|
- Nature includes death, we come from nature, whether by a gods will or not doesn't change that. The weak must die so that they don't sicken the healthy, we just have fewer individuals qualify for that then other animals.
- I never attempted this for the reasons you stated, doesn't change my beliefs about such individuals who I would agree are rare (thank goodness).
- Can you name a good strong central government run country that has the most powerful military in the world and is even now on the brink of revolution? Would really want to live your entire life without as close to true freedom as you can get?
So some people will want more security and are willing to trade freedoms for that, but not everyone, and so there should be a place in the world for both. I just want in on the more freedoms even it means giving up security for those freedoms.
- Not all communist systems are bad, just the big ones everyone talks about nowadays.
The strength of a nation lies in it's resources, it's government, it's economic structure, and most importantly, it's society.
Our forefathers had the first and made the second (awesome job for the most part) and third (which wasn't as bad then as it is now) but they didn't take any account for the last which has lead to the weaknesses of the other elements to grow into an all out corruption of the system as a whole.
I fear this country is on the brink of irretrievable, and I don't see a light in this tunnel.
|
|
I personally suggest grouping people into clans of small size, then each clan has blah blah blahAnarcho-syndicalism (or just plain old agrarianism). Read Kropotkin. Let us know if you figure out how to implement it without a vanguard-party-led revolution that is inevitably co-opted to install the vanguard party and its allies as the new ruling class (also poor Kropotkin).
Don't have a ruling class, all kids grow up in the same school with the same teacher, as the kids grow up people see how they are and when the time comes they vote into office whoever they know personally and believe is better suited to being in charge. Also remove corporations (at least as we know them).
Implementing this into an existing society that doesn't want to completely change is the tricky part, once there you will have a decent system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not lack empathy, I just don't believe people deserve to live just because they were born.Wow, that's awful.
Awful does not even touch it. Denying the "right to live" sounds ice cold to me. Universal human rights are just an excuse for the weak?
I do not lack empathy, I just don't believe people deserve to live just because they were born.Wow, that's awful.Awful does not even touch it. Denying the "right to live" sounds ice cold to me. Universal human rights are just an excuse for the weak?
It sounds to me like the kind of theory one adopts in order to justify murdering people at whim. After all, they just didn't deserve to live.
Kropotkin was a loser!
Vanguard parties are awesome!
Vive le Galt!!
|
|
It sounds to me like the kind of theory one adopts in order to justify murdering people at whim. After all, they just didn't deserve to live.I do not lack empathy, I just don't believe people deserve to live just because they were born.Wow, that's awful.Awful does not even touch it. Denying the "right to live" sounds ice cold to me. Universal human rights are just an excuse for the weak?
I never said to deny the right to live, that implies forcing death on them which leads to Samnell's comment.
What I said is to work for your life AKA no free pass, which is very different.
And I never at any point specified a whole class of people.
Funny thing about social darwinists: They never seem to realize just how lucky they are that others don't share thier views.
|
|
- Nature includes death, we come from nature, whether by a gods will or not doesn't change that. The weak must die so that they don't sicken the healthy, we just have fewer individuals qualify for that then other animals.Social darwinism? Seriously?
When someone says outright that the underclass should die for the good of the übermenschen, am I allowed to call them a fascist at that point?
- Can you name a good strong central government run country that has the most powerful military in the world and is even now on the brink of revolution?The US is not on the brink of revolution, for crying out loud. Stop reading Freerepublic, it is poisoning your brain.
- I never said anything about an underclass! Only that no one should get a free pass. Because if everyone did the same thing then no one would be making the free passes.
Someone somewhere has to see to the production of the necessities therefore if everyone does the same thing it has to be to work, otherwise you are asking for a class system with the privileged and the slaves.
- Then why is the government buying hollow-point rounds and giving them to the all the national organizations including the national weather service and citing "practice" as the reason? You don't practice with hollow-points! And weather services doesn't need guns unless the stations are in a war zone!
- Then why is the government buying hollow-point rounds and giving them to the all the national organizations including the national weather service and citing "practice" as the reason? You don't practice with hollow-points! And weather services doesn't need guns unless the stations are in a war zone!Can you name a good strong central government run country that has the most powerful military in the world and is even now on the brink of revolution?The US is not on the brink of revolution, for crying out loud. Stop reading Freerepublic, it is poisoning your brain.
How typical. The revolution is about to start and nobody told me.
:(
|
|
I don't read forwarded emails and have no idea what you mean by Infowars but it sounds like you just need to add some logic and observation to what you read and most importantly get educated, without some insane faith that humans systems are always alright.
Look at the past and all the empires that have fallen, how many saw that coming? How many supported either side and why?
The ignore filter sometimes makes these threads into almost Mad Libs.
]
I never said to deny the right to live, that implies forcing death on them which leads to Samnell's comment.What I said is to work for your life AKA no free pass, which is very different.
And I never at any point specified a whole class of people.
Actually, you totally did deny the right to live. You said "I... don't believe people deserve to live just because they are born."
That doesn't imply, it flat out states that there is something one must do to justify being able to live. If you don't do "it" then you should die.
That's what you said, pal.
|
]
I never said to deny the right to live, that implies forcing death on them which leads to Samnell's comment.What I said is to work for your life AKA no free pass, which is very different.
And I never at any point specified a whole class of people.
Actually, you totally did deny the right to live. You said "I... don't believe people deserve to live just because they are born."
That doesn't imply, it flat out states that there is something one must do to justify being able to live. If you don't do "it" then you should die.
That's what you said, pal.
Not everyone deserves to live. Plain and simple. Not because they are "denied the right to live" but because they CHOOSE to do stupid self destructive things and refuse to lift a finger to preserve their own life if they KNOW some socialist will give them everything they want to ease their own conscience
Not everyone deserves to live. Plain and simple. Not because they are "denied the right to live" but because they CHOOSE to do stupid self destructive things and refuse to lift a finger to preserve their own life if they KNOW some socialist will give them everything they want to ease their own conscience
Just so I understand you correctly, are you or are you not saying that these ^^ people don't deserve to live?
|
|
Not everyone deserves to live. Plain and simple. Not because they are "denied the right to live" but because they CHOOSE to do stupid self destructive things and refuse to lift a finger to preserve their own life if they KNOW some socialist will give them everything they want to ease their own conscienceJust so I understand you correctly, are you or are you not saying that these ^^ people don't deserve to live?
They do not deserve others fighting to keep them alive.
|
|
Not everyone deserves to live. Plain and simple. Not because they are "denied the right to live" but because they CHOOSE to do stupid self destructive things and refuse to lift a finger to preserve their own life if they KNOW some socialist will give them everything they want to ease their own conscience]
I never said to deny the right to live, that implies forcing death on them which leads to Samnell's comment.What I said is to work for your life AKA no free pass, which is very different.
And I never at any point specified a whole class of people.
Actually, you totally did deny the right to live. You said "I... don't believe people deserve to live just because they are born."
That doesn't imply, it flat out states that there is something one must do to justify being able to live. If you don't do "it" then you should die.
That's what you said, pal.
Yeah, some will. Some would pursue arts or invent things they never would have had the chance to when they're forced to scrabble merely to survive. And they won't be competing with me for a job.
It's not like we're living in a subsistence economy where we'll probably starve if everyone doesn't work in the fields. One of our biggest problems is finding enough work for everyone to do as we become more and more productive.
Then go back to the old ways of seeking a patron instead of robbing the rest of us so some jackass can focus on his "art" (what crap passes as art these days). Maybe as we become so productive that we start loosing jobs it is time to cut back the breeding, we are not simple beasts and contraception is cheap and available.
They do not deserve others fighting to keep them alive.Not everyone deserves to live. Plain and simple. Not because they are "denied the right to live" but because they CHOOSE to do stupid self destructive things and refuse to lift a finger to preserve their own life if they KNOW some socialist will give them everything they want to ease their own conscienceJust so I understand you correctly, are you or are you not saying that these ^^ people don't deserve to live?
Ok. That's very different from the way you originally put it. If you had stated your position like that originally you wouldn't have heard from me at all. And while I still don't agree with your clarified stance, at least it doesn't shout "pro-murder fascist", and I will quit bothering you.
Actually, I never heard of freep until tonight so stop saying that.
Besides what could anyone need hollow-points for? They are illegal even in war you know. And for a reason.
Oh, my then that box of 50 rounds of .40 hollow points I got from the store must be illegal.
Did Dingo make a new account?
Then go back to the old ways of seeking a patron instead of robbing the rest of us so some jackass can focus on his "art" (what crap passes as art these days). Maybe as we become so productive that we start loosing jobs it is time to cut back the breeding, we are not simple beasts and contraception is cheap and available.
How many millions of people are homeless? And then add in all the people on welfare. And then all the people on unemployment. How many millions is that?
I'm sure contraception will solve everything.
I know this the is the how to oppress the lower classes, but here's Comrade Anklebiter's Plan to End Welfare:
--Reduction of the work week with no loss in pay
--Federal work program to fix the country, probably green it up
--International proletarian socialist revolution
Not necessarily in that order.
Unfortunately, we revolutionaries of the Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) don't get to set the tempo of the workers mass struggle. It's possible we could get the first two before the last, but when you look at the state of the Repubocrats these days it looks pretty unlikely.
Vive le Galt!
!!
Then go back to the old ways of seeking a patron instead of robbing the rest of us so some jackass can focus on his "art" (what crap passes as art these days). Maybe as we become so productive that we start loosing jobs it is time to cut back the breeding, we are not simple beasts and contraception is cheap and available.How many millions of people are homeless? And then add in all the people on welfare. And then all the people on unemployment. How many millions is that?
I'm sure contraception will solve everything.
Personally, I'm torn.
I agree with Andrew on the idea of patronage; It's how I've filled the manor house on the Dice Estate with so many objects d'art. The patronage system has the added bonus of keeping art out of the hands of the lower classes, which is a good thing, as they lack the esthetic sense to appreciate it to begin with.
Accessible birth control is, however, a horrible idea. If I give those goblins birth control, that'll empty the kennels in one generation, and there goes the work force...
Oh, but wait! Under a patronage system, the patron decides who even gets medical treatment to begin with; problem solved!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then go back to the old ways of seeking a patron instead of robbing the rest of us so some jackass can focus on his "art" (what crap passes as art these days). Maybe as we become so productive that we start loosing jobs it is time to cut back the breeding, we are not simple beasts and contraception is cheap and available.How many millions of people are homeless? And then add in all the people on welfare. And then all the people on unemployment. How many millions is that?
I'm sure contraception will solve everything.
Personally, I'm torn.
I agree with Andrew on the idea of patronage; It's how I've filled the manor house on the Dice Estate with so many objects d'art. The patronage system has the added bonus of keeping art out of the hands of the classes, which is a good thing, as they lack the esthetic sense to appreciate it to begin with.
Accessible birth control is, however, a horrible idea. If I give those goblins birth control, that'll empty the kennels in one generation, and there goes the work force...
Oh, but wait! Under a patronage system, the patron decides who even gets medical treatment to begin with; problem solved!
It's even better. If you control the birth control, you can breed a better population.
So the eugenics experts promised me, but we bred for strong docile goblins and got tireless mouthy ones. It's the africanized killer bees all over again! :(
You can't stop the Goblin Revolution!!!
Even though all I have to back it up is my Catholic faith, I just cannot picture a scenario were I don't start from the fundamental premise that all humans are worthy of the same dignity and respect, and thus all policies must be made in accordance to that.
In my view, humans are never to be taken as a mean, but rather always as an end. As such, the ultimate goal of any economic system must be the preservation of said human dignity. What exactly is that dignity about is hard to define properly, but I have come to think it includes at the very least equal opportunities and the chances to lead a peaceful, healthy, and productive life.
In that way, I always vouch for the Church's Social Teaching, which focuses on the concept of Subsidiariety, where the role of the governing structure (which is not just the State, but also the Family and the Organization. The State is just the final, overarching structure in this model) is to make sure of two things:
-That everyone has the opportunity to provide dignity for himself and those he provides for.
-And that when the person is for some reason incapable of doing the previous, make sure the person gets all the help necessary to compensate.
So Subsidiarity is about giving everyone equal chances to be succesful, but also making sure that there is a strong safety net underneath for when they just can't make it. It is about telling people "Here, we'll build a context in which you will be able to get all the means you need to sustain yourself as a person without our help, but if that fails, we'll make sure you are not left alone".
If you dig enough into that system you'll hit the wall of originating argument, which is faith, so eventually you could rule it out as baseless if you don't accept said belief. But I just cannot picture it any other way.
That's why whenever someone asks me about my political stance, I just say "Catholic Capitalist". I believe that a properly regulated Free Market is the most efficient way to produce wealth, standing on a strong welfare system that makes sure everyone can get back on their feets, but on that promotes self-sustaining. Making it happen is the tricky part, but you have to start somewhere.
Even though all I have to back it up is my Catholic faith, I just cannot picture a scenario were I don't start from the fundamental premise that all humans are worthy of the same dignity and respect, and thus all policies must be made in accordance to that.
Yeah? What about goblins?
Even though all I have to back it up is my Catholic faith, I just cannot picture a scenario were I don't start from the fundamental premise that all humans are worthy of the same dignity and respect, and thus all policies must be made in accordance to that.Yeah? What about goblins?
You'll have to ask the Pontificial Office for the Affairs of the Goblinoid.
But I do believe it does not cover doing it in the streets, I'm afraid.
|
|
Klaus, you forgot about those who are unwilling. That is what I keep getting hated for. I believe in equal chances for all, I also however separate those who try and fail vs those who don't try. The latter are the ones I don't believe are worthy.
I would like to thank Andrew R for saying what I wanted to say, in a way that people here can understand.
DLH, until you can set down objective criteria "those who try but fail vs those who don't try" is a pretty meaningless distinction. Putting aside all of my Lord Dice idiocy, I don't think people who try and find success in their efforts are worthy of better medical care and the resulting longer average life expectancy.
I find it very telling that this thread started out as Swift style satire and became "Poor people deserve a higher infant mortality rate cause they don't want it enough!"
|
|
The problem with your statement is that it implies that poor people are poor because they don't want to be rich bad enough, which is incorrect and the root of the problem.
Truthfully this didn't start with a comment about how such should be distinguished, yet it grew to become the main point mostly because people responded having taken a lot more meaning from my statement then was intended to begin with, and I was simply trying to rein in people misconceptions about what I was saying (which ironically is what happened to Marx, except the misconceptions there became big snowballs in history).
|
|
We understand. Some of us just don't approve.
Many realize that any attempt to distinguish those who try and fail from those who don't try is going to fail and both let some slip through not trying (or trying only to game the system) and let some who are trying not get the support they need.How many of the "worthy" are you prepared to let go to punish the "unworthy"?
I certainly don't approve of making a system to distinguish, my comments were blown out of proportion, perhaps because I consider some individuals unworthy, yet do not condone any system I know of to make such fine distinctions and to take actions based on those distinctions.
Besides even if I did make a system, it would not punish the unworthy, rather it would reward the worthy. A big difference.
The problem with your statement is that it implies that poor people are poor because they don't want to be rich bad enough, which is incorrect and the root of the problem.
I'm honestly confused, not being snarky: Is it incorrect, or is it the root of the problem? Please clarify.
You'll have to ask the Pontificial Office for the Affairs of the Goblinoid.
But I do believe it does not cover doing it in the streets, I'm afraid.
You are a stooge of the plutocracy!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're embarrassing yourself, Doodlebug! Pull your pants up!
I love it! There are three politroll threads going on all at the same time!
Isn't this much better than when all we ever talked about was homosexuals and Christianity?
Anyway, I gotta go prepare my talk on the Bolshevik Revolution for the socialist club down at the public library tomorrow.
I'll talk to you later, my peeps, but always remember:
"The philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it."
--Darl Jubannich, On Government
Vive le Galt!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with your statement is that it implies that poor people are poor because they don't want to be rich bad enough, which is incorrect and the root of the problem.I'm honestly confused, not being snarky: Is it incorrect, or is it the root of the problem? Please clarify.
It is an incorrect belief that leads to problems. We must realize that the ability to make money is affected by the level and type of education, starting resources available, the social ability, social circles, and opportunity.
It's like playing poker, one hand only, and your hand has nothing, someone out there has a good hand, so they can make more money then you but that doesn't mean they deserve it more than you.
One objective should be to give as level a playing field as possible.
The rich don't want to because that would bite into their riches, and their greater wealth makes it easier for them to manipulate things to their desire.
We do cut back on the breeding. Birthrates drop with education and opportunity.Of course, conservatives want to cut back on that cheap, available contraception. And the sex education.
Seriously, the best way to reduce birth rates is to send women to college. Want the illegals to stop breeding? Send all their women to college. The majority of single child families that I know, the mother went to college. Statistic bear this out as well.
Single women, 25-29 who have a college degree, have a birth rate of something like 30/1,000. High school or less is around 180/1000. A single year of college reduces birth rates to BELOW replacement levels.