Socialism will save us all (technology edition)

[stringtapper]

I kindly linked you to sources explaining why your interpretation is incorrect. Do you expect me to read them to you and review the material with you so that we're both sure that you understand?

Those links don't explain anything about your interpretation of Bean Machine's question, which is the only thing I'm talking about at this point, besides the overarching issues of ideologues continuously talking past each other.

[SuburbanThug]

::FACEPALM::

Bean Machine is arguing from a predominantly libertarian capitalist viewpoint. Libertarian capitalists are by and large against initiation of force. This is explained by the non-aggression principle employed, by and large, by libertarian capitalists. When Bean Machine asserts this question it is "loaded" because he wishes everyone to believe that it is already well accepted in this discussion that initiation of force by a state is immoral.

Bean Machine asserts that this discussion cannot go on unless this question is answered and implies that it's answer also implies that Funken is a tyrant. This is a fallacious argument that he hopes will make all of his assertions appear correct. He hopped on this bandwagon after this quote by Emissary:

You accept the use of force by the state is moral. Your a dick, please stop debating this tyrant.

That initiation of force is inherently immoral is a "fringe" belief held by a small minority of the public.

[stringtapper]

Bean Machine is arguing from a predominantly libertarian capitalist viewpoint. Libertarian capitalists are by and large against initiation of force. This is explained by the non-aggression principle employed, by and large, by libertarian capitalists. When Bean Machine asserts this question it is "loaded" because he wishes everyone to believe that it is already well accepted in this discussion that initiation of force by a state is immoral.

And you know this with 100% certainty? If so, how?

Inference is not enough. Intuition is not enough. To claim to truly know what someone "wishes" is bold.

And please don't cite "common sense" as an answer, it's the last bastion of someone with no argument.

If this is too OT then forget about it. I would at least encourage everyone involved to try to challenge their own assumptions. "Don't believe everything you think."

[SuburbanThug]

Ha. Next you are going to want me to prove to you that the sky is blue.

You accept the use of force by the state is moral. Your a dick, please stop debating this tyrant.

Hypothetical question:

47.9% of the "masses" decide they don't want socialism and elect to form their own anarcho-capitalist society, separate from the emerging socialist one next door. Do the socialists allow them to coexist peacefully and not attempt to appropriate the property belonging to those in this an-cap society for themselves?

Do you believe that the initiation or threat of force is immoral?

Er, no. You haven't answered him "for the third time." You haven't answered him at all.

Here's the question: Do you believe that the initiation or threat of force is immoral? Any answer isn't of the yes/no variety (implied or otherwise) is simply unacceptable.

Suppose that a nation decided to go socialist (in the so-called "anarchist" sense of the term which you believe to be the correct definition)... One isolated town within said nation however, decides it wants no part in the upcoming workers' paradise, and decides to remain a separate entity that then adopts the anarchocapitalist model of social organization.

Would the individuals living in this town be allowed to hold on to their property, whether it be things like toothbrushes, cars, stereo equipment, houses, land, factories, industrial machinery, farm equipment etc?

Or would the socialist masses surrounding the town be justified in seizing whatever they decided was necessary to further their own socialist utopia?

Bean Machine and Emissary are posing moral questions to Funken setting the premise that if Funken endorses initiation of force by the state that his argument for socialism is incorrect and immoral. Unless you believe that he is posing these questions for no reason at all, does not support Emissary's assertion, and is simply insane. The questions are loaded as they presuppose that the reader finds use of force by the state to be abhorrent.

[stringtapper]

None of those quotes you just posted seem to have anything that supports your contention that Bean Machine is arguing the immorality of force as a de facto condition of the debate (Emissary it seems may in fact believe this, however). In fact in one of those quotes he asks whether someone thinks the use of force by the state is immoral.

Or are you arguing that they are the same person?

[Machinesworking]

Besides the stupid remarks by both sides, it's an interesting situation really.

I would argue that the hoarding of property, not property in and of itself, is just as much an act of violence against others, in the sense that property = power and power = force. In fact this whole principal that the "state" is always against the "individual" is what screws up libertarian thought into IMO nonsense to begin with. Much the same way that the idea that a strong centralized state will magically give it's power back to the people is not taking into account the 5% or so among us that are truly fucked in the head, and usually in positions of power. IE either at the head of large companies or states.

[Machinesworking]

None of those quotes you just posted seem to have anything that supports your contention that Bean Machine is arguing the immorality of force as a de facto condition of the debate (Emissary it seems may in fact believe this, however). In fact in one of those quotes he asks whether someone thinks the use of force by the state is immoral.

Or are you arguing that they are the same person?

I'll go on record as saying bean is obviously a mult.
My only wish for this forum in terms of moderation is the elimination of mults.

[SuburbanThug]

None of those quotes you just posted seem to have anything that supports your contention that Bean Machine is arguing the immorality of force as a de facto condition of the debate (Emissary it seems may in fact believe this, however). In fact in one of those quotes he asks whether someone thinks the use of force by the state is immoral.

Or are you arguing that they are the same person?

I'm sorry. I initially thought that the question was posed by Bean Machine because of his vehement insistence that it be answered. Emissary posed the loaded question after he made clear his feelings about the moral implications of Funken's answer. Bean Machine's support of this loaded question belies his intentions in insisting that it be answered (that the answer will prove Emissary's assertion that Funken's support of initiation of force by a socialist state is immoral.) Jack McOck also has also shown his support by advocating leaving this thread until this question is answered. All three have demonstrated that they are anarcho or libertarian capitalists hence my reference to the non-aggression principal.

[SuburbanThug]

Besides the stupid remarks by both sides, it's an interesting situation really.

I would argue that the hoarding of property, not property in and of itself, is just as much an act of violence against others, in the sense that property = power and power = force. In fact this whole principal that the "state" is always against the "individual" is what screws up libertarian thought into IMO nonsense to begin with. Much the same way that the idea that a strong centralized state will magically give it's power back to the people is not taking into account the 5% or so among us that are truly fucked in the head, and usually in positions of power. IE either at the head of large companies or states.

Your thoughts are actually not outside the libertarian realm. They are just more socialist libertarian than they are capitalist libertarian. Many libertarians define violence in the same way you are but if you are an American this can be hard to know as the word "libertarian" usually means "capitalist libertarian."

This is why first and foremost I am a democrat or a "person that believes in democracy." It's the only form of political policy that I see as a valid step forward right now. Democracy is under fire in the U.S. and that is why it is no longer the same place where Marx saw a strong possibility of communism taking hold.

My ideals place me in a different category but I do not expect the world to conform to my ideals overnight.

[rote fahne]

Wall street financed the bolshevik revolution, Alexander Sutton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaFklTLNy8c

Eustace Mullins on the federal reserve system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p4vX6a2Ijw

[Machinesworking]

This is why first and foremost I am a democrat or a "person that believes in democracy." It's the only form of political policy that I see as a valid step forward right now.

Democracy isn't a form of government though, it's a form of voting for governments. This is the scary and hilarious part about fascism, that it was voted in for the most part. Sure as funken is quick to point out in most cases it rigged the vote, and had dirty back door backing from local and federal conservative politicians etc. but Germany never lost it's constitution, it was simply suspended under a "state of emergency" (Martial Law), to combat the remaining few communists the nazis hadn't yet rounded up.
Democracy doesn't safegaurd against crony capitalism, dictatorial communism or fascism, it actually guarantees a certain right to exist to those who think like that, and yeah it's fucked, but I agree it's the only method that's worked out at all in peoples favor. (OK a lot of Cubans in Cuba like Castro, and are happy, but one out of how many states without democracy?)

[rote fahne]

About Italy, Andereotti recently died, Gelli is still alive.

[rote fahne]

Hotel Terminus, Marcel Ophuls documentary about Klaus Barbie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUnDgHaWB4

[rote fahne]

This is the scary and hilarious part about fascism, that it was voted in for the most part.

The exit poll interviews were held by people with large wooden clubs.

[SuburbanThug]

This is why first and foremost I am a democrat or a "person that believes in democracy." It's the only form of political policy that I see as a valid step forward right now.

Democracy isn't a form of government though, it's a form of voting for governments. This is the scary and hilarious part about fascism, that it was voted in for the most part. Sure as funken is quick to point out in most cases it rigged the vote, and had dirty back door backing from local and federal conservative politicians etc. but Germany never lost it's constitution, it was simply suspended under a "state of emergency" (Martial Law), to combat the remaining few communists the nazis hadn't yet rounded up.
Democracy doesn't safegaurd against crony capitalism, dictatorial communism or fascism, it actually guarantees a certain right to exist to those who think like that, and yeah it's fucked, but I agree it's the only method that's worked out at all in peoples favor. (OK a lot of Cubans in Cuba like Castro, and are happy, but one out of how many states without democracy?)

This is what I mean. It is step: one. Real, actual democracy. We've had at least a strong semblance of it here in the past and we've been a very prosperous nation at times (how that has been accomplished is up for debate.) Certain conservatives are trying to make the votes of certain people in my state illegitimate. They want to legally assert that they don't have to honor democracy. I see this as safeguarding against the future as information begins to travel more freely and communication between people of disparate classes and geography increases.