251. Comment #160847 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 1:25 pm

*Sees FightingFalcon is still shoveling his ideology*

*Sighs*

I'm so done with political/economic isms.

It took me quite a few years, but I finally figured out some time ago that isms don't work.
They're all a flop.
All of em.

Isms don't work.
But it's okay that isms don't work.
Isms shouldn't work for us.
We work for us.
Isms don't work, people do.

It'd be an awful world if isms worked on their own, it'd mean we'd finally made a machine to control us like the Matrix.

So, I don't have any faith in isms.
But I have faith in people.

I mean, take a really obviously shitty ism like Soviet Communism.
In the waning days of that carwreck, the only thing holding that dried up dog turd together was desperate and pitiful human will.
And if human will can make that tangled mess chug along one last mile on fumes, what else can human beings do?

And here's where I get really blasphemous and un-patriotic.
I happen to think the Capitalist system is likewise held together with spit, bailing wire, and human willpower.

Come on, we all know it in our deepest intuition.

Take it back to first principles.
I give you a green piece of paper, you give me a deluxe sized candy bar.
You take my green piece of paper, and get yourself some beef jerky.
The beef jerky man takes the paper, and gets a condom to bang his old lady.

Now, if it stayed that basic and pure, it'd just be ducky.
But we know it doesn't.
People are greedy, and selfish, and want more, more, more.
Not everybody.
Just enough.
Just enought to really fuck things up.
And that just enough group gauge prices, cook their books, insider trade, give and take graft, and outright steal their skim.
And we know all this, and accept it as such a gloomy inevitability, it's part of the system.
But, we just assume the economists have a magic equation that compensates for all the glitches in the big JPG, and cleans up the image.
But, they really don't.
They're pulling money out of thin air.
They're shoveling bullshit with all their hearts.
They're holding the system together with a sticky film of bullshit like the Soviets did.
But that's okay.

Because that's the thing.
It's okay that Capitalism doesn't work.
It's just the pile of bullshit that serves us just a little bit better than Communism.
But, that's not saying much.
But, that's okay, it doesn't have to be much.

What I'm saying with all of the above, is as survival organisms, we'll muddle through with whatever system we're under.
That's what we do.
I find that beautiful.

And given all of the above, I can't find it in me anymore to cling to any particular ism.
But given that, I also am not superstitiously afraid of any particular ism.
"Oh, we can't do THAT, that's *gasp* Socialist, and will destroy us all!!".
Bullshit.
Isms don't destroy.
People do.
And the ones who do are typically dogmatic towards an ism.

Me, I'm for Lego-blocking together whatever works.
And when it stops working, pluck off and throw out a Lego, and stick another one on.
Whatever works.
Hell, that's the very core essence of evolution.

Clinging to isms hinders evolution.
We know this in our hearts, that's why we're all here trying to chip away at the religious isms.
They've calcified, and no longer serve us.
They're dried up dog turds.
We need fresh manure to grow.

Well, I have no planned ending for this rant, so I open the floor to questions.

Other Comments by Diacanu

252. Comment #161003 by LindeQ on April 14, 2008 at 4:44 pm

A pleasure to watch, such a nice, spirited and friendly interview.

I especially liked the exchange about death-beds. Death often seems assumed to be the ultimate argument for god, as if you might be able to live as an atheist, but couldn't possibly dare to die one.

Other Comments by LindeQ

253. Comment #161082 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I guess the charge about (some) atheists having no morals is true, for without any "moral" framework (politics falls within morals, strictly speaking, as it's a *should* question; usually in reference to human rights etc). Naturally, this does not mean that government should cover every "moral issue" in the traditional way of thinking it, but the root is some sort of morality all the same because it deals with inter-human relationships.

Since you have no "ism" towards politics, I suppose you are for whatever is convenient at the time for you; truly, that is a selfish notion.

An "-ism" is merely a name for a political belief; technically, there are an infinite amount of possible "isms" and when you dig down, everyone has their own "ism"; if you have any guiding political/moral principles then you have an "ism", although possibly it is unnamed.

And the only alternative is random emotional responses to issues, and doing whatever feels convenient at the time.

OF COURSE, this is a guy claiming that an economic school was totalitarian because it was named after the country Hitler was born in, despite it being focused entirely on individual freedom and, unknown to him, its two greatest adherents were actually Jewish.

Oh, and the fact that Vienna (in Austria!) was a center for philosophy and the arts. But I guess all those Viennese philosophers and artists were just goose-stepping fascists, eh?

ACtually, I see now that you are simply for "whatever works". Is this a code for, "whatever serves me best, even at the expense at the lives or rights of others"?

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

254. Comment #161084 by Radesq on April 14, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Diacanu,

Athe-ism?

Other Comments by Radesq

255. Comment #161087 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Galactic Lord Xenu-

Since you have no "ism" towards politics, I suppose you are for whatever is convenient at the time for you;

You suppose incorrectly.

if you have any guiding political/moral principles then you have an "ism", although possibly it is unnamed.

This is probably the case.
I have yet to run into a named (political) ism that fits with my beliefs 100%.

Other Comments by Diacanu

256. Comment #161088 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Radesq-

Athe-ism?

Not political/economic.
In and of itself.
;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

257. Comment #161091 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Galactic Lord Xenu-

OF COURSE, this is a guy claiming that an economic school was totalitarian because it was named after the country Hitler was born in,

Hmm, I guess we need some smileys for this place, the uptight can't seem to tell when I'm being deadly serious, and when I'm taking the piss.

Other Comments by Diacanu

258. Comment #161092 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 14, 2008 at 7:31 pm

He's against Darwinism, atheism, and anything else that's an ism, because he has a simplistic mindset that doesn't understand basic literary concepts. His own dogma towards isms is ironically an "ism" unto itself.

His rant was amusing to read though--highly emotionally charged and shrill, I could almost hear him pounding on the keyboard with that meaningless dreck.

I suppose he is against "egalitarianism" in every single possible sense of the word, "humanism", and so on.

It's funny, he's borrowing Rastafarian logic here, and it's just as bad from him as it is from them.

His "anything goes! especially if it suites me!" philosophy is a bit disturbing, though.

Oh, and to the person that mentioned Linux not counting being open source--do you understand our arguments at all? Just because something is free, open source, etc, doesn't mean it's not acceptable or even not encouraged by libertarians. I think you have a very poor understanding of what we're saying, you're letting your own anger and ideology cloud your comprehension of a different idea.

Linux is something put together by people that came together voluntarily to make it. As far as I know, it's been created almost virtually with no government money; it truly is a great demonstration of humans coming together to fill a gap in the market. Even if Linux development has had government funding, it was most likely for a application needed by the government; and anyway, Linux didn't start out with any government funding and never would need any to survive.

Corporations and businesses, however, have poured money into Linux, and businesses like IBM and Novell contribute to its codebase.

Some consider Linux itself to be very CAPITALISTIC, in fact:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lora/m.lora22.html

Also, you can legally SELL Linux under its license.

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

259. Comment #161095 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Galactic Lord Xenu-

He's against Darwinism, atheism, and anything else that's an ism,

Your reading comprehension is off.
As is seemingly your ability to refresh the page to see new posts.

I suppose he is against "egalitarianism" in every single possible sense of the word, "humanism", and so on.

You should cease supposing, you're not very good at it, try asking me instead.

His "anything goes! especially if it suites me!" philosophy...

Exists only in your fevered imagination.

Other Comments by Diacanu

260. Comment #161098 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 14, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Sure, you're joking now, ha ha, see guess, he was joking, he wasn't being serious at all! Nobody would be stupid enough to believe he was serious! Nope!

Sure, buddy.

The fact that you're telling me I'm wrong in regards to isms just means you're telling me I'm right, because the whole point was to show you that your anti-ism-ism is ridiculous and that you don't even truly believe it.

You're pretty silly.

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

261. Comment #161099 by Layla Nasreddin on April 14, 2008 at 7:45 pm

clearmind wrote:

To layla nasreddin?

Who are you?
What are you?
Why are you?

We are all curious. You are a muslim, christian, jew or pretender? You are mocking yourself or on entertaining business or being a clown that clown around by making jokes about religions randomly because you have nothing else to do. Next picture will be a nun? Or being ridicolous is just a way to relax yourself? Or you are an atheist that portraits a picture of nobody with no personality that is trying to have a personality or you are genie?

I don't know whether to be flattered that clearmind has noticed my pointless ramblings or not!

Nope, I'm a real live person, that IS me, I wouldn't post a nun's outfit because I don't have one. I am a genuine (agnostic) Muslim, and I've never had any problem poking some gentle fun at religion, even in my most pious days, because I think, even now, that if there is a God/Allah, he or she MUST have a sense of humor!

Anyway, my purpose here is to just hoping to have a little bit of fun while finding some intelligent individuals to talk to, which seems to exclude you, based on the word-salad of your post. (No, I'm just kidding...the joke was far too good to pass up!)

This both is and isn't my "real" name--it's my "fake Islamic name," as RD once put it when excoriating Hamza Yusuf Hanson for taking such a name (since he's a convert to Islam, like me). As he went on to say, "Sounds more impressive doesn't it, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, than Mark Hanson? Does any psychologist or sociologist know if it is a standard thing people do, if they are too inadequate to make a success of themselves in their own culture -- change your identity and re-invent yourself, to see if people take you more seriously?"

So I worry that he might have the same low opinion of me for also having a "fake Islamic name!" But maybe he's right, and about me, too! :-/

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,710,Response-to-Richard-Dawkins-and-Sam-Harris,Zaytuna-Videocast-4,page2#25056

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

262. Comment #161101 by Radesq on April 14, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Libertarian arguments always seem to boil down to -- "I really can't understand why you all think I'm nuts...must be something wrong with you."

Other Comments by Radesq

263. Comment #161102 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Galactic Lord Xenu-

Sure, you're joking now, ha ha,

About which part?
Context, please.

your anti-ism-ism is ridiculous

In your opinion.
Please point out which part of it is giving you a problem.

and that you don't even truly believe it.

Untrue.

Other Comments by Diacanu

264. Comment #161104 by Goldy on April 14, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Layla, you area convert to Islam? From Christianity or form something else? Agnostic too - that come later or is there a wee looking going on. Ask becasue a friend here had a spell of trying to find a religion that fitted with her (gods are so like shoes...ones that don't fit can hurt!). She's on Buddhism now.
Any chance all belief will die away? Within you, I mean - obviously the world is going to have this affliction for a long while yet!

Other Comments by Goldy

265. Comment #161107 by Layla Nasreddin on April 14, 2008 at 8:07 pm

Goldy wrote:

Layla, you area convert to Islam? From Christianity or form something else? Agnostic too - that come later or is there a wee looking going on.

I'm afraid so. Why? "Because I'm fucking stupid, I guess" is the only answer I can come up with these days!

No, really...I have always been fascinated by the Middle East and Islam, so converting seemed a natural step. This, despite having atheistic tendencies even at the youngest age--at seven, I distinctly recall thinking, "Who could possibly be stupid enough to believe in this 'God' crap?" But then I decided that was too dismissive and too arrogant, especially as I became fascinated by religion, for some reason. but I really believed, prayed five times a day (still do, sometimes), fasted, covered myself, almost got married off, etc.

I still kinda-sorta believe, in a strange, compartmentalized way (such as when I am at Friday prayer, for instance), but in the end, my natural skeptical nature won through. I wouldn't convert to anything else; it was always Islam or atheism for me!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

266. Comment #161108 by FightingFalcon on April 14, 2008 at 8:14 pm

I'm not even sure how to respond to that meaningless drivel that Diacanu called a post.

It is clearly written by someone who has never experienced a country that doesn't believe in Capitalism. Go to Africa, as I have, and tell me if the people care about cooked books and corrupt CEOs. Tell them that Capitalism is evil while they dream of having just a fraction of the prosperity that Capitalism has granted the Western world.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

267. Comment #161109 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Okay, apparently I need to clarify.

I believe I established at the outset that I meant only political/economic isms.

And no, my views don't equal "anything goes".

If "anything goes", I wouldn't be objecting to isms in the first place.

My objection is to rigid ideologue thinking that rejects certain solutions to problems because they have a certain label, and are therefore "eeeevaaall!!", while at the same time, ignoring the wrong done by one's own chosen ism, because well, the label, and nothing more.

Plus, I also pointed out in various spots certain isms that have calcified and no longer serve us.

So, even by my standard, some are beyond the pale, and just need throwing out.

But, the ideologue mind prevents this.
These bad ideas hang on and gum up the works with their dried carcasses.

So, what do I think should be thrown ut?
Capitalism?
No, I didn't say that.
I pointed out various spots where it's preferable to some worse ideas.
Course, someday, it probably will dry out and need to be abandoned.
Like, in the distant future when neutrino-powered nano-builders create everything we need, and give us medicines that make us immortal.
No room for capital in that society.

But see, a dogmatic mindset would seek to hold us back from that world.
And currently, I think it does.
People want their dumb personal power.
Fuck 'em.

But, for the time being, we'll need a method of of exchange, and whatever is being exchanged, and how, will still resemble capitalism, so let's just keep capitalism.

But, doesn't mean let's not try to improve things.

If a socialist idea helps things, let's use it, and not get hung up on labels.

The balance between those two isms will always have to be tinkered with as our society evolves though.
I'm not for one winning out over the other.
My eye isn't on the ism, it's on the advancement and survival of the species.

I don't happen to think rigid dogmatism to the current batch of isms is going to do that.


Or, maybe I'm naive, and pure free-market capitalism, or socialism will run us into the ground, and our species is doomed.

Other Comments by Diacanu

268. Comment #161111 by Goldy on April 14, 2008 at 8:16 pm

I'm afraid so. Why? "Because I'm fucking stupid, I guess" is the only answer I can come up with these days!

:-) Fucking stupid is to go the whole hog (hmmm...no more of that for you! Wonder what an Islamic hog is. Sheep, I guess...but I digress!). You like it, it fulfils a role in your life - nothing stupid about that. Odd, yes, but only to me (and a few others, methinks).
You still kinda-sorta believe, so I guess it makes sense.
I like the Middle East. Lived in Abu Dhabi in the mid to late 70s when it was a sandy island and worked in Syria. I also like Arab News :-) Mind you, I am also a sinophile (though my wife will raise her eyebrows at this as I always complain about Chinese superstitions and thought). Have to say the feelings never went as far as belief, though. But then, I am an athiest.
Anyway, accept my hand (shake, not marriage) and glad to have met you :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

269. Comment #161113 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 8:25 pm

FightingFalcon-

It is clearly written by someone who has never experienced a country that doesn't believe in Capitalism.

I believe I made it quite clear, that despite its flaws, it serves us in the here and now, and shouldn't be thrown right out.

But only because of the human effort and will behind it, and not just because it's magic somehow.

But will we be capitalist in the year 3000?
I don't see it.
Either we will have evolved into something more robust and adaptive for us to become an extra-solar civilization, or the earth will be a big polluted lifeless ball of shit.

Other Comments by Diacanu

270. Comment #161126 by IPV4 on April 14, 2008 at 9:07 pm

IP4: I've heard this argument a million times too. That car companies can build a car that doesn't run on oil but they keep the technology suppressed.

Go see "who killed the electric car" genius. Are you that intellectually lazy that you cannot even do your own research. The information is out their but you choose not find it because it does not fit cleanly into your idea of the world we live in. Let me help you and give you a fact. "The electric car has been around for over "100 YEARS". Draw your own conclusion from this. Oh , by the way Gm is coming out with hybrid electric next year that goes 40 miles on battery before using gas it's called the "VOLT", this technology has existed for quite some time. 10 years prior, they had a pure electric car that they leased but never sold.

Yea....sure. Never mind the fact that a car that doesn't run on oil (or consumes a lot less) would be a modern-day gold mine for the manufacturing companies. But you go ahead and keep believing that there is a massive conspiracy in the works to suppress technology...

Certain coutries economies would cease to exist if oil was no longer being used.

Other Comments by IPV4

271. Comment #161130 by Diacanu on April 14, 2008 at 9:40 pm

Radesq-

Libertarian arguments always seem to boil down to -- "I really can't understand why you all think I'm nuts...must be something wrong with you."

Maybe there is something wrong with me.
Maybe it is me.
Maybe I'm fucking nuts.

All I know, is every time I've tried to hold onto a political ism, it took too much denial and compartmentalization to be able to ignore the fucking horror.

After being burnt like that too often, I had to let them all fall away to be able to sleep at night.

But I seem to find myself on the bitchy side of 99.999999% of the human population by adopting this view.

Maybe being in that cut-off, alienated, disconnected place is where fucking insanity lives.

But, if embracing any old bullshit is the cure, I may as well be fucking religious again, and that ain't gonna happen.

Other Comments by Diacanu

272. Comment #161164 by Enlightenme.. on April 15, 2008 at 1:38 am

Pragmatism.

In my heart I'd be a Socialist, but too many lazy people will use you.

In my head I'd be a capitalist, but too many greedy people will buy fukoff great yauchts & learjets without 'giving something back in'.

'Besides a military and police the gubmint should keep out'

How did we stop CFC manufacturers destroying the Ozone layer?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

273. Comment #161277 by Julius Morche on April 15, 2008 at 5:23 am

207. Comment #160130 by Stephen Maxwell

Julius, I apologise if you've answered already but since you attend Catholic mass...

Do you kneel?

Yes, I do. I kneel down before the altar for purely customary reasons, and the participation in a ritual order that has grown over two millennia inspires in me a sense of wonder, similar to the one I get from listening to musical masterpieces, from my academic studies, or from strolling through the National Gallery. And that's perfectly in order, as long as one does not derive irrational claims from these experiences, but instead is conscious of the fact that human emotions are a product of evolution. Sam Harris, by the way, makes a similar point about "mysticism" in "The End of Faith" and his (for most parts) utterly brilliant talk at the AAI conference a few months ago.

The day I receive my knighthood, I will also kneel down before the Queen and not spoil it by telling her that we are both the product of evolution, that her ancestors most likely never received their sceptre from the hands of God, and that the social hierarchy which separates us cannot be justified on rational grounds. Instead, I will accept the order of the ritual, knowing that culture evolves the same way life does: with no aims and goals, no direction and no sense. It's all just fun.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

274. Comment #161278 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 5:31 am

Go see "who killed the electric car" genius.

The same people who staged the Moon landing, I suppose...

Certain coutries economies would cease to exist if oil was no longer being used.

So those greedy and heartless car companies rejected the electric car because it would hurt foreign economies? Do you even listen to what you're saying?

BTW, over 50,000 electric cars exist in America, with an average growth of 30% per year. I guess no one "killed the electric car."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#In_the_United_States

All I know, is every time I've tried to hold onto a political ism, it took too much denial and compartmentalization to be able to ignore the fucking horror.

All humans have a desire to be in a group that shares their traits, opinions, etc. I don't consider myself a member of the Libertarian Party but I defend them because they are the closest thing to my political beliefs. Still, I'd never defend one of their policices or politicians that I don't agree with. No one should ever be called upon to defend something that they disagree with, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of human beings do this through political or religious affiliation.

How did we stop CFC manufacturers destroying the Ozone layer?

I've already addressed the issue of corporate pollution of the environment and won't do it again. I'm tired of that argument.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

275. Comment #161283 by Steve Zara on April 15, 2008 at 5:42 am

I'm not even sure how to respond to that meaningless drivel that Diacanu called a post.

My scientific sampling of Diacanu posts results in a very low "drivel" score.

My view:

The attraction of Libertarianism is similar to the attraction of communism, in that people want clear answers, such as "the state should do everything" or "the state should not interfere". There is a beauty in simplicity. The problem is, life isn't simple. The solutions to most problems aren't simple, and can be inelegant. Deal with it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

276. Comment #161291 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 6:01 am

Julius Morche: The day I receive my knighthood, I will also kneel down before the Queen and not spoil it by telling her that we are both the product of evolution, that her ancestors most likely never received their sceptre from the hands of God, and that the social hierarchy which separates us cannot be justified on rational grounds.

Ritual is a means of making the unreal real to certain parts of our brain. It's a neat trick.

So long as you recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, you can enjoy both.

I remember as a little kid how easy it was to slip into pretend play. When I was ten I had a horse. I spent a summer riding through a canyon of rolling walnut and apricot groves. If I thought of myself as an indian scout, I was one. The occasional cars along the nearby road were the white man I had to cleverly evade. I imagined that my sense of smell, my hearing, and my stealthy skills were more acute, and they seemed so.

Years passed without much riding. Then one day when I was about sixteen I was on a horse again. I thought back to the pretend games I used to play. But the magic was gone. I'd changed. Fantasy could not take on the vivid, enveloping power it once had.

Puberty does something to the brain that robs it of the delightful intensity of pretend play. Seems to do this to puppies and kittens as well. But humans have learned a few tricks to reawaken those old pleasures. Ritual is one of those tricks.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

277. Comment #161295 by irate_atheist on April 15, 2008 at 6:08 am

279. Comment #161291 by Dr Benway -

Puberty does something to the brain that robs it of the delightful intensity of pretend play.

You may have inadvertantly discovered the reason for Roberton et al's mindset. Pre-pubescence.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

278. Comment #161415 by Diacanu on April 15, 2008 at 9:20 am

Enlightenme-

Pragmatism.

In my heart I'd be a Socialist, but too many lazy people will use you.

In my head I'd be a capitalist, but too many greedy people will buy fukoff great yauchts & learjets without 'giving something back in'.

Yeah, sounds good, I'll go with that.

Other Comments by Diacanu

279. Comment #161479 by IPV4 on April 15, 2008 at 10:37 am

So those greedy and heartless car companies rejected the electric car because it would hurt foreign economies? Do you even listen to what you're saying?

It's just not the foreign economies,it's the corporations that make trillions of dollars off this liquid crack. If you don't think power and money which the oil industry has plenty don't write the rules of the game then we need stop this debate. You are are, judging from your rants a right winger and seem to follow the "rush Libaugh" school of thought.

BTW, over 50,000 electric cars exist in America, with an average growth of 30% per year. I guess no one "killed the electric car."

If you consider Goat carts the equivalent to the everyday car then your statistic is valid. These type of vehicles are not the eqivalent to their combustion counter part in size.Walk into your into some dealer near your home and see if you can buy an electric car. I guarantee you cannot.
Wow, you did a wikipedia search and cherry picked information,I am impressed,not(Cherry picking does have a ring of familiarity to it hmm). You lost this debate but continue to be arrogant in the face of the evidence, you should man up and face defeat with honor rather then clinging to your right wing ideology much like a religoius person cling to their beliefs in the face of evidence. It's very ironic on this site to find people like you posting here. Here is some more evidence
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Why hasn't any of the major car manufactures built and sold or mass produced a technology as the one from tesla motors? This is a very miniscule company , surely companies with billion dollar budgets and all that comes with it have the engineers to develope and mass produce quality electric cars.

The same people who staged the Moon landing, I suppose...

You are again being intellectually dishonest or refuse to pay attention to evidence.Fact:" In 1996 The GM ev1 production electric vehicle is made available for consumers at 400 - 500 dollars a month". Surely this is affordable to most Americans yet this was only offered in california and I believe arizona. Here, you do the research and stop bothering me with your weak rebuttals.
research :http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/electric.html

Other Comments by IPV4

280. Comment #161526 by Enlightenme.. on April 15, 2008 at 11:18 am

"The difference is that my ideas have never been tried, yet everyone is convinced of their failure"

Laissez faire never been tried? You gotta be kiddin right?
What the heck got Marx & Engels so bothered?

"OPEC faces the same rules that all other major corporations must face"

Now OPEC is a corporation! (That makes sense actually, it can be fed up to the plebs as a necessary clash of civilisations just the same as the need to break Carnegie, Rockefeller and Gates!)
I'd be interested to know just what rules you think OPEC 'must face'??

[Capitalism] "...Course, someday, it probably will dry out and need to be abandoned"

That's just what Marx & Engels said!
..'course they also warned people to let it play out, not force the issue - untold millions have had to die because people ignored their advice.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

281. Comment #161731 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

It's just not the foreign economies,it's the corporations that make trillions of dollars off this liquid crack. If you don't think power and money which the oil industry has plenty don't write the rules of the game then we need stop this debate. You are are, judging from your rants a right winger and seem to follow the "rush Libaugh" school of thought.

I don't know where to start. With the fact that you can't spell Rush Limbaugh correctly, your horrible grammar or the fact that I'm not a Republican - something that I've stated many times on this very thread.

Go play with your tin hat. I have no use for conspiracy theories.

Why hasn't any of the major car manufactures built and sold or mass produced a technology as the one from tesla motors? This is a very miniscule company , surely companies with billion dollar budgets and all that comes with it have the engineers to develope and mass produce quality electric cars.

Why do car companies HAVE to offer this product to you? What obligation do they have to give you an affordable car? I'm so sick and tired of the fucking whining that I see on this board against companies that have absolutely no obligation to you whatsoever. Car companies produce cars and offer them to consumers. What right do you have to go into their factory and demand that they produce a certain vehicle for you? You sound like a little kid who never grew up and tattles to his mommy that the other kids aren't being nice to him and sharing their toys...

That's just what Marx & Engels said!
..'course they also warned people to let it play out, not force the issue - untold millions have had to die because people ignored their advice.

Are you honestly defending Marx and Engels? I'm seriously asking because, if so, then this conversation is over. I can't even fathom how an idea that has failed so miserably in so many situations (e.g. Communism) still has admirers today. It's almost as if the more it fails, the more adherents it receives.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

282. Comment #161738 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 3:06 pm

FightingFalcon

I think there is not only some common ground between us but that your stark starting position is moving a little bit my friend :)

Having moved you to accept 'I believe in only three proper functions of government.' from none at all I'll not press you further. Yet I was very interested in your comment;

'I don't think humanity is ready for the type of Capitalism that I believe in. Too many people are susceptible to corruption, dishonesty, unfaithfulness, etc.

as it is exactly the problem I have with Libertarian ideas as currently expressed; they (like economic theory) rely on assumptions that just do not exist in the real world. They are both idealistic ideologies in the sense that they aspire to maximal or perfect objectives; I like the ideas they contain (I'm attracted to them) because they are idealistic but I refrain from embracing them because I pragmatically recognise that they cannot come about at the moment. As an aside, I feel about them both the way I felt about a thread started on this site about fidelity and envy prompted by an article by Dawkins (I can't remember the exact title but it generated quite heated debate at the time). The position I advocated feels almost the same as here; it's an interesting idea that might be beneficial to our species but is impractical while humans exhibit the range of emotional and rational responses that we do (in the case of the article I mentioned, sexual freedom may well be healthy but not until jealousy and envy are far less commonplace than now).

I'm sorry that the articles I listed pissed you of so much :). I suspected they would as they were a selection from the left wing blogs but I have to say that a few (only a few, most right wing economics blogs are still desperately trying to distance themselves from any taint that they supported the policies that caused the current market disfunctions; fruitlessly in all honesty because you just have to go back over the last ten years to their commentaries to prove their deceit) even of those are beginning to realise that 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. Interesting times, huh?

Anyway, I've enjoyed our little correspondence (sorry to all for the topic-hijack) and it's raised a few points that I suspect we both will ponder.

Regards

Other Comments by AllanW

283. Comment #161789 by IPV4 on April 15, 2008 at 5:08 pm

FALCON

I thought so, no argument.

Other Comments by IPV4

284. Comment #161809 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Having moved you to accept 'I believe in only three proper functions of government.' from none at all I'll not press you further. Yet I was very interested in your comment;

I should have made that point clearer - I didn't mean to say that the government has no purpose. I'm not an Anarchist by any stretch of the imagination, more like a Mini-anarchist.

as it is exactly the problem I have with Libertarian ideas as currently expressed; they (like economic theory) rely on assumptions that just do not exist in the real world. They are both idealistic ideologies in the sense that they aspire to maximal or perfect objectives; I like the ideas they contain (I'm attracted to them) because they are idealistic but I refrain from embracing them because I pragmatically recognise that they cannot come about at the moment.

Ayn Rand hinted at this as well in one of her essays in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. She recognized that the heroes of Atlas Shrugged are very rare in this world. Both Rand and myself take for granted that people will act honestly, openly and with integrity. Since all human relations should be voluntary in nature, with no coercion or force behind them, they therefore need to be carried out openly and honestly. I'll always oppose corporations that don't act with the aforementioned principles but the difference between you and me is that I don't think government is the answer. I think that only compounds the problem of dishonest businessmen with corrupt, greedy and incompetent politicians and bureaucrats.

I'm sorry that the articles I listed pissed you of so much :). I suspected they would as they were a selection from the left wing blogs but I have to say that a few (only a few, most right wing economics blogs are still desperately trying to distance themselves from any taint that they supported the policies that caused the current market disfunctions; fruitlessly in all honesty because you just have to go back over the last ten years to their commentaries to prove their deceit) even of those are beginning to realise that 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'. Interesting times, huh?

No need to apologize, you weren't the one who wrote them. I just get angry to see government intervention in the marketplace cause economic disasters and then watch as people honestly believe that more government intervention is the answer. Just the other day I read an article in the Wall Street Journal (normally a reliable source of laissez-faire economic ideas) with quotes from the Treasury Dept. suggested that more money simply be created out of thin air to cover the losses of major banks, in an effort to prevent their nationalization by the government. Are those really our two options? Hyperinflation and nationalization? Why does no one stop and wonder if a worthless fiat currency is the problem? Or a central bank (e.g. The Fed) that allows for wild speculation through uncontrolled monetary borrowing? My patience wears thin these days with people who want the fruits of Capitalism while enjoying the laziness of Socialism.

Feel free to PM me anytime.

FF

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

285. Comment #161812 by Enlightenme.. on April 15, 2008 at 5:55 pm

[That's just what Marx & Engels said!
..'course they also warned people to let it play out, not force the issue - untold millions have had to die because people ignored their advice.]

FF:
"Are you honestly defending Marx and Engels? I'm seriously asking because, if so, then this conversation is over. I can't even fathom how an idea that has failed so miserably in so many situations (e.g. Communism) still has admirers today. It's almost as if the more it fails, the more adherents it receives."

I wish you could see me have to pick my jaw off the floor with your misreading of me - you think I'm an admirer?

I used to be in the Air force and am quite proud of my little bit-part played in bringing down that hateful system with (relatively) little bloodshed. They'd have been horrified if they'd thought they were letting a COMMIE atheist onto Mildenhall & Lakenheath back in the eighties, wouldn't they?!!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

286. Comment #161815 by Radesq on April 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

FF:

Both Rand and myself take for granted that people will act honestly, openly and with integrity.

Game, set, and match. ;)

Other Comments by Radesq

287. Comment #161819 by Enlightenme.. on April 15, 2008 at 6:16 pm

^It's an easy mistake to make, and the one defence you could plausibly make for religions - they at least recognise that humans are deeply flawed!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

288. Comment #161826 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I wish you could see me have to pick my jaw off the floor with your misreading of me - you think I'm an admirer?

I used to be in the Air force and am quite proud of my little bit-part played in bringing down that hateful system with (relatively) little bloodshed. They'd have been horrified if they'd thought they were letting a COMMIE atheist onto Mildenhall & Lakenheath back in the eighties, wouldn't they?!!

Haha, I'm sorry. I guess I just misread what you had written there.

BTW - I'm stationed at RAF Mildenhall myself :-)

Game, set, and match. ;)

You didn't quote the part where I said that I fail to see how greedy and incompetent governments are the answer.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

289. Comment #161831 by Radesq on April 15, 2008 at 6:48 pm

FF: You're right a greedy and incompetent government is not a good answer. Still, a marketplace is a competitive place. Like most competitive activities -- in order to have an organized competition you have to have rules. If you are going to have rules -- you'll need a referee to ensure that the rules are followed and that the competition is fair. That is the government's role. Poor referees can interfere too much or too little. If you don't like the government -- vote -- if you can't find anybody to vote for -- stand (run) for election yourself. If your party (Libertarian - although I recall you are not an actual member)can't win single member district elections lobby for multi-party elections. Holding contempt for the government (which sounds like a trait you and I share though I speak for myself)and wishing it would go away doesn't make it any better - quite the contrary.

edit: What a load of self righteous crap I just wrote...take it or leave it... your a grown up... you don't have to listen to me, after all it's still a free country (for the most part).

Other Comments by Radesq

290. Comment #161835 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 6:57 pm

FF: You're right a greedy and incompetent government is not a good answer. Still, a marketplace is a competitive place. Like most competitive activities -- in order to have an organized competition you have to have rules. If you are going to have rules -- you'll need a referee to ensure that the rules are followed and that the competition is fair. That is the government's role. Poor referees can interfere too much or too little. If you don't like the government -- vote -- if you can't find anybody to vote for -- stand (run) for election yourself. If your party (Libertarian - although I recall you are not an actual member)can't win single member district elections lobby for multi-party elections. Holding contempt for the government (which sounds like a trait you and I share though I speak for myself)and wishing it would go away doesn't make it any better - quite the contrary.

Would this conversation be more interesting if I admitted that I actually work for the government? The US Air Force specifically - a means to an end.

I participate in elections despite my contempt for most people in government. Trust me, I have every intention of running for office but I already know that I have 0 chance of winning, being an Atheist and all. Even in America, a (soon to be) combat military veteran has no chance of winning if he or she is an Atheist. Something about us being untrustworthy....

I'm not opposed to the idea of government but I do believe that outside of those three functions (police, courts and military) there is a private corporation who can do things more effectively and efficiently. I look at the Constitution as our Founders did - whatever powers weren't granted to the government are reserved for the states and the people. They felt so strongly about that point that they made an Amendment in the Bill of Rights for it. That seems to be one Amendment that everyone just conveniently forgets, although I'll admit that it's not as sexy as the 1st or 2nd Amendment.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

291. Comment #161836 by Radesq on April 15, 2008 at 7:15 pm

FF: Thank you for your service.

On the founders and the private sector: this from Wikipedia-

"In the United States, government chartering began to fall out of vogue in the mid-1800s. Corporate law at the time was focused on protection of the public interest, and not on the interests of corporate shareholders. Corporate charters were closely regulated by the states. Forming a corporation usually required an act of legislature. Investors generally had to be given an equal say in corporate governance, and corporations were required to comply with the purposes expressed in their charters. Many private firms in the 19th century avoided the corporate model for these reasons (Andrew Carnegie formed his steel operation as a limited partnership, and John D. Rockefeller set up Standard Oil as a trust)."

About the only thing I trust less than the government is a large corporation created to amass wealth and practically speaking unaccountable to the public. Too many Enrons, Tycos, Adelphias, etc... Government often screws the public out of incompetence or indifference -- corporations that reach the bureaucratic size of governments seem to screw people on purpose. Pick your poison. Capitalism like Democratic Republicanism is a flawed system - it is just better than anything else that has been tried.

Other Comments by Radesq

292. Comment #161844 by Enlightenme.. on April 15, 2008 at 7:25 pm

^ "...That is the government's role"

And.. making sure that science classes are for science.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

293. Comment #161851 by FightingFalcon on April 15, 2008 at 7:35 pm

About the only thing I trust less than the government is a large corporation created to amass wealth and practically speaking unaccountable to the public. Too many Enrons, Tycos, Adelphias, etc... Government often screws the public out of incompetence or indifference -- corporations that reach the bureaucratic size of governments seem to screw people on purpose. Pick your poison. Capitalism like Democratic Republicanism is a flawed system - it is just better than anything else that has been tried.

There's the difference between us - I trust nothing less than I trust our leaders in government :-). I follow them because I have to but they're all fake to me. Not to mention that they steal my money illegally and then give it to welfare programs that I have no interest in supporting. I'd be willing to abandon some of my ideals for the pendulum at least swinging back a little bit, e.g. the abolition of the Income Tax, a return to the gold standard and the end of corporate taxes. I think I can live with regulation if those conditions are at least achieved.

Enron et al are constant examples that corporate leaders fail to live up to the standards that I expect of them. I hate to use the "no true Scotsman" argument here but that's exactly how I feel. No true businessman should (should being the operative word) engage in shady business practices. I guess it's easy for me to assume that people will always act with Integrity when I belong to an organization that lives by the word.

Still, I believe in the fundamental principle that governments exist only in the capacity that we allow it to. We're going down a road (and are already there in many respects) where the government tells us what to do and not vice versa. The very thought is disturbing.

And.. making sure that science classes are for science.

Ramen to that one...

And now its bedtime. Take care, both of you.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

294. Comment #161855 by Radesq on April 15, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Nice parting shot...drop a couple moabs like abolish the income tax and go back to the gold standard -- yawn, off to bed... I'll expect you to defend those wild eyed ideals upon your return.

Cheers,

Radesq

Other Comments by Radesq

295. Comment #161857 by Enlightenme.. on April 15, 2008 at 7:44 pm

^ M'kay,
So that's;

police, courts and military.. and the education of our kids.

Shall we try for Redistribution of wealth rather than 'trickle down', or would that be pushing it??

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

296. Comment #162053 by FightingFalcon on April 16, 2008 at 4:31 am

Nice parting shot...drop a couple moabs like abolish the income tax and go back to the gold standard -- yawn, off to bed... I'll expect you to defend those wild eyed ideals upon your return.

I do get tired you know. As Kramer from Seinfeld once said, I don't argue with the body - that's an argument you can't win =)

Today is a long day so if I don't get to these tonight, I'll reply tomorrow. Trust me, I don't run away from arguments.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

297. Comment #162056 by ~manic-depressive on April 16, 2008 at 4:47 am

Francis Collins doesn't believe in talking snakes? What a pity!

I believe in talking snakes. I just call them by their other name: Priests.

(For the benefit of theists who don't understand metaphor -- by capitalizing the P, I am referring to the institution of the priestly class and not any particular priest.)

Other Comments by ~manic-depressive

298. Comment #162206 by FightingFalcon on April 16, 2008 at 10:39 am

OK I have a few minutes here on lunch so I'll try my best.

Nice parting shot...drop a couple moabs like abolish the income tax and go back to the gold standard -- yawn, off to bed... I'll expect you to defend those wild eyed ideals upon your return.

There is nothing wild-eyed about abolishing the Income Tax and returning to a commodity-based currency. To begin with, our Founders recognized the evils of an Income Tax and specifically prohibited it in the original Constitution. Only when the government realized that it was missing out on a tremendous source of revenue did they overturn that decision and pass the 16th Amendment. America has existed for longer without an income tax than we have with one. Plenty of countries in Eastern Europe are now experimenting with replacing their Income Taxes with a nation-wide sales tax of anywhere between 20-30%. American economists have suggested this as well, both as a way to incredibly simplify the tax code but also to make taxes more fair and enable us to abolish the hated IRS.

Moving back to the gold standard is an absolute must IMHO. Since 1971, America and the world have experienced tremendous booms and busts created by worthless and artificial currencies. Our currency has absolutely no meaning anymore - it's only worthy what the government tells us its worth. Manipulation of currency has been the downfall of many proud societies and it will strike ours as well if we don't act soon. Backing up your currency with a commodity places restraints on the government because money can't simply be invented out of thin air. Just check out reports from the General Accounting Office to see how incredibly screwed the American government is. We have $3.1 TRILLION budgets with absolutely no way to pay for them. Hell, the only reason our currency hasn't collapsed yet is because its in the best interest of oil-producing nations and others (South Korea, Japan, China, etc.) to have a stable dollar. That's why these countries horde tremendous amounts of dollars in their central reserves, which provide stability to their own economy. Should these countries begin a currency readjustment (as Kuwait recently announced), then it will officially be the end of America. If oil-producing nations ever switched to Euros, I can guarantee you the collapse of our country. We have to act now to stop the over-circulation of dollars in print and get back in line with a commodity-based currency. Fiat currencies have been an experiment since only 1971 and IMHO they have failed miserably. Ron Paul was the only candidate to understand the hidden taxes that we pay and the crumbling facade through which the American economy operates. Few others understand (or wish to talk about) just how precarious our economic situation truly is.

police, courts and military.. and the education of our kids.

Shall we try for Redistribution of wealth rather than 'trickle down', or would that be pushing it??

There are two issues that I'm undecided about and that I might end up disagreeing with Libertarians on - education and child abuse. I'll address the latter quickly. We've had several stories on this board of parents who refuse medical attention for children because of religion reasons. Most people wanted the parents arrested but I am opposed to the idea of government interfering in domestic matters. Perhaps the most well known case is Terri Schiavo, which absolutely disgusted me. Age of consent laws and the rights of children have always given me pause because it goes back to the issue of when children can decide for themselves and if age, which is such a random determinant, can legitimately be used.

But I'll expand more on education because you brought up that one specifically. I support the privatization of schools but only lukewarmly. On the surface, I think it's a great idea because that's basically how colleges operate today anyway. The flip-side that gives me pause is what will happen to education in the Bible Belt when the Supreme Court no longer has jurisdiction to keep IDiocy out of science classes. My counter-argument to that would of course be that we already have private religious universities and colleges that do the exact same thing, e.g. Liberty University. So what would be the difference if we have religiously-driven lower, middle and high schools as well? Who cares if we have a nation-wide curriculum for pre-college schools if students can then voluntarily go to a brain-washing university like Liberty?

That's the only true negative that I see for private schools. The benefits are of course competition among schools, which is the only thing that can help raise standards. Monopolies are the absolute worst form of economics, which I'd like to point out can only occur with government help. Why do students have one choice of where to go, unless they pay for a private education? When there is no incentive to raise standards, why should schools care? No Child Left Behind has failed to do anything in the fight to raise school standards. Money certainly doesn't help either - Washington DC gets more money per student than any other area yet consistently is at the bottom of the barrel in results. Competition brings out the best in the private sector because organizations are competing for revenue. Private schools that compete against each other will be on their toes constantly in an effort to raise their standards. It will also give all children a choice, rather than them simply going to a school because of where they were born. At the very least, school vouchers need to be approved nation-wide ASAP.

And now my lunch is over. Cheers.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

299. Comment #162330 by Radesq on April 16, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Alright Falcon here's the problem, sales taxes even vat are regressive taxes, in that the poor have very little disposable income and have by necessity a relatively low savings rate (or at least ability to save). Therefore a much greater percentage of their income is spent (taxed). You might say -- well poor people are the ones who get all the benefits from the government so why shouldn't they pay the most in taxes. Well, for one thing it is just wrong...the defense department that you work for and State, Commerce, Interior, etc... all insure and provide a stable and safe economic business place where those with high incomes derive most of the benefits. The poor just slog along from welfare to dead end job, etc...until they can make the right business connection, get enough college credits to move up in the job market, or otherwise get some lucky break that moves them into the middle class (the taxpaying class). The well to do in America are dependent on America for the freedom to make their money -- they should pay the most freight.

I'm willing to listen to cutting deductions, flattening the brackets some if possible, and by all means lowering the brackets further if possible. How that money gets spent is another matter...you and I would probably have more in common in our views on waste fraud and abuse in government spending (just not on who is responsible and how to fix it).

Other Comments by Radesq

300. Comment #162335 by Radesq on April 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm

FF on the gold standard I don't disagree with your wish that it would in some ways be a nice thing to not have a baseless currency that can be inflated on a whim. This is again Dreamertarianism -- that ship has sailed, that horse is out of the barn, the genie is out of the lamp/bottle -- you can't get the toothpaste back in the tube, etc...ad infinitum.

Lastly private schools are competition for the public schools. There needs to be a robust public (free to poor people -- yes I know nothing's free we all pay property taxes for other peoples children blah, blah, blah)school system. The alternative is worse and will cost us all more dearly in the long run.

edit: I think at bottom we both feel like if only you were the CEO of America, Inc. you could run it right and the government could just butt out and everything would be great; or if only I were the King of America I would do it right and keep all these robber barons in line and everything would be just great. (ain't gonna happen and it almost certainly wouldn't work out anyway). I am probably closer to you on the personal freedom issue (bleeding heart that I am)but you can't go to theoretical extremes there either. I'd just hate to be satisfied with the current state of affairs where I could be spirited away to some detention facility without a word or a lawyer or a judge that could set me free until the NeoCons get bounced from office.

Other Comments by Radesq