they were.
Not just Democrats.

If attacking me for opposing the US health care reform meant someone was not left, then there might be one left leaning person on this forum. Maybe.
Really. There's only one other person on this forum (other than you, me and Seth) who think the health care policy is a fuck up? I'm struggling to believe that. Perhaps if you were more specific as to why you oppose it. If it is because it is too "socialist", then it's not surprising most people don't agree with you.
No, I was lambasted unmercifully for daring to oppose the health care reform, from most folks on this forum who call themselves leftist.
I'm not being a dick here, but i'm willing to bet all that lambasting happened before it was signed into law and everyone got a chance to see what a cluster-fuck it was. True?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:03 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Because Seth believes that the US government (past and present) is socialist. Did you miss the bit where he claimed that Bush was a progressive?
Well, progressive doesn't mean "socialist."
Man, this is getting boring very quickly. To Seth, it does. If you are going to jump into Seth and my conversations, at least have the courtesy to read his stuff (as sickening as it is).
Whatever.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote: Anyway, it absolutely is a socialist principle that the government/state provides services through collective taxation.
It's also a principle of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean we have no public taxation and no provision of police forces, militaries, or road/bridge construction.
Think harder. Government monopolies are anathema to capitalism.
Capitalism is completely compatible with police departments and having a military.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
It doesn't mean that the gov is socialist, just that socialist principles have influenced it to some degree. All western democracies (US included) are mixed-systems as you have rightly stated. They have a mix of socialistic and capitalistic principles.
Taxation and provision of government services did not originate with socialism. They did it under Monarchies and they did it in the US in 1789.
So? I never said it originated with Socialism. I said that it is reflective of socialistic principles. And it is. And it's certainly not reflective of capitalistic principles when it is in the form of a government monopoly.

Capitalism doesn't mean you go without police departments and without a military. Christ on a bicycle.

Your expressing the redefinition of these terms that has happened fairly recently. Pro-socialists like to be able to laugh - chuckle chuckle - and say "oh, see, look at those silly folks, they think socialism is the boogey man...but, look, they have police forces, militaries and public libraries! They're socialist too!" - Well, those things aren't socialism. They existed quite happily under capitalism, and are not opposed by capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean "no government," it doesn't mean "no regulation," and it doesn't mean "no government services." That's what socialists would like to say it means, because it marginalizes capitalism.

Capitalism means: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations." Somehow, that's become - "aha! you have a police force! see you're socialistic!" Ridiculous.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:07 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Well there you go. You've finally learnt those Democrats aren't as left as you thought they were.
Not just Democrats.

If attacking me for opposing the US health care reform meant someone was not left, then there might be one left leaning person on this forum. Maybe.
Really. There's only one other person on this forum (other than you, me and Seth) who think the health care policy is a fuck up? I'm struggling to believe that. Perhaps if you were more specific as to why you oppose it. If it is because it is too "socialist", then it's not surprising most people don't agree with you.
No, I was lambasted unmercifully for daring to oppose the health care reform, from most folks on this forum who call themselves leftist.
I'm not being a dick here, but i'm willing to bet all that lambasting happened before it was signed into law and everyone got a chance to see what a cluster-fuck it was. True?
Before and after. And, what's this "everyone got to see?" bit? Are you suggesting that people who supported it beforehand didn't know what they were supporting?

We had reams of material describing what the plan was - everyone knew there was no government option - that it was compulsory health insurance purchases by individuals in the private insurance market, etc. What didn't people know beforehand?

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60852
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:15 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Because Seth believes that the US government (past and present) is socialist. Did you miss the bit where he claimed that Bush was a progressive?
Well, progressive doesn't mean "socialist."
Man, this is getting boring very quickly. To Seth, it does. If you are going to jump into Seth and my conversations, at least have the courtesy to read his stuff (as sickening as it is).
Whatever.
Sheesh. Don't get snotty at me. Take it up with Seth.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote: Anyway, it absolutely is a socialist principle that the government/state provides services through collective taxation.
It's also a principle of capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean we have no public taxation and no provision of police forces, militaries, or road/bridge construction.
Think harder. Government monopolies are anathema to capitalism.
Capitalism is completely compatible with police departments and having a military.
Did I say it wasn't? :think: Like I said, think harder.
rEvolutionist wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
It doesn't mean that the gov is socialist, just that socialist principles have influenced it to some degree. All western democracies (US included) are mixed-systems as you have rightly stated. They have a mix of socialistic and capitalistic principles.
Taxation and provision of government services did not originate with socialism. They did it under Monarchies and they did it in the US in 1789.
So? I never said it originated with Socialism. I said that it is reflective of socialistic principles. And it is. And it's certainly not reflective of capitalistic principles when it is in the form of a government monopoly.

Capitalism doesn't mean you go without police departments and without a military.
:fp:
Your expressing the redefinition of these terms that has happened fairly recently. Pro-socialists like to be able to laugh - chuckle chuckle - and say "oh, see, look at those silly folks, they think socialism is the boogey man...but, look, they have police forces, militaries and public libraries! They're socialist too!" - Well, those things aren't socialism. They existed quite happily under capitalism, and are not opposed by capitalism.
Your not thinking hard enough. We've never had TRUE capitalism. We might have had extremely capitalistic systems (for short amounts of times - for obvious reasons), but that doesn't mean there haven't been socialistic principles involved. I'm not trying to claim that if you have a state funded and controlled police force you must be a socialist country. All I am doing is agreeing with you when you say that we live in mixed-systems which borrow from both capitalistic and socialistic principles. That's why I pointed out to Seth, who accused progressivescollectivistsebil-stalinists of being hypocritical for taking advantage of some things brought to society through capitalistic principles, how he was being just as hypocritical for taking advantage of some of the things of society that are based on socialistic principles.
Capitalism doesn't mean "no government," it doesn't mean "no regulation," and it doesn't mean "no government services."


Absolutely. Care to point to where I said it did? :ask:
Capitalism means: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations." Somehow, that's become - "aha! you have a police force! see you're socialistic!" Ridiculous.
Indeed it is ridiculous to strawman my argument. Think (and read) harder next time.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60852
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:25 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:
Not just Democrats.

If attacking me for opposing the US health care reform meant someone was not left, then there might be one left leaning person on this forum. Maybe.
Really. There's only one other person on this forum (other than you, me and Seth) who think the health care policy is a fuck up? I'm struggling to believe that. Perhaps if you were more specific as to why you oppose it. If it is because it is too "socialist", then it's not surprising most people don't agree with you.
No, I was lambasted unmercifully for daring to oppose the health care reform, from most folks on this forum who call themselves leftist.
I'm not being a dick here, but i'm willing to bet all that lambasting happened before it was signed into law and everyone got a chance to see what a cluster-fuck it was. True?
Before and after. And, what's this "everyone got to see?" bit? Are you suggesting that people who supported it beforehand didn't know what they were supporting?
No. What I am saying is that those who supported it beforehand were supporting something hemispherically different to what they ended up getting. Once they saw what they really got, they dropped O like a bag of shit (and rightfully so).
We had reams of material describing what the plan was - everyone knew there was no government option - that it was compulsory health insurance purchases by individuals in the private insurance market, etc. What didn't people know beforehand?
Well, for whatever reason, there were plenty on RatSkep who were disappointed. And I put it to you that what was signed into law was nothing like what Obama originally put forward. I don't know enough about the specifics of US health care to back that up without googling. But i read hundreds of pages of threads detailing the concerns to feel confident in what I read. It's well past the middle of the night here, and I honestly couldn't be arsed. I've got great health care here, and the US's retarded system has no impact on my life (unlike it's stupid foreign policy).
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Seth » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:39 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Seth wrote:[
Corporations are not human beings, and should not have human rights. They should have only those authorities and privileges that society, through it's elected leadership, deem necessary and reasonable for the corporations to have.
This is what they have. Corporation law is generally a matter of state law, and the states may change it.

And, 1 USC sec. 1 may be amended by Congress at any time - and that says "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise-- the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;" - so - it's perfectly o.k. to make them "not persons."

The basic distinction in the US is the same as JOZ mentioned - legal person vs. natural person.

Corporations are made legal persons mainly so that they can be taxed separately from natural persons. If they weren't legal persons, they'd just be groups of people and there would be a zero corporate tax. Also, corporations are given person status so that there may be shareholder limited liability. That allows investors to buy equity interests in the company but only put their investment at risk, not their life savings and personal assets. It also allows corporations to contract separate and apart from their owners - if corporations aren't persons, then they can't sign a contract, sue in court, or be sued in court in their own right. They'd just basically be partnerships.

It's certainly not something that has to be, as a matter of fundamental liberties. Corporations can be eliminated altogether. Like other forms of business entities, their rights and responsibilities are set by state law - like limited liability companies - I can start one today, because state law says I can. If they repealed the limited liability company act, then I couldn't do that. The corporation law of my state could be repealed to.

As far as constitutional rights go, the the idea that corporations or partnerships have free speech is simply an acknowledgement that these entities are fundamentally just groups of people. An individual has the right to speak and publish, right? So, a group of individuals who call themselves PETA, Inc. can also speak and publish. That's the basic gist of it, anyway.
And that's what Citizen's United v. Feingold was all about. The Supreme Court overturned the "electioneering communications" aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finances act precisely because many corporations are formed expressly for the purposes of political advocacy, among whom are groups like PETA and the NRA. The Court held that corporations have a right of free political speech to protect the rights of the individuals who make up a corporation as its shareholders and employees. That's an aspect of corporate "personhood" with which I happen to agree. Political advocacy through advocacy groups, which must of necessity be incorporated for legal reasons (to receive funds) is indeed a fundamental right.

I would say, off hand, that there might be a rational distinction to be made between political or social advocacy corporations and purely commercial corporations in the law.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Seth » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:40 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
JOZeldenrust wrote:
Seth wrote:
NineOneFour wrote:
The Communist Party USA actively supported Obama during the primary election and their leader Sam Webb recently stated: "Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House." He went on to enthusiastically discuss Obama's agenda to nationalize the American financial system, the Federal Reserve Bank, and private industries such as energy and various other sectors. "All these – and many other things – are within OUR reach now... an opportunity of a lifetime," said Webb. So, that's what the Communist Party USA thinks of him.
Gosh, do you think they think better of him than they do Bush? I bet the National Socialist Worker's Party and everyone at Stormfront liked Bush and McCain better than Obama. Doesn't make Bush or McCain racists.

GUILT BY ASSOCIATION.

McCarthy would be proud of you.
McCarthy was right, the US government was, and still is, stuffed with Communist spies, agents, traitors and fellow travelers. It's much worse today that it was in McCarthy's time, and we need another McCarthy who is willing to take on the traitors, communists and socialists in our government, like the one in the White House. I'd prefer to see some heads on pikes this time, or perhaps traitors hanging from light poles on Constitution Avenue, but I'll take what I can get for the moment, and Obama is on the ropes right now, which means he has to pander to the middle by moving to the right. Hopefully that will piss off the hard-left enough to run another Marxist against him in 2012, which will dilute the vote.

That's the problem with Marxists, they have little self-control, and when one of their leaders doesn't measure up to their idea of acceptable revolutionary zeal, they tend to kill them. Obama is likely at far greater risk of assassination from anarchists and radical Marxists than he is from the right. Typically presidential assassins are either pure nut jobs, or from the political left.

This is a good thing, though, that the radical Marxist left is generally unable to contain their anger at not achieving quick victory, because it shows the rest of us just how dangerous they really are, and why we need to extirpate Progressivism and Marxism from our society.


Glenn Beck's doing a fair job, and he doesn't even have subpoena powers. And the people responded to him and retook the House.
You don't epect to be taken seriously, do you? Advocating McCarthyism, honestly? We should exclude people from public life because of their political convictions, or even the political convictions of the people they hang out with? Really? I thought you valued freedom.

Guess I was mistaken.
Exactly. I can't be arsed responding anymore. It's pure lunacy.
Would that this were true. Sadly, obviously you can be arsed, even right rogered, with regularity.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60852
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:43 pm

Seth wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Exactly. I can't be arsed responding anymore. It's pure lunacy.
Would that this were true. Sadly, obviously you can be arsed, even right rogered, with regularity.
Well, to be fair to my own arse, I have been mostly responding to CES. Now while I don't agree with some (a lot?) of what he is saying, none of it moves into the realms of lunacy.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Feb 17, 2011 3:57 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:

Your not thinking hard enough. We've never had TRUE capitalism.
You're not thinking hard enough. True capitalism doesn't require that the government not provide police forces, fire departments, libraries and roads. True capitalism is the economic system as I defined it above. Countries with capitalist economies can and do have police forces. Police forces are not socialist principles any more than they are capitalist.
rEvolutionist wrote:
We might have had extremely capitalistic systems (for short amounts of times - for obvious reasons), but that doesn't mean there haven't been socialistic principles involved.
Sure there are - but, police forces, libraries and building roads are not among those socialist principles.
rEvolutionist wrote:
I'm not trying to claim that if you have a state funded and controlled police force you must be a socialist country.
In fact, statistically and philosophically there is no correlation. Whether a country has state funded and controlled police force tells us nothing about its economic system. At best it tells us that it's not a "stateless" society like anarchism or stateless communism.
rEvolutionist wrote:
All I am doing is agreeing with you when you say that we live in mixed-systems which borrow from both capitalistic and socialistic principles.
Police departments are not borrowed from socialism.
rEvolutionist wrote:
That's why I pointed out to Seth, who accused progressivescollectivistsebil-stalinists of being hypocritical for taking advantage of some things brought to society through capitalistic principles, how he was being just as hypocritical for taking advantage of some of the things of society that are based on socialistic principles.
The things you listed were common to almost any country with a government. They - police forces, libraries, fire departments, etc. - are not based on on socialistic principles. They exist in socialism too.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Capitalism doesn't mean "no government," it doesn't mean "no regulation," and it doesn't mean "no government services."


Absolutely. Care to point to where I said it did? :ask:
By calling a police department socialistic. It isn't. It's neither capitalistic nor socialistic. It's government enforcing law. I explained why pro-socialists want to pretend that it's a socialist idea.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Capitalism means: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations." Somehow, that's become - "aha! you have a police force! see you're socialistic!" Ridiculous.
Indeed it is ridiculous to strawman my argument. Think (and read) harder next time.
Strawman? So we're in agreement that a government police force is not borrowed from socialism, then? Good.

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 60852
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by pErvinalia » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:01 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:

Your not thinking hard enough. We've never had TRUE capitalism.
You're not thinking hard enough. True capitalism doesn't require that the government not provide police forces, fire departments, libraries and roads. True capitalism is the economic system as I defined it above. Countries with capitalist economies can and do have police forces. Police forces are not socialist principles any more than they are capitalist.
rEvolutionist wrote:
We might have had extremely capitalistic systems (for short amounts of times - for obvious reasons), but that doesn't mean there haven't been socialistic principles involved.
Sure there are - but, police forces, libraries and building roads are not among those socialist principles.
rEvolutionist wrote:
I'm not trying to claim that if you have a state funded and controlled police force you must be a socialist country.
In fact, statistically and philosophically there is no correlation. Whether a country has state funded and controlled police force tells us nothing about its economic system. At best it tells us that it's not a "stateless" society like anarchism or stateless communism.
rEvolutionist wrote:
All I am doing is agreeing with you when you say that we live in mixed-systems which borrow from both capitalistic and socialistic principles.
Police departments are not borrowed from socialism.
rEvolutionist wrote:
That's why I pointed out to Seth, who accused progressivescollectivistsebil-stalinists of being hypocritical for taking advantage of some things brought to society through capitalistic principles, how he was being just as hypocritical for taking advantage of some of the things of society that are based on socialistic principles.
The things you listed were common to almost any country with a government. They - police forces, libraries, fire departments, etc. - are not based on on socialistic principles. They exist in socialism too.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Capitalism doesn't mean "no government," it doesn't mean "no regulation," and it doesn't mean "no government services."


Absolutely. Care to point to where I said it did? :ask:
By calling a police department socialistic. It isn't. It's neither capitalistic nor socialistic. It's government enforcing law. I explained why pro-socialists want to pretend that it's a socialist idea.
rEvolutionist wrote:
Capitalism means: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations." Somehow, that's become - "aha! you have a police force! see you're socialistic!" Ridiculous.
Indeed it is ridiculous to strawman my argument. Think (and read) harder next time.
Strawman? So we're in agreement that a government police force is not borrowed from socialism, then? Good.
You're still not getting it.

I'm going to bed now. If you haven't worked it out by the time I get back here, then I'll spell it out for you. But it would be better if you could work it out on your own. Goodnight.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:05 pm

Look - having a police department or government regulations is not a principle borrowed from socialism. I understand you completely, you're just flat out wrong. Police departments are no more borrowed from socialism than they are borrowed from capitalism. Got it yet?

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Seth » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:07 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Seth wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:It's the corporations, man. You're playing into the corporate game! See, the corporations are trying to turn you into little Eichmanns so that "they" can make money. The corporations run the entire world. And now they fooled you into working for them.
It's a remarkable hypocrisy that so many Marxists and other leftists rant and rave against Capitalism while doing so on a capitalistically-created device, on a capitalistically-created network, while sitting in the capitalistically-created basement of their Capitalist parents in their capitalistically-created underwear, isn't it?
And you rant about socialism when socialistic policy brought you your roads, your military, your police department, a number of your fire departments, your clean air, your clean water, and yes, YOUR INTERNET. Pot, meet the kettle.
Government regulation does not equal "socialism" or "socialist policy."

How in the world did "socialist policy" bring about the US military? We had a military in the 1700s, and we didn't have socialism. Monarchies had militaries, and they sure as heck weren't socialist.

I think you're confusing "government" with "socialism."
No, he's not confusing them, he's deliberately conflating them in a strawman argument he commonly uses to misrepresent my positions. You'll see him do this commonly, particularly with Libertarianism, which I would say he is utterly ignorant of, except I know he's not because I've personally thoroughly educated him on the issue. He commonly refuses to distinguish between, for example, taxation used to pay one's share of one's use of public facilities like roads and military forces and redistributive taxation intended to redirect wealth from one private individual to another. This is his most common conceit, and he will never acknowledge the difference, and when the difference is pointed out to him, as I've done many hundreds of times, he will ignore the distinction and go right on presenting his fallacious strawman version of Libertarianism. He does it as a form of protest over my criticisms of socialism and my refusal to accept that Democratic Socialism is something different than any other kind of collectivism.

The difference between he and I is that I support my assertions about collectivism with rational argument regarding the inevitable course to economic destruction that all collectivist systems set forth upon simply as a function of the root concepts of collectivism, which cannot escape creating the very class system it seeks to abolish. In all collectivist systems, bar none, a dependent class and a productive class emerge as a function of human nature because people are lazy, selfish and greedy. Because in a collectivist system, claim upon the labor and property of others is seen as a right that accrues to everyone ("To each according to his need"), but the corresponding altruistic contribution to society is unenforceable ("From each according to his ability") without the imposition of totalitarian oppression that forces people to work (as seen in the Soviet Union under Stalin, for example), the dependent class perpetually grows as people naturally seek to do the smallest amount of work possible in return for the most largess from the government by way of "entitlement" spending. This process, as Alexander Tytler stated more than 200 years ago, inevitably is made worse by "democracy," which when combined with "socialism" actually means "the tyranny of the dependent class."

The tyranny of the dependent class arises when the dependent class, who depend upon enslaving the labor and property of the productive class to fund their entitlements, seize the democratic majority in the country. Once that happens, the dependent class, which feels itself entitled to ever-better social conditions, will vote itself more and more benefits from the public treasury, which the productive class are compelled to pay for. This cycle NEVER STOPS once the dependent class gains voting majority, and the end of the society is in sight.

Eventually, the productive class is simply sucked dry of OPM (other people's money) that can be used to fund dependent class social welfare programs, and the productive class simply gives up being productive because they are tired of having the fruits of their labor seized from them by the dependent class, and they themselves become members of the dependent class demanding that the government support them too.

But the government cannot do so, because nothing is being produced, so there is nothing to be seized to fund the dependent class demands. Riots, disorder, chaos and anarchy quickly follow because the dependent class is never more than 30 days away from starvation, and once the productive-class gravy train comes to a halt, the dependent class will riot the instant it gets hungry.

The government then must use ever-more force and totalitarian repression to control the dependent class (lumpen proletariat) as it tries to maintain order. It starts to shoot dissidents down in the streets, it arrests them and sends them to gulags to die, and it brutally suppresses dissent everywhere, while simultaneously exerting more and more centralized control on the means of production in a desperate attempt to meet the basic needs of the proletariat for food and shelter. It must FORCE people to work, on pain of physical punishment or death (usually summary execution) merely in order to produce minimal food.

But the proletariat will always seek to do the minimum possible work that gets them their ration of potatoes without getting them shot in the head or sent to a gulag as a "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary." Production lags and at best, at the very best possible, the collectivist society descends into a hand-to-mouth tortured existence of hunger and privation for everyone, except the power elite.

That's exactly what happened to the Soviet Union, and it's exactly what will happen to EVERY collectivist society, most certainly Democratic Socialism, when the OPM and abundant natural resources that can be extracted and sold on the CAPITALIST free market to other countries runs out.

It's as inevitable as entropy.

Not once has ReEvolutionist or any other Marxist dupe been able to refute this analysis. Mostly they don't even try, but predictably resort to the tactics of Saul Alinsky in a desperate attempt to smear, malign and belittle anyone who challenges their cherished indoctrinations.

ReEvolutionist usually does so by trotting out the canard "Well, what about police and military and roads?" As if this were even remotely intelligent. And we circle right back to the beginning of him deliberately mischaracterizing Libertarianism and refusing to distinguish between taxation to pay for the legitimate functions of government and one's use of public goods and redistribution of wealth that merely transfers money from one taxpayer to another for reasons of socialist social policy.

And repeat.

And repeat.

Etc.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Coito ergo sum » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:12 pm

Seth wrote:[

And that's what Citizen's United v. Feingold was all about. The Supreme Court overturned the "electioneering communications" aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign finances act precisely because many corporations are formed expressly for the purposes of political advocacy, among whom are groups like PETA and the NRA. The Court held that corporations have a right of free political speech to protect the rights of the individuals who make up a corporation as its shareholders and employees. That's an aspect of corporate "personhood" with which I happen to agree. Political advocacy through advocacy groups, which must of necessity be incorporated for legal reasons (to receive funds) is indeed a fundamental right.
They don't have to be incorporated. There is no reason they can't act as General Partnerships and still receive funds.
Seth wrote:
I would say, off hand, that there might be a rational distinction to be made between political or social advocacy corporations and purely commercial corporations in the law.
That's a tricky distinction to make, because other than a preference that commercial interests be subordinated to non-commercial interests - which is itself a political view - there is no reason why people engaged in commerce ought to shut up more than people not engaged in commerce.

Why should Tom and Bill, who form an ice cream store and start selling ice cream not have their political opinions heard or allowed to the same extent as John and Frank, who form a "save the bluefina tuna" organization? Why should Tom and Bill's ice cream not be permitted to contribute money, but John and Frank's Save the Tuna corporation can? Other than having a political preference for people who don't sell stuff for money, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for making that distinction - there certainly is no Constitutional difference in the US.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: The Political Brain

Post by Seth » Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:17 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
We had reams of material describing what the plan was - everyone knew there was no government option - that it was compulsory health insurance purchases by individuals in the private insurance market, etc. What didn't people know beforehand?
What didn't they know beforehand? They, meaning everyone but the leftist think tank that wrote it, including the legislators who voted on it, knew ALMOST NOTHING about what was in the bill before it was voted upon. There was no debate at all in Congress. Zero. That cunt Nancy Pelosi had the gall to say "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in the bill." For that statement alone she should be impeached and horse-whipped. That was DELIBERATE. The Progressives didn't want anyone to know what was in it, like that asinine law requiring every business in the country to file a 1099 for any expenditure over $600.

It was the most egregious example of legislative treason in American history, and people should be swinging from lamp-posts for doing it.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests