"Makers vs. Takers" and why it's dangerous

[Drewish]

Let's get out all the, "There must be something wrong with you or your brain if you disagree with me!" and the, "Your position is irrational because it's irrational. You hear that? I'm appealing to rationality, which makes me right!" stuff out of the way.

[Gerald McGrew]

If it comes to that, I assure you that Seth and I are better armed.

Well that certainly explains a lot.

*sigh* Nothing like internet discussion boards...

[Calilasseia]

If it comes to that, I assure you that Seth and I are better armed.

Well that certainly explains a lot.

*sigh* Nothing like internet discussion boards...

It's the Wild West fantasy coming to the fore again. Unfortunately there are still people out there whose mindset hasn't moved on from about 1860. And who still think the answer to every problem consists, at bottom, of killing whoever stands in their way. If it wasn't such a perilous threat to the human species, upon account of it being so prevalent in a country that's still a de facto superpower, it would be just sad.

[Drewish]

Wait wait wait wait wait. I am threatened with others supporting the lynch mob stringing me up when the time comes, and yet my response that I am well armed is the extremist, "Oh look at this sick outdated bastard!" comment? You fucking passive aggressive hypocrites.

[Seth]

If it comes to that, I assure you that Seth and I are better armed.

Well that certainly explains a lot.

*sigh* Nothing like internet discussion boards...

It's the Wild West fantasy coming to the fore again. Unfortunately there are still people out there whose mindset hasn't moved on from about 1860. And who still think the answer to every problem consists, at bottom, of killing whoever stands in their way. If it wasn't such a perilous threat to the human species, upon account of it being so prevalent in a country that's still a de facto superpower, it would be just sad.

The thing about that mindset is that it's still around for a very good reason: It works.

[Seth]

@Drewish.. Be careful how 'loudly' you shout that. Sociopaths will be the first to find their heads on the block when the poor say enough is enough.

Except of course that they have no arms with which to enforce their ire because they are a) poor; and b) have capitulated to their masters in disarming themselves under the illusion that doing so will bring them safety.

[Seth]

No, the people who think the likes of RMoney and the Rethuglicons are seeking to return us all to serfdom, are the people who read the evidence, Seth. Which the R-thugs have provided themselves in quantity.

Only if you're a Dumbocrat who thinks the Obama campaign's propaganda constitutes "evidence".

Ha ha. You're funny. Heard of Gary North, have you? He's the author of this little piece. In that piece, he argues that the poor deserve what's coming to them because they don't conform to Dominonist doctrine.

Whoopee. Quote one religious nut and then assume that he represents the 48 or more percent of people who voted for Romney, now that's what I call Marxist Progressive propaganda and indoctrination.

Also, there was a nice interview conducted in 1985 by Danuta Soderman, co-host on Pat Robertson's 700 Club, in which she interviewed a certain Dr Walter Williams. Here's a key part of that interview, in which plans to destroy healthcare provision for those without platinum Amex cards were discussed:

You lie. He merely says that the way to help people is through rational self interest, altruism and charity, not by government force. No where does he suggest that anyone should be left without health care. He simply reiterates the logical question of how you morally justify taking what belongs to one person and giving it to another to meet that other person's needs when the person from whom it was taken has not accepted financial responsibility for that other person. This is a moral question that your ilk can never answer and which you always avoid...because there is no moral justification for stealing from one man merely because he has more in order to cater to the needs of someone else who has less.

Even better, how about North's apologetics for the reintroduction of slavery? Taken from that article I linked to above:

At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth.

That's not slavery, it's involuntary servitude as restorative justice. We already do that in every nation on earth, it's called "prison." The difference is that under the existing system the malefactor is incarcerated at public expense and may or may not perform any useful labor that creates wealth or compensates for the costs of his imprisonment, much less restoring his victims and making them whole.

The notion of indentured servitude for criminals so that they can effectively recompense their victims while also performing productive work that generates wealth and minimizes their financial impacts on the rest of society is quite reasonable and attractive, and certainly could be used for non-violent criminals.

The difference between slavery and bonded servitude is that a slave has done nothing to deserve being enslaved. He is enslaved because he can be enslaved, and because he is deemed inferior and without rights by his enslavers.

The criminal, on the other hand, has committed a crime that has unjustly damaged another person and he can reasonably and justifiably be bound to involuntary servitude (prison or bonded servitude) as punishment and rehabilitation. The idea that he would be rehabilitated by, and would work to the benefit of his victims directly is a very good "restorative justice" concept that's fundamentally no different than requiring him to pay damage when he gets out during his parole. The benefit of the bonded servitude model is that the state's costs for the punishment and rehabilitation are minimized by not having to keep him in prison at public expense. Instead, he's being a productive, albeit legally bound, member of society while he is being rehabilitated.

There's nothing in the laws of this nation that would make this unlawful because the proscriptions against "slavery" and "involuntary servitude" do not, and have never applied to criminals being punished.

So, Cali, once again I've handed you your ass and debunked your ridiculous "logic" and so-called "reasoning."

BTW, I'm working on a response to your rebuttal that also debunks your horseshit claims, but it's getting long, so I'm working on it off-line and will have it for you soon.

[pErvinalia]

So it's not really about whether I am interested in having a rational conversation then, is it?

Of course it is. If you aren't a sociopath, then a rational conversation could be possible. All I'm saying is that if you really are a sociopath, then a rational conversation is highly unlikely. That's why I was asking you whether you really stand by the "fuck the poor" crap.

[pErvinalia]

There is a difference between selfishness and sociopathy Rev. I'm sure some sociopaths are libertarians but it does not follow that all libertarians are sociopaths

You are right, and I was mainly talking about Drewish's comment of "fuck the poor". I happen to think the ideology of right-libertarianism is sociopathic and would lead to the total collapse of society. But individual libertarians could be more or less sane.

[Seth]

There is a difference between selfishness and sociopathy Rev. I'm sure some sociopaths are libertarians but it does not follow that all libertarians are sociopaths

You are right, and I was mainly talking about Drewish's comment of "fuck the poor". I happen to think the ideology of right-libertarianism is sociopathic and would lead to the total collapse of society. But individual libertarians could be more or less sane.

Except of course that your vision of Libertarianism is entirely fabricated in your own mind and consists of a giant strawman fallacy. You neither know nor care what Libertarianism actually is or how it works, you just choose to denigrate it and ignore the many deliberate and gross errors that you perpetrate regarding Libertarian philosophy, and you've been doing it for what, 5 years since I've known you.

You're as deliberately and mendaciously ignorant of Libertarianism as an evangelical "Dominionist" is of atheism. And you appear just as stupid.

[Warren Dew]

So it's not really about whether I am interested in having a rational conversation then, is it?

Of course it is. If you aren't a sociopath, then a rational conversation could be possible. All I'm saying is that if you really are a sociopath, then a rational conversation is highly unlikely. That's why I was asking you whether you really stand by the "fuck the poor" crap.

You don't know much about sociopaths, do you? They're actually known for being quite rational. They would also never say things like "fuck the poor" in company where that was a controversial statement, though they would generally think that about the poor as well as about everyone else other than themselves.

[pErvinalia]

Ok. I guess i'm not familiar with the proper medical definition. I was using it figuratively, I guess. So to clarify, I want to know whether this bloke stands by his statement "fuck the poor!". If he does, then I don't think a rational conversation can ensue. If it was just bluster, then, well, whatever.

[Kristie]

Ok. I guess i'm not familiar with the proper medical definition. I was using it figuratively, I guess. So to clarify, I want to know whether this bloke stands by his statement "fuck the poor!". If he does, then I don't think a rational conversation can ensue. If it was just bluster, then, well, whatever.

I'm pretty sure he stands by it.

[pErvinalia]

That's pretty shocking. I don't know how anyone can feel like that towards disadvantaged people. If that's not sociopathic, then it's certainly dangerously anti-social. Disgusting.

[Drewish]

Anti-social eh? That's a new one.