Discussion:
Why Do Republicans (Trump Supporters) Hate America?
(too old to reply)
AlleyCat
2018-05-28 02:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why Do Republicans Hate America?

Why do Republicans hate America? No, really. It’s not a rhetorical
question. Since consolidating its power in January 2017, the GOP
has systematically set out to dismantle the economic strength of
this nation, coddle predators, shield traitors, attack those who
are working, and strip protections from the most vulnerable. Are
these the actions of a party that loves the nation it has sworn to
serve?

Consider the GOP’s attempts over the last year to blow up the U.S.
economy and make life harder for its constituents. The
Republicans’ first try at demolishing the economy as if it were
nothing but an old abandoned building was their reckless attempt
to destroy the Affordable Care Act, which housed and protected
millions of American citizens. The GOP’s congressional leaders
held no hearings, refused to even listen to expert testimony and
were utterly unconcerned about the impact that dismantling a key
component of the nation’s health care system would have on one-
sixth of the American economy.

When the button jammed on that detonator, Republicans tried
another, more powerful type of explosive, and this one threatens
to be much more successful. In December, they passed a tax bill
that adds an estimated $1.5 trillion to the deficit — with no
significant investment in infrastructure, education or health care
to show for it. And now, as House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) made
clear, when the GOP-fueled deficit balloons, they’re coming after
the retirement and medical social programs that he has demeaned
and mislabeled as “entitlements.” Medicare, Social Security and
Medicaid, however, are hard-earned benefits funded, in large part,
out of our paychecks. They provide much needed support to the
elderly, the infirmed and those with disabilities.

For America’s senior population alone, the Republicans’ assault on
the safety net is going to be destabilizing and, in many cases,
lethal. Currently, 9 out of 10 Americans over 65 receive Social
Security. Forty-nine million are on Medicare, estimated to
increase to 64 million by 2020. Nearly one-third will require
nursing home care, which costs three times the annual income of
those over 65. Imagine what an aging America will look like just a
few years into the future with no Social Security, no Medicare and
no Medicaid.

Not satisfied with their own multi-pronged attack on the social
fabric and safety net of the nation they claim to love, the
Republicans have also let a foreign government attack the United
States. Instead of repelling the invaders, strengthening our
defenses and ferreting out the collaborators, the GOP has acted
more like a fifth column shielding the saboteurs. In the fall of
2016, when confronted with the reports from 17 agencies in the
intelligence community about Russian interference in the 2016
election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
threatened then-President Barack Obama with partisan nuclear
destruction and left the nation vulnerable to Russian leader
Vladimir Putin’s machinations. In March 2017, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-
Calif.) sabotaged his own committee’s investigation into Russian
interference, and for that unconscionable act, Ryan rewarded him
by threatening to allow contempt of Congress proceedings against
the Department of Justice unless Nunes could review the FBI files
on the case. In January 2018, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sent a letter to the DOJ demanding an
investigation of former U.K. intelligence officer Christopher
Steele, who was so alarmed by what he was uncovering that he
alerted the FBI that the Russians had cultivated a Trojan Horse in
the form of Donald Trump. ”This was a national security issue,”
Steele said. For having more concern about the United States than
the Americans involved had shown, the Republicans tried to sic the
FBI on him.

Consider the myriad other ways that the Republicans have
demonstrated their destructive contempt for America. They removed
protections for students against predatory lenders and financially
hobbled the capacity of the next generation of leaders to actually
engage in anything but mere survival. In August 2017, they sheared
off millions of acres from public parks and seem ready to sell
them to the highest bidder.

They have rushed through nominees for lifetime appointments on the
federal bench who are demonstrably unqualified and would warp and
mangle what has been the rule of law in this nation for decades.
They have lied to the American people about so-called rampant
voter fraud so that they could deny millions of citizens the
constitutional right to vote. And they have tried to undercut the
development and use of renewable energy, require power plants to
use only coal or nuclear fuel, and opened up once-banned offshore
drilling, which has now sent coastal states into a panic about the
ever-looming threat to their very lives this decision has posed.

The Republicans have also lit a short fuse under America’s “soft
power” ? our ideas, aspirations and strivings ? that makes the
nation a world leader and not just any other one in the
constellation. It only took a year under the GOP’s stranglehold
for the global respect in which the U.S. was held to plummet from
No. 1 to No. 6 in a global reputation survey. Within that short
space of time, the Republicans have abdicated America’s
international leadership on climate change; targeted, harassed,
banned and deported immigrants of color with reckless abandon; and
removed human rights and democracy as a goals of U.S. foreign
policy.

Some Republicans, of course, have stood up every now and then to
defuse these time bombs, to try to “put country over party.” Ohio
Gov. John Kasich (R) has been steadfast in his opposition to Trump
and has challenged the White House’s ill-advised policies on
immigration. Kasich, however, is also the governor of a state that
has mastered the art of voter suppression from literacy tests, to
artificially created long lines at the polls in counties with
sizable minority populations, to voter roll purges that have
removed twice as many African-American as white voters. Sens. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-
Maine) helped torpedo the initial attempt to destroy the ACA. But
all three voted for a tax bill that transfers inordinate wealth to
the 1 percent, raises the burdens on the middle and working
classes and saddles the nation with a deficit that dims the
future. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) has warned of impending doom,
but his rhetoric of resistance has little correlation to his
actions. Instead of holding the line, he has voted to destroy the
ACA, twist the tax code to benefit the uber-wealthy and scuttle
the nation’s environmental protections.

The Republicans wear their patriotism and love of country like a
badge of honor, but they have demonstrated neither. Instead, they
have been contemptuous and complicit. They seem determined to
recreate the civil rights and deregulated financial sector
wilderness of the 1920s; a world where millions of American
citizens could not vote, where women were separate and unequal and
where Wall Street gambled so recklessly that the global economy
imploded and ushered in more than a decade of double-digit
unemployment and the Great Depression. That desire to strip us
bare once again has revealed a deep, unrelenting disdain for this
nation ? for its people, its hopes, its ideas, its lands and its
institutions. Their lies about love of country put them in power.
Their hatred ? if we recognize it for what it is ? will put them
out.

Carol Anderson is a historian and a professor of African-American
Studies at Emory University. She is the author of White Rage: The
Unspoken Truth Of Our Racial Divide and the forthcoming One
Person, No Vote: How Voter Suppression is Destroying Our
Democracy.




https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-anderson-republicans-
america_us_5a58d5efe4b04df054f860a1
Malcolm McMahon
2018-05-28 09:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future. It's that
imaginary past that Trump tapped into. The Time When America Was Great. A time
which he avoids dating, because it doesn't actually exist historically, it's
kind of a "dream time" epoch.

Functionally The Time When America Was Great is the time when the hearer was
young and hopeful.
trotsky
2018-05-28 19:19:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future. It's that
imaginary past that Trump tapped into. The Time When America Was Great. A time
which he avoids dating, because it doesn't actually exist historically, it's
kind of a "dream time" epoch.
Functionally The Time When America Was Great is the time when the hearer was
young and hopeful.
That's a nice explanation, but not really true. The racism and
xenophobia was very really, and harkens back to both the Civil War, and
then later to the Civil Rights movement such as when John Lewis was
getting his head caved in in Selma, Alabama. Your explanation sugar
coats the ugliness and abject hatred of the whole thing.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ron Dean
2018-06-08 17:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future. It's that
imaginary past that Trump tapped into. The Time When America Was Great. A time
which he avoids dating, because it doesn't actually exist
historically, it's
kind of a "dream time" epoch.
Functionally The Time When America Was Great is the time when the hearer was
young and hopeful.
That's a nice explanation, but not really true.  The racism and
xenophobia was very really, and harkens back to both the Civil War, and
then later to the Civil Rights movement such as when John Lewis was
getting his head caved in in Selma, Alabama.  Your explanation sugar
coats the ugliness and abject hatred of the whole thing.
Of course, but as I recall it wasn't the GOP that was engaged in
this, except in the case of revised history. Furthermore, it wasn't
the GOP that owned slaves. It wasn't the GOP that created Jim Crow
laws. But don't misunderstand, I don't like the GOP, and didn't
vote for either Trump or Hillary. I voted 3 party as an independant.
Hannity is an example of the GOP. A day or two he advised the
witnesses in the Russia to destroy evidence. This is what you can
expect from Fox News.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
duke
2018-06-01 19:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-03 10:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.

When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.

So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable trends continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like Trump and Putin.
duke
2018-06-03 16:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.
There Are More Slaves Today Than Ever Before In Human History
You may have assumed that slavery was a thing of the past. But sadly, it’s worse
than ever before
Post by Malcolm McMahon
So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable trends continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like Trump and Putin.
'ratbama is gone and crooked hillary is going to jail.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-03 21:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.
There Are More Slaves Today Than Ever Before In Human History
You may have assumed that slavery was a thing of the past. But sadly, it’s worse
than ever before
You seriously imagine that this hidden slavery didn't exist while the more
overt forms were rampant? In fact up the the start of the 20th century married
women had no independant legal status.
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable trends continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like Trump and Putin.
'ratbama is gone and crooked hillary is going to jail.
Pure fantasy. None of the serious players are even interested in Hilary any
more.
duke
2018-06-04 20:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.
There Are More Slaves Today Than Ever Before In Human History
You may have assumed that slavery was a thing of the past. But sadly, it’s worse
than ever before
You seriously imagine that this hidden slavery didn't exist while the more
overt forms were rampant? In fact up the the start of the 20th century married
women had no independant legal status.
They were not slaves.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable trends continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like Trump and Putin.
'ratbama is gone and crooked hillary is going to jail.
Pure fantasy. None of the serious players are even interested in Hilary any
more.
They're out of steam on President Trump now. The worm is turning. The 'rats
will have to step up and be judged.

'Ratbama just said "maybe the country wasn't ready for what I brought". No, WE
didn't want the crap you brought.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-05 09:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
They are supra-national organisations. "Democracy" at that level means that the
countries get a vote. In the case of the WTO, for example, decisions require
inputs from all the big players, which is why the US has been able to cripple
the process simply by refusing to supply delegates. In the WTO the strength of
a countries influence is proportional to the amount of international trade than
country performs.

These organisations aren't in the least "socialist".
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.
There Are More Slaves Today Than Ever Before In Human History
You may have assumed that slavery was a thing of the past. But sadly, it’s worse
than ever before
You seriously imagine that this hidden slavery didn't exist while the more
overt forms were rampant? In fact up the the start of the 20th century married
women had no independant legal status.
They were not slaves.
A matter of degree, but many people where in the position that equates to what
is called "modern slavery".
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable trends continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like Trump and Putin.
'ratbama is gone and crooked hillary is going to jail.
Pure fantasy. None of the serious players are even interested in Hilary any
more.
They're out of steam on President Trump now. The worm is turning. The 'rats
will have to step up and be judged.
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs, for all the
bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
duke
2018-06-05 21:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love. Conservatives find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an imagined future.
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
They are supra-national organisations. "Democracy" at that level means that the
countries get a vote.
Then they should pay.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
In the case of the WTO, for example, decisions require
inputs from all the big players, which is why the US has been able to cripple
the process simply by refusing to supply delegates. In the WTO the strength of
a countries influence is proportional to the amount of international trade than
country performs.
These organisations aren't in the least "socialist".
As long as everybody pays equal to what they get, I guess not.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.
There Are More Slaves Today Than Ever Before In Human History
You may have assumed that slavery was a thing of the past. But sadly, it’s
worse than ever before
You seriously imagine that this hidden slavery didn't exist while the more
overt forms were rampant? In fact up the the start of the 20th century married
women had no independant legal status.
They were not slaves.
A matter of degree, but many people where in the position that equates to what
is called "modern slavery".
They were not slaves.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable trends continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like Trump and Putin.
'ratbama is gone and crooked hillary is going to jail.
Pure fantasy. None of the serious players are even interested in Hilary any
more.
They're out of steam on President Trump now. The worm is turning. The 'rats
will have to step up and be judged.
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs, for all the
bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
It's breaking the law that is the issue.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
TT Liams
2018-06-05 22:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 09:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
On Mon, 28 May 2018 09:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Because the "America" they love isn't the one you love.
Conservatives
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
find
their utopia in an imagined past. Progressives in an
imagined future.
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
And what do you flakes love?
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference.
International
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international
community.
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to
obstruct the
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
They are supra-national organisations. "Democracy" at that level means that the
countries get a vote.
Then they should pay.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
In the case of the WTO, for example, decisions require
inputs from all the big players, which is why the US has been able to cripple
the process simply by refusing to supply delegates. In the WTO the strength of
a countries influence is proportional to the amount of
international trade than
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
country performs.
These organisations aren't in the least "socialist".
As long as everybody pays equal to what they get, I guess not.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
When you look at the actual statistics, the world is getting to be a better
place. There's less violence. There's less poverty. There's even a lower
birthrate. And much of this improvement is down to the spread of genuine
liberal values and internationallism plus the waning power of religion.
There Are More Slaves Today Than Ever Before In Human History
You may have assumed that slavery was a thing of the past. But sadly, it’s
worse than ever before
You seriously imagine that this hidden slavery didn't exist
while the more
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
overt forms were rampant? In fact up the the start of the 20th
century
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
married
women had no independant legal status.
They were not slaves.
A matter of degree, but many people where in the position that equates to what
is called "modern slavery".
They were not slaves.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
So my imagined future is the one in which current, favourable
trends
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
continue
and don't get buggered up by egotisitical strong men like
Trump and Putin.
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
'ratbama is gone and crooked hillary is going to jail.
Pure fantasy. None of the serious players are even interested in Hilary any
more.
They're out of steam on President Trump now. The worm is
turning. The 'rats
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by duke
will have to step up and be judged.
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs, for all the
bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
It's breaking the law that is the issue.
Trump broke the law when he colluded with Russia to steel the
election!
duke
2018-06-06 16:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:06:10 -0400, TT Liams
Post by Malcolm McMahon
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs, for
all the bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's breaking the law that is the issue.
Trump broke the law when he colluded with Russia to steel the
election!
No, he didn't.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
TT Liams
2018-06-06 21:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:06:10 -0400, TT Liams
Post by Malcolm McMahon
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs, for
all the bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's breaking the law that is the issue.
Trump broke the law when he colluded with Russia to steel the
election!
No, he didn't.
Yes he did cause treason's against the law, rumdum.
%
2018-06-06 21:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TT Liams
Post by duke
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:06:10 -0400, TT Liams
Post by Malcolm McMahon
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs,
for
Post by duke
all the bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's breaking the law that is the issue.
Trump broke the law when he colluded with Russia to steel the >election!
No, he didn't.
Yes he did cause treason's against the law, rumdum.
no its not , bum hum
duke
2018-06-07 12:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 17:16:33 -0400, TT Liams
Post by TT Liams
Post by duke
On Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:06:10 -0400, TT Liams
Post by Malcolm McMahon
No they won't. Hillary is out of the picture, and the Repubs,
for
Post by duke
all the bluster, won't dare make it a trial of evidence.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
It's breaking the law that is the issue.
Trump broke the law when he colluded with Russia to steel the
election!
No, he didn't.
Yes he did cause treason's against the law, rumdum.
What treasons? Are you saying there's be no problem is the didn't try to
"steel" the election.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-05 10:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
The WTO? Socialist? Are you on crack?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-05 15:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
The WTO? Socialist? Are you on crack?
--
"Socialist" in America now means "anything that Repulicans disapprove of."
TT Liams
2018-06-05 15:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 15:11:13 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to
obstruct the
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by Malcolm McMahon
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
The WTO? Socialist? Are you on crack?
--
"Socialist" in America now means "anything that Repulicans
disapprove of."

Which mean's anything that help's poor & working class ppl cause
Republican's just care about there rich friend's
duke
2018-06-05 21:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
The WTO? Socialist? Are you on crack?
The World Trade Organization — the WTO — is the international organization whose
primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all.

Many nations are "getters only".

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-06 10:59:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
The WTO? Socialist? Are you on crack?
The World Trade Organization — the WTO — is the international organization whose
primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all.
Yep. Trade, as in capitalism, as in NOT SOCIALISM, yakOok.
Many nations are "getters only".
Doesn't compute. A nation can be running a trade surplus, in which case
it's in-net exchanging objects of value for dollars or other currency; a
trade deficit, in which case it's exchanging dollars for objects of
value; or neither, in which case it's effectively exchanging objects for
other objects (or nothing for nothing).

None of those are "getters only", since they're giving either money or
objects (except the totally isolated "nothing for nothing" ones, which
may be giving nothing but are also *getting* nothing, and which so far
as I am aware do not exist anymore anyway).
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-06 16:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 21:16:00 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
And yet, Republicans have, for example, done their best to obstruct the
functioning of the WTO, and the ICC.
They are socialist organizations in nature - not democracies.
The WTO? Socialist? Are you on crack?
The World Trade Organization — the WTO — is the international organization whose
primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all.
Yep. Trade, as in capitalism, as in NOT SOCIALISM, yakOok.
It is if some get a free ride.
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Many nations are "getters only".
Doesn't compute. A nation can be running a trade surplus, in which case
it's in-net exchanging objects of value for dollars or other currency; a
trade deficit, in which case it's exchanging dollars for objects of
value; or neither, in which case it's effectively exchanging objects for
other objects (or nothing for nothing).
You eat, you pay.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-07 09:40:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by kensi
The World Trade Organization — the WTO — is the international organization whose
primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all.
Yep. Trade, as in capitalism, as in NOT SOCIALISM, yakOok.
It is if some get a free ride.
Who is getting a "free ride" in connection with the WTO, kook? Aside
from corporations and the very rich, that is.
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Doesn't compute. A nation can be running a trade surplus, in which case
it's in-net exchanging objects of value for dollars or other currency; a
trade deficit, in which case it's exchanging dollars for objects of
value; or neither, in which case it's effectively exchanging objects for
other objects (or nothing for nothing).
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-07 12:22:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
The World Trade Organization — the WTO — is the international organization whose
primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all.
Yep. Trade, as in capitalism, as in NOT SOCIALISM, yakOok.
It is if some get a free ride.
Who is getting a "free ride" in connection with the WTO, kook? Aside
from corporations and the very rich, that is.
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Doesn't compute. A nation can be running a trade surplus, in which case
it's in-net exchanging objects of value for dollars or other currency; a
trade deficit, in which case it's exchanging dollars for objects of
value; or neither, in which case it's effectively exchanging objects for
other objects (or nothing for nothing).
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-07 12:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-08 18:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of Commerce, said:
“The global business community’s position on trade is unambiguous. Far from
being a zero-sum game where some countries take advantage of others, rules-based
trade has lifted incomes and created jobs around the world. Today we risk
returning to a pre-WTO system where might equals right – jeopardizing the future
economic security of billions of people.”

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-09 10:43:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
“The global business community’s position on trade is unambiguous. Far from
being a zero-sum game where some countries take advantage of others, rules-based
trade has lifted incomes and created jobs around the world. Today we risk
returning to a pre-WTO system where might equals right – jeopardizing the future
economic security of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-09 15:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
“The global business community’s position on trade is unambiguous. Far from
being a zero-sum game where some countries take advantage of others, rules-based
trade has lifted incomes and created jobs around the world. Today we risk
returning to a pre-WTO system where might equals right – jeopardizing the future
economic security of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22 other countries in
1948 that was intended to promote trade by eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125
countries had joined the GATT, and they decided to upgrade their arrangements by
creating the WTO, an international organization that would have a greater
authority and a more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its
members.

Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations, rooted
in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing trade.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Nadegda
2018-06-09 21:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:43:25 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:51:35 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:40:54 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of
Commerce, said: “The global business community’s position on trade is
unambiguous. Far from being a zero-sum game where some countries take
advantage of others, rules-based trade has lifted incomes and created
jobs around the world. Today we risk returning to a pre-WTO system
where might equals right – jeopardizing the future economic security
of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22
other countries in 1948 that was intended to promote trade by
eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125 countries had joined the GATT, and
they decided to upgrade their arrangements by creating the WTO, an
international organization that would have a greater authority and a
more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its members.
Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations,
rooted in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing
trade.
Hey kooktard, you didn't say "getters more", you said "getters ONLY" and
kensi challenged you on that. Nice try at moving the goalposts though.
the dukester, American-American
What the fuck is an "American-American"?
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
%
2018-06-09 21:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:43:25 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:51:35 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:40:54 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of
Commerce, said: “The global business community’s position on trade is
unambiguous. Far from being a zero-sum game where some countries take
advantage of others, rules-based trade has lifted incomes and created
jobs around the world. Today we risk returning to a pre-WTO system
where might equals right – jeopardizing the future economic security
of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22
other countries in 1948 that was intended to promote trade by
eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125 countries had joined the GATT, and
they decided to upgrade their arrangements by creating the WTO, an
international organization that would have a greater authority and a
more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its members.
Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations,
rooted in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing
trade.
Hey kooktard, you didn't say "getters more", you said "getters ONLY" and
kensi challenged you on that. Nice try at moving the goalposts though.
the dukester, American-American
What the fuck is an "American-American"?
a person from america
Street
2018-06-09 23:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by duke
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:43:25 -0400, kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:51:35 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:40:54 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of
Commerce, said: “The global business community’s position on trade is
unambiguous. Far from being a zero-sum game where some countries take
advantage of others, rules-based trade has lifted incomes and created
jobs around the world. Today we risk returning to a pre-WTO system
where might equals right – jeopardizing the future economic security
of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22
other countries in 1948 that was intended to promote trade by
eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125 countries had joined the GATT, and
they decided to upgrade their arrangements by creating the WTO, an
international organization that would have a greater authority and a
more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its members.
Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations,
rooted in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing
trade.
Hey kooktard, you didn't say "getters more", you said "getters ONLY" and
kensi challenged you on that. Nice try at moving the goalposts though.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
What the fuck is an "American-American"?
a person from america
Or it's a person who somehow emigrated to America from America. Except in
Duke's case, it means "idiot".
benj
2018-06-09 21:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:43:25 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:51:35 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:40:54 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of
Commerce, said: “The global business community’s position on trade is
unambiguous. Far from being a zero-sum game where some countries take
advantage of others, rules-based trade has lifted incomes and created
jobs around the world. Today we risk returning to a pre-WTO system
where might equals right – jeopardizing the future economic security
of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22
other countries in 1948 that was intended to promote trade by
eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125 countries had joined the GATT, and
they decided to upgrade their arrangements by creating the WTO, an
international organization that would have a greater authority and a
more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its members.
Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations,
rooted in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing
trade.
Hey kooktard, you didn't say "getters more", you said "getters ONLY" and
kensi challenged you on that. Nice try at moving the goalposts though.
the dukester, American-American
What the fuck is an "American-American"?
That is the kind who have read the constitution and love it's ideas of
rights and freedom. You don't even have to be born here, but you can't
just walk looking for a better life.

The other kind are commie-American nutjobs like you and "kensi" who have
never read the constitution, are in love the idea of an all-powerful
government whose word is LAW, and HAVE read Marx and even though his
system has been thoroughly discredited, somehow you had the thought:
"You know this stupid idea could really work if on "I" were in charge!"

Lefty Kookers

Snicker (rule #5)
Street
2018-06-09 23:51:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by duke
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:43:25 -0400, kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:51:35 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:40:54 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of
Commerce, said: “The global business community’s position on trade is
unambiguous. Far from being a zero-sum game where some countries take
advantage of others, rules-based trade has lifted incomes and created
jobs around the world. Today we risk returning to a pre-WTO system
where might equals right – jeopardizing the future economic security
of billions of people.”
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22
other countries in 1948 that was intended to promote trade by
eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125 countries had joined the GATT, and
they decided to upgrade their arrangements by creating the WTO, an
international organization that would have a greater authority and a
more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its members.
Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations,
rooted in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing
trade.
Hey kooktard, you didn't say "getters more", you said "getters ONLY" and
kensi challenged you on that. Nice try at moving the goalposts though.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
What the fuck is an "American-American"?
That is the kind who have read the constitution and love it's ideas of
rights and freedom. You don't even have to be born here, but you can't
just walk looking for a better life.
The other kind are commie-American nutjobs like you and "kensi" who have
never read the constitution, are in love the idea of an all-powerful
government whose word is LAW, and HAVE read Marx and even though his
"You know this stupid idea could really work if on "I" were in charge!"
Lefty Kookers
Snicker (rule #5)
I doubt they read anything Marx actually wrote himself.
kensi
2018-06-10 09:13:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Street
Post by benj
Lefty Kookers
Snicker (rule #5)
I doubt they read anything Marx actually wrote himself.
/Capital/ (all three volumes; often known by its original German name,
/Das Kapital/), /A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy/,
/Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right/, /Theories of Surplus Value/,
/Value, Price, and Profit/, and /Wage Labor and Capital/.

I've also skimmed his notebooks on the history of technology.

Of course, I don't take everything he wrote as gospel. Marx was a
product of his times, and some of what he wrote is at least borderline
antiSemitic. I certainly don't hold truck with that. Critical thinking
is an essential life skill for sorting the wheat from the chaff in such
situations, and it is lamentably underdeveloped in most of my fellow
citizens.

On the other hand, one thing he was certainly correct about was this:
Capitalism, at least as we have known it, is doomed.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-10 12:21:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 05:13:32 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Street
Post by benj
Lefty Kookers
Snicker (rule #5)
I doubt they read anything Marx actually wrote himself.
/Capital/ (all three volumes; often known by its original German name,
/Das Kapital/), /A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy/,
/Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right/, /Theories of Surplus Value/,
/Value, Price, and Profit/, and /Wage Labor and Capital/.
I've also skimmed his notebooks on the history of technology.
Of course, I don't take everything he wrote as gospel. Marx was a
product of his times, and some of what he wrote is at least borderline
antiSemitic. I certainly don't hold truck with that. Critical thinking
is an essential life skill for sorting the wheat from the chaff in such
situations, and it is lamentably underdeveloped in most of my fellow
citizens.
Capitalism, at least as we have known it, is doomed.
We haven't known capitalism. What we have known is a mixture
of mercantilism, cronyism, and welfare-warefare state fascist
socialism.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-10 13:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 05:13:32 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Capitalism, at least as we have known it, is doomed.
We haven't known capitalism.
Eee hee hee! KoOk Kresch is *completely* out to lunch.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-11 00:07:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 09:49:40 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 05:13:32 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Capitalism, at least as we have known it, is doomed.
We haven't known capitalism.
Eee hee hee!
The laughter of the ko0k; you're completely out to lunch,
ko0k.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
duke
2018-06-10 15:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nadegda
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:43:25 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 08:51:35 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:40:54 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
You eat, you pay.
And that has what to do with what I wrote, ko0ky?
You eat, you pay.
So, what you're saying is you have no counterargument to what I've said,
but you're not willing to come right out and say so. Gotcha.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of
Commerce, said: ?The global business community?s position on trade is
unambiguous. Far from being a zero-sum game where some countries take
advantage of others, rules-based trade has lifted incomes and created
jobs around the world. Today we risk returning to a pre-WTO system
where might equals right ? jeopardizing the future economic security
of billions of people.?
Thank you for making my point for me: that there are no nations who are,
in some WTO-connected sense, "getters only".
Almost from its start, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has been
controversial. The WTO has its origins in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a treaty signed by the United States and 22
other countries in 1948 that was intended to promote trade by
eliminating tariffs. By 1994, 125 countries had joined the GATT, and
they decided to upgrade their arrangements by creating the WTO, an
international organization that would have a greater authority and a
more efficient mechanism to adjudicate trade disputes among its members.
Divisions soon arose, however, between developed and developing nations,
rooted in questions about which group benefited more from liberalizing
trade.
Hey kooktard, you didn't say "getters more", you said "getters ONLY" and
kensi challenged you on that. Nice try at moving the goalposts though.
Well, in English, a getter is one that gets more than it gives. It's more or
less a traditional usage of the word.
Post by Nadegda
the dukester, American-American
What the fuck is an "American-American"?
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-04 09:29:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-04 20:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-05 10:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-05 12:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-06-05 20:06:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 05:29:42 -0400, kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
The very existence of civilisation is essentially one big intrusion into human
freedom.
Don Kresch
2018-06-05 22:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 20:06:31 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 05:29:42 -0400, kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
The very existence of civilisation is essentially one big intrusion into human
freedom.
Freedom and liberty are different things, though.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Scout
2018-06-05 22:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 05:29:42 -0400, kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference.
International
trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international
community.
Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
The very existence of civilisation is essentially one big intrusion into human
freedom.
Yes, and once the existence of the civilization is no longer about
protecting individual rights, then it is tyrannical and oppressive.
%
2018-06-05 22:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 05:29:42 -0400, kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference.
International
trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international
community.
Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
The very existence of civilisation is essentially one big intrusion into human
freedom.
Yes, and once the existence of the civilization is no longer about
protecting individual rights, then it is tyrannical and oppressive.
don't participate in such things
Scout
2018-06-06 03:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by %
Post by Scout
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Don Kresch
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 06:02:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018 05:29:42 -0400, kensi
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference.
International
trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international
community.
Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
The very existence of civilisation is essentially one big intrusion into human
freedom.
Yes, and once the existence of the civilization is no longer about
protecting individual rights, then it is tyrannical and oppressive.
don't participate in such things
So don't participate in civilizations?
kensi
2018-06-06 11:02:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
I think that would be a huge surprise to the happiest people in the
world, the citizens of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.

Or perhaps you're one of those "libertarian" ko0ks who considers
property ownership the sole human right, calls taxation "theft", and
couldn't care less whether people are guaranteed to be clothed and fed ...
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
trotsky
2018-06-06 12:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
    You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
I think that would be a huge surprise to the happiest people in the
world, the citizens of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
And yet the suicide rates for both Sweden and Finland are higher than
the U.S. That's just weird.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Don Kresch
2018-06-06 12:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:02:17 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
You realize that socialism (which includes communism) is
nothing but a giant violation of rights. Which is immoral. So much for
your "conscience".
I think that would be a huge surprise to the happiest people in the
world, the citizens of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
No, it wouldn't. Perhaps you're one of those immoral assholes
who thinks it's ok to steal from others; I'm not. You're one of those
immoral assholes who thinks "I don't care about others, just so long
as I get mine. I can even enslave others to get mine. But I'll pretend
to care about others just so I can try to feel better about all the
immoral shit I do."

SPIT.

Immoral asshole.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-07 09:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
I think that would be a huge surprise to the happiest people in the
world, the citizens of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
No, it wouldn't. Perhaps you're one of those immoral assholes
who thinks it's ok to steal from others; I'm not. You're one of those
immoral assholes who thinks "I don't care about others, just so long
as I get mine. I can even enslave others to get mine. But I'll pretend
to care about others just so I can try to feel better about all the
immoral shit I do."
Wow, that's a lot of psychological projection you crammed into that tiny
little paragraph!

"I don't care about others, just so long as I get mine" is basically the
motto of conservatism.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-07 12:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:42:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
I think that would be a huge surprise to the happiest people in the
world, the citizens of Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
No, it wouldn't. Perhaps you're one of those immoral assholes
who thinks it's ok to steal from others; I'm not. You're one of those
immoral assholes who thinks "I don't care about others, just so long
as I get mine. I can even enslave others to get mine. But I'll pretend
to care about others just so I can try to feel better about all the
immoral shit I do."
Wow, that's a lot of psychological projection
Nope. The fact that you wrote that is just you projecting onto
me.
Post by kensi
"I don't care about others, just so long as I get mine" is
your motto. And you just project that onto others so you can
feel better about your immoral stance.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-10 14:35:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:42:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
"I don't care about others, just so long as I get mine" is
your motto.
Wrong.

On the other hand, try this on for size:

As Paine put it in 1797:

"All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s
own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes
on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part
of that accumulation from whence the whole came."

The only update this needs for modern times is to make the thing
gender-neutral.

Note that it proves that tax evasion is immoral. :)
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-11 00:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:35:29 -0400, kensi
Post by duke
Post by Don Kresch
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:42:21 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
"I don't care about others, just so long as I get mine" is
your motto.
Wrong.
Nope.
Post by duke
"All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man’s
own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes
on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part
of that accumulation from whence the whole came."
Nice unsupported assertion.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
duke
2018-06-05 21:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by duke
On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 10:05:04 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Liberal values like inclusivity. Tolerance of difference. International trade.
World prosperity. Peace. The development of an international community. Stuff
like that.
So do we Republicans.
Liar.
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-06 11:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists", not "all socialists have consciences". Hint: the people
with consciences could be a *strict* subset of the socialists.

(Let alone "all people who *claim* to be socialist have consciences";
and it's pretty clear that Stalin was socialisting wrong, based on the
starvation of chunks of the population under his rule without *everyone*
starving *equally*.)
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-06 12:35:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:04:46 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists"
No, the claim was that all socialists have consciences. You
fail at logic forever.

Just like your attempt at a No True Scotsman with Stalin.

Dumbfuck.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-07 09:44:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists"
No, the claim was that all socialists have consciences. You
fail at logic forever.
No, the claim was "'leftards' are communists and socialists because they
have consciences", i.e. having trait A causes trait B, i.e. everyone
with trait A has trait B as well. In this case, the causing trait A is
"have consciences" and the caused trait B is "communists and
socialists". Thus the inference is "all those who have consciences are
communists and socialists", as stated in my previous post.

SPNAK!
Post by Don Kresch
Just like your attempt at a No True Scotsman with Stalin.
I furnished evidence that at least some of his policies were at variance
with fundamental tenets of socialism, k00k.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
benj
2018-06-07 09:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists"
    No, the claim was that all socialists have consciences. You
fail at logic forever.
No, the claim was "'leftards' are communists and socialists because they
have consciences", i.e. having trait A causes trait B, i.e. everyone
with trait A has trait B as well. In this case, the causing trait A is
"have consciences" and the caused trait B is "communists and
socialists". Thus the inference is "all those who have consciences are
communists and socialists", as stated in my previous post.
SPNAK!
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Post by kensi
    Just like your attempt at a No True Scotsman with Stalin.
I furnished evidence that at least some of his policies were at variance
with fundamental tenets of socialism, k00k.
Yeah, your hero, a world record holder for murdering citizens had a real
conscience.

Nutjob.

Chortle (rule #5)
kensi
2018-06-07 12:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Again, the Swedes would be surprised to hear that theirs is a "failed
system".
Post by benj
Post by kensi
    Just like your attempt at a No True Scotsman with Stalin.
I furnished evidence that at least some of his policies were at
variance with fundamental tenets of socialism, k00k.
Yeah, your hero, a world record holder for murdering citizens had a real
conscience.
He's not my hero, koOky. He was a catastrophic failure as a socialist
and as a human being, much like you.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
benj
2018-06-07 19:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Again, the Swedes would be surprised to hear that theirs is a "failed
system".
Right. Sweden is an economic superpower dominating the world. Just wait,
Kooker.
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Post by kensi
    Just like your attempt at a No True Scotsman with Stalin.
I furnished evidence that at least some of his policies were at
variance with fundamental tenets of socialism, k00k.
Yeah, your hero, a world record holder for murdering citizens had a
real conscience.
He's not my hero, koOky. He was a catastrophic failure as a socialist
and as a human being, much like you.
I sure HOPE I'm a catastrophic failure as a socialist, nutjob. That
would make my life a fine success!

Hey if Stalin doesn't do it for you how about sharing your plans for a
"cultural revolution" for America? I'm sure it starts with a healthy
energy tax.

Loon.

Chortle. (rule #5)
kensi
2018-06-08 10:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Again, the Swedes would be surprised to hear that theirs is a "failed
system".
Right. Sweden is an economic superpower dominating the world.
It doesn't have to be. It just has to provide decent lives for all of
its citizens, and it does.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-08 12:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 06:08:31 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Again, the Swedes would be surprised to hear that theirs is a "failed
system".
Right. Sweden is an economic superpower dominating the world.
It doesn't have to be. It just has to provide decent lives for all of
its citizens, and it does.
No, it doesn't. And governments are immoral and illegitimate,
as they are all based on the initiation of force.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-08 14:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Again, the Swedes would be surprised to hear that theirs is a "failed
system".
Right. Sweden is an economic superpower dominating the world.
It doesn't have to be. It just has to provide decent lives for all of
its citizens, and it does.
No, it doesn't.
Of course it does, or else it really would be a "failed system". What
else legitimate could it be for?
Post by Don Kresch
And governments are immoral and illegitimate, as they are all based on
the initiation of force.
Pure nonsense. You haven't been reading any of that l0on Ayn Rand's
tripe, have you?

As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force. The only way we've found to keep the amount of force
that gets initiated to a minimum is to have a monopoly on the
legitimated use of force; i.e., a government that outlaws violence but
will use it when necessary to suppress it from others. Without that,
what one gets instead is multi-party violence, ranging in scale from
Hatfields-and-McCoys-like feuds through street gang warfare all the way
up to actual armies-on-battlefields international warfare.

Avoiding all of this violence means people making a pact not to initiate
violence, and enforcing such a pact requires occasionally using violence
to stop that of others. Labor specialization then sets in, until you
have something called "a government with a police force" as a
specialized organization and labor force within the larger population.
The alternative, again, is Wild West or Roaring 20s style street battles
between rival gangs. Do you really consider that alternative to be
preferable?
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-09 03:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Post by kensi
Post by benj
Communism and socialism are failed systems because leftists are as
greedy as the right.
Again, the Swedes would be surprised to hear that theirs is a "failed
system".
Right. Sweden is an economic superpower dominating the world.
It doesn't have to be. It just has to provide decent lives for all of
its citizens, and it does.
No, it doesn't.
Of course it does
No, it doesn't. Governments have but one thing to do:
dissolve.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
And governments are immoral and illegitimate, as they are all based on
the initiation of force.
Pure nonsense.
Nope. Governments are coercive expropriating territorial
monopolies.
Post by kensi
You haven't been reading any of that l0on Ayn Rand's
tripe, have you?
Rand wasn't an anarchist; I am.
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
Post by kensi
The only way we've found to keep the amount of force
that gets initiated to a minimum is to have a monopoly on the
legitimated use of force
There's no such thing. And monopolies are bad, RIGHT?

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-09 10:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
The only way we've found to keep the amount of force
that gets initiated to a minimum is to have a monopoly on the
legitimated use of force
There's no such thing. And monopolies are bad, RIGHT?
Not in this case. Not when the alternative is to become another Somalia.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-10 01:32:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that. You don't destroy the village in order to
save it.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
The only way we've found to keep the amount of force
that gets initiated to a minimum is to have a monopoly on the
legitimated use of force
There's no such thing. And monopolies are bad, RIGHT?
Not in this case.
In all cases it is.
Post by kensi
Not when the alternative is to become another Somalia.
Ah, so our options are only Somalia and North Korea. I see.

Hey, you want to strawman--so will I. Tit for tat, bitch.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-10 09:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense. You end up with a cesspit like Somalia
in that instance. To avoid that there needs to be a general rule that
force is *only* to be used to stop other people from using force, where
*their* use would be in violation of this rule. That might be managed
informally in a small group, but a large group will need specialized
courts, police, and the like to deal with these situations -- and now
you have government.

You also have to prevent "violence of omission", in which someone is
simply excluded from everything and eventually starves. Because of
markets' propensity to reward more those who already have wealth, this
necessitates some amount of wealth redistribution to "keep everyone in
the game". /Monopoly/ ends when one player has all the moolah and
everyone else has been eliminated. In the real world that would result
in one extremely lonely trillionaire and seven billion corpses,
obviously not a desirable outcome. (Except that it would result in armed
insurrection much sooner than that, and this in turn would raise the
specter of a reappearance of Stalinism and Maoism.)
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
The only way we've found to keep the amount of force
that gets initiated to a minimum is to have a monopoly on the
legitimated use of force
There's no such thing. And monopolies are bad, RIGHT?
Not in this case.
In all cases it is.
Haven't you heard of "natural monopolies"? The only way to tame these
beasts is to nationalize them. In a pure market economy (which can't
really exist, except perhaps for very brief instances of time, rather
like quark-gluon plasma, before "hadronizing" into a bunch of squabbling
petty fiefdoms with unstable borders and gang warfare) a monopoly will
be unresponsive to anything, totally unaccountable. Having a government
that nationalizes it is the only thus-far known way to fix this problem,
by making it answerable ultimately to the voters.

An unfettered market will also result in monopolies that form when
someone manages to corner the market on something and amass enough of a
price-war chest (or just enough goons and guns) to suppress any would-be
upstart competitors in the future. Antitrust laws enforced by a
government can prevent cornering of the market, and the government
monopoly on use of force can prevent the private use of goon squads to
squash competitors.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Not when the alternative is to become another Somalia.
Ah, so our options are only Somalia and North Korea. I see.
Don't be ridiculous. Our options are only Somalia and government. But
"government" can be benign, as in Sweden; neglectful, as in the United
States; or malign, as in North Korea. (The US government is also malign
if its foreign policy is taken into consideration.)
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-10 12:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 05:28:38 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky.
So what, ko0ky? No one said anything different, ko0ky. Are you
one of those ko0ky ko0ks who thinks that you need an institution which
violates the rights of people in order do catch people who violate the
rights of others? Wow. What a fucking ko0ky ko0k you are.

I'll just throw your shit back at you. So you'd best stop.
Post by kensi
If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense. You end up with a cesspit like Somalia
Your stance leads to North Korea. Want to keep playing that
game, ko0k? I can play you game better than you, ko0k.
Post by kensi
in that instance. To avoid that there needs to be a general rule that
force is *only* to be used to stop other people from using force, where
*their* use would be in violation of this rule. That might be managed
informally in a small group, but a large group will need specialized
courts, police, and the like to deal with these situations -- and now
you have government.
You only have a government where you have a coercive
expropriating territorial monopoly. Courts, police, etc DO NOT mean
government. Unless, of course, you'd like to demonstrate the logical
requirement for government with those things. You'd be the first
person in history to do so. Think you're up to the task, ko0k?
Post by kensi
You also have to prevent "violence of omission", in which someone is
simply excluded from everything and eventually starves. Because of
markets' propensity to reward more those who already have wealth,
There's no such propensity, ko0k.
Post by kensi
this
necessitates some amount of wealth redistribution to "keep everyone in
the game"
IOW: steal from some and give to others. IOW: violate the
rights of others. What a ko0k you are.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
The only way we've found to keep the amount of force
that gets initiated to a minimum is to have a monopoly on the
legitimated use of force
There's no such thing. And monopolies are bad, RIGHT?
Not in this case.
In all cases it is.
Haven't you heard of "natural monopolies"?
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

Educate yourself, ko0k.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Not when the alternative is to become another Somalia.
Ah, so our options are only Somalia and North Korea. I see.
Don't be ridiculous.
I'm just following your strawman lead, ko0k. Don't like it?
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Cry me a river, ko0k.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-10 14:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense. You end up with a cesspit like Somalia
Your stance leads to North Korea.
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the
Netherlands.
Post by Don Kresch
Courts, police, etc DO NOT mean government.
Well, then, what would *you* call them?
Post by Don Kresch
Unless, of course, you'd like to demonstrate the logical
requirement for government with those things.
Erm, to run them? And to be the conduit for accountability to the
people? In the absence of such accountability, via courts and
legislatures and ultimately elections, or some similar mechanism,
"police" are just some private goon squad answerable only to the highest
bidder. That's not democracy. It's not even anarchy. It's feudalism: he
who has the gold makes the rules and sends his knights to enforce them
on the peasants.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
You also have to prevent "violence of omission", in which someone is
simply excluded from everything and eventually starves. Because of
markets' propensity to reward more those who already have wealth,
There's no such propensity, ko0k.
Of course there is. In a system where the only voting is with one's
pocketbook, the more dollars someone has, the more votes they have. So
the rich call the shots. And they will use that ability to rig the game
so that they capture more of the surplus from productivity and others
capture less, and consequently get even richer at the expense of
everyone else.

https://evonomics.com/how-capitalism-actually-generates-more-inequality/

"The process is cumulative: inequalities of wealth often lead to
differences in education, economic power, and further inequalities in
income."

(Left out of that list, but even more important perhaps: political power.)

"In real-world markets different sellers or buyers vary hugely in their
capacities to influence prices and other outcomes. When a seller has
sufficient saleable assets to affect market prices, then strategic
market behaviour is possible to drive out competitors."

That mechanism operates even in the complete absence of government,
politics, and the like. (But such an absence is an unstable vacuum.
Someone will buy up a lot of guns, hire a lot of foot soldiers, and
start throwing their weight around. Before long you will have a
government, probably a highly despotic one, and most likely more than
one, fighting vicious turf wars at their borders.)

There's also a key difference between markets in theory and markets in
practice. In the theory used by most supporters of capitalism, and
taught in most economics schools:

"Markets involve voluntary exchange, where both parties to an exchange
expect benefits."

In reality not all exchange can be voluntary. Human beings cannot do
without food, water, or shelter, and this creates huge demand
inelasticity for these basic necessities of life. That in turn leads to
breakdowns of models of markets that assume everyone is free to take or
leave every offer. If there are N options for food, and a rational
market actor per the theory would reject them all, in the real world
they'll have to take the least-worst one in order to not die, and that
distorts the market.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
this
necessitates some amount of wealth redistribution to "keep everyone in
the game"
IOW: steal from some and give to others. IOW: violate the
rights of others. What a ko0k you are.
Ownership of property is not, and cannot be, an absolute right. In
particular it cannot supersede the right of another person to live. If
the amount of redistribution needed to keep people from starving is
non-zero (and it clearly is), then that amount of redistribution is
necessarily justified.

Since dollars have diminishing marginal utility the more of them one
has, it is more justified to take them from the wealthiest people. Hence
progressive taxation. The utility taken away from the rich guy is less
than the utility bestowed upon the poor person who gets enough to eat
now, by far. Net utility goes up, and it goes up the most when a dollar
is redistributed from the richest individual to the poorest one.

In light of this, the only justification to have any inequality at all
is that one should capture some of the value of one's labor, and be
better off if having contributed more, partly as an incentive to do so.
This suggests that the wealthiest, in a truly just society, would be
skilled laborers and laborers who worked more hours, which is obviously
not what we see. Skilled laborers get anywhere from "not very much" to
"ridiculously large amounts", those who work the most hours are often
among the poorest, and the richest tend not to do anything at all that
could be called "labor" without inviting gales of laughter.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Haven't you heard of "natural monopolies"?
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
Mises.org ... LOL

Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

though I would add that another fruitful source of natural monopolies is
network externalities. Tech companies with monopoly power usually got it
because of network externalities; consider Facebook and Microsoft in
particular.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-11 00:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:23:22 -0400, kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense. You end up with a cesspit like Somalia
Your stance leads to North Korea.
(crying)
Yes, I know that you're crying. NMFP. Don't strawman.
Post by Don Kresch
Courts, police, etc DO NOT mean government.
Well, then, what would *you* call them?
Are you seriously so stupid as to believe that only a
government can provide those things?
Post by Don Kresch
Unless, of course, you'd like to demonstrate the logical
requirement for government with those things.
Erm, to run them?
To provide and run. Go for it. You'll be the first person in
history to do so.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
You also have to prevent "violence of omission", in which someone is
simply excluded from everything and eventually starves. Because of
markets' propensity to reward more those who already have wealth,
There's no such propensity, ko0k.
Of course there is.
Of course there isn't.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
this
necessitates some amount of wealth redistribution to "keep everyone in
the game"
IOW: steal from some and give to others. IOW: violate the
rights of others. What a ko0k you are.
Ownership of property is not, and cannot be, an absolute right
Yes, it is. I own my body; no one else does. It is an
absolute.

" On the one hand, the consequences that follow if one were to
deny the validity of the institution of original appropriation and
private property are spelled out: If person A were not the owner of
his own body and the places and goods originally appropriated and/or
produced with this body as well as of the goods voluntarily
(contractually) acquired from another previous owner, then only two
alternatives would exist. Either another person, B, must be recognized
as the owner of A’s body as well as the places and goods appropriated,
produced or acquired by A, or both persons, A and B, must be
considered equal co-owners of all bodies, places and goods.

In the first case, A would be reduced to the rank of B’s slave and
object of exploitation. B would be the owner of A’s body and all
places and goods appropriated, produced and acquired by A, but A in
turn would not be the owner of B’s body and the places and goods
appropriated, produced and acquired by B. Hence, under this ruling two
categorically distinct classes of persons would be constituted—
Untermenschen such as A and Uebermenschen such as B—to whom different
"laws" apply. Accordingly, such ruling must be discarded as a human
ethic equally applicable to everyone qua human being (rational
animal). From the very outset, any such ruling is recognized as not
universally acceptable and thus cannot claim to represent law. For a
rule to aspire to the rank of a law—a just rule—it is necessary that
such a rule apply equally and universally to everyone.

Alternatively, in the second case of universal and equal co-ownership,
the requirement of equal law for everyone would be fulfilled. However,
this alternative would suffer from an even more severe deficiency,
because if it were applied, all of mankind would instantly perish.
(Since every human ethic must permit the survival of mankind, this
alternative must also be rejected.) Every action of a person requires
the use of some scarce means (at least of the person’s body and its
standing room), but if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no
one, at no time and no place, would be allowed to do anything unless
he had previously secured every other co-owner’s consent to do so. Yet
how could anyone grant such consent were he not the exclusive owner of
his own body (including his vocal chords) by which means his consent
must be expressed? Indeed, he would first need another’s consent in
order to be allowed to express his own, but these others could not
give their consent without having first his, and so it would go on.

This insight into the praxeological impossibility of "universal
communism," as Rothbard referred to this proposal, brings me
immediately to an alternative way of demonstrating the idea of
original appropriation and private property as the only correct
solution to the problem of social order.3 Whether or not persons have
any rights and, if so, which ones, can only be decided in the course
of argumentation (propositional exchange). Justification—proof,
conjecture, refutation—is argumentative justification. Anyone who
denied this proposition would become involved in a performative
contradiction because his denial would itself constitute an argument.
Even an ethical relativist would have to accept this first
proposition, which is referred to accordingly as the apriori of
argumentation.

From the undeniable acceptance—the axiomatic status—of this apriori of
argumentation, two equally necessary conclusions follow. First, it
follows from the apriori of argumentation when there is no rational
solution to the problem of conflict arising from the existence of
scarcity. Suppose in my earlier scenario of Crusoe and Friday that
Friday were not the name of a man but of a gorilla. Obviously, just as
Crusoe could face conflict regarding his body and its standing room
with Friday the man, so might he with Friday the gorilla. The gorilla
might want to occupy the same space that Crusoe already occupied. In
this case, at least if the gorilla were the sort of entity that we
know gorillas to be, there would be no rational solution to their
conflict. Either the gorilla would push aside, crush, or devour
Crusoe—that would be the gorilla’s solution to the problem—or Crusoe
would tame, chase, beat, or kill the gorilla—that would be Crusoe’s
solution. In this situation, one might indeed speak of moral
relativism. However, it would be more appropriate to refer to this
situation as one in which the question of justice and rationality
simply would not arise; that is, it would be considered an extra-moral
situation. The existence of Friday the gorilla would pose a technical,
not a moral, problem for Crusoe. He would have no other choice than to
learn how to successfully manage and control the movements of the
gorilla just as he would have to learn to manage and control other
inanimate objects of his environment.

By implication, only if both parties in a conflict are capable of
engaging in argumentation with one another, can one speak of a moral
problem and is the question of whether or not there exists a solution
to it a meaningful question. Only if Friday, regardless of his
physical appearance, is capable of argumentation (even if he has shown
himself to be capable only once), can he be deemed rational and does
the question whether or not a correct solution to the problem of
social order exists make sense. No one can be expected to give any
answer to someone who has never raised a question or, more to the
point, who has never stated his own relativistic viewpoint in the form
of an argument. In that case, this "other" cannot but be regarded and
treated as an animal or plant, i.e., as an extra-moral entity. Only if
this other entity can pause in his activity, whatever it might be,
step back, and say "yes" or "no" to something one has said, do we owe
this entity an answer and, accordingly, can we possibly claim that our
answer is the correct one for both parties involved in a conflict.

Moreover, it follows from the apriori of argumentation that everything
that must be presupposed in the course of an argumentation as the
logical and praxeological precondition of argumentation cannot in turn
be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without becoming
thereby entangled in an internal (performative) contradiction.

Now, propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating
propositions, but rather constitute a specific human activity.
Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both have, and
mutually recognize each other as having, exclusive control over their
respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the
standing room occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything
and expect the other party to convince himself of the validity of this
proposition or deny it and propose something else unless his and his
opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and
standing rooms were presupposed. In fact, it is precisely this mutual
recognition of the proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in
his own body and standing room which constitutes the characteristicum
specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one may not agree
regarding the validity of a specific proposition, one can agree
nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees. Moreover, this right to
property in one’s own body and its standing room must be considered
apriori (or indisputably) justified by proponent and opponent alike.
Anyone who claimed any proposition as valid vis-à-vis an opponent
would already presuppose his and his opponent’s exclusive control over
their respective body and standing room simply in order to say "I
claim such and such to be true, and I challenge you to prove me
wrong."

Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to engage in argumentation
and rely on the propositional force of one’s arguments if one were not
allowed to own (exclusively control) other scarce means (besides one’s
body and its standing room). If one did not have such a right, then we
would all immediately perish and the problem of justifying rules—as
well as any other human problem—would simply not exist. Hence, by
virtue of the fact of being alive property rights to other things must
be presupposed as valid, too. No one who is alive can possibly argue
otherwise.

If a person were not permitted to acquire property in these goods and
spaces by means of an act of original appropriation, i.e., by
establishing an objective (intersubjectively ascertainable) link
between himself and a particular good and/or space prior to anyone
else, and if instead property in such goods or spaces were granted to
late-comers, then no one would ever be permitted to begin using any
good unless he had previously secured such a late-comer’s consent. Yet
how can a late-comer consent to the actions of an early-comer?
Moreover, every late-comer would in turn need the consent of other and
later later-comers, and so on. That is, neither we, our forefathers,
nor our progeny would have been or would be able to survive if one
followed this rule. However, in order for any person—past, present or
future—to argue anything, survival must be possible; and in order to
do just this property rights cannot be conceived of as being timeless
and unspecific with respect to the number of persons concerned.
Rather, property rights must necessarily be conceived of as
originating by means of action at definite points in time and space by
definite individuals. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to
ever say anything at a definite point in time and space and for
someone else to be able to reply. Simply saying, then, that the
first-user-first-owner rule of the ethics of private property can be
ignored or is unjustified implies a performative contradiction, as
one’s being able to say so must presuppose one’s existence as an
independent decision-making unit at a given point in time and space."

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private
Property
. In
particular it cannot supersede the right of another person to live
There's no such right.
. If
the amount of redistribution needed to keep people from starving is
non-zero (and it clearly is), then that amount of redistribution is
necessarily justified.
By your reasoning, a little rape and murder is also justified.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Since dollars have diminishing marginal utility the more of them one
has, it is more justified to take them from the wealthiest people.
Ah, so they don't count because they have more. I see. They
aren't human. I see.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Haven't you heard of "natural monopolies"?
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
Mises.org ... LOL
Thanks for conceding all points to me.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-11 09:28:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/10/2018 8:15 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
[some dishonest manipulation of quoted text by Kresch has been corrected
below]
Post by Don Kresch
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:23:22 -0400, kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense. You end up with a cesspit like Somalia
Your stance leads to North Korea.
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, and the Netherlands.
Yes, I know that you're crying. NMFP. Don't strawman.
???

Non sequitur.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Courts, police, etc DO NOT mean government.
Well, then, what would *you* call them?
Are you seriously so stupid as to believe that only a
government can provide those things?
Are you nuts enough to think a private organization can? Private
"courts" will just side with whoever has more money to buy a favorable
verdict from them. Private "police" are just hired thugs. They can only
get legitimacy through being "above the fray" of market forces, immune
to bribery, and answerable to the populace as a whole. If they're part
of a democratic government this can happen. Otherwise it won't.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
You also have to prevent "violence of omission", in which someone is
simply excluded from everything and eventually starves. Because of
markets' propensity to reward more those who already have wealth,
There's no such propensity, ko0k.
Of course there is.
Of course there isn't.
I posted links to detailed explanations of why having assets increases
one's ability to make more money. Such as, one can borrow against those
assets to invest, or use them to buy influence or as a war chest for
strategic marketeering (e.g., running at a loss for a while to run less
deep-pocketed competitors out of business).

Money attracts more money. It "clumps". An egalitarian wealth
distribution in an unfettered free market is as unstable as a pencil
balanced on its point. The money will end up clumping to where a small
number of people own nearly everything and most of the people are
destitute. Unfettered free markets are a guaranteed route to mass poverty.
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
this
necessitates some amount of wealth redistribution to "keep everyone in
the game"
IOW: steal from some and give to others. IOW: violate the
rights of others. What a ko0k you are.
Ownership of property is not, and cannot be, an absolute right
[giant textwall deleted]
See above. Making property ownership an absolute right means some people
will end up forced to starve, against their will, thus violating *their*
rights.
Post by Don Kresch
. In
particular it cannot supersede the right of another person to live
There's no such right.
:O

There bloody well is! If you really believe there isn't, that some
people should just die and get out of the way for (I assume) people like
you, then we're done here. There's no bridging that gulf, not if you
have a howling void in place of a conscience.

Also, the founding documents of our great republic explicitly state that
there *is* a right to life. Also liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Post by Don Kresch
. If
the amount of redistribution needed to keep people from starving is
non-zero (and it clearly is), then that amount of redistribution is
necessarily justified.
By your reasoning, a little rape and murder is also justified.
Nonsense. The latter are violent violations of another person's body.
Redistributing food from someone who has more than they could eat anyway
to someone who would otherwise starve is an utterly different thing.

The only situation in which *killing* is justified is to stop them
killing someone else, e.g. in cases of self defense. Again, to protect
another person's rights from being violated. No situation justifies
rape, since no situation requires it to safeguard someone else's rights.
Post by Don Kresch
Since dollars have diminishing marginal utility the more of them one
has, it is more justified to take them from the wealthiest people.
Ah, so they don't count because they have more. I see. They
aren't human. I see.
Nowhere did I say those things, kOok. Learn to read for comprehension.

What I *did* say is removing one dollar from Bill Gates negatively
affects him less than removing one dollar from Joe Middle-Management,
and removing one dollar from *him* affects him less than removing one
from Joe Sixpack. So if someone has to give up dollars to ensure those
otherwise discarded by the market can buy back in, it should be Bill
Gates chipping in the most, and Joe Middle-Management more than Joe Sixpack.

Also known as progressive taxation, in which higher earners are in tax
brackets that pay a higher percentage.

Of course, it should really bracket people based on total *wealth*
rather than on *income* ...
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Haven't you heard of "natural monopolies"?
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
Mises.org ... LOL
Thanks for conceding all points to me.
I did nothing of the kind. On the other hand, *you* dishonestly snipped
my link proving you wrong. Here it is again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-11 12:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:28:04 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
[some dishonest manipulation of quoted text by Kresch has been corrected
below]
Post by Don Kresch
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 10:23:22 -0400, kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense. You end up with a cesspit like Somalia
Your stance leads to North Korea.
(crying)
Yes, I know that you're crying. NMFP. Don't strawman.
(crying)
Let me know when you're done crying.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Courts, police, etc DO NOT mean government.
Well, then, what would *you* call them?
Are you seriously so stupid as to believe that only a
government can provide those things?
Are
Are you seriously so stupid as to believe that only a
government can provide those things?
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
You also have to prevent "violence of omission", in which someone is
simply excluded from everything and eventually starves. Because of
markets' propensity to reward more those who already have wealth,
There's no such propensity, ko0k.
Of course there is.
Of course there isn't.
(crying)
Once again: let me know when you're done crying.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
this
necessitates some amount of wealth redistribution to "keep everyone in
the game"
IOW: steal from some and give to others. IOW: violate the
rights of others. What a ko0k you are.
Ownership of property is not, and cannot be, an absolute right
Yes, it is. I own my body; no one else does. It is an
absolute.
Post by Don Kresch
" On the one hand, the consequences that follow if one were to
deny the validity of the institution of original appropriation and
private property are spelled out: If person A were not the owner of
his own body and the places and goods originally appropriated and/or
produced with this body as well as of the goods voluntarily
(contractually) acquired from another previous owner, then only two
alternatives would exist. Either another person, B, must be recognized
as the owner of A’s body as well as the places and goods appropriated,
produced or acquired by A, or both persons, A and B, must be
considered equal co-owners of all bodies, places and goods.
In the first case, A would be reduced to the rank of B’s slave and
object of exploitation. B would be the owner of A’s body and all
places and goods appropriated, produced and acquired by A, but A in
turn would not be the owner of B’s body and the places and goods
appropriated, produced and acquired by B. Hence, under this ruling two
categorically distinct classes of persons would be constituted—
Untermenschen such as A and Uebermenschen such as B—to whom different
"laws" apply. Accordingly, such ruling must be discarded as a human
ethic equally applicable to everyone qua human being (rational
animal). From the very outset, any such ruling is recognized as not
universally acceptable and thus cannot claim to represent law. For a
rule to aspire to the rank of a law—a just rule—it is necessary that
such a rule apply equally and universally to everyone.
Alternatively, in the second case of universal and equal co-ownership,
the requirement of equal law for everyone would be fulfilled. However,
this alternative would suffer from an even more severe deficiency,
because if it were applied, all of mankind would instantly perish.
(Since every human ethic must permit the survival of mankind, this
alternative must also be rejected.) Every action of a person requires
the use of some scarce means (at least of the person’s body and its
standing room), but if all goods were co-owned by everyone, then no
one, at no time and no place, would be allowed to do anything unless
he had previously secured every other co-owner’s consent to do so. Yet
how could anyone grant such consent were he not the exclusive owner of
his own body (including his vocal chords) by which means his consent
must be expressed? Indeed, he would first need another’s consent in
order to be allowed to express his own, but these others could not
give their consent without having first his, and so it would go on.
This insight into the praxeological impossibility of "universal
communism," as Rothbard referred to this proposal, brings me
immediately to an alternative way of demonstrating the idea of
original appropriation and private property as the only correct
solution to the problem of social order.3 Whether or not persons have
any rights and, if so, which ones, can only be decided in the course
of argumentation (propositional exchange). Justification—proof,
conjecture, refutation—is argumentative justification. Anyone who
denied this proposition would become involved in a performative
contradiction because his denial would itself constitute an argument.
Even an ethical relativist would have to accept this first
proposition, which is referred to accordingly as the apriori of
argumentation.
Post by Don Kresch
From the undeniable acceptance—the axiomatic status—of this apriori of
argumentation, two equally necessary conclusions follow. First, it
follows from the apriori of argumentation when there is no rational
solution to the problem of conflict arising from the existence of
scarcity. Suppose in my earlier scenario of Crusoe and Friday that
Friday were not the name of a man but of a gorilla. Obviously, just as
Crusoe could face conflict regarding his body and its standing room
with Friday the man, so might he with Friday the gorilla. The gorilla
might want to occupy the same space that Crusoe already occupied. In
this case, at least if the gorilla were the sort of entity that we
know gorillas to be, there would be no rational solution to their
conflict. Either the gorilla would push aside, crush, or devour
Crusoe—that would be the gorilla’s solution to the problem—or Crusoe
would tame, chase, beat, or kill the gorilla—that would be Crusoe’s
solution. In this situation, one might indeed speak of moral
relativism. However, it would be more appropriate to refer to this
situation as one in which the question of justice and rationality
simply would not arise; that is, it would be considered an extra-moral
situation. The existence of Friday the gorilla would pose a technical,
not a moral, problem for Crusoe. He would have no other choice than to
learn how to successfully manage and control the movements of the
gorilla just as he would have to learn to manage and control other
inanimate objects of his environment.
By implication, only if both parties in a conflict are capable of
engaging in argumentation with one another, can one speak of a moral
problem and is the question of whether or not there exists a solution
to it a meaningful question. Only if Friday, regardless of his
physical appearance, is capable of argumentation (even if he has shown
himself to be capable only once), can he be deemed rational and does
the question whether or not a correct solution to the problem of
social order exists make sense. No one can be expected to give any
answer to someone who has never raised a question or, more to the
point, who has never stated his own relativistic viewpoint in the form
of an argument. In that case, this "other" cannot but be regarded and
treated as an animal or plant, i.e., as an extra-moral entity. Only if
this other entity can pause in his activity, whatever it might be,
step back, and say "yes" or "no" to something one has said, do we owe
this entity an answer and, accordingly, can we possibly claim that our
answer is the correct one for both parties involved in a conflict.
Moreover, it follows from the apriori of argumentation that everything
that must be presupposed in the course of an argumentation as the
logical and praxeological precondition of argumentation cannot in turn
be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without becoming
thereby entangled in an internal (performative) contradiction.
Now, propositional exchanges are not made up of free-floating
propositions, but rather constitute a specific human activity.
Argumentation between Crusoe and Friday requires that both have, and
mutually recognize each other as having, exclusive control over their
respective bodies (their brain, vocal chords, etc.) as well as the
standing room occupied by their bodies. No one could propose anything
and expect the other party to convince himself of the validity of this
proposition or deny it and propose something else unless his and his
opponent’s right to exclusive control over their respective bodies and
standing rooms were presupposed. In fact, it is precisely this mutual
recognition of the proponent’s as well as the opponent’s property in
his own body and standing room which constitutes the characteristicum
specificum of all propositional disputes: that while one may not agree
regarding the validity of a specific proposition, one can agree
nonetheless on the fact that one disagrees. Moreover, this right to
property in one’s own body and its standing room must be considered
apriori (or indisputably) justified by proponent and opponent alike.
Anyone who claimed any proposition as valid vis-à-vis an opponent
would already presuppose his and his opponent’s exclusive control over
their respective body and standing room simply in order to say "I
claim such and such to be true, and I challenge you to prove me
wrong."
Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to engage in argumentation
and rely on the propositional force of one’s arguments if one were not
allowed to own (exclusively control) other scarce means (besides one’s
body and its standing room). If one did not have such a right, then we
would all immediately perish and the problem of justifying rules—as
well as any other human problem—would simply not exist. Hence, by
virtue of the fact of being alive property rights to other things must
be presupposed as valid, too. No one who is alive can possibly argue
otherwise.
If a person were not permitted to acquire property in these goods and
spaces by means of an act of original appropriation, i.e., by
establishing an objective (intersubjectively ascertainable) link
between himself and a particular good and/or space prior to anyone
else, and if instead property in such goods or spaces were granted to
late-comers, then no one would ever be permitted to begin using any
good unless he had previously secured such a late-comer’s consent. Yet
how can a late-comer consent to the actions of an early-comer?
Moreover, every late-comer would in turn need the consent of other and
later later-comers, and so on. That is, neither we, our forefathers,
nor our progeny would have been or would be able to survive if one
followed this rule. However, in order for any person—past, present or
future—to argue anything, survival must be possible; and in order to
do just this property rights cannot be conceived of as being timeless
and unspecific with respect to the number of persons concerned.
Rather, property rights must necessarily be conceived of as
originating by means of action at definite points in time and space by
definite individuals. Otherwise, it would be impossible for anyone to
ever say anything at a definite point in time and space and for
someone else to be able to reply. Simply saying, then, that the
first-user-first-owner rule of the ethics of private property can be
ignored or is unjustified implies a performative contradiction, as
one’s being able to say so must presuppose one’s existence as an
independent decision-making unit at a given point in time and space."
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Economics and Ethics of Private
Property
See above. Making property ownership an absolute right means some people
will end up forced to starve,
No, they won't.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
. In
particular it cannot supersede the right of another person to live
There's no such right.
:O
There bloody well is!
No, there bloody well isn't.
Post by kensi
If you really believe there isn't, that some
people should just die and get out of the way
See, this is what's known as a "strawman". You have no idea
how to formulate an argument correctly.
Post by kensi
Also, the founding documents of our great republic explicitly state that
there *is* a right to life. Also liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
1. I'm an anarchist. 2. Stating that there is such a right
does not make it so.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
. If
the amount of redistribution needed to keep people from starving is
non-zero (and it clearly is), then that amount of redistribution is
necessarily justified.
By your reasoning, a little rape and murder is also justified.
Nonsense.
Nope, I'm correct. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Post by kensi
The latter are violent violations of another person's body.
That person's body = that person's PROPERTY.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Since dollars have diminishing marginal utility the more of them one
has, it is more justified to take them from the wealthiest people.
Ah, so they don't count because they have more. I see. They
aren't human. I see.
Nowhere did I say those things
` That's the subtext of it, ko0k. Learn to read for
comprehension.
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Haven't you heard of "natural monopolies"?
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
Mises.org ... LOL
Thanks for conceding all points to me.
I
conceded all points to me.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-11 16:36:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip everything]

Well, you've completely conceded the argument by avoiding any semblance
of reason this time and just snipping (or quote-editing) everything and
merely repeating your already-refuted points.

It's like trying to debate something with a small child.

I declare victory. End of thread.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-11 22:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip everything]

Well, you've completely conceded the argument by avoiding any
semblance of reason this time and just snipping (or quote-editing)
everything and merely repeating your already-refuted points.

It's like trying to debate something with a small child.

I declare victory. End of thread.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Olrik
2018-06-12 04:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
[snip everything]
Well, you've completely conceded the argument by avoiding any semblance
of reason this time and just snipping (or quote-editing) everything and
merely repeating your already-refuted points.
It's like trying to debate something with a small child.
I declare victory. End of thread.
You've reached what everyone reaches when trying to deal with "Kresch".
He used to be reasonable, but a few years back something bad happened to
his family, and he did not recover from it.

He not only became anti-government, he became a complete asshole as well.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
%
2018-06-12 04:26:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by kensi
[snip everything]
Well, you've completely conceded the argument by avoiding any
semblance of reason this time and just snipping (or quote-editing)
everything and merely repeating your already-refuted points.
It's like trying to debate something with a small child.
I declare victory. End of thread.
You've reached what everyone reaches when trying to deal with "Kresch".
He used to be reasonable, but a few years back something bad happened to
his family, and he did not recover from it.
He not only became anti-government, he became a complete asshole as well.
so would i be safe to say you don't like him now
Nadegda
2018-06-12 06:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt!
Post by Olrik
Post by kensi
[snip everything]
Well, you've completely conceded the argument by avoiding any semblance
of reason this time and just snipping (or quote-editing) everything and
merely repeating your already-refuted points.
It's like trying to debate something with a small child.
I declare victory. End of thread.
You've reached what everyone reaches when trying to deal with "Kresch".
He used to be reasonable, but a few years back something bad happened to
his family, and he did not recover from it.
He not only became anti-government, he became a complete asshole as well.
In my experience, those two things tend to be inseparably entwined.
--
FNVWe Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
Scout
2018-06-13 01:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the above
initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any rights in
any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense and
the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
Mitchell Holman
2018-06-13 02:52:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
How did people defend themselves before
guns were invented? Or did self defense
not exist back then?
Alex W.
2018-06-13 07:20:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
Wrong. Having a firearm puts you at the mercy of anyone with bigger or
more guns.

The best defence of person and property is the support of a community.
This can mean that your neighbours will come running to your defence
when they hear the shooting. But it can also mean an impartial law
enforcement that will defend you and your neighbours.

And of course the very best defence is to ensure that you and your
property are more unattractive targets than someone else. In the
context of home defence, this means visible and hard passive prevention
that makes it simply too much effort and risk for a burglar to try and
break and enter your home, instead sending him to the guy down the
street who may have a gun but no alarm system or decent locks for when
he and his gun are out...
Don Kresch
2018-06-13 12:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
Wrong. Having a firearm puts you at the mercy of anyone with bigger or
more guns.
By that, then, government law enforcement having firearms puts
them at the mercy of anyone with bigger or more guns.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Scout
2018-06-14 04:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 06:44:44 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:12:42 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
As soon as you have people clumped together in one place, someone could
initiate force.
And that's immoral.
And that won't stop some people.
No, it won't. But what you don't then do is violate people's
rights in response to that.
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
Wrong. Having a firearm puts you at the mercy of anyone with bigger or
more guns.
So tell me, how is your being UNARMED not going result in exactly the same
thing....only more so?
kensi
2018-06-13 09:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
That's not what I said, k0ok. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

What I said was, a benevolent and protective state is necessary to
safeguard rights. A gun doesn't do you stupid "rugged individualists"
any good if the bad guy out to violate your rights literally catches you
napping ... and everyone has to sleep sooner or later.

We depend on one another. We have to be able to create societies in
which there are some people and institutions we can trust. Outside of
such a context the whole notion of "having rights" is meaningless.
Outside of a society, a sleeping person is just a piece of meat waiting
for any vulture that happens along at an opportune time.

I know you conservatives hate, *loathe*, resent, and fear having to be
dependent on others. Indeed it outright terrifies you, and that's where
the hate and anger in turn comes from. But ... that's life. It's not
something that can be changed. Learn to live with the need to trust and
rely on others. Learn to be functioning members of an actual society of
human beings.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-13 12:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:43:38 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
That's not what I said, k0ok. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
What I said was, a benevolent and protective state is necessary to
safeguard rights.
And yet, ko0k, that state necessarily violates rights.

Silly ko0k; you can't destroy a village in order to save it.

Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
kensi
2018-06-13 14:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:43:38 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
What I said was, a benevolent and protective state is necessary to
safeguard rights.
And yet, ko0k, that state necessarily violates rights.
The ideal is to minimize the amount of rights-violating that goes on. It
can't be reduced all the way to zero, because if everyone is
unconstrained /ab initio/, someone will start coercing someone else for
one reason or another.

The choices we get outside of some unrealistic lions-lie-down-with-lambs
utopia are:

1. Rampant rights violations by unaccountable random individuals and
gangs of thugs;
2. Rampant rights violations by a malevolent state;
3. Minimal rights violations by a benevolent state, which only uses
coercion to limit coercion by everyone else and to ensure nobody
starves while someone else is living high off the hog who could have
spared enough to save them, but didn't.

I think 3 is far preferable to 1 or 2, and it's only possible if you
have a state. On the other hand, you must then be on guard against
outcome number 2. That's why it's important to be an educated and
active, sometimes even activist, participant in political life. To use
your vote and voice, and if necessary acts of protest, to keep people
from getting to power who will turn the state more malevolent, or to
limit what they do with power, and to get people into power who will
turn the state more benevolent. In particular it is the essential duty
of a citizen to speak out against both conservatives who would turn the
state malevolent versus women, certain ethnic groups, the poor, and/or
other groups, and so-called "libertarians" who would whittle away at the
state, until it began to kill the poor in large numbers through malign
neglect or even collapsed and produced outcome 1.

Oh, and outcome 1 is unstable and quickly turns into outcome 2 anyway,
because the various gangs of thugs end up divvying up the world into
territories, rule these fiefdoms as malevolent states, and soon the
world looks less like Galt's Gulch than it does like medieval Europe.

(That outcome 3 requires the state to be some species of democracy is
close to obvious; power must be distributed in a way that gives all
stakeholders a say in what the state does and doesn't do. And the
stakeholders comprise every permanent resident within its borders.)
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
Don Kresch
2018-06-13 22:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:22:31 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
Post by Don Kresch
On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 05:43:38 -0400, kensi
Post by kensi
What I said was, a benevolent and protective state is necessary to
safeguard rights.
And yet, ko0k, that state necessarily violates rights.
The ideal is to minimize the amount of rights-violating that goes on.
And you can't do that when you have an institution which, by
its very nature, violates the rights of others. You can't destroy the
village in order to save it. It doesn't fucking work that way, ko0k.
Post by kensi
The choices we get outside of some unrealistic lions-lie-down-with-lambs
1. Rampant rights violations by unaccountable random individuals and
gangs of thugs;
aka government, for, as Murray Rothbard noted, governments are
just "a gang of thieves writ large".

And there's no accountability for them.
Post by kensi
2. Rampant rights violations by a malevolent state;
aka government
Post by kensi
3. Minimal rights violations by a benevolent state
That's an unrealistic, lions-lie-down-with-lambs utopia.
There's simply no such thing as a benevolent state. ALL states, by
their nature, are evil. As Hoppe writes:

"Briefly, Hobbes argued that in the state of nature, men would
constantly be at each others’ throats. Homo homini lupus est. Each
individual, left to his own devices and provisions, would spend too
little on his own defense. Hence, permanent interpersonal warfare
would result. The solution to this presumably intolerable situation,
according to Hobbes and his followers, is the institution of a State
(government). In order to institute peaceful
cooperation—security—among themselves, two individuals, A and B,
require a third independent party, S, as ultimate judge and
peacemaker. However, this third party, S, is not just another
individual, and the good provided by S, that of security, is not just
another "private" good. Rather, S is a sovereign and has as such two
unique powers. On the one hand, S can insist that his subjects, A and
B, not seek protection from anyone but him; that is, S is a compulsory
territorial monopolist of protection and ultimate decision making
(jurisdiction). On the other hand, S can determine unilaterally
(without unanimous consent) how much A and B must spend on their own
security; that is, S has the power to impose taxes in order to provide
security "collectively."

Based on this definition of government as a compulsory territorial
monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to
tax without unanimous consent, the contributors to this volume argue
that, regardless of whether such a government is a monarchy, a
democracy, or a dictatorship, any notion of limiting its power and
safeguarding individual life, liberty, and property must be deemed
illusory. Under monopolistic auspices the price of justice and
protection must rise and its quality must fall. A tax-funded
protection agency, it is pointed out, is a contradiction in terms: it
is an expropriating property protector and can only lead to ever more
taxes and less protection. In fact, even if a state limited its
activities exclusively to the protection of life, liberty, and
property (as a protective state à la Jefferson would do), the further
question of how much security to provide would arise. Motivated like
everyone else by self-interest and the disutility of labor, but with
the unique power to tax without consent, a government’s answer will
always be the same: to maximize expenditures on protection—and almost
all of a nation’s wealth can be consumed by the cost of protection—and
at the same time to minimize the production of protection."
Post by kensi
, which only uses
coercion to limit coercion by everyone else
WRONG. It initiates force against others to prevent
competition with itself. It then takes from others without their
consent in order to "fund" this operation. As Lysander Spooner wrote:


"The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man:
“Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid
under the compulsion of that threat.

The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely
place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his
head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a
robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility,
danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any
rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your
own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has
not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,”
and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him
to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to
protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of
protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as
these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you
wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road,
against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on
account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep
“protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by
requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing
you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure
to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to
your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his
authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be
guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In
short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you
either his dupe or his slave. "
Post by kensi
and to ensure nobody
starves while someone else is living high off the hog who could have
spared enough to save them, but didn't.
Ah, so you're just jealous of anyone who has a penny more than
you do. Yours is the mindset of destruction.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
Scout
2018-06-14 04:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by Scout
Post by kensi
Rights don't exist without some means to enforce them, ko0ky. If the
above initiator of force is left to do as they please, nobody has any
rights in any meaningful sense.
Thanks for admitting that people need to have a means for self defense
and the best weapon for that is currently the firearm.
That's not what I said, k0ok. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
So it is about letting the initiator of force free to do as they please to
you?

I mean what good are your rights when the initiator of force is busy sending
you into the after life?

Don Kresch
2018-06-07 12:18:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 05:44:51 -0400, kensi
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists"
No, the claim was that all socialists have consciences. You
fail at logic forever.
No,
Yes. Learn to read, fucktard.
Post by Don Kresch
Just like your attempt at a No True Scotsman with Stalin.
I
used the No True Scotsman fallacy, yes you did.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
The Horny Goat
2018-06-07 22:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
Post by kensi
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists"
No, the claim was that all socialists have consciences. You
fail at logic forever.
I would think a blanket statement that all socialists are ____ / have
_____ / think _____ is almost certainly untrue. Ditty for 'all
conservatives are _____" etc.
duke
2018-06-06 16:49:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists",
Wrong.
Post by kensi
not "all socialists have consciences". Hint: the people
with consciences could be a *strict* subset of the socialists.
the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-07 09:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists",
Wrong.
I'm a far better authority of what *my* claim meant than you are, k0ok.
See my other post to this thread this morning.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-07 12:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists",
Wrong.
I'm a far better authority of what *my* claim meant than you are, k0ok.
You eat, you pay.
Post by kensi
See my other post to this thread this morning.
No.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
duke
2018-06-07 12:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Then why are you leftards really communist and socialists?
Because we have consciences.
Stalin didn't have that.
You fail logic forever. The claim was "all people with consciences are
socialists",
Wrong.
I'm a far better authority of what *my* claim meant than you are, k0ok.
Then why didn't you explain it.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
kensi
2018-06-07 12:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by kensi
I'm a far better authority of what *my* claim meant than you are, k0ok.
Then why didn't you explain it.
I just did, elsewhere in this thread, loOn.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here." ~Checkmate
duke
2018-06-08 18:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kensi
Post by duke
Post by kensi
I'm a far better authority of what *my* claim meant than you are, k0ok.
Then why didn't you explain it.
I just did, elsewhere in this thread, loOn.
John W.H. Denton AO, Secretary General, International Chamber of Commerce, said:
“The global business community’s position on trade is unambiguous. Far from
being a zero-sum game where some countries take advantage of others, rules-based
trade has lifted incomes and created jobs around the world. Today we risk
returning to a pre-WTO system where might equals right – jeopardizing the future
economic security of billions of people.”

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Mr. B1ack
2018-05-30 01:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
goblin.stu.neva.ru

All we need to know about you.
IAM
2018-05-30 01:51:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Fuck Republicans. Goteantrump + 1
Republicans are Democrats faggie stlyin and since you cannot figure that out, yo must be a fucking DUNCE.


#bawahwahaahaahahaha

DINO = RINO same shyte, same channgels, all the same cabbage fuckers.
duke
2018-06-01 19:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Why do Republicans hate America? No, really. It’s not a rhetorical
question. Since consolidating its power in January 2017, the GOP
has systematically set out to dismantle the economic strength of
this nation, coddle predators, shield traitors, attack those who
are working, and strip protections from the most vulnerable. Are
these the actions of a party that loves the nation it has sworn to
serve?
Good grief. We Republicans are the ones that love God and America. We fly the
flag, love the military, work for a living, go to church, respect the
Constitution and Bill of Rights, etc.

It's you wacko flakes that think more illegal aliens, living on the dole, love
the military, and hate the US government and the flag.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
IAM
2018-06-10 01:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by AlleyCat
Why Do Republicans Hate America?
Why do Republicans hate America? No, really. It’s not a rhetorical
question. Since consolidating its power in January 2017, the GOP
has systematically set out to dismantle the economic strength of
this nation, coddle predators, shield traitors, attack those who
are working, and strip protections from the most vulnerable. Are
these the actions of a party that loves the nation it has sworn to
serve?
Good grief. We Republicans are the ones that love God and America.
liar
just an GOP atheist faker Christian cheezy pizza consumer.
Post by duke
*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****
Loading...