socialists.
Joe Creaney
logical arguments. Why should we not people who are non-productive.
Why take from those who produce and give to those who don't. If people
produce they will be able to buy things. They also want to restrict
the economy with environmentalism. Something like drilling for oil
where no one lives.
kamerynn
Joe Creaney wrote:
> Why can't socialists debate. It seems that they don't have very many
> logical arguments.
Kam:
You ought to take a look at what you just wrote. It certainly doesn't
resemble anything "logical." In order to be considered a "logical
argument" it would need some premises and conclusions, for starters.
> Why should we not people who are non-productive.
Kam:
What? You devote an entire thread to making fun of people
that you think have horrible debating skills - and then write this!?
>
> Why take from those who produce and give to those who don't.
Kam:
Well... I give my tax dollars to the government which then uses said
dollars to pave roads, etc. But... But... I don't drive a car and don't
need
roads!! Wahhhh!! Why should I contribute to the well being of our
society?
Screw society! Me, Me, ME!! Hey... where did everyone
else go? How come everything fell apart?
> If people
> produce they will be able to buy things. They also want to restrict
> the economy with environmentalism.
Kam:
Who? The people producing/buying things? Perhaps you
should have started a new paragraph.
Yes, economics obviously doesn't take the uneconomic parts
into account. Yes, we may need restrict our economic activities
so that our children have a place to live in the future. Sorry to
impose our morals on your greed.
> Something like drilling for oil
> where no one lives.
Kam:
Hey, you yokels. Get out of them homes 'cause
we gots to drill for oil. Awww, fuck off with that 'but
its my home' crap. I don't care; I'm about to make some
money.
By the way, you've failed to raise an environmental
issue that clashes with the economy. Not destroying
houses for money is a moral consideration, but not
necessarily an environmental one.
Ron Allen
> Why can't socialists debate?
Ron Allen answers:
I don't know why. Perhaps it's got something to do with
our small brains.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> It seems that they don't have very many logical arguments.
Ron Allen answers:
OK; maybe that's the reason why we can't debate -- we don't
have very many logical arguments.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> Why should we not people who are non-productive?
Ron Allen answers:
???
Joe Creaney wrote:
> Why take from those who produce and give to those who don't?
Ron Allen answers:
We have no logical arguments and no debate skills, and so
we socialists and communists keep on asking about why it
is considered right and just for labor (those who produce)
to part with some measure of the value which their labor
has created. We just keep on pointing out that although
employers and proprietors can do value producing labor,
that is not always a requirement. The more capital you
own the less labor you need to do, and the more value you
are able to extract from other people's labor.
By the by, no socialist or communist has ever advocated
taking value away from those who produce value, or giving
value to those who can but do not produce value.
Maybe we socialists and communists could debate better if
our adversaries would read what we write and say better,
and if they'd more correctly represent our opinions so
that we'd not need to spend so much time correcting the
many misrepresentations. Maybe.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> If people produce they will be able to buy things.
Ron Allen answers:
If people can freely produce, and keep what they produce,
and do this in a context of mutual aid and free sharing,
there'd be no need to restrict consumption and utility
to being able to buy things.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> They also want to restrict the economy with environmentalism.
Ron Allen answers:
Guilty as charged on that point! A good environment is
good for freedom.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> Something like drilling for il where no one lives.
Ron Allen answers:
There are other species than the human species, and we need
them.
<><><><><><><><><><>
"Lord Acton said that 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.' And this is very true. And
this is why democrats do not believe in the majority having
absolute power. Even the majority can be corrupted by
power, as can a minority. And so, democrats advocate not
only majority rule, but also minority rights. This is a
kind of balance of powers."
-- Ron Allen
Adrian Durham
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>We have no logical arguments and no debate skills, and so
>we socialists and communists keep on asking about why it
>is considered right and just for labor (those who produce)
>to part with some measure of the value which their labor
>has created. We just keep on pointing out that although
>employers and proprietors can do value producing labor,
>that is not always a requirement. The more capital you
>own the less labor you need to do, and the more value you
>are able to extract from other people's labor.
>
How do you define "labor"? To draw an analogy perhaps wealth acts
similar to a circuit with a capacitor, resistors and an inductor loop.
One does work to charge the capacitor. If you stop doing work the
current will flow the other way. By analogy, according to what you
are saying, the one that charged the capacitor is not entitled to the
current resulting from the discharge because he is not laboring to
cause it.
>By the by, no socialist or communist has ever advocated
>taking value away from those who produce value, or giving
>value to those who can but do not produce value.
You wuoldn't have to if you redefined the discussion however you
wished.
>
>Maybe we socialists and communists could debate better if
>our adversaries would read what we write and say better,
>and if they'd more correctly represent our opinions so
>that we'd not need to spend so much time correcting the
>many misrepresentations. Maybe.
>
>
>Joe Creaney wrote:
>> If people produce they will be able to buy things.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>If people can freely produce, and keep what they produce,
>and do this in a context of mutual aid
Enforcing such a context contradicts the aspect that they are free.
>and free sharing,
>there'd be no need to restrict consumption and utility
>to being able to buy things.
>
>
>Joe Creaney wrote:
>> They also want to restrict the economy with environmentalism.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Guilty as charged on that point! A good environment is
>good for freedom.
A good environment is good for personal reasons, perhaps, but has
nothing to do with freedom.
>
>
>Joe Creaney wrote:
>> Something like drilling for il where no one lives.
>
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>There are other species than the human species, and we need
>them.
>
All of them? I doubt it. One species goes extinct and
environmentalists go nuts. Species would drop like flies long before
humans came onto the planet. And the planet -- if it were conscious
-- would not look an mankind as some sort of unnatural force
"destroying the planet." It would look at us along with all of our
"man-made" creations as just another species struggling for dominance.
It is kind fo amusing that environmentalists rebuke their opponents as
"arrogant" for disrespecting nature. They are the ones that act as
though man is somehow more powerful than nature.
Joe Creaney
distractions as I would like. I do get frustrated because I am out of
practice and don't keep up with my reading as I would like. I would
like to get in practice. I will take the criticism and try to form
better arguments from my point of view. I have to be provocative to get
a response if I write what I realy believe they get ignored or I end up
being combative with people I agree with.
I am not much into socialism for real. I do see a place for government.
First it has to create order. That is provide for physical security,
and it has to create and envioernment that private property can prosper.
I deally I would like to see govent as small as possible and not have
to resort to confication of private property. I am familiar with the
federialist papers and the dangers of giving government overwhelming
force. We need order but we don't want the force to be used internally
unjustly.
I believe that politics if realitave. That is morality is a function of
public debate. It is fustrating when my views are not in the majority.
Or I believe that acitve minority groups are the ones who define the
political debates. Or when possibley popular but immoral activity is
proposed. Things like legalizing prostitution or drugs.
If we are in a democracy and 60% of the people use drugs and they are
illegal then I would say we donm't have majority rule. I am not for
using drugs (espically opium dirivates) legally but if pot head can't
say they want to get stoned but have to resort to medical uses I believe
that we don't have open debate. We have lies hidden adjendas and
distortions on all sides. If people were honest in what they want we
wouldn't have so many abigous and convoluted laws and regulations. It
seems that people's views arnt presented but other adjendas in when are
distorted or people are shamed in to our out of a position.
Joe Creaney
where it will go. I went ahead and changed the subject quite a bit. I
don't think I meant to post this. I do find that the pro-capitolist
side has much better arguments. I just disagree with the no government
crowd here as much as I disagree with the socialists.
Ron Allen
> We have no logical arguments and no debate skills, and so we
> socialists and communists keep on asking about why it is considered
> right and just for labor (those who produce) to part with some
> measure of the value which their labor has created. We just keep
> on pointing out that although employers and proprietors can do
> value producing labor, that is not always a requirement. The more
> capital you own the less labor you need to do, and the more value
> you are able to extract from other people's labor.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> How do you define "labor"?
Ron Allen answers:
I don't have time for this. I define labor the way every
standard dictionary defines that word's usage/meaning.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> To draw an analogy perhaps wealth acts similar to a circuit with a
> capacitor, resistors and an inductor loop. One does work to charge
> the capacitor. If you stop doing work the current will flow the
> other way. By analogy, according to what you are saying, the one
> that charged the capacitor is not entitled to the current resulting
> from the discharge because he is not laboring to cause it.
<><><><><><><><><>
"The truths of the past are the clichés of the present."
-- Ned Rorem
Ron Allen
> No socialist or communist has ever advocated taking value away from
> those who produce value, or giving value to those who can, but do not,
> produce value.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> You wouldn't have to if you redefined the discussion however you
> wished.
Ron Allen answers:
???
Ron Allen wrote:
> Maybe we socialists and communists could debate better if our
> adversaries would read what we write and say better, and if they'd
> more correctly represent our opinions so that we'd not need to spend
> so much time correcting the many misrepresentations. Maybe.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> If people produce they will be able to buy things.
Ron Allen wrote:
> If people can freely produce, and keep what they produce, and do this
> in a context of mutual aid . . .
Adrian Durham wrote:
> Enforcing such a context contradicts the aspect that they are free.
Ron Allen answers:
Yes; you are correct. And I do not advocate enforcing what
I advocate.
Ron Allen wrote:
> . . . and free sharing, there'd be no need to restrict consumption
> and utility to being able to buy things.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> They also want to restrict the economy with environmentalism.
Ron Allen wrote:
> Guilty as charged on that point! A good environment is good for
> freedom.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> A good environment is good for personal reasons, perhaps, but has
> nothing to do with freedom.
Ron Allen answers:
I believe that a good environment is necessary for health
and happiness, and these are essential for optimal freedom.
Joe Creaney wrote:
> Something like drilling for il where no one lives.
Ron Allen wrote:
> There are other species than the human species, and we need them.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> All of them? I doubt it.
Ron Allen answers:
Bio-diversity is itself a good; and because we do not, and
probably cannot, know everything, we cannot presume to know
what species is crucial or not to the balance of nature.
If we do not respect nature, it's likely we do not respect
our own species. I will not presume that human beings can
judge a species' right to exist, unless it be determined
that its existence inevitably threatens our own existence
as a species.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> One species goes extinct and environmentalists go nuts. Species would
> drop like flies long before humans came onto the planet. And the planet
> -- if it were conscious -- would not look an mankind as some sort of
> unnatural force "destroying the planet." It would look at us along with
> all of our "man-made" creations as just another species struggling for
> dominance.
Ron Allen answers:
We are conscious. We are aware that we are the direct
cause of extinctions. We are also aware that our actions
can result in our own extinction. Nature has a way of
fighting back, especially when one species causes too
much damage to an existing evolutionary equilibrium.
Adrian Durham wrote:
> It is kind of amusing that environmentalists rebuke their opponents as
> "arrogant" for disrespecting nature. They are the ones that act as
> though man is somehow more powerful than nature.
Ron Allen answers:
Knowledge is power. Awareness is power. But the knowledge
that gives us power includes a knowledge of what that power
can do, good and bad, constructive and destructive.
<><><><><><><><><>
"One cannot both feast and become rich."
-- Ashanti proverb
Adrian Durham
that...
Adrian Durham
wrote:
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> We have no logical arguments and no debate skills, and so we
>> socialists and communists keep on asking about why it is considered
>> right and just for labor (those who produce) to part with some
>> measure of the value which their labor has created. We just keep
>> on pointing out that although employers and proprietors can do
>> value producing labor, that is not always a requirement. The more
>> capital you own the less labor you need to do, and the more value
>> you are able to extract from other people's labor.
>
>Adrian Durham wrote:
>> How do you define "labor"?
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>I don't have time for this. I define labor the way every
>standard dictionary defines that word's usage/meaning.
>
Well, you cannot just rely on a dictionary definition for some term
that is crucial to everything you say. Management is generally
thought to entail labor. Yet, you seem to be suggesting that it is
not. You cannot just say that the so and sos aren't laboring. It
could be that in the relevant sense they are. It could even turn out
that it is a logical necessity that they are, so that there would be a
perfect assignment of value to the bosses and bossees according to the
market.
Coming up with the concept of labor and showing how it applies to the
discussion is most definitely on you, not the rest of us to just know
what you must be talking about.
Adrian Durham
wrote:
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> No socialist or communist has ever advocated taking value away from
>> those who produce value, or giving value to those who can, but do not,
>> produce value.
>
>Adrian Durham wrote:
>> You wouldn't have to if you redefined the discussion however you
>> wished.
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>???
>
You can always make such a statement based on how you define "value"
and allocate it to people in advance. Basically you are acting like
everyone knows that bosses do not contribute value. That is a serious
point of contention -- you can't take it for granted
>
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> Maybe we socialists and communists could debate better if our
>> adversaries would read what we write and say better, and if they'd
>> more correctly represent our opinions so that we'd not need to spend
>> so much time correcting the many misrepresentations. Maybe.
>
>Joe Creaney wrote:
>> If people produce they will be able to buy things.
>
>
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> If people can freely produce, and keep what they produce, and do this
>> in a context of mutual aid . . .
>
>Adrian Durham wrote:
>> Enforcing such a context contradicts the aspect that they are free.
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Yes; you are correct. And I do not advocate enforcing what
>I advocate.
>
Then it seems rather non sequitur to even bring it up.
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> . . . and free sharing, there'd be no need to restrict consumption
>> and utility to being able to buy things.
>
>
>Joe Creaney wrote:
>> They also want to restrict the economy with environmentalism.
>
>
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> Guilty as charged on that point! A good environment is good for
>> freedom.
>
>Adrian Durham wrote:
>> A good environment is good for personal reasons, perhaps, but has
>> nothing to do with freedom.
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>I believe that a good environment is necessary for health
>and happiness, and these are essential for optimal freedom.
>
They are essential for an optimal lifestyle, but THAT has nothing to
do with freedom.
>Joe Creaney wrote:
>> Something like drilling for il where no one lives.
>
>
>Ron Allen wrote:
>> There are other species than the human species, and we need them.
>
>
>Adrian Durham wrote:
>> All of them? I doubt it.
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>Bio-diversity is itself a good;
Why?
>and because we do not, and
>probably cannot, know everything, we cannot presume to know
>what species is crucial or not to the balance of nature.
Then how coudl ever be justified in actively preventing the extinction
of a species.
>If we do not respect nature, it's likely we do not respect
>our own species. I will not presume that human beings can
>judge a species' right to exist, unless it be determined
>that its existence inevitably threatens our own existence
>as a species.
>
You are making just such a presumption. In fact, you presume that not
only can human beings make such a judgement, but that you, yourself,
are so qualified.
>
>Adrian Durham wrote:
>> One species goes extinct and environmentalists go nuts. Species would
>> drop like flies long before humans came onto the planet. And the planet
>> -- if it were conscious -- would not look an mankind as some sort of
>> unnatural force "destroying the planet." It would look at us along with
>> all of our "man-made" creations as just another species struggling for
>> dominance.
>
>Ron Allen answers:
>We are conscious. We are aware that we are the direct
>cause of extinctions. We are also aware that our actions
>can result in our own extinction. Nature has a way of
>fighting back, especially when one species causes too
>much damage to an existing evolutionary equilibrium.
>
So?