Philosophy Now Forum

Kayla wrote:there is no point to this conversation

you are attacking socialism but using an obvious straw-man

by your definition a street mugger is a socialist

you are more polite than bobevenson but ultimately just as silly

I'm not the one being silly, you are. The difference between the street mugger and the socialist was explained. The mugger does not pretend to mug someone to accomplish a social good, while the socialist uses such a claim, a utopian vision, to justify his criminal use of force.

It is you who has been arguing for the use of force without stating why its use is justified beyond someone acting in self-defense.

ForgedinHell wrote: What you refer to as luck, is simply reality.

Why is the reality of unfair distributions of luck simply reality and to be accepted and the reality of taxes unfair and to be challenged?

ForgedinHell wrote: At the end of the day, trying to create equal opportunity always involves forecful acts of repression.

Forceful acts of repression are involved in the maintenace of property rights - whatever system of justification you use to determine entitlement. Your system of entitlement depends on a concept of what you can earn with your own body. Now if at least you agree that the fortune of natural good looks is a significant factor in Angelina Jolie's monetary success, in what way is it justified by a conept of "earned" by her body? It is certainly not earned by the LABOUR of her body. You suggest a concept of earned in terms of what you voluntarily agree to receive in return for the labour of your body. This seems to apply OK to the luck of good looks yet when you apply this concept to "socialism" you can have no reason to object to being taxed because you voluntarily opt to work knowing that you will be taxed. The response that you pay taxes becasue you will be imprisoned if you don't is irrelevant becasue you have the option of not working.

ForgedinHell wrote:It is you who has been arguing for the use of force without stating why its use is justified beyond someone acting in self-defense.

i see you are joining satyr in attributing to me things i never said

Kayla wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:It is you who has been arguing for the use of force without stating why its use is justified beyond someone acting in self-defense.

i see you are joining satyr in attributing to me things i never said

Nope, I am remembering accurately what you have stated. You stated people may steal, i.e., use force against another, when they need to steal something.

i never stated that

Kayla wrote:i never stated that

I think you did, with respect to a starving person.

In any event, my challenge was for those who view socialism as not requiring force, to prove it. They have not made the case. There are many different forms of tyranny, and socialism is one of them. Any time a socialist raises his or her ugly ideas, one should point out two things to them immediately: 1. They are asking that people have their lives dictated by a small handful of politicians. and 2. They have absolutely no formula for how they will "fairly" determine wages, or prices, if they do not use the free-market system. And without such a formula, not only is socialism a rule by force, it is an arbitrary one at that.

prove that the outcomes of the free market are fair

Kayla wrote:prove that the outcomes of the free market are fair

The outcomes of a free market are fair by definition since it means economic exchanges that are not based on putting a gun to somebody's head.

might as well proclaim that you are by definition right

side question - i have never met a libertarian who was not an overweight white male

what is with that?

to be fair all the libertarians i have met were either my fathers friends or loser teenage boys who need to get some exercise instead of reading all that ayn rand shit while scoffing doritos

this might not be a representative sample

Kayla wrote:might as well proclaim that you are by definition right

side question - i have never met a libertarian who was not an overweight white male

what is with that?

to be fair all the libertarians i have met were either my fathers friends or loser teenage boys who need to get some exercise instead of reading all that ayn rand shit while scoffing doritos

this might not be a representative sample

I guess it's pointless to beat you over the head with the God almighty truth, but free-market economics is the only economic system that does not figuratively involve putting a gun to somebody's head. And you are correct that since I have never been wrong on anything, I am by definition right on everything.

bobevenson wrote:free-market economics is the only economic system that does not figuratively involve putting a gun to somebody's head.

Not so—ask a Somali!

mickthinks wrote:

bobevenson wrote:free-market economics is the only economic system that does not figuratively involve putting a gun to somebody's head.

Not so—ask a Somali!

Exactly what should I ask a motherfucking Somali pirate?

bobevenson wrote:Exactly what should I ask a motherfucking Somali pirate?

Ask them why a lack of government has been so good for business.

Kayla wrote:prove that the outcomes of the free market are fair

What, the fuck, does "fair" mean?

Define it.

Kayla wrote:might as well proclaim that you are by definition right

side question - i have never met a libertarian who was not an overweight white male

what is with that?

to be fair all the libertarians i have met were either my fathers friends or loser teenage boys who need to get some exercise instead of reading all that ayn rand shit while scoffing doritos

this might not be a representative sample

Penn & Teller are both Libertarians, Penn is fat, but Teller is not. John Stossel? He's not fat, especially compared to a commie like Michael Moore. Also, Ayn Rand hated Libertarians.

Besides which, isn't Santa Clause an overweight white male? You hate him too?