Political theory

Z3n said:

Yea, i guess your living better than ever before if you live in certain areas in the U.S. and don't have to drive by slums and urban poor daily. Are these people not driven to have a job? Of course they are.. I would argue they would work harder to provide for their family and increase the quality of living. And this idea that inherently poor/uneducated people are of less use and deserve a lower salaried job is moronic! These are the most motivated people due to their drive. That is where conservatives and libertarians have it wrong, you use the ancedotal couch potato story to generalize the poor and uneducated, when in reality the couch potato is the CEO who goes on vacations with company money! HELLO? I'll give you that those who do not work should not except support, but those who have the will but not the opportunity?

Click to expand...

There is a huge differnce between working hard and working smart

Z3n said:

This argument of quality of life is an anachronism. People have more appealing lives now because of technology, but not necessarily better.

Click to expand...

Brought to us largely thanks to capitalism!!

Z3n said:

I use the slave argument to argue capitalism, slaves are owned, and are treated very well because of their use to the owner. The employee expects the worker to work as hard as he can, but does he provide housing or food or such? Not necessarily. Quality of live for slaves drastically increased over the years, but was it still illiberal and oppressive? yuh-huh

Click to expand...

Slaves aren't able to terminate their relationship with their master.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

There is a huge differnce between working hard and working smart



Brought to us largely thanks to capitalism!!



Slaves aren't able to terminate their relationship with their master.

Click to expand...

Capitalism, more the mixed market. And there is a difference between working hard and smart, but how can you ascertain whether someone is smart or not if they've never had the opportunity to get a higher education?

Slaves actually in some scenarios could. Another anachronism

Z3n said:

You're assuming all the poor are poor because their lack of ability. FALSE



see above

Click to expand...

I'm assuming nothing; I'm pointing out that you have no actual basis to be saying what you're saying. You simply want it to be true, so you insist it is.

Now, the assuming that's actually being done here is you assuming that because I point out the errors in what you say, I must believe X.

I just reciprocate the favor or blanket statements.

Click to expand...

Then you adopt a foolish argument style.

Yea, you can market you're hyped up emotional response to an actual allegory to a socioeconomic system, but move past that and attack the argument. K thanks

Click to expand...

Offense is indeed emotional; but the ineptness, carelessness, and ignorance of your comparison is also indeed gross enough to evoke deep offense.

Besides, I pointed out the serious problems in your argumentation, above.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Again, this isn't always the rational thing to do the right thing. Even if it was, how do you propose making everyone "rational" in a totally voluntary system. I don't care if it's the smart thing to do, as countless witchburnings, casinos, and lotteries show, rationality isn't exactly omnipresent in society

Click to expand...

I dont think its possible to simply abolish the state and then have people then accept rationality.

I think people need to start acting rationality before hand. This means an education system that is currently better than exists. Its not far fetched to say a better education system is needed now, regardless of what you think about my system.

the education system should teach logic and philosophy as well to everyone. a good starting point may be 5th-6th grade. I dont know though.

i dont know what the first sentence means. i think it alludes to my systen as being a utopia or a perfect system. its not, and its not even intended to be. i would regard it as a "better system" and one thats more sound.

EmpiricalTruth said:

i dont know what the first sentence means. i think it alludes to my systen as being a utopia or a perfect system. its not, and its not even intended to be. i would regard it as a "better system" and one thats more sound.

Click to expand...

Right, because people being able to wander into your dwelling willy-nilly and take whatever they want wouldn't cause any problems. Which they'd be able to do if 1) there's no law and 2) no concept of private property.

Z3n said:

Capitalism, more the mixed market. And there is a difference between working hard and smart, but how can you ascertain whether someone is smart or not if they've never had the opportunity to get a higher education?

Click to expand...

What gives you the right to determine what has been "Earned" between two volunterring parties and then forcing their hand?

Z3n said:

Slaves actually in some scenarios could. Another anachronism

Click to expand...

Employees can d othe same whenever they want (contracts nonwithstanding)

Harshaw said:

Right, because people being able to wander into your dwelling willy-nilly and take whatever they want wouldn't cause any problems. Which they'd be able to do if 1) there's no law and 2) no concept of private property.

Click to expand...

arguing that bad things can happen as a means they prove will happen is a logical fallacy. youre criticizing z3n on bad arguent tactcis, ive notice you have been this on a pretty large scale ever since ive come into contact with you.

The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability]Appeal to probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

respecting the place someone lives

EmpiricalTruth said:

I dont think its possible to simply abolish the state and then have people then accept rationality.

I think people need to start acting rationality before hand. This means an education system that is currently better than exists. Its not far fetched to say a better education system is needed now, regardless of what you think about my system.

the education system should teach logic and philosophy as well to everyone. a good starting point may be 5th-6th grade. I dont know though.

Click to expand...

Great, people will not always listen to it. Even then, people will forget the education when it's no longer compulsory. Also, goons will decide that it would be in THEIR best self interest to take over.

EmpiricalTruth said:

i dont know what the first sentence means. i think it alludes to my systen as being a utopia or a perfect system. its not, and its not even intended to be. i would regard it as a "better system" and one thats more sound.

Click to expand...

Sorry, editing fail. I said that rationatily=/= the right thing. When you let people do whatever they damn please. They will, this includes taking the necessities of others by force, violence, and eventually enslavement. Anarchy is nothing more than rule by the one with the biggest stick. Your view that humans can change like this is hopelessly naive. While most people are good, history has shown time and again, that there are those who will prey on them

EmpiricalTruth said:

arguing that bad things can happen as a means they prove will happen is a logical fallacy.

Click to expand...

No, an empirical observation of human nature throughout its entire recorded history, no matter what system they're living under, is what shows it will happen.

Yeah, what's less sound -- that, or imagining that people will somehow suddenly behave differently in some system which has never been tried?

If you say they will, then it's up to you to show it. Me, I'm going with what people have unquestionably always done.

Is it a toxic level of arrogance, or a toxic level of naivete, which leads you to believe that the system you concocted in your little head is capable of changing the very substance of human nature?

Or is it that you think human nature can change, and then your system will work? That would be even more foolish.

EmpiricalTruth said:

arguing that bad things can happen as a means they prove will happen is a logical fallacy. youre criticizing z3n on bad arguent tactcis, ive notice you have been this on a pretty large scale ever since ive come into contact with you.

The appeal to probability is a logical fallacy. It assumes that because something could happen, it is inevitable that it will happen. This is flawed logic, regardless of the likelihood of the event in question. The fallacy is often used to exploit paranoia.
Appeal to probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

respecting the place someone lives

Click to expand...

Saying that some are going to treat their fellow man like crap more because there's no government is an appeal to probablility? You have a far too generous view of human nature

dbl post durn server

DrunkenAsparagus said:

What gives you the right to determine what has been "Earned" between two volunterring parties and then forcing their hand?



Employees can d othe same whenever they want (contracts nonwithstanding)

Click to expand...

Drop the libertarian "hands off" horse****. You're smarter than that.

If its one thing the left actually DOESNT want its statism. Social freedom, plus the opportunity to have a more equal and fair economy are the main tenants of liberalism. When gov't doesnt exist, big business becomes the government. Mixed market is always best, so stop romanticizing about 18th century market economics.

Z3n said:

Drop the libertarian "hands off" horse****.

Click to expand...

Why? Because you can't win unless he does?

If its one thing the left actually DOESNT want is statism.

Click to expand...

:rofl
:rofl

:lamo

Social freedom, plus the opportunity to have a more equal and fair economy

Click to expand...

As they define it -- and the jackboots to force it on everyone who doesn't agree.

Harshaw said:

Why? Because you can't win unless he does?



:rofl
:rofl

:lamo



As they define it -- and the jackboots to force it on everyone who doesn't agree.

Click to expand...

Hey pal. In theory im an anarcho-syndicalist. I want the abolishment of the state and the worker to have a democratic say over what he produces.

It's very very hard to argue with someone who doesnt understand the merits of political theory.

Jackboots. lol. I guess its turn the other cheek when the market abuses people, but when the government intervenes. EEEEKKKKKKKK!!!! The reality of it is that I would be a free market advocate but that's giving individual human nature WAY too much credit.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

Great, people will not always listen to it. Even then, people will forget the education when it's no longer compulsory. Also, goons will decide that it would be in THEIR best self interest to take over.

Click to expand...

No, not everyone will listen. I cant deny that one bit. However, do you agree that most students try to get good grades? Having logic classes in every grade from 5-12 and continued in college will broaden peoples minds I think. The people who reject it not only shouldnt pass their grades levels, and they will be subjected to people who are more aware of logical fallacies and other tenants of logic.

Sorry, editing fail. I said that rationatily=/= the right thing. When you let people do whatever they damn please. They will, this includes taking the necessities of others by force, violence, and eventually enslavement. Anarchy is nothing more than rule by the one with the biggest stick. Your view that humans can change like this is hopelessly naive. While most people are good, history has shown time and again, that there are those who will prey on them

Click to expand...

if you are rational you accept that treating others with respect is a good thing for your own self interest.

arguing that people can do(and will) whatever they "damn please" a logical fallacy.
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability]Appeal to probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

History is different. Because im talking about a progressive change to a better off society(again, not a perfect one) that accepts the needs of others. Right now, its not possible. Too many people (even though who abuse the term rational self interest) think shortsightedly.

the system ive devised doesnt necessarily rule out a state either. I just dont talk about a state because if people accept a rational stance they understand the needs of others. If not everyone accepts reason you could definitely have a state force. a big part of the system i believe in is utilitarian. Some people only have a corrupted idea of what utilitarianism means but the best you can do is try and talk it out.

Z3n said:

Hey pal. In theory im an anarcho-syndicalist. I want the abolishment of the state and the worker to have a democratic say over what he produces.

Click to expand...

Good for you.

It's very very hard to argue with someone who doesnt understand the merits of political theory.

Click to expand...

Yes. Yes, it is.

Jackboots. lol. I guess its turn the other cheek when the market abuses people, but when the government intervenes. EEEEKKKKKKKK!!!!

Click to expand...

And again, you make all sorts of assumptions just because I take down your argument.

It's funny, though, that your cohort ET never takes it upon himself to post links to definitions of YOUR many, many logical fallacies.

Harshaw said:

Good for you.



Yes. Yes, it is.



And again, you make all sorts of assumptions just because I take down your argument.

It's funny, though, that your cohort ET never takes it upon himself to post links to definitions of YOUR many, many logical fallacies.

Click to expand...

How is being a leftist and wanting more autonomy to the worker, in addition to unrestricted social freedom and a more saavy foreign policy plan, a logical fallacy?

Z3n said:

How is being a leftist and wanting more autonomy to the worker, in addition to unrestricted social freedom and a more saavy foreign policy plan, a logical fallacy?

Click to expand...

:rofl

How is this response to what I wrote NOT a logical fallacy?

ET could point out which one(s) it is, but I won't hold my breath on that.

Please, enlighten me master, as to what "logical fallacy" i may be proclaiming! :2wave:

EmpiricalTruth said:

No, not everyone will listen. I cant deny that one bit. However, do you agree that most students try to get good grades? Having logic classes in every grade from 5-12 and continued in college will broaden peoples minds I think. The people who reject it not only shouldnt pass their grades levels, and they will be subjected to people who are more aware of logical fallacies and other tenants of logic.


if you are rational you accept that treating others with respect is a good thing for your own self interest.

arguing that people can do(and will) whatever they "damn please" a logical fallacy.
Appeal to probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History is different. Because im talking about a progressive change to a better off society(again, not a perfect one) that accepts the needs of others. Right now, its not possible. Too many people (even though who abuse the term rational self interest) think shortsightedly.

the system ive devised doesnt necessarily rule out a state either. I just dont talk about a state because if people accept a rational stance they understand the needs of others. If not everyone accepts reason you could definitely have a state force. a big part of the system i believe in is utilitarian. Some people only have a corrupted idea of what utilitarianism means but the best you can do is try and talk it out.

Click to expand...

This system is doomed to failure because goons DO NOT CARE ABOUT HELPING OTHERS. Many will find it in their self interest to exploit and persecute their fellow man

DrunkenAsparagus said:

This system is doomed to failure because goons DO NOT CARE ABOUT HELPING OTHERS. Many will find it in their self interest to exploit and persecute their fellow man

Click to expand...

So that further credits my argument because I want the state to be abolished, but such a task is impossible with the present condition of human nature. :roll:

Harshaw said:

No, an empirical observation of human nature throughout its entire recorded history, no matter what system they're living under, is what shows it will happen.

Yeah, what's less sound -- that, or imagining that people will somehow suddenly behave differently in some system which has never been tried?

If you say they will, then it's up to you to show it. Me, I'm going with what people have unquestionably always done.

Is it a toxic level of arrogance, or a toxic level of naivety, which leads you to believe that the system you concocted in your little head is capable of changing the very substance of human nature?

Or is it that you think human nature can change, and then your system will work? That would be even more foolish.

Click to expand...

I've repeatedly stated that a sudden switch to my system (which can be called communism, although its not the exact same on every level) wouldnt work, and ive even said it would be a disaster.

I dont think human nature has to change. the conditions in which humanity lives, on the other hand, must. What I advocate is a radical departure from all systems that have happened in the past; all of which were extremely coercive.

before my system ever even comes close to being tried people must accept rationality. this requires that people learn about logic and many forms of philosophy.
if you see rationality or logic as subjective, then well we should be talking about that before we talk about political/economic systems

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics]Happiness economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
theres some interesting findings there. not saying i agree with absolutely every finding it reports either

youve also committed another fallacy
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule]Appeal to ridicule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

you also did it when you merely posted emoticons to what z3n said. you are in desperate need of this list before you continue any more arguments:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies]List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

This isnt to say ive pointed out or notice all of the ones youve made. im not really trying to insult you, but i have noticed at least one logical fallacy in every single post youve made in recent memory.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

This system is doomed to failure because goons DO NOT CARE ABOUT HELPING OTHERS. Many will find it in their self interest to exploit and persecute their fellow man

Click to expand...

which is why i like the idea of rational self interest.

man has the ability to be reasonable. he just has to use it. which is why we should be taking logic and philosophy classes as part of our compulsory education.

at the very least, even if taking those classes wont lead to the system i believe in i think it can still lead to a better society than currently exists

Z3n said:

Please, enlighten me master, as to what "logical fallacy" i may be proclaiming! :2wave:

Click to expand...

Tell you what -- you start with the fact that you're substituting what I said with your own self-serving premise, and we'll see if Empirical Truth is actually interested in empirical truth and tell you the fallacy.

Harshaw said:

Tell you what -- you start with the fact that you're substituting what I said with your own self-serving premise, and we'll see if Empirical Truth is actually interested in empirical truth and tell you the fallacy.

Click to expand...

doing such would be a strawman argument.

Im not actively reading everything you guys are saying though. i do see what you say because when i click on this thread and see youve replied i check to see if youre responding to me