Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Then why are you comparing the AEP to Stalin, et al?

Because the internal party mechanics you described is exactly how they ran the Party.

Again, and I don't know why I have to keep beating you over the head, what do the mechanics of a party have to do with its platform? Please answer this question or shut your pie hole!

bobevenson wrote:Again, and I don't know why I have to keep beating you over the head, what do the mechanics of a party have to do with its platform? Please answer this question or shut your pie hole!

I did answer it. The reason why you are so upset is that your disabilities are causing you to hear something that was only an observation on the irony that you, an apparent randian, have the same internal set-up that the Stalinists and Maoists have.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Again, and I don't know why I have to keep beating you over the head, what do the mechanics of a party have to do with its platform? Please answer this question or shut your pie hole!

I did answer it. The reason why you are so upset is that your disabilities are causing you to hear something that was only an observation on the irony that you, an apparent randian, have the same internal set-up that the Stalinists and Maoists have.

Again, so what, what does that have to do with anything???

bobevenson wrote:Again, so what, what does that have to do with anything???

What has anything got to do with anything? I just like how upset it appears to make you.

If you've got a problem with the AEP, spell it out, but please avoid snide and meaningless comparisons to other political organizations.

There is no AEP to have a problem with?

It's a proposed party.

What are these political proposals? Other than vague.

Arising_uk wrote:What are these political proposals? Other than vague.

Free-market capitalism, a single taxation on property, all citizens being treated equally by the government, no special privileges to anybody, the abolishment of all oppressive laws, no government ownership or operation of anything, etc., etc., etc.

bobevenson wrote:It's a proposed party.

So it's a fantasy of yours, Bob. I doubt anyone one has a problem with you entertaining fantasies of being a successful politician. But fantasies they are, dude, and that seems to a problem you can't face.

bobevenson wrote:Free-market capitalism, a single taxation on property, all citizens being treated equally by the government, no special privileges to anybody, the abolishment of all oppressive laws, no government ownership or operation of anything, etc., etc., etc.

A free market requires laws that many people (including a large proportion of capitalists) will consider to be oppressive. So your first problem is getting everyone to agree on who decides what laws don't get abolished in your fantastic society.

For you, anything that doesn't presently exist is a fantasy, so what? You don't understand ideas anyway, so implementing them is far beyond your scope, my friend.

Not so, and ad-homming me doesn't make you look any less of a fantasist.

You say that your party is committed to establishing free-market capitalism and the abolishment of all oppressive laws. A free market requires laws that many people (including a large proportion of capitalists) will consider to be oppressive. So your first problem is getting everyone to agree on who decides what laws don't get abolished in your fantastic society.

Let me put it in language you can understand, all laws that do not directly protect other people will be summarily abolished.

bobevenson wrote:Let me put it in language you can understand, ...

Just stop abusing the English language. Since when has "oppressive" meant "not protective of other people"? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... oppressive

... all laws that do not directly protect other people will be summarily abolished.

Okay, but if by "other people" you mean third parties (ie, someone other than the law givers and those subject to its constraints), there aren't many laws that we could all agree offer no such protection. Can you give an example of a law for whose abolition it would be worth voting your party into office.

mickthinks wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Let me put it in language you can understand, ...

Just stop abusing the English language. Since when has "oppressive" meant "not protective of other people"? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... oppressive

... all laws that do not directly protect other people will be summarily abolished.

Okay, but if by "other people" you mean third parties (ie, someone other than the law givers and those subject to its constraints), there aren't many laws that we could all agree offer no such protection. Can you give an example of a law for whose abolition it would be worth voting your party into office.

Look, I'm not worried about the vote from a past, present or future little Nazi, OK?