Socialised Medicine Yaaaaaaaayyyy

[FBM]

However, I think this was spin by the architects of early communist thought, either through naive idealism, or cynical design. The revolutionary process they outlined was inevitably going to lead to authoritarian rule and excessive loss of freedom (for all other than the party elite).

Well, I just finished doing some reading in The German Ideology (Marx and Engels) and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels), and that's not what's described therein.

Stateless communism is all in one word of the title : Utopian.

Every ideal is utopian in a sense. "The American Dream", etc.

However, I think this was spin by the architects of early communist thought, either through naive idealism, or cynical design. The revolutionary process they outlined was inevitably going to lead to authoritarian rule and excessive loss of freedom (for all other than the party elite).

Well, I just finished doing some reading in The German Ideology (Marx and Engels) and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels), and that's not what's described therein.

It's more pragmatic than that; in every case where an old left model has been tried, the consequences have been disastrous...

I'm not sure the original model has ever been tried, really. There are so many permutations of it. OTOH, as I mentioned earlier, the original model was seriously flawed. However, we're not stuck with any of the pre-existing models. There's nothing (except lingering Cold War propaganda and resultant lingering bigotry) to keep us from making a new model, a hybrid that is realistic instead of idealistic. It doesn't have to be either-or.

[Svartalf]

However, I think this was spin by the architects of early communist thought, either through naive idealism, or cynical design. The revolutionary process they outlined was inevitably going to lead to authoritarian rule and excessive loss of freedom (for all other than the party elite).

Well, I just finished doing some reading in The German Ideology (Marx and Engels) and Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (Engels), and that's not what's described therein.

Stateless communism is all in one word of the title : Utopian.

Every ideal is utopian in a sense. "The American Dream", etc.
.

Unfortunately, Utopia is Never Never land, and utopian stuff never happens, the best you get is rags to riches stories.

[FBM]

Unfortunately, Utopia is Never Never land, and utopian stuff never happens, the best you get is rags to riches stories.

As opposed to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream ?

[SnowLeopard]

No, it authorizes taxation, which is quite different from morally or ethically justifying any particular tax. Are you under the stupid and ignorant presumption that just because collecting income tax is authorized that this means that the government always uses those taxes in a moral or ethical fashion?

What if people have different morals or ethics from you Seth? What if we have to run countries on majority opinion, like appointing parties that represent the majority consensus via like... a secret vote or something. Let's call it democracy.

You can please some of the people some of the time etc etc etc.... ?

Would you prefer if everyone had the same morals and ethics? presumably yours? *vomits*

I dunno Seth I think you're a secret Communist. Being so against giving individuals the liberty of freedom of independent thought deviating from your own... Advocating the genocide of people who don't agree with you... Yes I definitely think you have more in common with Stalin and Pol Pot than Locke.

The problem is that you don't think. If you did, you'd see how wrong you are.

Nearly seven billion people that don't think.

Sadly, yes.

Seven billion that have got it all wrong. Every single country on the planet and not one of them thinking!

Pretty much.

What a pickle eh.

Just sad.

It really is impressive work that you've managed to come along and put everyone straight Seth.

Why thank you. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it and I'm proud to follow the traditions of my forefathers and the Founders of this nation in defending liberty and opposing evil.

Yes I'm sure the voices in your head tell you that.

So, if 7 billion people disagree with your opinions. How do you get around the problem of oppressing their liberty and freedoms by imposing your Communist esque dictatorial junta on them. I don't really see 7 billion people putting up with, well, to put it bluntly, you.

Nope. But then again that's why the Founders didn't provide a list of "arms" that are acceptable under the 2nd Amendment. They simply said "arms," which is an exceedingly broad term.

It is isn't it. So why are some weapons illegal in some states. I was watching an episode of mythbusters and the guy said it was illegal to own a metal ninja throwing star.

If I can't even own a ninja throwing star in California how am I meant to get my hands on a tactical thermonuclear ballistic missile to keep in my shed?

I mean, isn't it the case that it's illegal to gamble in some states? Or buy a kinder egg. Kinda liberty is it if you can't even buy a kinder egg!

Nah. I figure the local army base will put up a Cobra with Hellfire anti-tank missiles to take care of you if you start bulldozing houses with your tank. If you looked up Marvin, you might like to know that a military helicopter was being armed and readied for flight when Marvin ended his rampage.

But I also figure that I'll have plenty of warning, since tanks aren't exactly stealth vehicles.

you would expect the government to protect you?! ugh. Shameful.

Anyway I have a stealth tank and you have to poop some time so

Of course your house is a rental. Rented in a fake name and paid for only with cash I'd wager.

Actually, yes, it is.

It didn't take the deductive powers of Sherlock to assume that.

Well, first you have to find my house, which I'm quite certain you haven't got the intelligence to do, and then you have to find a tank and buy one, which I'm reasonably sure you aren't going to do, then you have to transport it to where my house is, which will create quite a stir and put you on TV. Then you have to unload it from the transport vehicle and drive it to my house, which gives me plenty of time to prepare for your visit.

Ever hear of "surveillance cameras" and "intrusion detection devices?"

No, I imagine not.

EVER HEAR OF A STEALTH TANK, BIATCH, YEAH! you know it. Put the kettle on.

Tell us more about your intrusion detection devices. Well, what you know of them from xBox anyway. Your postie must have a hard time skipping over the claymores and land mines you've planted

Well, he would if you didn't get all your mail sent to an untraceable P.O. Box.

No, as long as the use is moral and ethical, which direct redistributive taxation to benefit other individuals is not. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's either moral or ethical.

Well, in my, already backed up with an argument, opinion, redistributive taxation to the benefit of other individuals is moral and ethical.

So.....It seems your moral and ethical opinion is not an absolute. What're we going to do about people having different views from your Seth?

They won't need to protect themselves against anyone if they leave people alone and don't abuse their authority.

By abuse their authority, you mean do their job.

It's a sign of a very sick government that needs radical surgery to remove the cancer of Marxism when the citizens have to be threatened and coerced into supporting the government.

Evasion, strawman, wibble, pasteurized dairy butter. hugh pew barney macgroo cuthburt dibble and grub. And so on.

It's a sad sign of innocent workers needing to protect themselves from a unhinged minority of libertarian redneck yee-ha lunatics who are armed an extremely unstable, who attempt to prevent workers from doing their job and enforcing the law of legally collecting taxes.

Unhinged lunatics who just can't seem to understand that the nice people at the IRS are not threatening or coercing you in to paying taxes. They are collecting the taxes that the person paying the taxes agreed to hand over to the government by virtue of earning that money in that country in the first place.

I know you'd like to think you have, but you haven't.

Well I'm sure you'd like to think I haven't, but I have.

Just because you predict something does not mean that your arguments are valid or rational.

Oh, I know that. You predict that every country will fail because of the collection of taxes. There's nothing valid or rational about that. You may even think you've made an argument for that, but you haven't

My point is that you're about as predictable as taking a shit after a cup of coffee.

Trust me

Of all the things in this life that I'm never going to do... That's gotta be near the top of the list.

[Seth]

No, it authorizes taxation, which is quite different from morally or ethically justifying any particular tax. Are you under the stupid and ignorant presumption that just because collecting income tax is authorized that this means that the government always uses those taxes in a moral or ethical fashion?

What if people have different morals or ethics from you Seth?

What if they do? Does that ipso facto make their laws morally or ethically supportable? Of course not. Viz: Germany c. 1939.

What if we have to run countries on majority opinion, like appointing parties that represent the majority consensus via like... a secret vote or something. Let's call it democracy.

Fucking worst idea ever. Monarchy is preferable to democracy, at least that way you only have to chop off a couple of heads to put down a tyrant. Democracies require bloodshed on a massive scale to put an end to tyranny...half the population must die.

You can please some of the people some of the time etc etc etc.... ?

Would you prefer if everyone had the same morals and ethics? presumably yours? *vomits*

Oh, most certainly yes! 'Tis devoutly to be wish'd.

I dunno Seth I think you're a secret Communist. Being so against giving individuals the liberty of freedom of independent thought deviating from your own...

More typical socialist evasion. You still refuse to justify socialism and resort to ad hom instead.

Advocating the genocide of people who don't agree with you... Yes I definitely think you have more in common with Stalin and Pol Pot than Locke.

I don't advocate genocide of anyone, I advocate defense against those forces of evil, tyranny and slavery who would seek to destroy the American way of life. If that ends up requiring military action, so be it.

Nope. But then again that's why the Founders didn't provide a list of "arms" that are acceptable under the 2nd Amendment. They simply said "arms," which is an exceedingly broad term.

It is isn't it. So why are some weapons illegal in some states. I was watching an episode of mythbusters and the guy said it was illegal to own a metal ninja throwing star. [/quote]

Depends on where you live. But to answer the question, it's because local governments have either determined that such arms do not bear a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia or because they have enacted unconstitutional laws that have not been properly challenged. BTW, you'll find that in many places where throwing stars, nunchucks and other martial-arts weapons are restricted that they are permitted for use in martial arts training, but banned for concealed carry in public.

If I can't even own a ninja throwing star in California how am I meant to get my hands on a tactical thermonuclear ballistic missile to keep in my shed?

Strawman aside, you can move out of California to a state where throwing stars are not banned and the degree of difficulty or expense that you might experience in obtaining the arms you wish to keep and bear is not a constitutional matter. But if you can find a tank or 105mm howitzer to buy, and you have the money to buy it plus $200 for the NFA tax stamp for the transfer, you can take one home tomorrow. Well, not tomorrow exactly, more like 12 to 15 months after you submit the NFA paperwork...or perhaps 3-4 months if you use the new e-file system for your Form 4 transfer paperwork. Anyway, once you receive the tax stamp you can drive your tank home...provided you obey the laws about metal-tracked and overweight vehicles on public highways. They do make tracks with rubber inserts for just that purpose though.

My point is that you're about as predictable as taking a shit after a cup of coffee.

I'm only predictable because your boring evasions and ad homs are as scientifically certain as the earth's rotation causing the sun to appear to rise in the morning.

I'm just amusing myself watching the steam come out of your ears.

[MrJonno]

I don't advocate genocide of anyone, I advocate defense against those forces of evil, tyranny and slavery who would seek to destroy the American way of life. If that ends up requiring military action, so be it.

Like Seth has ever given a toss about anyone way of life bar his own, then again I suppose Seth = America

[Seth]

I don't advocate genocide of anyone, I advocate defense against those forces of evil, tyranny and slavery who would seek to destroy the American way of life. If that ends up requiring military action, so be it.

Like Seth has ever given a toss about anyone way of life bar his own, then again I suppose Seth = America

This just shows what a tosser you are.

[SnowLeopard]

What if they do? Does that ipso facto make their laws morally or ethically supportable? Of course not. Viz: Germany c. 1939.

No.. but it runs the possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong. What if their laws are morally and ethically supportable and yours are not? What if your opinions are not absolute?

Do you understand that there may be a broader spectrum to morals and ethics than just your opinion and Germany 1939?

Fucking worst idea ever. Monarchy is preferable to democracy, at least that way you only have to chop off a couple of heads to put down a tyrant. Democracies require bloodshed on a massive scale to put an end to tyranny...half the population must die.

I agree democracy is a terrible idea. What if the majority of people are homophobic etc and they make a law to kill gays. Or expunge this disabled from our society. That obviously can't be allowed to happen. So there has to be limits to what the majority can have an opinion on.

More typical socialist evasion. You still refuse to justify socialism and resort to ad hom instead.

Nope. More typical libertarian evasion of the fact I've already justified socialism and my morals and ethics but you resort to willfully ignorant obfuscation to ignore that fact.

This was me justifying my moral and ethical opinion on the matter.

Nope. I believe in care, humanity, compassion. And value the weak and poor of our society more than I value the feelings of out of touch, out of date, self important, greedy self centered misers with delusions of grandeur that want to keep their tight fisted claws on their "own" money. I value it more than I value the views of the lowest scum, the dregs of humanity that would rather their hand stay gripped tightly to their wallet than open it to save someone from dying, or give care and comfort to the elderly and infirm. Especially when they earned that money full in the knowledge of exactly what percentage will be taken by the state so it can be put to better use to help the needy and less fortunate of our society before they earned a penny. It's the same reasoning that nearly everyone in every country in the world adheres to. Simple, straight forward, straight to the point. You lose. It's not really a very elusive opinion.

If you don't like that or are unwilling to accept it. That's really not my problem.

I don't advocate genocide of anyone

Previously on Seth-Watch...

Marxism is...a flatly insane delusional mental defect afflicting a large number of people who, for the betterment of the species, need to be culled from the gene pool.

I'm pretty sure the common contraction of "culling a large number of people" is called genocide...

I advocate defense against those forces of evil, tyranny and slavery who would seek to destroy the American way of life. If that ends up requiring military action, so be it.

Except no one is trying to destroy your way of life through the forces of evil tyranny and slavery. So you can chill your beans.

Strawman aside

There's no strawman, I want my intercontinental thermonuclear ballistic missile. It's an "arm" isn't it. I WANT MY MISSILE!

you can move out of California

woah woah woah.

So you're saying if you don't like the way a certain place operates and does it's business............ You can... move? To somewhere that better suits your views and values?1?!1

That sounds REALLY familiar for some reason.

But if you can find a tank or 105mm howitzer to buy, and you have the money to buy it plus $200 for the NFA tax stamp for the transfer, you can take one home tomorrow. Well, not tomorrow exactly, more like 12 to 15 months after you submit the NFA paperwork...or perhaps 3-4 months if you use the new e-file system for your Form 4 transfer paperwork. Anyway, once you receive the tax stamp you can drive your tank home...provided you obey the laws about metal-tracked and overweight vehicles on public highways. They do make tracks with rubber inserts for just that purpose though.

God damned gubberment bureaucracy eh. So tiresome.

I'm just amusing myself watching the steam come out of your ears.

[/quote][/quote]

Only steam coming from me is via my super secret stealth tank of doom.

[Seth]

What if they do? Does that ipso facto make their laws morally or ethically supportable? Of course not. Viz: Germany c. 1939.

No.. but it runs the possibility that they might be right and you might be wrong. What if their laws are morally and ethically supportable and yours are not? What if your opinions are not absolute?

I never said they were, I simply asked you for your ethical and moral argument in favor of stealing from others. You followed the same path that literally every other socialist I've ever encountered has followed when faced with examining the morality and ethics of their socialist agenda: you went straight to ad hominem argument and evasion, and you've been doing so all along.

Marxism is...a flatly insane delusional mental defect afflicting a large number of people who, for the betterment of the species, need to be culled from the gene pool.

I'm pretty sure the common contraction of "culling a large number of people" is called genocide...

I was thinking natural selection actually. That's accomplished simply by dismantling the welfare state. Those who are genetically inferior will soon die of their helplessness and will not propagate. Those who are genetically superior will take up the challenge of independence and self-reliance and will flourish and reproduce, thus improving the species.

I advocate defense against those forces of evil, tyranny and slavery who would seek to destroy the American way of life. If that ends up requiring military action, so be it.

Except no one is trying to destroy your way of life through the forces of evil tyranny and slavery. So you can chill your beans.

Except you are.

you can move out of California

woah woah woah.

So you're saying if you don't like the way a certain place operates and does it's business............ You can... move? To somewhere that better suits your views and values?1?!1

That sounds REALLY familiar for some reason.

Or you can petition your government for redress of grievances and dispense with the despotic and unconstitutional laws... one way or another...but only if you have the tools needed to enforce your rights against government intrusion.

But if you can find a tank or 105mm howitzer to buy, and you have the money to buy it plus $200 for the NFA tax stamp for the transfer, you can take one home tomorrow. Well, not tomorrow exactly, more like 12 to 15 months after you submit the NFA paperwork...or perhaps 3-4 months if you use the new e-file system for your Form 4 transfer paperwork. Anyway, once you receive the tax stamp you can drive your tank home...provided you obey the laws about metal-tracked and overweight vehicles on public highways. They do make tracks with rubber inserts for just that purpose though.

God damned gubberment bureaucracy eh. So tiresome.

Indeed. But the two "illegal" silencers (with tax stamps)I have in my gun safe demonstrate the principle I'm telling you about. I out-waited them and they had to capitulate to my rights.

[MrJonno]

I never said they were, I simply asked you for your ethical and moral argument in favor of stealing from others. You followed the same path that literally every other socialist I've ever encountered has followed when faced with examining the morality and ethics of their socialist agenda: you went straight to ad hominem argument and evasion, and you've been doing so all along.

Fundamental flaw in that argument is a stealing is a legal concept not an ethical or moral argument. If I take something from you but society decides you never owned it in the first place then I haven't stolen it even through you may disagree a court won't.

To have the privilege of owning property you need to pay taxes to pay for a legal system, if you don't pay taxes you never had any private property for anyone to steal. There is no good or evil in that statement just a legal reality.

The only place good and evil ever exists is inside someone head and is completely irrelevant when society only cares about legal or not legal

[Seth]

I never said they were, I simply asked you for your ethical and moral argument in favor of stealing from others. You followed the same path that literally every other socialist I've ever encountered has followed when faced with examining the morality and ethics of their socialist agenda: you went straight to ad hominem argument and evasion, and you've been doing so all along.

Fundamental flaw in that argument is a stealing is a legal concept not an ethical or moral argument. If I take something from you but society decides you never owned it in the first place then I haven't stolen it even through you may disagree a court won't.

Cart-before-the-horse fallacy. Law is nothing more or less than a codification of a society's view of moral and ethical behavior. If you think you can take something from me that I claim as mine you're making a potentially fatal mistake. "Possession is nine-tenths of the law" is much truer than you might care to think it is.

To have the privilege of owning property you need to pay taxes to pay for a legal system, if you don't pay taxes you never had any private property for anyone to steal. There is no good or evil in that statement just a legal reality.

Wrong. Government doesn't grant title, government at best mediates disputes over title. Property becomes private because I lay claim to it and am able to defend that possession against other claims.

The only place good and evil ever exists is inside someone head and is completely irrelevant when society only cares about legal or not legal

Except that "legal" and "not legal" are expressions of moral judgment by a society.

So once again you're wrong.

[MrJonno]

Except that "legal" and "not legal" are expressions of moral judgment by a society

They are an expression of how society wants to work, whether they are moral or not to any individual is irrelevant

[mistermack]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

[Hermit]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

[Seth]

Morally, using Seth's argument, he owns fuck-all.
Because the country was stolen from the injuns. Give it back Seth, and turn yourself in for handling stolen property. You thief.

At worst Seth can be accused of receiving stolen goods. From what I gather it was his dad's farm that he sold.

Actually it was bought from the Indians by the Congress.