Wednesday, December 12, 2018 • Afternoon Edition • "ISIS approved!"

The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

Comics news, comic book reviews, feature articles about comics, interviews with comic creators, plus the greatest comic book and pop culture discussion in the Outhouse forums!

Advertisement

So who's getting Obamacare?

What will you be doing once Obamacare takes effect?

I will be keeping my current plan.
26
67%
I will be signing up for a new plan under Obamacare.
6
15%
I will be losing my insurance.
1
3%
I don't have insurance now and will continue to not have it.
3
8%
I am a US Senator or major corporation so I am exempt.
3
8%
  Total votes : 39

Hey you! Reader! Want to be a part of the GREATEST COMIC BOOK AND GEEK COMMUNITY on the web?! Well, they're not accepting new members, but we'll take anyone here, so why not sign up for a free acount? It's fast and it's easy, like your mom! Sign up today! Membership spots are limited!*

*Membership spots not really limited!

User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:13 pm

BlueStreak wrote:Jude, it shames me what a liberal you've turned into.

The problem with Graeber's premise is that he's handling stuff like family all wrong. I don't feed my daughter for free because it's the human thing to do, it's an investment that I plan on recouping when I sell her on the market, or collect payment from her husband to be.

I'd go on, but I really just wanted to be the first person to call you a dirty liberal, and blab on about how much you've changed and try to shame you somehow.


:x :lol:
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:21 pm

Instead of the accurate yet pithy response, let's dissect this.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:The every man for himself ideal of modern free market capitalism is what's flawed.


It is, and the arguments in the rest of the paragraph do not support your thesis.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:The concept that the pinnacle of morality is finance, that the ultimate sin is not paying or being able to pay for all one needs, and that the inherent worth of human beings is based on their ability to produce profit is a fallacy that's been drilled into the people of this country by the bankers and 1%ers whose interest it serves. The fact is, human civilization has always, to some extent, been socialist.


Free-market capitalism says nothing about equating finance with morality. Libertarianism, of which I am an adherent, extolls free market capitalism, but makes no judgments as to the morality of those less financially well off. You can be a very moral, very poor, libertarian.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:David Graeber writes about it in his book, Debt: The First 5000 Years, a great read. Here's some of the ideas he talks about:

When the need is very great, or the request very small, human beings revert to communism. For instance, if someone asks you for directions on the street, you don't ask them, "what's it worth to you?" You give them the directions, because the request made of you is small. Likewise, if you see someone in a burning car about to explode, you might pull them out of it, but you wouldn't say, "now you owe me money for saving your life." The need was very great, and you are willing to pitch in, even though you're not being compensated fairly for your work. You might say "the reward is helping someone in need," but the fact is, as a human being, it is a fundamental desire to help other human beings.


Nothing about free-market capitalism or libertarianism prevents you from helping other human beings. It is the idea of coercing such help that makes it immoral.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:We saw this during World War 2, when people pitched in all around the country to help out the soldiers who were fighting overseas. We see it when a disaster occurs and people pitch in to help. Human beings want to help each other. The Ayn Randian "every man for himself" idea is what's unnatural,


Another fundamental misunderstanding. People pitched in during World War 2, to help the soldiers, because it helped them. In Ayn Rand's works, there are frequent examples of people helping people. It is in their best interest.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote: and its purpose is to prop up the free market capitalist empire of the United States, which uses its economic and military power to exact tribute and extract wealth from the rest of the world through debt, both by assigning debt to third world countries and forcing them to pay it, and by allowing other developed nations to purchase debt from the United States that we never intend to pay. This system requires the lie that it's every man for himself and that profit is the ultimate pinnacle of morality in order to work. As soon as someone realizes that, maybe, not paying their "debt" isn't such a bad and immoral thing, the whole system falls apart. Not for regular people, who would probably be better off. For the people who have the most to lose: the obscenely rich, the banks, the corporations.


In any system, the one who has the least to lose, has the least to lose. This fact does not make the acquiring of another's property by force a moral position.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:With our families, we're communists. I don't make my daughters pay me for providing them with dinner. I work, they eat. With our friends, we're communists, perhaps to a lesser degree. We'll happily share food, goods, work (in the form of favor) with them to some extent. We're somewhat like this with our communities, then our states, then our countries. As human beings feel connected to each other, they share things, and I don't think it's unreasonable to share the cost of healthcare, and it doesn't make us socialists.


Again you miss the point. All of these relationships are welcomed in libertarianism, so long as they are freely entered into. If you and millions of like minded folks all agree to pay into a communal system for the benefit of all, and this agreement is entered into willingly, this is completely compatible with libertarian values and the free-market. It is when you make such participation compulsory that these acts become immoral.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:As throughout all of human history, we're a a mixture of communism and capitalism, and that's the way it should be.


All through human history we have been violent. This is also immoral and not something we should promote simply because it has always been this way. The issue is not the form of economy, it is the nature of the state Jude. So long as people may enter associations of their own free will, feel free to pick and choose whatever method is in your own best interest.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Now, whether government is the best way to ensure this happens,


And here you finally get to the crux of the problem. It isn't, as it isn't in most any other endeavor. Which now comes full circle to MY assertion (as opposed to the straw man you answered). Obamacare is flawed in CONCEPT because it fundamentally rests on the premise that an individual has a RIGHT to the fruits of another's labor. This is its inherent flaw. Despite your verbose response, you have done nothing to advance the idea that this is indeed a moral position.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:But your balls to the wall hardcore capitalist attitude is just ridiculous. No one is really like that, unless they live in the woods and don't associate with any other human beings. We're part of a society and we make concessions to our individual needs and desires for the better of that society, to some reasonable extent, and hopefully with some kind of reasonable consensus (which used to be a lot easier before the powers that be realized that they could distract people with endless ideological and class warfare over "liberalism" and "conservativism" that's ultimately meaningless and just serves to allow the rich to continue extracting wealth from the poor.


My balls to the wall position is one of personal liberty and freedom. I believe that this philosophy allows for a maximum of morality and that under such a system all forms of economy are able to compete. I also believe that in most all cases free market capitalism will be the "winner" when such a competition is allowed.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I used to be like you, Spektre, though never quite as crazy. I saw the light. It's not too late for you.


And you can still be saved Jude. Many lose their way.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:02 pm

Spektre wrote:Instead of the accurate yet pithy response, let's dissect this.



It is, and the arguments in the rest of the paragraph do not support your thesis.


Yes they do.


Free-market capitalism says nothing about equating finance with morality. Libertarianism, of which I am an adherent, extolls free market capitalism, but makes no judgments as to the morality of those less financially well off. You can be a very moral, very poor, libertarian.


Yes it does, when the basis behind your claims are about people not paying their fair share. You may claim you make no judgement as to the morality of people less financially well off, but you believe that they are leeches if they take part in certain benefits provided by society. Behind the morality of American society is the notion that one must always pay one's debts, and that failure to do so is the ultimate sin. There is the notion that people who accrue a lot of debt are irresponsible, that it is their own fault, and that they should have to suffer the consequences of it on their own. There is a tendency to boil down everything about human interaction into a quantifiable exchange of value. Person A is contributing more value than Person B, and therefore is entitled to more than Person B because they earned it. As a society, we accept this as indisputable fact, but I'm not so sure it is. If it is, why do we behave so strangely with our families and friends?


Nothing about free-market capitalism or libertarianism prevents you from helping other human beings. It is the idea of coercing such help that makes it immoral.


When you deal with the sheer numbers of people connected in a society like this one, how else would you coordinate it? I'm the first person to say our government sucks and does not operate with our best interests in mind, but that's independent of whether or not people should be entitled to health care. If the United States were a small village with ten people living in it, on some island with no government and no money, and one of those people was a doctor, the doctor would provide health care to the other nine people, while each of the others would contribute what they could. One person might grow vegetables, one might raise livestock, one might make clothes, etc. But it is a vast country that has been made extremely impersonal by, frankly, the existence of money, which allows transactions like "clothes for food" to become impersonal, quantifiable in terms of dollars and cents, and completely divorced from human interaction. It's just a transaction. And that leads to problems where people can be stuck without healthcare in a country more than capable of providing it, while hospitals charge $500 for an aspirin. Something needs to be done to fix it. I'm not saying Obamacare is the answer - I think it's far from it. But some kind of universal health care system is needed, IMO, and it is the existence of governments, which wage war, which requires money, which makes human civilization impersonal, that has prevented it from happening, not the other way around.


Another fundamental misunderstanding. People pitched in during World War 2, to help the soldiers, because it helped them. In Ayn Rand's works, there are frequent examples of people helping people. It is in their best interest.


I think that's ridiculous. Ayn Rand is ridiculous. You might as well be reading wicca books from the new age section of the book store. Sorry.


In any system, the one who has the least to lose, has the least to lose. This fact does not make the acquiring of another's property by force a moral position.


What makes property something that can only be owned by an individual (or a corporation acting as an individual)? Some property is public, and perhaps healthcare is that type of property. The accumulation of human knowledge over the course of centuries had led to medicine being as advanced as it is. It's why drug patents only last a certain period of time. Human knowledge and ability is built on the foundation of thousands of years of civilization. Perhaps we owe our predecessors more debt than we could possibly pay back in our lifetime, and that is why we should pay it forward by using the fruits of their labor, which dwarf ours in comparison when taken as a whole, to heal people who are sick.


Again you miss the point. All of these relationships are welcomed in libertarianism, so long as they are freely entered into. If you and millions of like minded folks all agree to pay into a communal system for the benefit of all, and this agreement is entered into willingly, this is completely compatible with libertarian values and the free-market. It is when you make such participation compulsory that these acts become immoral.


You freely enter into a relationship with society. If you don't want to be a part it, go live in the woods and eat bugs. To attempt to be a part of a civilization consisting of hundreds of millions of people and expect them all to keep a tally of value transactions where everyone receives value proportional to what they put in is ludicrously simplistic.


All through human history we have been violent. This is also immoral and not something we should promote simply because it has always been this way. The issue is not the form of economy, it is the nature of the state Jude. So long as people may enter associations of their own free will, feel free to pick and choose whatever method is in your own best interest.


But the very transactional nature of your view of society comes from the state. Money and war go hand in hand. Money was created as a way to pay soldiers so that they could purchase goods in places where they have no connection to the local society. War leads to money leads to slavery to mine silver to make coins which leads to more war. There's a silly notion that before money we had "the barter system," which was the same thing, but such an idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The idea that, at any given time in history before money, a person who made shows but needed chicken eggs could locate another person who had chicken eggs and needed shoes and make a trade with them is quite ridiculous. In fact, what is more likely is that we had a system wherein a person who had eggs provided them to the people in their community who needed them, and when he needed shoes he went to the person in the community who made shoes from him, and so on. This couldn't happen when you had soldiers in town to fight a war. They're not going to be around later on to make shoes, so why should people give them eggs? Thus, money is required, and now everything has a quantifiable value which allows society to built around this idea of constantly keeping track of the exchange of that value.



And here you finally get to the crux of the problem. It isn't, as it isn't in most any other endeavor. Which now comes full circle to MY assertion (as opposed to the straw man you answered). Obamacare is flawed in CONCEPT because it fundamentally rests on the premise that an individual has a RIGHT to the fruits of another's labor. This is its inherent flaw. Despite your verbose response, you have done nothing to advance the idea that this is indeed a moral position.


Your entire position is fundamentally flawed because it's based on the premise that your labor is contributing greater value to society than society is contributing to you, but unless you live in a cave and forage for berries, you are reaping benefits from the whole of human civilization far greater than the value you contribute, you leech.


My balls to the wall position is one of personal liberty and freedom. I believe that this philosophy allows for a maximum of morality and that under such a system all forms of economy are able to compete. I also believe that in most all cases free market capitalism will be the "winner" when such a competition is allowed.


It's only the winner because of government and the threat of organized violence to protect property. The idea that free market capitalism is the natural state of human interaction is laughable.


And you can still be saved Jude. Many lose their way.


I hope you get the help you need.

The Old Doctor

Postby The Old Doctor » Thu Oct 03, 2013 3:28 pm

Spektre wrote:
Cat,

You're only seeing half the problem. Obamacare has two levels of problems.

1. It is very flawed in its implementation. It was hastily drafted, not vetted, and passed Unconstitutionally. All of these things, as you note, can be tweaked and corrected.

2. Its premise is flawed. The premise that individuals have the RIGHT to the fruits of another's labor. This cannot be fixed.


I saw all of that.

BUT, I believe in a social healthcare system is better then this Darwinist system that has existed. I'm a Canadian and a socialist in that I believe that merit is important to a society and it's recognition, I also believe that by ensuring the over all health of the society, you create a better one.

No system is perfect, but it beats having people die slow deaths just due to their income level.

Yeah, yeah, I'm a pinko commie but that comes with being a Canadian, as a certain poster always said with these things. :-D :wink:

JUDE!! You may really be becoming a Canadian! If you feel the need to drink beer, have maple syrup on pancakes... :-D
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:17 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
Yes they do.


No, they didn't

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

Yes it does, when the basis behind your claims are about people not paying their fair share. You may claim you make no judgement as to the morality of people less financially well off, but you believe that they are leeches if they take part in certain benefits provided by society. Behind the morality of American society is the notion that one must always pay one's debts, and that failure to do so is the ultimate sin. There is the notion that people who accrue a lot of debt are irresponsible, that it is their own fault, and that they should have to suffer the consequences of it on their own. There is a tendency to boil down everything about human interaction into a quantifiable exchange of value. Person A is contributing more value than Person B, and therefore is entitled to more than Person B because they earned it. As a society, we accept this as indisputable fact, but I'm not so sure it is. If it is, why do we behave so strangely with our families and friends?


Again you are not stating truth. There is no concept of "fair share" in libertarianism, or free market capitalism. There IS a concept of property ownership and that exchanges must occur freely. One person may not initiate force against another. But yes, not paying one's debt's is stealing another's property. There is a fine line between accepting benefits and procuring the payment for them, but the immorality occurs when force or the threat of force is used to extract the resources from by another. Try to spin it anyway you want, but that's wrong.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

When you deal with the sheer numbers of people connected in a society like this one, how else would you coordinate it? I'm the first person to say our government sucks and does not operate with our best interests in mind, but that's independent of whether or not people should be entitled to health care. If the United States were a small village with ten people living in it, on some island with no government and no money, and one of those people was a doctor, the doctor would provide health care to the other nine people, while each of the others would contribute what they could. One person might grow vegetables, one might raise livestock, one might make clothes, etc. But it is a vast country that has been made extremely impersonal by, frankly, the existence of money, which allows transactions like "clothes for food" to become impersonal, quantifiable in terms of dollars and cents, and completely divorced from human interaction. It's just a transaction. And that leads to problems where people can be stuck without healthcare in a country more than capable of providing it, while hospitals charge $500 for an aspirin. Something needs to be done to fix it.
I'm not saying Obamacare is the answer - I think it's far from it. But some kind of universal health care system is needed, IMO


Same flawed premise. No one is entitled to the fruits of another's labor. Need doesn't create obligation.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I think that's ridiculous. Ayn Rand is ridiculous. You might as well be reading wicca books from the new age section of the book store. Sorry.


You brought her up. I see your reflex of if you disagree with someone they are absurd and ridiculous is still intact.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

What makes property something that can only be owned by an individual (or a corporation acting as an individual)? Some property is public, and perhaps healthcare is that type of property. The accumulation of human knowledge over the course of centuries had led to medicine being as advanced as it is. It's why drug patents only last a certain period of time. Human knowledge and ability is built on the foundation of thousands of years of civilization. Perhaps we owe our predecessors more debt than we could possibly pay back in our lifetime, and that is why we should pay it forward by using the fruits of their labor, which dwarf ours in comparison when taken as a whole, to heal people who are sick.


Kumbayah muh lord......kumbayah....

The fruits of one's labor are property of the worker to be traded for at the rate the worker sets or remain theirs. I will admit this is an axiom, but it is one I am comfortable with.


S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

You freely enter into a relationship with society. If you don't want to be a part it, go live in the woods and eat bugs. To attempt to be a part of a civilization consisting of hundreds of millions of people and expect them all to keep a tally of value transactions where everyone receives value proportional to what they put in is ludicrously simplistic.


Ahh the old "social contract" trope. Jude, you are relatively intelligent. You can't believe this. And even if you do I have news for ya. Head into the woods and eat bugs. You still are required to have personal health insurance or pay a tax.


S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

But the very transactional nature of your view of society comes from the state. Money and war go hand in hand. Money was created as a way to pay soldiers so that they could purchase goods in places where they have no connection to the local society. War leads to money leads to slavery to mine silver to make coins which leads to more war. There's a silly notion that before money we had "the barter system," which was the same thing, but such an idea doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The idea that, at any given time in history before money, a person who made shows but needed chicken eggs could locate another person who had chicken eggs and needed shoes and make a trade with them is quite ridiculous. In fact, what is more likely is that we had a system wherein a person who had eggs provided them to the people in their community who needed them, and when he needed shoes he went to the person in the community who made shoes from him, and so on. This couldn't happen when you had soldiers in town to fight a war. They're not going to be around later on to make shoes, so why should people give them eggs? Thus, money is required, and now everything has a quantifiable value which allows society to built around this idea of constantly keeping track of the exchange of that value.


This paragraph just netted a double facepalm. Your ideas on the genesis of money are faulty, as is your notions on how early man lived. You need no state to have a market, other than to enforce contracts.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

Your entire position is fundamentally flawed because it's based on the premise that your labor is contributing greater value to society than society is contributing to you, but unless you live in a cave and forage for berries, you are reaping benefits from the whole of human civilization far greater than the value you contribute, you leech.



You are free under libertarianism AND the free market to benefit as much from other people's labor as they are willing to freely give you. There need not be a balance sheet as you keep trying to conflate.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

It's only the winner because of government and the threat of organized violence to protect property. The idea that free market capitalism is the natural state of human interaction is laughable.


Who said ANYTHING about the natural state of human affairs? You keep trying to dodge and goalpost move. The natural state of human affairs, I would offer, is one of violence and the strongest gets all the toys. Seems kind of like our current situation, where the strongest is the state/government.

Libertarianism and free market capitalism offer a more refined, more moral method of human affairs. One in which human interaction occurs voluntarily instead of via the threat of force.

New Groovy Jude wrote:I hope you get the help you need.

And I hope you are able to afford the market price to continue your sessions.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:18 pm

On a related note is there anyway to turn on multilevel quoting by default? When an debate is only quoted one level deep it encourages circular logic that is only one level deep.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:02 pm

Let's switch it up. Name a market that existed before a government. You can't, because markets are created by government to support war.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:14 pm

Come on Spektre. You've got the entire history of human civilization to draw from. You should be able to name a market that wasn't created by government easily. Don't make me wait.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:18 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Let's switch it up. Name a market that existed before a government. You can't, because markets are created by government to support war.


The question is irrelevant from at least two standpoints.

1. Governments predate recorded history. Any markets which predated recorded history are by definition, lacking in documentation.

I have heard, one of the earliest markets took place after people transitioned from being primarily nomadic to agrarian. A division of labor formed to facilitate the storing of food between growing seasons. A market price was developed for the storing of food. I cannot verify the authenticity of this account.

2. My argument does not rest on any pillars that the free-market predates governments, or war for that matter. You keep trying to bend the argument for reasons that are unclear, but you aren't refuting my premise.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:19 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Come on Spektre. You've got the entire history of human civilization to draw from. You should be able to name a market that wasn't created by government easily. Don't make me wait.


I do move on to other pursuits occasionally. However as an aside, work on your logic man! You got rhetoric down OK.

I do not have the entire history of human civilization to draw from. YOU have defined the timeframe as one predating the existence of government. That, by definition, excludes parts of the entire history of human civilization.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:37 pm

Spektre wrote:
The question is irrelevant from at least two standpoints.

1. Governments predate recorded history. Any markets which predated recorded history are by definition, lacking in documentation.

I have heard, one of the earliest markets took place after people transitioned from being primarily nomadic to agrarian. A division of labor formed to facilitate the storing of food between growing seasons. A market price was developed for the storing of food. I cannot verify the authenticity of this account.

2. My argument does not rest on any pillars that the free-market predates governments, or war for that matter. You keep trying to bend the argument for reasons that are unclear, but you aren't refuting my premise.



But you said:

You need no state to have a market, other than to enforce contracts.


And you are wrong, because markets are a creation of government. To have a market, you need a government. Yes, to enforce contracts (implied, by violence or threat of violence), but also to build the roads used for commerce, to write the laws allowing ownership of property so that it can be traded, to establish a system of currency so things can be given value, but moreso than anything else, to create the desire for people to want to trade in this way, which is clearly advantageous only to a few (those who already have, or have more). Without a government, people will behave more like communists, supporting their neighbors and community with the skills and resources they have while relying on the community for those that they do not.

I'm not advocating for that, by the way. I like a capitalist system with regulation. The progress of civilization is greatly aided by it, and I like my smartphone. Unfortunately, that regulation should be in place to make sure the people were not being screwed, but now, as we saw with who Bush and Obama chose to bail out when given the choice between the banks and the people (hint: they didn't choose the people), the regulations protect the banks, which makes sense, since the banks fund the politicians. I think Obamacare is similar. Rather than make sure that people can get healthcare, it makes sure that insurance companies are paid for healthcare. I'd prefer a single payer system.

You say that not paying debts is theft, and therefore immoral, but I think that you're wrong. A fair trade can really only be made between two entities that are equal. A trade between an entity that is vastly more powerful than another is not really a trade, it is an exchange between master and subject, because one entity has no leverage to negotiate. They must simply accept the terms of the more powerful entity, or suffer harm. If I meet with a king, and the king says "swear fealty to me or die," I may swear fealty because I don't want to die, but I have no moral obligation to uphold that oath. I feel the same way about banks and predatory lending practices.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:04 pm

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:

But you said:



Yes I did. BUT, the use of "But" here is inappropriate. The quoted statement does not refute the previous statement. Indeed they support each other.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:And you are wrong, because markets are a creation of government. To have a market, you need a government. Yes, to enforce contracts (implied, by violence or threat of violence), but also to build the roads used for commerce, to write the laws allowing ownership of property so that it can be traded, to establish a system of currency so things can be given value, but moreso than anything else, to create the desire for people to want to trade in this way, which is clearly advantageous only to a few (those who already have, or have more).


Nonsense. All that is required to have people want to trade in this way is:

1. Different people mutually desiring the other's goods and services.
2. People desiring a convenient means of carrying out this trade.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:Without a government, people will behave more like communists, supporting their neighbors and community with the skills and resources they have while relying on the community for those that they do not.


Please state your supporting evidence for this. I believe people in there natural state would act in a very 'uncommunist" way.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:I'm not advocating for that, by the way. I like a capitalist system with regulation. The progress of civilization is greatly aided by it, and I like my smartphone. Unfortunately, that regulation should be in place to make sure the people were not being screwed, but now, as we saw with who Bush and Obama chose to bail out when given the choice between the banks and the people (hint: they didn't choose the people), the regulations protect the banks, which makes sense, since the banks fund the politicians. I think Obamacare is similar. Rather than make sure that people can get healthcare, it makes sure that insurance companies are paid for healthcare. I'd prefer a single payer system.


You fall into the trap of "an all powerful state is the solution to utopia, but only if it works my way." Utopia is a myth. Morality is the best alternative. This is accomplished when people can operate with a maximum of freedom and autonomy. The bail outs you note are also not compatible with free markets, but stem from the "controls" you are so fond of.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:You say that not paying debts is theft, and therefore immoral, but I think that you're wrong.


In that case I demand you give me your property and I choose not to ever pay it back. It is the moral thing to do after all.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:A fair trade can really only be made between two entities that are equal. A trade between an entity that is vastly more powerful than another is not really a trade, it is an exchange between master and subject, because one entity has no leverage to negotiate. They must simply accept the terms of the more powerful entity, or suffer harm. If I meet with a king, and the king says "swear fealty to me or die," I may swear fealty because I don't want to die, but I have no moral obligation to uphold that oath. I feel the same way about banks and predatory lending practices.


I see that whole "Being opposed to the initiation of force and lack of coercion" thing is still eluding you.
User avatar

S.F. Jude Terror

OMCTO

Postby S.F. Jude Terror » Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:20 pm

Spektre wrote:
Yes I did. BUT, the use of "But" here is inappropriate. The quoted statement does not refute the previous statement. Indeed they support each other.


No they don't.


Nonsense. All that is required to have people want to trade in this way is:

1. Different people mutually desiring the other's goods and services.
2. People desiring a convenient means of carrying out this trade.


So in this situation, one man has a jacket and needs bunch of bananas, and another man has a spare bunch of bananas and needs a pair of shoes, and they just happen to find each other? People would need to spend the majority of their time actively seeking out others that happen to have exactly what they want and want exactly what they have. Highly improbable.


Please state your supporting evidence for this. I believe people in there natural state would act in a very 'uncommunist" way.


I can cite a book you won't read with a lot of examples, but I feel that would be fruitless. I'm just going to point at this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer , and post an excerpt. You'll have to draw your own conclusions though, and I'm sure they'll be contrary to mine.

It is easy for Western-educated scholars to fall into the trap of viewing hunter-gatherer social and sexual arrangements in the light of Western values. One common arrangement is the sexual division of labour, with women doing most of the gathering, while men concentrate on big game hunting. It might be imagined that this arrangement oppresses women, keeping them in the domestic sphere. However, hunter-gatherer women would not understand this interpretation. Since childcare is collective, with every baby having multiple mothers and male carers, the domestic sphere is not atomised or privatised but an empowering place to be. In all hunter-gatherer societies, women appreciate the meat brought back to camp by men. An illustrative account is Megan Biesele's study of the southern African Ju/'hoan, 'Women Like Meat'.[21] Recent archaeological research suggests that the sexual division of labor was the fundamental organisational innovation that gave Homo sapiens the edge over the Neanderthals, allowing our ancestors to migrate from Africa and spread across the globe.[22]

To this day, most hunter-gatherers have a symbolically structured sexual division of labour, most often conceptualised through an ideology of blood.[23] However, it is true that in a small minority of cases, women hunt the same kind of quarry as men, sometimes doing so alongside men. The best-known example are the Aeta people of the Philippines. According to one study: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[15] It was also found among the Ju'/hoansi people of Namibia that women helped the men during hunting by helping them track down quarry.[24]




You fall into the trap of "an all powerful state is the solution to utopia, but only if it works my way." Utopia is a myth. Morality is the best alternative. This is accomplished when people can operate with a maximum of freedom and autonomy. The bail outs you note are also not compatible with free markets, but stem from the "controls" you are so fond of.


I do? I don't think I said anything about utopia or all-powerful states. You, however, clearly fall into the trap of "all powerful morality is the solution, as long as it's my morality."


In that case I demand you give me your property and I choose not to ever pay it back. It is the moral thing to do after all.


So you are acknowledging me as your vast intellectual superior. Thank you.


I see that whole "Being opposed to the initiation of force and lack of coercion" thing is still eluding you.


How so? If an entity has vast economic power, it is like the king. A peasant can't be in debt to a King, because a peasant has no ability to effectively defy the wishes of a king. Therefore, any agreement is coerced by the very nature of the relationship.
User avatar

Spektre

FROGMAN

Postby Spektre » Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:16 am

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
No they don't.


The statements:

2. My argument does not rest on any pillars that the free-market predates governments, or war for that matter. You keep trying to bend the argument for reasons that are unclear, but you aren't refuting my premise.

and

You need no state to have a market, other than to enforce contracts.


Are indeed NOT contradictory and ARE supportive of one another.


S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
So in this situation, one man has a jacket and needs bunch of bananas, and another man has a spare bunch of bananas and needs a pair of shoes, and they just happen to find each other? People would need to spend the majority of their time actively seeking out others that happen to have exactly what they want and want exactly what they have. Highly improbable.


Why are you confusing a free-market system with a barter system?

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
I can cite a book you won't read with a lot of examples, but I feel that would be fruitless. I'm just going to point at this instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer , and post an excerpt. You'll have to draw your own conclusions though, and I'm sure they'll be contrary to mine.

It is easy for Western-educated scholars to fall into the trap of viewing hunter-gatherer social and sexual arrangements in the light of Western values. One common arrangement is the sexual division of labour, with women doing most of the gathering, while men concentrate on big game hunting. It might be imagined that this arrangement oppresses women, keeping them in the domestic sphere. However, hunter-gatherer women would not understand this interpretation. Since childcare is collective, with every baby having multiple mothers and male carers, the domestic sphere is not atomised or privatised but an empowering place to be. In all hunter-gatherer societies, women appreciate the meat brought back to camp by men. An illustrative account is Megan Biesele's study of the southern African Ju/'hoan, 'Women Like Meat'.[21] Recent archaeological research suggests that the sexual division of labor was the fundamental organisational innovation that gave Homo sapiens the edge over the Neanderthals, allowing our ancestors to migrate from Africa and spread across the globe.[22]

To this day, most hunter-gatherers have a symbolically structured sexual division of labour, most often conceptualised through an ideology of blood.[23] However, it is true that in a small minority of cases, women hunt the same kind of quarry as men, sometimes doing so alongside men. The best-known example are the Aeta people of the Philippines. According to one study: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."[15] It was also found among the Ju'/hoansi people of Namibia that women helped the men during hunting by helping them track down quarry.[24]



Yes we would come to different conclusions based on this and on the larger subject. It is irrelevant though. Even if I were to grant for sake of argument man's natural state was communist, it would not mean the natural state is the more moral state (see violence argument previous)

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
I do? I don't think I said anything about utopia or all-powerful states. You, however, clearly fall into the trap of "all powerful morality is the solution, as long as it's my morality."


You do, and you have. Reread what you wrote.

My original premise to this thread is Obamacare is flawed in implementation and is flawed on CONCEPT as it is not moral. So yes, the solution to a moral problem is greater morality.

On the topic of morality, your moral solutions so far involve:

1. Theft of property.
2. Defaulting on debts.
3. Greater oppression of the citizenry in order to enforce communal property.

What other moral tenets exist on Bizzaro-world?

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
So you are acknowledging me as your vast intellectual superior. Thank you.


Not at all, just demonstrating the folly of your policies. I noticed you didn't agree to the terms.

S.F. Jude Terror wrote:
How so? If an entity has vast economic power, it is like the king. A peasant can't be in debt to a King, because a peasant has no ability to effectively defy the wishes of a king. Therefore, any agreement is coerced by the very nature of the relationship.


You demonstrate the lack of grasp again here. I'll try and demonstrate.

Bill Gates has vast economic power. I remember a time a TV talk show rained $20 bills from the ceiling of the set at the rate he made money during the show. By the end of the show, it was waist deep in some areas. Regardless of his vast economic power, in a free market system, any transaction entered into between he and I is voluntary. He is unable to coerce it. In order for trade to occur between he and I, we must each have something the other wants more than what we currently have and agree this is the best place for our respective property to be traded. This is quite unlike the king and the peasant at knife-point.

When the power of this market is given to the government, they can pass laws such as one requiring me to purchase a Windows phone or pay a tax. If I refuse, it is THEN I find myself at the end of a knife/gun.
User avatar

habitual

Silly French Man

Postby habitual » Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:56 am

What a bunch of drivel! :lol:

Hab

leave a comment with facebook


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Flamebird, Glacier16, Glaeken, Grayson, sdsichero, Spacedog, Vader and 40 guests