Ableton Forum

Steve Ballmer wrote: - You want society to take care of people, yet you are not willing to do this yourself.

Idiotic at best statement. Because only you pay taxes right?

In other words, you want to force others to do what you are not willing to. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for you to claim any moral highground here. There are currently approx 200'000 spinals in America. If we assume that half are quadriplegic, and maybe 1% of the remainder (1'000 individuals) have no family, friends or church (essentially you're assuming that they're antisocial, godless dipshits?), then it would be very easy for to band together with other overly-caring folk such as yourself and create the Care for Antisocial, Godless Spinal Dipshits Foundation, and buy them pasta.

This is the same drivel as above. For some godawful reason the concept of shared burden immediately becomes "I have to pay, someone is getting away with not paying somehow?" it's the logic of greed. The sheer love of humanity that you share with us every time you talk about the infirm really makes your political ideology look like a great choice, keep it up.

This is exactly why Libertarianism is an evil selfish little ideology, but hey go ahead and take personal swipes at me and the "dipshits" in my metaphors. Let's be honest here, because it's the best you can do.


Ideologically driven 'utopian' societies based either entirely on the individual like you propose, or entirely on the group as funken proposes, completely miss the whole concept of a civilized society as far as I'm concerned. I'll take the cumbersome-bloated-wasteful socialist capitalist democracies we have over either of your solutions, and that's a sad settling for mediocrity I know, but that seems to be where we are as a species as of now. Your choice would mean even more suffering for the infirm, and working class. Funkens choice would likely end up in another chaotic bloodbath.

“Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength, while loving someone deeply gives you courage.”
? Lao Tzu


“Being deeply loved by someone gives you a massive ego, while loving someone deeply gives you a burden you should not have to support.”
? Libertarian Tzu


“Being deeply loved by someone gives you more stuff, while loving someone deeply gives you less stuff.”
? Marx Tzu

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Please summarise your understanding of Marx's theory of value, and why it is wrong. No links, no bullshit, go for it. My money says you'll fall flat on your face at the first hurdle.

Here we go.

1. Marx believed that the value of commodities is objective.
2. It's not.
3.

I thought you would have a better retort than that?
That's pretty much saying "Communism is wrong, because it's wrong!"
You're falling flat Balmer. I expected more from a multi billionaire.

I would have said more, but there really is little more to say. Marx is wrong, but he isn't very interesting.

Machinesworking wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote: - You want society to take care of people, yet you are not willing to do this yourself.

Idiotic at best statement. Because only you pay taxes right?

In other words, you want to force others to do what you are not willing to. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for you to claim any moral highground here. There are currently approx 200'000 spinals in America. If we assume that half are quadriplegic, and maybe 1% of the remainder (1'000 individuals) have no family, friends or church (essentially you're assuming that they're antisocial, godless dipshits?), then it would be very easy for to band together with other overly-caring folk such as yourself and create the Care for Antisocial, Godless Spinal Dipshits Foundation, and buy them pasta.

This is the same drivel as above. For some godawful reason the concept of shared burden immediately becomes "I have to pay, someone is getting away with not paying somehow?" it's the logic of greed. The sheer love of humanity that you share with us every time you talk about the infirm really makes your political ideology look like a great choice, keep it up.

This is exactly why Libertarianism is an evil selfish little ideology, but hey go ahead and take personal swipes at me and the "dipshits" in my metaphors. Let's be honest here, because it's the best you can do.


Ideologically driven 'utopian' societies based either entirely on the individual like you propose, or entirely on the group as funken proposes, completely miss the whole concept of a civilized society as far as I'm concerned. I'll take the cumbersome-bloated-wasteful socialist capitalist democracies we have over either of your solutions, and that's a sad settling for mediocrity I know, but that seems to be where we are as a species as of now. Your choice would mean even more suffering for the infirm, and working class. Funkens choice would likely end up in another chaotic bloodbath.

1. I don't pay taxes.
2. Not idiotic at all. Rather than doing a little bit of charity work, you'd rob every single denizen at gun point. Except me, as I don't pay taxes.
3. No friends -> antisocial; no church -> godless; dipshit -> conclusion. Problem?*
4. Libertarianism isn't intrinsically individualist. It's simply stateless. If you think people need a state to be kind or benevolent, then you truly are a miserable bastard.
5. If you'd take our current system (which is responsible for how many wars?) over a slim possibility that roughly 1000 people might need a friend, then your values are skewed beyond hope.

* This is actually a fairly good description of me

Steve Ballmer wrote: 3. No friends -> antisocial; no church -> godless; dipshit -> conclusion. Problem?** This is actually a fairly good description of me
4. Libertarianism isn't intrinsically individualist. It's simply stateless. If you think people need a state to be kind or benevolent, then you truly are a miserable bastard.

A dipshit (by his own admission), claims that only a miserable bastard would need a state to be kind or benevolent? I can't make this stuff up!

Steve Ballmer wrote:I would have said more, but there really is little more to say. Marx is wrong, but he isn't very interesting.

Billions have proven that Marx is in fact interesting.
Whether or not I think Ayn Rand is a simpleton or not has nothing to do with the fact that she's interesting.

I don't think Ayn Rand is that interesting, or correct for that matter. To be interesting, you have to at least have something to contribute. Marx contributed white noise. I have a five year old nephew who likes to blow farts in his bathtub. I don't consider him an economist either.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, but to be interesting does not require one to be right, and to be right doesn't make you interesting. I would say that Marx had a lot of controversial ideas that resonated with a lot of people. If you don't find that interesting then in my opinion you're emotionally attached to your own ideology. Same would be true for Rand.