SOCIALISM IS THE USE OF FORCE TO TAKE AWAY FREEDOM

[bobevenson]

John, you didn't print my entire reply, I guess, because you are unable to challenge it:

You understand neither government nor economics. The only proper function of government is social integration, like a traffic cop keeping people from running over each other, which, of course, doesn't exist in Somalia.

So exactly what do you want me to ask those ignorant pirate bastards about their business??? You certainly have a fucking strange concept of "business," don't you?

[Lynn]

Lynn wrote:
If you have a demand, then sometimes you can be forced into a corner to make the deal, probably making the supplier better off financially but not necessarily you, although you have satisfied your demand. It can apply in many scenarios but on a personal level it generally happens when I have to a strictly defined requirement to purchase specific items even though I know the supply will be limited or there is only one or a few suppliers who can meet my requirement. Have you experienced trying to buy a popular toy for a child at Christmas or even an M&S organic turkey for Christmas dinner, or at Thanksgiving, and being forced into making the deal? Or feeling forced to re-arrange your schedule to fit in with the availability of a supplier providing a service to you so you can actually get the service, be it a gas engineer home visit or a flight to Barcelona?

That's just not true. If you are suggesting that in hard times, deals are not fair, how could that be? If it's unfair, then the person doesn't do the exchange. If the person is suffering hard times, and the person makes a deal, it's only because they are better off doing so. That means capitalism, free trade, is helping to relieve the person from their bad position. If the trade made the person no better off, then they wouldn't do it, it would be a waste of time. If it made them worse off, they would not do it.

No. I'm not talking about hard times or bad positions but what can and does happen in day to day life. There are times when the demand/requirement is not as strong, financially/emotively etc, so you can decide to walk away. However other circumstances can apply which effectively render not fulfilling or compromising the demand/requirement non-negotiable so, like it or not, you are held ransom and forced to compromise other aspects associated e.g. cost with your demand/requirement, to the advantage of the supplier and detriment to you.

Sorry, honey, the free market doesn't force anybody to do anything. You may not like the available choices, but that comes under the category "tough shit."

This is a more honest view wrt available choices but the available choices then force a decision to be made - compromise or walk away.

[ForgedinHell]

Lynn wrote:
If you have a demand, then sometimes you can be forced into a corner to make the deal, probably making the supplier better off financially but not necessarily you, although you have satisfied your demand. It can apply in many scenarios but on a personal level it generally happens when I have to a strictly defined requirement to purchase specific items even though I know the supply will be limited or there is only one or a few suppliers who can meet my requirement. Have you experienced trying to buy a popular toy for a child at Christmas or even an M&S organic turkey for Christmas dinner, or at Thanksgiving, and being forced into making the deal? Or feeling forced to re-arrange your schedule to fit in with the availability of a supplier providing a service to you so you can actually get the service, be it a gas engineer home visit or a flight to Barcelona?

That's just not true. If you are suggesting that in hard times, deals are not fair, how could that be? If it's unfair, then the person doesn't do the exchange. If the person is suffering hard times, and the person makes a deal, it's only because they are better off doing so. That means capitalism, free trade, is helping to relieve the person from their bad position. If the trade made the person no better off, then they wouldn't do it, it would be a waste of time. If it made them worse off, they would not do it.

No. I'm not talking about hard times or bad positions but what can and does happen in day to day life. There are times when the demand/requirement is not as strong, financially/emotively etc, so you can decide to walk away. However other circumstances can apply which effectively render not fulfilling or compromising the demand/requirement non-negotiable so, like it or not, you are held ransom and forced to compromise other aspects associated e.g. cost with your demand/requirement, to the advantage of the supplier and detriment to you.

Sorry, honey, the free market doesn't force anybody to do anything. You may not like the available choices, but that comes under the category "tough shit."

This is a more honest view wrt available choices but the available choices then force a decision to be made - compromise or walk away.

I still disagree. You are talking about hard times, but so what? If I am destitute, but someone offers me a job in a sweat shop, I only take the job if it makes me better off. So, the arrangement is fair, because the employer and I are acting on a mutual agreement. There is no one forcing me to do anything. If you are referring to the biological fact of existence, that we need to have food, so, therefore, we must be forced to get a job to make money so we can buy food, that does not involve one human being using unjustified force against another. The fact we need to do some things to physically survive, that does not in any way make capitalism coercive. Capitalism operates exclusively on voluntary exchanges. Under capitalism, no human being physically forces another to make an exchange. That only occurs under socialism-style regimes.

[Lynn]

I'm not talking about hard times...

You are talking about hard times, but so what?

If my examples given relating to eating a posh organic turkey crown at Christmas and flying out on holiday to Barcelona are your idea of hard times, I want to swap places with you .

Capitalism operates exclusively on voluntary exchanges.

The definition of 'voluntary exchange' may be skewed, based on the reasons for taking the decision to proceed and options available.

[ForgedinHell]

I'm not talking about hard times...

You are talking about hard times, but so what?

If my examples given relating to eating a posh organic turkey crown at Christmas and flying out on holiday to Barcelona are your idea of hard times, I want to swap places with you .

Capitalism operates exclusively on voluntary exchanges.

The definition of 'voluntary exchange' may be skewed, based on the reasons for taking the decision to proceed and options available.

Having to navigate through physical reality, which always involves trade-offs, does not change the voluntary nature of capitalism.

[MGL]

Lynn wrote:

If you have a demand, then sometimes you can be forced into a corner to make the deal, probably making the supplier better off financially but not necessarily you, although you have satisfied your demand. It can apply in many scenarios but on a personal level it generally happens when I have to a strictly defined requirement to purchase specific items even though I know the supply will be limited or there is only one or a few suppliers who can meet my requirement. Have you experienced trying to buy a popular toy for a child at Christmas or even an M&S organic turkey for Christmas dinner, or at Thanksgiving, and being forced into making the deal? Or feeling forced to re-arrange your schedule to fit in with the availability of a supplier providing a service to you so you can actually get the service, be it a gas engineer home visit or a flight to Barcelona?

ForgedinHell:
That's just not true. If you are suggesting that in hard times, deals are not fair, how could that be? If it's unfair, then the person doesn't do the exchange. If the person is suffering hard times, and the person makes a deal, it's only because they are better off doing so. That means capitalism, free trade, is helping to relieve the person from their bad position. If the trade made the person no better off, then they wouldn't do it, it would be a waste of time. If it made them worse off, they would not do it.

Lynn:

No. I'm not talking about hard times or bad positions but what can and does happen in day to day life. There are times when the demand/requirement is not as strong, financially/emotively etc, so you can decide to walk away. However other circumstances can apply which effectively render not fulfilling or compromising the demand/requirement non-negotiable so, like it or not, you are held ransom and forced to compromise other aspects associated e.g. cost with your demand/requirement, to the advantage of the supplier and detriment to you.

bobevenson:

Sorry, honey, the free market doesn't force anybody to do anything. You may not like the available choices, but that comes under the category "tough shit."

Lynn: This is a more honest view wrt available choices but the available choices then force a decision to be made - compromise or walk away.

FIH:

I still disagree. You are talking about hard times, but so what? If I am destitute, but someone offers me a job in a sweat shop, I only take the job if it makes me better off. So, the arrangement is fair, because the employer and I are acting on a mutual agreement. There is no one forcing me to do anything. If you are referring to the biological fact of existence, that we need to have food, so, therefore, we must be forced to get a job to make money so we can buy food, that does not involve one human being using unjustified force against another. The fact we need to do some things to physically survive, that does not in any way make capitalism coercive. Capitalism operates exclusively on voluntary exchanges. Under capitalism, no human being physically forces another to make an exchange. That only occurs under socialism-style regimes.

So why is this a fact of life we have to live with, while the payment of taxes is not? If you voluntarily agree to work, you voluntarily agree to pay your taxes. If you don't like it, then, in the words of bobevenson, "tough shit."

[John]

John, you didn't print my entire reply, I guess, because you are unable to challenge it:

You keep banging on about the same things all the time Bob. If I challenged every statement you made I'd probably do nothing but waste my time responding to you all day, often on the same subjects.

I'm sorry to say that sometimes it just comes down to how boring the prospect of getting involved in a debate looks and as you've been saying the same thing for a while I reckoned the chances where high particularly as you're here to rant not debate.

[bobevenson]

John, you didn't print my entire reply, I guess, because you are unable to challenge it:

You keep banging on about the same things all the time Bob. If I challenged every statement you made I'd probably do nothing but waste my time responding to you all day, often on the same subjects.

I'm sorry to say that sometimes it just comes down to how boring the prospect of getting involved in a debate looks and as you've been saying the same thing for a while I reckoned the chances where high particularly as you're here to rant not debate.

C'mon, John, quit being such an ass (oh, I'm sorry, arse).

[ForgedinHell]

Lynn wrote:

If you have a demand, then sometimes you can be forced into a corner to make the deal, probably making the supplier better off financially but not necessarily you, although you have satisfied your demand. It can apply in many scenarios but on a personal level it generally happens when I have to a strictly defined requirement to purchase specific items even though I know the supply will be limited or there is only one or a few suppliers who can meet my requirement. Have you experienced trying to buy a popular toy for a child at Christmas or even an M&S organic turkey for Christmas dinner, or at Thanksgiving, and being forced into making the deal? Or feeling forced to re-arrange your schedule to fit in with the availability of a supplier providing a service to you so you can actually get the service, be it a gas engineer home visit or a flight to Barcelona?

ForgedinHell:
That's just not true. If you are suggesting that in hard times, deals are not fair, how could that be? If it's unfair, then the person doesn't do the exchange. If the person is suffering hard times, and the person makes a deal, it's only because they are better off doing so. That means capitalism, free trade, is helping to relieve the person from their bad position. If the trade made the person no better off, then they wouldn't do it, it would be a waste of time. If it made them worse off, they would not do it.

Lynn:

No. I'm not talking about hard times or bad positions but what can and does happen in day to day life. There are times when the demand/requirement is not as strong, financially/emotively etc, so you can decide to walk away. However other circumstances can apply which effectively render not fulfilling or compromising the demand/requirement non-negotiable so, like it or not, you are held ransom and forced to compromise other aspects associated e.g. cost with your demand/requirement, to the advantage of the supplier and detriment to you.

bobevenson:

Sorry, honey, the free market doesn't force anybody to do anything. You may not like the available choices, but that comes under the category "tough shit."

Lynn: This is a more honest view wrt available choices but the available choices then force a decision to be made - compromise or walk away.

FIH:

I still disagree. You are talking about hard times, but so what? If I am destitute, but someone offers me a job in a sweat shop, I only take the job if it makes me better off. So, the arrangement is fair, because the employer and I are acting on a mutual agreement. There is no one forcing me to do anything. If you are referring to the biological fact of existence, that we need to have food, so, therefore, we must be forced to get a job to make money so we can buy food, that does not involve one human being using unjustified force against another. The fact we need to do some things to physically survive, that does not in any way make capitalism coercive. Capitalism operates exclusively on voluntary exchanges. Under capitalism, no human being physically forces another to make an exchange. That only occurs under socialism-style regimes.

So why is this a fact of life we have to live with, while the payment of taxes is not? If you voluntarily agree to work, you voluntarily agree to pay your taxes. If you don't like it, then, in the words of bobevenson, "tough shit."

One is mother nature, physical reality, and the other is an arbitrary, criminal act by a socialist. I have paid my taxes, but under threat I'll go to rpison if I don't, never once have I "agreed" voluntarily to pay taxes. I especially have not agreed, for example, to pay for neo-nazi scum to sit home all day and spread hate on the net. Yet, because of socialism, I am forced to do so.

If you think because reality, physical reality, requires us to do certain things to survive, that one person may then use force against another, outside of defending oneself, or another, then your argument could be used to justify rape and murder. That's how silly it is.

[MGL]

One is mother nature, physical reality, and the other is an arbitrary, criminal act by a socialist. I have paid my taxes, but under threat I'll go to rpison if I don't, never once have I "agreed" voluntarily to pay taxes. I especially have not agreed, for example, to pay for neo-nazi scum to sit home all day and spread hate on the net. Yet, because of socialism, I am forced to do so.

You seem to be missing my point. You have to adequately explain why tax is an arbitray criminal act, and the imposition of a low wage by an exploitative powerful employer ( who may also happen to be a neo-nazi scum ) is not. A worker has no more agreed to let the employer pay less than what he considers a fair wage than you have agreed to pay your taxes. If worker gets paid in advance and fails to turn up for work he may ultimately go to prison for breach of contract or fraud. If the state insisted you pay taxes wheter you worked or not you might have a point, but as it does not I fail see the principle on which you think there is a difference.

If you think because reality, physical reality, requires us to do certain things to survive, that one person may then use force against another, outside of defending oneself, or another, then your argument could be used to justify rape and murder. That's how silly it is.

I don't follow. The fact that force is used to defend an unfair distribution of property should not deter us from using the same force to arrange and defend an alternative and fairer distribution of property. Why this could also justify rape and murder is utterly incomprehensible. You are simply presuming the prevailing distribution of property is better than any other alternative except one determined by an unfettered free market and only in the latter is force really justifed. You need to provide a better principle of entitlement to property to justify this use of force, otherwise your argument justifies the refusal of providing one's labour or unfairly acquired property to save someone's life. That's how silly it is.

[Kayla]

I especially have not agreed, for example, to pay for neo-nazi scum to sit home all day and spread hate on the net.

you are outdoing your own previous silliness

please tell me about a government program for neo-nazis to sit at home and spread hate

hint: no such program exists

[ForgedinHell]

I especially have not agreed, for example, to pay for neo-nazi scum to sit home all day and spread hate on the net.

you are outdoing your own previous silliness

please tell me about a government program for neo-nazis to sit at home and spread hate

hint: no such program exists

You are revealing your own ignorance. The following programs allow neo-nazis to sit home and spread hate all day: unemployment insurance, social security disability, social security retirement, just to name a few. You seriously believe that there are not neo-nazis collecting unemployment checks while they write on YT all day that the Holocaust didn't happen? Go check out the user on You Tube named Profd65. He lived off of unemployment for years in Seattle Washington, while using his unemployment money to support his daily routine of denying the Holocaust and claiming that the Jews caused the economic crisis, which was why he couldn't get a job for two years. Never mind his drinking and drug problems. Now, do you seriously believe that some of the people paying taxes into unemployment are not Jews? That's how disgusting this whole notion is of using the government to rob person A to give to person B. It literally means, without exaggeration, that a Holocaust survivor pays taxes, which in turn help to support a lazy neo-nazi who uses the income to sit home all day and post on the net that the Holocaust didn't happen. Since when do taxpayers, who pay money into social welfare programs, get the right to state that their particular tax money does not go to support people who hate them, demonize them, and who want to kill them? You think black people who work don't pay taxes that support KKK clowns? That gays don't pay taxes to support gay-bashers? That's the perversion of the government you so strongly support. You literally rob people of their dignity. Forcing a black woman to support a KKK member is outrageous.

[Kayla]

You are revealing your own ignorance. The following programs allow neo-nazis to sit home and spread hate all day: unemployment insurance, social security disability, social security retirement, just to name a few.

and plenty neo-nazis have normal jobs and they use the income from that to facilitate their spreading of propaganda

is that a meaningful argument against jobs

[ForgedinHell]

You are revealing your own ignorance. The following programs allow neo-nazis to sit home and spread hate all day: unemployment insurance, social security disability, social security retirement, just to name a few.

and plenty neo-nazis have normal jobs and they use the income from that to facilitate their spreading of propaganda

is that a meaningful argument against jobs

No, because in such a case the neo-nazi is financing his own activity. The problem is when you force Holocaust survivors to give their hard-earned money to deniers.

[MGL]

You are revealing your own ignorance. The following programs allow neo-nazis to sit home and spread hate all day: unemployment insurance, social security disability, social security retirement, just to name a few.

and plenty neo-nazis have normal jobs and they use the income from that to facilitate their spreading of propaganda

is that a meaningful argument against jobs

No, because in such a case the neo-nazi is financing his own activity. The problem is when you force Holocaust survivors to give their hard-earned money to deniers.

What is the relevance of this point to your main argument? I understand from your stance on freedom that holocaust survivors are no more deserving of state handouts than neo-nazi scum. So you should be just as angry that your taxes are keeping old holocaust survivors alive as you are that they are subsidising the lifestyle of deniers.