Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:05 pm So, yes, you can get paid to work for a dictator and you don't necesssarily get shot.

No thanks anyway.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:04 pm Sure, there's a difference between being employed for an employer you like working for and working in a forced labor camp. However, a leftist would probably say that it's not either or. Hopefully, one could work in a coop atmosphere and choose neither of the above.

"Co-op"? No thanks. If I work, I want to be paid. And I want to be paid for as hard as I work. So does anybody honest, I think.

There' s no saying that everyone in a coop gets paid the same. Some coops may pay additional for additional work above and beyond what others do. But it would be in mutual agreement and with everyone's rational input.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:09 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:05 pm So, yes, you can get paid to work for a dictator and you don't necesssarily get shot.

No thanks anyway.

OK. So you like working for the nice dictator at your place of work. Nothing wrong with that I suppose.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:07 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:36 pm How old are these people? And how spoiled and lazy are they?

Like most people, they would probably rather work under their own guidance.

You mean, "Not work at all, and get paid anyway." That's what they want.

I don't know of too many people who don't want to work for themselves and avoid the yoke of a boss.

I do. Being the boss is tough. You assume all risks and responsibilities of your own business. It takes courage and guts to do that. Most people are just too lazy or too unimaginative to be a good entrepreneur...or too terrified of the risks.

It's something I've never wanted to do. I admire those who have the courage and the vision to do it.

I mean, there are nice bosses too but that's really little different from a benevolent dictator except in degree.

Heh. Balderdash, Gary. There's all the difference in the world. It's the difference between a free choice you made, and an equitable contract you signed, versus force and compulsion. That's a big difference.

It's funny how lefties think about it. They claim they want equality, but they want big government. They claim they don't want to be told what to do, so they set up Socialism and end up with a dictator. You'd think that they'd realize it's their own refusal to take responsibility for themselves that makes a "systemic" solution seem attractive. And they end up enslaved every time.

Why don't we ever learn? As you say, there's never been a "true democratic Communist state." By which I'm pretty sure you also mean, "There's never been a good Communist state." Right on. Never will be, either.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:16 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:07 pm
Like most people, they would probably rather work under their own guidance.

You mean, "Not work at all, and get paid anyway." That's what they want.

You can't get paid without working in a coop. Money has to come in to pay people. And it's pretty difficult to get money in without working.

I don't know of too many people who don't want to work for themselves and avoid the yoke of a boss.

I do. Being the boss is tough. You assume all risks and responsibilities of your own business. It takes courage and guts to do that. Most people are just too lazy or too unimaginative to be a good entrepreneur...or too terrified of the risks.

It's something I've never wanted to do. I admire those who have the courage and the vision to do it.

It may be very diffcult work to be a boss, but what does that have to do with wanting to work free of a boss' supervision? A lot of people do.

I mean, there are nice bosses too but that's really little different from a benevolent dictator except in degree.

Heh. Balderdash, Gary. There's all the difference in the world. It's the difference between a free choice you made, and an equitable contract you signed, versus force and compulsion. That's a big difference.

You can make a free choice to work for a dictator too. It's only different in degree. A boss is an authority and heirachical. Some on the left feel like they can make things work without bosses.

It's funny how lefties think about it. They claim they want equality, but they want big government. They claim they don't want to be told what to do, so they set up Socialism and end up with a dictator. You'd think that they'd realize it's their own refusal to take responsibility for themselves that makes a "systemic" solution seem attractive. And they end up enslaved every time.

That's like saying that Republicans these days just want war because they voted for George Bush senior and junior. You're assuming that the mainstream reflects the views of all members of a political group, tendency or whatever.

Why don't we ever learn? As you say, there's never been a "true democratic Communist state." By which I'm pretty sure you also mean, "There's never been a good Communist state." Right on. Never will be, either.

Once upon a time there were no functioning democracies, until the Athenians and a few others proved it could more or less work under the circumstances they were in. Perhaps times will change or circumstances will change and we'll wonder why we didn't try working cooperatively sooner. I've never worked in a coop either. Maybe I'll give it a try one of these days just to see what it's like.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:37 pm Money has to come in to pay people.

Tell that to all the people who despise capitalism.

I don't know of too many people who don't want to work for themselves and avoid the yoke of a boss.

I do. Being the boss is tough. You assume all risks and responsibilities of your own business. It takes courage and guts to do that. Most people are just too lazy or too unimaginative to be a good entrepreneur...or too terrified of the risks.

It's something I've never wanted to do. I admire those who have the courage and the vision to do it.

It may be very diffcult work to be a boss, but what does that have to do with wanting to work free of a boss' supervision? A lot of people do.

What they don't think about is what having no boss actually means. It means you're the boss. The buck stops with you. If you don't work, then your work fails and you die. If you don't create, produce, invent or do something else of value, you're cooked.

Don't you get it, Gary? There's no such thing as "I get to sit home with my feet up, and the government pays me out of all the magic money it somehow has." That's a Leftist delusion. As you say, "Money has to come in to pay people."

I mean, there are nice bosses too but that's really little different from a benevolent dictator except in degree.

Heh. Balderdash, Gary. There's all the difference in the world. It's the difference between a free choice you made, and an equitable contract you signed, versus force and compulsion. That's a big difference.

You can make a free choice to work for a dictator too.

If it's a free choice, then in relation to you, he's no dictator. By definition, he's not "dictated" anything to you.

A boss is an authority and heirachical.

So is life. But hierarchies are not tyrannical. (A few artificial ones are, of course, but most, and all the natural ones, are not.) Hierarchies are gradations of competence.

Some on the left feel like they can make things work without bosses.

Some people believe in unicorns.

But this isn't true. What Leftists think is that the Paternalistic State, big government, will be the only boss. That's why it's so convenient for a dictator to take over.

It's funny how lefties think about it. They claim they want equality, but they want big government. They claim they don't want to be told what to do, so they set up Socialism and end up with a dictator. You'd think that they'd realize it's their own refusal to take responsibility for themselves that makes a "systemic" solution seem attractive. And they end up enslaved every time.

You're assuming that the mainstream reflects the views of all members of a political group, tendency or whatever.

No, Gary. I'm just observing what they say and do.

There may be exceptions, but they're very few compared to the rule.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:22 am Don't you get it, Gary? There's no such thing as "I get to sit home with my feet up, and the government pays me out of all the magic money it somehow has." That's a Leftist delusion. As you say, "Money has to come in to pay people."

Absolutely nothing to do with working for a coop. It's irrelevant for the reason I gave above regarding geting paid. You understand that, yes?

You can make a free choice to work for a dictator too.

If it's a free choice, then in relation to you, he's no dictator. By definition, he's not "dictated" anything to you.

Hitler, Mao or Stalin may not have been dictators to the people who cooperated willingly and eagerly with them. Would you likewise say that they weren't dictators to those people in that case? A boss gives orders. You either do or you leave his company. That's being dictated to. Is it not?

A boss is an authority and heirachical.

So is life. But hierarchies are not tyrannical. (A few artificial ones are, of course, but most, and all the natural ones, are not.) Hierarchies are gradations of competence.

True, they may not always be "tyranical" but heirarchies are typically authoritarian in nature. Again, go back to the example of a benevolent dictator. He's still a dictator according to the definition but he just happens to be a non-tyrannical one. A simple point. Having a boss is hierarchy. It's authoritarian.

Some people believe in unicorns.

But this isn't true. What Leftists think is that the Paternalistic State, big government, will be the only boss. That's why it's so convenient for a dictator to take over.

Have you ever read any of the writings of anarchists such as Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Mikhail Bakunin, et. at? I have. They are generally considered part of the "left" as well and have amlost nothing positive to say about the state.

No, Gary. I'm just observing what they say and do.

OK. Then do Republicans of the past three decades like war mongers? Many voted both for Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. and both gave us wars we had very little if any business getting invovled in. Apparnetly voting for war mongers is what they've said and done. Fair enough?

some thoughts on categories & employment...

a state capitalism (what 'murica has right now) encourages accumulation of wealth in increasingly fewer hands...it's a means by which wealthy folks can buy a measure of favor and insulation from the gov in the form of legislation...it's a less than stellar choice of an economy for free men

though imperfect, it's an open system: anyone can climb the ladder...anyone, at anytime...if bein' rich is your goal, there's no damn reason you can't be...it will not be easy...you'll forsake many comforts and pleasures...it is what it is


a state communism (what so many want 'murica to embrace, and which includes all the subsets [social democracy, socialism, etc.]) promises a chicken in every pot (one scrawny bird, one rusty pot), and a roof over every head (a tar paper roof over submissive [or bloody] heads)...you'll have equality (with the lowest among you), safety (eyes & ears, watchin', listenin'; jackboots to stomp wrong-doers [be careful that ain't you), and a central committee to benevolently oversee you (and keep you in line)

it's a closed system...advancement comes only as your value in keepin' the machine runnin' is proven...your wants, your needs, your goals, your dreams: sorry, brother, there is no your, there's only our, so drop the y, reject the I, and embrace the party (the one, the only)


your salvation, should you choose to pursue it, is not to be found in the state capitalism (by far, not the worst thing to saddle yourself with) or the state communism (a pretty damn awful thing by any measure)...no, only free enterprise can save you, and that means self-employin'...no man is meant to work in perpetuity for another...the apprentice becomes a master, the student becomes the teacher, the child becomes a parent

I'm sub-normal yet I successfully self-employ: me and mine have shelter (actual slate shingles), food (all kinds of good eatin'), safety (we're a gun-ownin' family), and various comforts & pleasures...most important: we're free

if I can do it: there's no reason any of you ought to be on the dole or workin' the 9 to 5

best thing of all: free enterprise works everywhere, all the time...even in the midst of a well-established state communism (what do you think gray & black markets are?)

so: stop bellyachin' and get to work

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:22 am Don't you get it, Gary? There's no such thing as "I get to sit home with my feet up, and the government pays me out of all the magic money it somehow has." That's a Leftist delusion. As you say, "Money has to come in to pay people."

Absolutely nothing to do with working for a coop. It's irrelevant for the reason I gave above regarding geting paid. You understand that, yes?

No, because without capitalism, you've got no income, no taxes, and nothing to distribute.

If it's a free choice, then in relation to you, he's no dictator. By definition, he's not "dictated" anything to you.

Hitler, Mao or Stalin may not have been dictators to the people who cooperated willingly and eagerly with them. Would you likewise say that they weren't dictators to those people in that case?

Were they dictators to others? Sure. Do I regard them as dictators? Sure, because I'd never go along with them, I'd hope. But they were no dictators to those to whom they dictated nothing. Guys like Eichmann were willing participants. Nobody had to tell them what to do. They found their own reasons to be evil.

A boss gives orders. You either do or you leave his company. That's being dictated to. Is it not?

No, because you can refuse and leave. Or you can stay and play ball. Either way, it's up to you. And that's not being dictated to.

So is life. But hierarchies are not tyrannical. (A few artificial ones are, of course, but most, and all the natural ones, are not.) Hierarchies are gradations of competence.

True, they may not always be "tyranical" but heirarchies are typically authoritarian in nature.

No, they're not, actually. They just happen because some people are more competent in something than others. And multiple hierarchies exist for one person, so you could be middling or low on one, and at the top of another. Hierarchies are a fact of all life.

Some people believe in unicorns.

But this isn't true. What Leftists think is that the Paternalistic State, big government, will be the only boss. That's why it's so convenient for a dictator to take over.

Have you ever read any of the writings of anarchists such as Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman, Mikhail Bakunin, et. at? I have. They are generally considered part of the "left" as well and have amlost nothing positive to say about the state.

Oh yes...I know those clowns. Chomsky, for example, was a great linguist. But as a political philosopher, a complete loony.

OK. Then do Republicans of the past three decades like war mongers?

Apparently some do and some don't. But if you don't like war, you should like Donald Trump. He's pulled the States out of foreign wars far faster and more effectively than either Obama or Clinton. And that's statistically plain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:05 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:59 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:25 am The Sioux? The Aborigines of Australia? The pygmies of Congo?

What does the word 'aboriginal' mean, to you?

Unresponsive. What matters is which YOU mean.

Since you're scared to answer, I know why.

LOL

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:05 am You don't want to pin your claim down to any particular "aboriginal true communists" because you know that any claim at all is vulnerable to counter-evidence.

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?

Let you ASSUME I wrote ANY group, now provide ANY of them, and their, supposed, "counter-evidence".

Show us that you ACTUALLY have "counter-evidence".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:05 am In other words, you know you're bluffing.

If you say so, then it MUST BE true, again, correct?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:05 am Ironically, that supplies the answer. I guess you did "clarify," even by accident.

LOL ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of ASSUMING, BEFORE CLARIFYING.

And, once again, ANOTHER completely and utterly WRONG ASSUMPTION.

What EXACTLY do you think and propose I am "bluffing" about, actually?

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:05 am You don't want to pin your claim down to any particular "aboriginal true communists" because you know that any claim at all is vulnerable to counter-evidence.

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?

No. It will be true even if I were to fail to believe it.

Or prove me wrong: name your "aboriginals." Let's see if there's anything but a blank behind that curtain.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:28 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 4:05 am You don't want to pin your claim down to any particular "aboriginal true communists" because you know that any claim at all is vulnerable to counter-evidence.

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?

No. It will be true even if I were to fail to believe it.

LOL You are being beyond a joke now.

ONCE AGAIN, you BELIEVE that your own ASSUMPTION here about what is true is ACTUALLY nothing but thee one and only actual Truth of things, correct?

I have ALREADY pinned my claim down to thee True aboriginal communities, which exist when this is being written and ALL of those ones that were around previously. They ALL lived Truly communally.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:41 pm Or prove me wrong: name your "aboriginals." Let's see if there's anything but a blank behind that curtain.

How do you define the word 'aboriginals'?

Is there ONLY One 'aboriginal', to you, or is there many?

There is ONLY One, to me.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:41 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 12:28 pm

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then this MUST BE true, correct?

No. It will be true even if I were to fail to believe it.

LOL You are being beyond a joke now.

I see. Lacking a coherent answer, you turn to mere derision and dismissal. Okay. I guess I expected that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:41 pm Or prove me wrong: name your "aboriginals." Let's see if there's anything but a blank behind that curtain.

How do you define the word 'aboriginals'?

It was your word. It's not up to me to define your word for you. It's up to you to speak unambiguously, if you are able.

I sense I am wasting my time again here, but I will give you one more chance to respond with something intelligible. If you cannot, or will not, I will forgo the further pleasure of your company.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:39 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:39 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:41 pm
No. It will be true even if I were to fail to believe it.

LOL You are being beyond a joke now.

I see. Lacking a coherent answer, you turn to mere derision and dismissal. Okay. I guess I expected that.

What was there to answer?

There, OBVIOUSLY, was NO question posed, to answer.

If you think or believe that; You don't want to pin your claim down to any particular "aboriginal true communists" because you know that any claim at all is vulnerable to counter-evidence. is absolutely true, then so be it.

But you are only ASSUMING this is absolutely true, without ever checking for its validity.

Now, I have ALREADY, so called, "pinned down my claim", so if you want to ask further CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, then go right ahead. But, if you just want to continue with your ABSURD ASSUMPTIONS, then also feel free to go right ahead. Either way I have absolutely NO care at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:39 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:41 pm Or prove me wrong: name your "aboriginals." Let's see if there's anything but a blank behind that curtain.

How do you define the word 'aboriginals'?

It was your word.

I KNOW.

I ALSO KNOW that you used that word in your sentence when telling me to " name your "aboriginals" ".

See, to me, your sentence here makes absolutely NO sense at all. So, in order to better understand your demanding request I just asked you, politely, How do you define the word 'aboriginals'?

That way I will better know how to respond to your demands. Until I better understand what you mean by the word 'aboriginals', then saying " name your "aboriginals" " will make NO sense at all, to me.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is that 'aboriginals' is a word that you used. And, when people use words they some times have a specific definition for that word (but only some times). So, I was just asking you nicely to CLARIFY what you mean when you used the word 'aboriginals' and when you expected and demanded of me to " name my "aboriginals" ".

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:39 pm It's not up to me to define your word for you.

I KNOW.

And, I am NOT asking you to define the 'aboriginals' word for me, NOR to define ANY word, for me. I am just asking you; How do 'you' define the word 'aboriginals'?

If you do NOT want to, or you can NOT, freely CLARIFY, then that is okay and fine with me. But I would suggest just being Truly OPEN and Honest about this, instead of making all these diverting comments.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:39 pm It's up to you to speak unambiguously, if you are able.

But I have ALREADY spoke unambiguously.

I suggest that if ANY thing, in what I speak, appears ambiguous to you, and you have some interest in learning and understanding more, or better, then just ask me some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, FIRST.

It really is not that hard at all to do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:39 pm I sense I am wasting my time again here, but I will give you one more chance to respond with something intelligible.

If what I say is NOT intelligible, to you, then you can either leave, or run away, or just ask some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, instead.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 1:39 pm If you cannot, or will not, I will forgo the further pleasure of your company.

Please feel free to do whatever you so choose to do.

However, 'True communal living' was once how human beings used to live, and some groups of aboriginals probably still do, when this is being written. But, 'True communal living', or just living in 'True Peace and in Harmony with each and EVERY one, as One', will also soon come to be the 'normal' or 'general' way of living again, once more.

Being a, so called, "christian" you should be well aware of this fact already, correct?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:13 am some thoughts on categories & employment...

a state capitalism (what 'murica has right now) encourages accumulation of wealth in increasingly fewer hands...it's a means by which wealthy folks can buy a measure of favor and insulation from the gov in the form of legislation...it's a less than stellar choice of an economy for free men

though imperfect, it's an open system: anyone can climb the ladder...anyone, at anytime...if bein' rich is your goal, there's no damn reason you can't be...it will not be easy...you'll forsake many comforts and pleasures...it is what it is


a state communism (what so many want 'murica to embrace, and which includes all the subsets [social democracy, socialism, etc.]) promises a chicken in every pot (one scrawny bird, one rusty pot), and a roof over every head (a tar paper roof over submissive [or bloody] heads)...you'll have equality (with the lowest among you), safety (eyes & ears, watchin', listenin'; jackboots to stomp wrong-doers [be careful that ain't you), and a central committee to benevolently oversee you (and keep you in line)

it's a closed system...advancement comes only as your value in keepin' the machine runnin' is proven...your wants, your needs, your goals, your dreams: sorry, brother, there is no your, there's only our, so drop the y, reject the I, and embrace the party (the one, the only)


your salvation, should you choose to pursue it, is not to be found in the state capitalism (by far, not the worst thing to saddle yourself with) or the state communism (a pretty damn awful thing by any measure)...no, only free enterprise can save you, and that means self-employin'...no man is meant to work in perpetuity for another...the apprentice becomes a master, the student becomes the teacher, the child becomes a parent

I'm sub-normal yet I successfully self-employ: me and mine have shelter (actual slate shingles), food (all kinds of good eatin'), safety (we're a gun-ownin' family), and various comforts & pleasures...most important: we're free

if I can do it: there's no reason any of you ought to be on the dole or workin' the 9 to 5

best thing of all: free enterprise works everywhere, all the time...even in the midst of a well-established state communism (what do you think gray & black markets are?)

so: stop bellyachin' and get to work

The right tone . I approve of the work ethic. Self employed is great if you can manage to find a gap in the market for your skills, and if you are flexible and can adapt to what the market needs. No snowflakes please.