rEvolutionist wrote:
What kind of logic is that?!? Standing up for someone else's right to fair treatment in the face of a clear wrong is "greedy" and sociopathic?? And you wonder why we think it's farcical that you believe you can win any debate.
But the point is that neither you nor I was unfairly treated. You only think so because you think you have a claim on the property of someone else, which is an indication of greed, and your methodology for acquiring what you want is entirely sociopathic. It's your definition of "fair treatment" that's flawed, which results in sociopathic conclusions when you try to reason.
You obviously don't (when it happens to others; I suspect you'd quickly change your tune if it happened to you).
Well, that's the thing about having principles, something you appear to be entirely ignorant of...when one lives by principles, fuckwitted socialist attempts at insults become nothing more than amusing.
I'm about as close to certain that the only principle you live by is selfishness.
That's because you are incapable of comprehending the concepts of altruism, charity, compassion and rational self interest. You view everyone not of your mind as greedy and selfish merely because they don't want to give you that to which you are not entitled but which you covet. The flaw in your understanding is that Libertarians are generous, charitable and compassionate BECAUSE it is in their rational self-interest to be that way. What you propose to take by force Libertarians give voluntarily...or not...depending on the specific situation and individual. You think that it's okay to forcibly steal from someone you feel is less worthy of enjoying the fruits of his own labor in order to give it to someone whom you think is more worthy of enjoying the fruits of someone else's labor.
Who on earth or in heaven authorized you to tell anyone else how they may dispose of their labor or the fruits thereof? You're obviously not God, so that removes divine ordinance, so by what authority do you presume to judge anyone else with respect to the disposition of their labor and property?
You love to blather on about how "selfish" I am, or Libertarians are, but you have never once described the reasoning behind your assumption that being "selfish" with one's own labor and property is morally incorrect. You simply (and fallaciously) assume
a priori that every individual owes a duty of obedience and labor to the collective, and that for one to insufficiently provide "from each according to his ability," as determined, evidently, by you, to those again determined by you who have a "need" to be fulfilled, is some sort of moral wrong. Yet you never state how you come to the conclusion that those in need are entitled to enslave others to that need against their will, which is exactly what socialism does.
I am neither denying that people have needs nor am I saying that it is inappropriate for others to supply those needs, I'm merely saying that it is not up to you, or anyone other than the individual providing those needs, to judge how, when, where or how much that person is required to labor on behalf of others. That is a sovereign decision for each and every individual that cannot be coerced or forced. It can only be encouraged using social approval or opprobrium and by depending on the fundamentally charitable, altruistic, compassionate and rationally self interested instincts of mature adult personalities that are the rule, not the exception...as you seem to think.
Libertarians act charitably by themselves, as they see fit, whereas you, and all other socialists are willing to use force, up to and including deadly force, to compel others to be "charitable" and "altruistic."
This is because socialist immature, stunted and flatly psychopathic liberal personalities are stuck at the "gimme" stage of psychological development that appears at about age three, and
will never advance to competent adult psyches because they are permanently damaged by Socialism's promise of stuff for free.
Why are you so hung up on someone getting something from someone else gratis that you aren't getting? Sounds a lot like jealousy, envy and greed to me.
No, it's about what's fair and social cohesion and harmony.
No, it's about jealousy, greed, avarice and power. You don't want what I have because it's "fair," you want it because you want it, and you don't give a flying fuck about social cohesion or harmony and you'd be perfectly psychotically and psychopathically satisfied to have somebody else take what you want from me by force because you're too lazy and too much of a coward to try it yourself.
I don't want anything from you, you paranoid freak.
Sure you do. You're a socialist so it is in your nature to covet that which others have and you do not. You are the one who began personalizing this conversation so I'm just responding in kind, but the arguments apply to all socialists everywhere.
I agree that there needs to be practical limitations on compensation, but it's not an even playing field. Let's say my great great great grandfather stole your ggg grandfather's wealth. Would you accept this as a fair situation and you were just going to let it go? I doubt very much most people would let it go, let alone someone with your selfish proclivities. Why should I have greater ease at accessing life's necessities than you, particularly because I did absolutely nothing to earn that access to greater ease?
Life is not an even playing field. Never has been,
Naturalistic fallacy.
Fact.
You clearly don't understand what a logical fallacy is. No wonder you are incapable of winning even the most simplest of debates.
So explain it to us in detail and we'll see if your logic holds up, which I doubt.
never will be.
Orly, Nostradamus?
Rationalist.
You're a fucking useless troll. You wouldn't know the first thing about rationality, as is clearly evidence by your belief that you can predict future.
Take a Thorazine and some lithium rEv, maybe a Prozac too.
The point of Libertarian philosophy with respect to "getting something for free" is that, beyond it being nobody's business but the parties to the transaction, is that it's simply impossible to keep track of who got what for free after the people involved are dead. And it's nobody's business how one person gets the property of another so long as there is no force or fraud involved.
This really is empty rhetoric to attempt to justify the present status quo. If you were a native American Indian, I doubt very much you'd support this view.
I'm a Scot. Shall I therefore demand that everyone in the United Kingdom recompense me for Longshank's (and a bunch of other British monarchs) depredations upon my people? After all, we Picts were there long before either the Saxons or the Normans showed up, so fuck all y'all, pay up. And then there's my German Palatine heritage that, using your illogic, entitles me to make claims on Germany for booting my ancestors out in 1704.
How far back shall we go? You yourself are a gross hypocrite because you live in a place "stolen" from aborigines. So shut the fuck up about ancestral guilt. I don't care what some American Indian of today thinks because any claims to land occupied by whites had to be made by the people dispossessed from that land, not by their umpty-teenth descendants, who "never worked for what they want to get for free."
Nice dodge there, troll. None of this changes the fact that if you were a Native American you wouldn't for a second believe this shit.
I am a Native American. I was born in North America and therefore
ipso facto I am a Native American. Perhaps you meant "contemporary member of a federally-recognized aboriginal tribe which inhabited North America prior to the arrival on the North American continent of Europeans some 600 years ago." If so, I say nobody alive today is a victim of any wrongs done to their ancestors by somebody else's ancestors. And if you still want to maintain that fiction, I refer you to what the Lakota did to the Crow long before the English or American governments got involved, not to mention all the other tribal warfare over the centuries that aboriginals perpetrated on one another in squabbles over land and resources.
If you're going to blather on about such things, first you need to unravel all THOSE claims to property by the descendants of every single Indian tribe in America since they emigrated here from the Siberian land bridge sometime in pre-history...and then you need to go back and unravel all THOSE property claims by descendants of European pre-historical tribes from fighting over land and resources in Europe...and then you have to go back and unravel all the property claims of pre-history right back to the first homo sapien sapien somewhere in the Rift Valley.
Let me know when you've documented those chains of title so we can fairly redistribute all that property to the "legitimate" descendants of the "original" owners, Ug and Thog, who lived somewhere in a place we now call Somalia 4 million years ago.
Then we can further discuss your idiotic notions of social justice.
Your whole philosophy is based around selfishness now that you are the privileged sub-group in society.
Your whole philosophy is based around greed, avarice, jealousy, envy and a willingness to kill other people to get what you want.
Nice dodge, troll. We're not discussing my philosophy here. We are discussing you and your version of libertarianism. A version which is quite obviously based around selfishness due to your privileged position in society.
Yes we are discussing your philosophy because your definitions and rationalizations are based only on your subjective opinion which is defined by your ideological dogma.
How do I know your grandfather stole my grandfather's wealth? Can I just say so and expect to be compensated? What about the facts of the case that might show that it wasn't a theft at all, but was part of a negotiated contract? How can one be expected to parse such things when the people involved are dead?
What if there are clear records that show it was taken through force/fraud? There's no way in hell you would just let it go.
Yes, I would. It's not my job or my right to defend the wealth of my ancestors
ex post facto. If they couldn't or didn't care to do it themselves, I certainly have no moral right to do it for them after the fact.
Bullshit.
How....erudite.
The real problem in your thinking is the silly notion that we are all equal when we are born,
When have I ever said that? I think I said above that life is not fair and never has been. I've never, ever even intimated that "we are all equal when we are born."
This is the problem with you. You change your "philosophy" depending on where you have been cornered. You've insinuated and outright stated that the difference in people's outcome in life is down to their work ethic and other personal choices, for years on the previous two forums. And you'll do it again when you think you can get away with it without anyone noticing the inconsistency in your "philosophy".
No, I said that their work ethic and other personal choices affect their station in life, and that in America every single person has the equal opportunity to strive to change that station, which is absolutely true. I've never said that everyone does or even ought to start on a "level playing field." To say that is to demand that those who exhibit superior skills be punished for doing so in order that those who don't may be treated "fairly." That's Marxist claptrap.
Most people are born disadvantaged from the start, with some cripplingly disadvantaged.
Yes, they are. So what?
I'm glad you agree that you are selfish.
Non sequitur.
If my granddaddy stole your granddaddy's watch, does that mean that you can come to me and demand that I give you a watch? Hardly.
It's not about individual items as you keep disingenuously trying to portray. It's about a serious unearned advantage in life over other individuals, most of which probably work far harder than you do (i'm talking the hypothetical "you" here).
As I said, life is not fair. Never has been,
Naturalistic fallacy.
Show your work.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
