Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:In a thread with only three pages you can't keep track of your own posts and match them up with my responses?

Interesting.
.

Bob's threads are never worth the bother. I know which post you were referring to, I looked. I just don't think I'm going to be that interested in your answer, I mean "baby parts" - what a load of shit you talk.

Gary Childress wrote:BTW: If you think the US is democratic, then why (pray tell) do you want to get rid of the government? Do you just love torture and punishment? Is having a say in your own affairs and what your country does too much responsibility for you?

I guess you don't actually read anything I write. Who said I wanted to get rid of government? Torture and punishment, what the hell are you even talking about? Are you drunk, are you on drugs, are you having a nervous breakdown, I don't know!

Obvious Leo wrote:Good on ya, Bob. Democracy is for pussies.

The AEP is 100% for democracy, it's the only proper political path. In fact, the AEP is more for democracy than any other political party on Earth. Everybody within a political jurisdiction should have a vote, including convicted felons on death row, the criminally insane and babies in utero.

Henry. I don't know what Planned Parenthood is so would prefer not to comment on it. In my country most of the parenthood is brought about by accident when two people really really like each other etc. If you haven't heard the story before I wouldn't like to spoil it for you.

bobevenson wrote:Everybody within a political jurisdiction should have a vote, including convicted felons on death row, the criminally insane and babies in utero.

What about dead people, Bob? Is it really fair to discriminate against people just because they don't make for lively entertainment on reality TV shows?

Hobbes,

"I just don't think I'm going to be that interested in your answer"

Then, I won't waste your time or mine.

#

Leo,

If you're interested: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

If you're not, I don't blame you. My own interest has waned considerably in the past twenty four.









*not necessarily the best source of information; just the one I could be bothered to post...as I say: my interest has waned

bobevenson wrote:cemeteries should be turned over to commercial development.

I think your people should be getting in touch with my people forthwith, Bob. I have some great "in principle" ideas for a zombie theme park and with the injection of some liquid venture capital from your side these ideas could be turned into a spectacular earner, particularly in your country where the zombies are indistinguishable from the general population. Give it some thought.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:cemeteries should be turned over to commercial development.

I think your people should be getting in touch with my people forthwith, Bob. I have some great "in principle" ideas for a zombie theme park and with the injection of some liquid venture capital from your side these ideas could be turned into a spectacular earner, particularly in your country where the zombies are indistinguishable from the general population. Give it some thought.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Australia the world's largest theme park, all those crazy animals, including the ones that aren't human?

bobevenson wrote:all those crazy animals, including the ones that aren't human?

Usually it's practically impossible to tell the difference, Bob, which makes for much confusion from time to time. However those of us with the right training can generally pick out the wombats from the humans. The wombats are the sober ones.

We as a people profit with nonprofit organizations as a whole. It is an error to me to see how incorporation has enabled privileges granted to favor private interests. Government is a form of management intended to serve the people as a whole. But your vision here Bob to destroy the meaning of government only serves to transfer this management to particular self-interests to which you no doubt think our governments should NOT do. You're a hypocrite for presuming that ones' private interests alone serve the whole. It is counter to what actually occurs in nature.

By destroying the social functions of government, you only enhance the social functions of those particular people who have the private fortune to dictate non-democratically. And I see that your incomplete willingness to abandon all government is only because those like yourself would simply prefer to have everyone's tax dollars go to supporting your personal armies against those who dare to threaten your absolute wish to rule without question.

You are sick if you think that people should just hand over the reigns of government to those like yourself and the society as a whole would be sicker for believing you. You ARE the enemy of democracy.

Scott Mayers wrote: You're a hypocrite for presuming that ones' private interests alone serve the whole. It is counter to what actually occurs in nature.

Bob is a something of a literalist when it comes to the laws of nature and thus can't understand that wealth and power are not like water, which must always flow downhill. Wealth and power are not compelled to obey the trickle-down laws of gravity and in fact must always flow uphill. Wealth begets wealth like shit begets flies and it takes an act of collective social will to reverse this perfectly natural phenomenon. Bob will call this socialism, and so indeed it is, but socialism in the 21st century needn't be the parody of 19th century thought which he maliciously makes it out to be. Bob is stuck in a time warp surrounded by Trumps and various like-minded clones of Thatcherism who continue to promote the demonstrably flawed economic ideology that greed is good. Wake up Bob, Gorgon Gekko was only a character in a movie, not a real person.

Scott Mayers wrote: You are sick if you think that people should just hand over the reigns of government to those like yourself and the society as a whole would be sicker for believing you

Even in America people couldn't possibly be THAT stupid, Scott. Or could they?????

I was responding to this:

bobevenson wrote:The reason is that they lack the discipline of a free market, resulting in the waste of money, and little if anything to show for it. Obviously, no nonprofit organization should receive government support of any kind or any special tax benefits or exemptions.

A 'free' market is NOT disciplined simply because it is free to decide freely to do the opposite as well. That is, a company will always exist to opt to take advantage of this freedom to exploit it for their self-interest.

Without a government that serves the interests of the people without a concern for profiting as an entity itself cannot exist if there is no government AND also where there is. In the former, a government that doesn't exist only transfers this 'management' to the private companies or owners who will command with no accountability. In such a world, the only way they can maintain this power is by recreating a form of government they command and utilize to force others to abide by them through extreme force upon the masses. In contrast, a government that serves to favor those who don't profit may 'profit' as a successful government by the people leading to certain problems if taken to the extreme, but is still implicitly favoring the masses and is thus still democratic and accountable for their faults. It is this pressure to be accountable which makes governments that favor things like non-profit organizations to be a real benefit to the people. By rewarding non-profit organs to not be taxed makes sense because they should not have to pay on anything that doesn't benefit them through a non-existing profit.

Scott. Although I agree with the general thrust of your post I'm willing to grant that the OP does reflect a relevant point. If we are to hold individuals, governments and corporations accountable for their behaviour then there is no valid reason why non-profit organisations should be exempt from this scrutiny as long as they enjoy a tax-free status. It is certainly the case that in my country not all non-profit organisations act in the communal interest but rather serve the interests of only a very small and self-selected group, often to the detriment of the broader common interest. The most obvious examples are the plethora of religious institutions, some of which generate enormous revenues from their various corporate interests, none of which is taxed. These are not trivial sums and in total they come to an annual public subsidy of tens of billions of dollars, which is a shitload of dough in a country of only 24 million people.