Meh, Marx was a smart guy - he just got the endgame wrong. Marx himself praises Capitalism for its efficiency. His premise was that this efficiency would eventually create a world with enough wealth, Communism would emerge.
The problem has never been that corporations have the money to purchase elected officials, but that we have given the elected officials the power to hold over us.
Take away that power, and the incentive to purchase a Congressman goes away.
To deny Christianity's role in the founding of America would be an outright lie. Likewise, to say that America is founded solely on the Christian religion would be untrue.
America was founded on the concepts of individual rights, self-governance, and the idea that man has certain rights that the government as no authority to interject themselves into. While, to my knowledge, all of the Founders themselves were monotheistic or Agnostic, it would be one hell of a stretch to say they shared a common religion.
Truth be told, a Christian of just about any sort would be at home in early America. Pagans and Athiests, less so, but they would probably be at little risk. Luciferians, Wiccans (who call themselves witches), etc? Ha!
You are so far off the mark on Javascript it's not even funny. JS is a very good, if unconventional language. The problem is the shoddy implementation by multiple browser vendors.
C would be a pain to work with too, if your interpreter was IE6.
I'm 26, and I tend to prefer older games. I'm currently hooked on Transport Tycoon (well, OpenTTD) and Insurgency, which is a mod for Half-Life 2. I anticipate playing both of these for another 10 years, easy, provided there is still someone to play Insurgency with.
Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.
I understand that Obama has spoken about openness and transparency, and uses populist, anti-business rhetoric - but his actions tell another story. He has done much to consolidate economic and political power into a single structure, and "transparency" is a joke.
Man owns property because we are human. We exist as individuals, and every individual has an absolute right to the product of their own labor and of their mind.
You say you believe in private ownership of property, but not real estate or natural resources. You believe that everyone should benefit equally - collectively - from those. If everyone has an equal stake in a resource, then each person would get an equal share of the capital generated by it's use. That capital can then be used to purchase finished goods, but no one may accumulate finished goods -- everyone starts out with the same capital. That's equality of outcome.
You've not argued with specifics, you've argued with strawmen.
In your case of the foresters, how would it benefit the owner of that forest to clear-cut? That would not be in the owner's own self-interest, as his source of income would be destroyed. Rational self-interest is the motive behind economies, and those who understand that, and act in their own long-term self-interest are the people who accumulate wealth.
Say, for the sake of argument, that the forest was clear-cut. You've decided that the *only* job available to those people and their descendants is forestry. Wouldn't their children farm the newly cleared land?
I'm curious, have you ever read Marx? I know tone doesn't come through well in a text format, but I'm asking seriously, not as a debate tactic. Marx wrote about a utopia that is pretty much exactly what you're arguing for - only he realized that the state of the world would never allow it. Instead, Marx held that Capitalism was the system through which Utopia would be reached - he recognized that Capitalism was the single most efficient system we have at our disposal, and that if mankind was ever to reach the level of prosperity to allow for a peaceful coexistence, it would have to be through Capitalist.
I'm not "giving up", I'm simply stating that our beliefs are diametrically opposed. Natural Resources are owned by whoever owns them. I can't recall a single natural resource today that is unclaimed on Earth.
I reject the notion that anyone other than an individual can "own" anything. Humanity doesn't "own" an ore deposit, a person does (or the collective will of many people, i.e., a corporation)
I would like to point out that you seem to think that I'm part of the "elite" because I have an employee.
What do you believe in private ownership of, if not resources? All property comes from a resource of some kind
Your position, as far as I can tell, boils down to "People deserve only what everyone else thinks they deserve."
That is Communism. I don't mean "OMG, you're a commie!" a'la McCarthy - I mean your vision is very very similar to the writings of Karl Marx. The idea that the means of production are controlled by the economic elite - the Bourgeoisie - while the rest of the people - the Proletariat - are forced to work at their behest. You are arguing for the concept of wage slavery.
I'm not going to get all upset about it, because I'm not that kind of person - but our philosophies cannot coexist. I am right, you are wrong; you would argue the opposite.
I don't see that we have anything left to gain here.
You seem to be the only one who defines the term "free market" that way. A free market is a market free from government intervention, with the exception of regulation of fraud and force - period. "Economic Force" is a false construct, nothing more than noting that some people have more than others. The desire to have more than others is the entire motive force behind markets.
You're seeking a system of equal results, while I am seeking a system of equal opportunity.
In building my own business, and hiring employees, I don't sit back in a chair somewhere, rubbing my hands together, orgasmic over the thought of controlling people - I am prideful of what I have built. I'm satisfied that the product of my own effort has produced so much that I am now able to afford to pay someone else to do the things that I don't want to do.
I got to this point in my life by making good decisions, and working my ass off. As my business grows, and I hire additional employees, then I will reward those who work hard with greater pay and responsibility. How is that oppression?
If an employer treats employees badly, then why don't they leave? Why don't they form a union and strike? Why don't they build their own business? Absent physical force, this is the single most fair system mankind has ever encountered.
If I sat here and drew a caricature of your beliefs, then I could easily knock it down as well. FWIW, when I first saw your signature here, I posted it on my blog, Twitter, and Facebook. It looks like I have a different interpretation, though.
While I indeed challenge the moral authority of anyone who attempts to control my personal life, I also recognize that I do not have the authority to do the same to others.
As for the "free market", I have no such allusions - it is not some mystical being that loves everyone at all. "Free markets" are simply the natural state of economies - they are what happens completely absent regulation. I observe that regulation is always a net negative - as an extension of that, I believe that an unregulated state is the optimum state for commerce.
I care deeply about freedom - the freedom to do as you please, the freedom to make what you will of yourself, and the freedom to fail. The consequences are an integral part of concept, they cannot be separated from it.
I seek the benefit of living in a society of equals, with all the consequences that come along with it.
He's a left-leaning centrist with Socialist/Fascist tendencies. He has done some things that have surprised me, the Kagan nomination being one of them.
Overall, though, he's still 90%+ anti-libertarian - and that's who you see doing the stirring right now, not the people who are Republicans because their parents were Republicans.
Want me to name names, then? One of the core devs, a Canadian, is well known for his attitude. As I said, he's a great dev and know his shit, he jsut lacks tact.
WTF would I have to gain from promoting Django or CI? If I was trying to drop name, why wouldn't I drop the name of *my CMS*?
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, Marx was a smart guy - he just got the endgame wrong. Marx himself praises Capitalism for its efficiency. His premise was that this efficiency would eventually create a world with enough wealth, Communism would emerge.
The problem has never been that corporations have the money to purchase elected officials, but that we have given the elected officials the power to hold over us.
Take away that power, and the incentive to purchase a Congressman goes away.
Wait... you mean that *diversity* amongst our state governments is a good thing!?
Good idea. Let's start in Arizona and go east until we hit ocean.
:)
I'm in Arkansas
To deny Christianity's role in the founding of America would be an outright lie. Likewise, to say that America is founded solely on the Christian religion would be untrue.
America was founded on the concepts of individual rights, self-governance, and the idea that man has certain rights that the government as no authority to interject themselves into. While, to my knowledge, all of the Founders themselves were monotheistic or Agnostic, it would be one hell of a stretch to say they shared a common religion.
Truth be told, a Christian of just about any sort would be at home in early America. Pagans and Athiests, less so, but they would probably be at little risk. Luciferians, Wiccans (who call themselves witches), etc? Ha!
Oh crap, I agreed before realizing this was meant as a joke...
You are so far off the mark on Javascript it's not even funny. JS is a very good, if unconventional language. The problem is the shoddy implementation by multiple browser vendors. C would be a pain to work with too, if your interpreter was IE6.
I'm 26, and I tend to prefer older games. I'm currently hooked on Transport Tycoon (well, OpenTTD) and Insurgency, which is a mod for Half-Life 2. I anticipate playing both of these for another 10 years, easy, provided there is still someone to play Insurgency with.
Yes, Fascist.
From Wikipedia:
Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives, values, and systems such as the political system and the economy.
I understand that Obama has spoken about openness and transparency, and uses populist, anti-business rhetoric - but his actions tell another story. He has done much to consolidate economic and political power into a single structure, and "transparency" is a joke.
Man owns property because we are human. We exist as individuals, and every individual has an absolute right to the product of their own labor and of their mind.
You say you believe in private ownership of property, but not real estate or natural resources. You believe that everyone should benefit equally - collectively - from those. If everyone has an equal stake in a resource, then each person would get an equal share of the capital generated by it's use. That capital can then be used to purchase finished goods, but no one may accumulate finished goods -- everyone starts out with the same capital. That's equality of outcome.
You've not argued with specifics, you've argued with strawmen.
In your case of the foresters, how would it benefit the owner of that forest to clear-cut? That would not be in the owner's own self-interest, as his source of income would be destroyed. Rational self-interest is the motive behind economies, and those who understand that, and act in their own long-term self-interest are the people who accumulate wealth.
Say, for the sake of argument, that the forest was clear-cut. You've decided that the *only* job available to those people and their descendants is forestry. Wouldn't their children farm the newly cleared land?
I'm curious, have you ever read Marx? I know tone doesn't come through well in a text format, but I'm asking seriously, not as a debate tactic. Marx wrote about a utopia that is pretty much exactly what you're arguing for - only he realized that the state of the world would never allow it. Instead, Marx held that Capitalism was the system through which Utopia would be reached - he recognized that Capitalism was the single most efficient system we have at our disposal, and that if mankind was ever to reach the level of prosperity to allow for a peaceful coexistence, it would have to be through Capitalist.
This is just an excuse to Nuke the Gay Whales Correction: This is just an excuse to Nuke the Gay BABY Whales FOR JESUS.
I'm not "giving up", I'm simply stating that our beliefs are diametrically opposed. Natural Resources are owned by whoever owns them. I can't recall a single natural resource today that is unclaimed on Earth.
I reject the notion that anyone other than an individual can "own" anything. Humanity doesn't "own" an ore deposit, a person does (or the collective will of many people, i.e., a corporation)
I would like to point out that you seem to think that I'm part of the "elite" because I have an employee.
What do you believe in private ownership of, if not resources? All property comes from a resource of some kind
Wow. You've not thought this out, have you?
Your position, as far as I can tell, boils down to "People deserve only what everyone else thinks they deserve."
That is Communism. I don't mean "OMG, you're a commie!" a'la McCarthy - I mean your vision is very very similar to the writings of Karl Marx. The idea that the means of production are controlled by the economic elite - the Bourgeoisie - while the rest of the people - the Proletariat - are forced to work at their behest. You are arguing for the concept of wage slavery.
I'm not going to get all upset about it, because I'm not that kind of person - but our philosophies cannot coexist. I am right, you are wrong; you would argue the opposite.
I don't see that we have anything left to gain here.
You seem to be the only one who defines the term "free market" that way. A free market is a market free from government intervention, with the exception of regulation of fraud and force - period. "Economic Force" is a false construct, nothing more than noting that some people have more than others. The desire to have more than others is the entire motive force behind markets.
You're seeking a system of equal results, while I am seeking a system of equal opportunity.
In building my own business, and hiring employees, I don't sit back in a chair somewhere, rubbing my hands together, orgasmic over the thought of controlling people - I am prideful of what I have built. I'm satisfied that the product of my own effort has produced so much that I am now able to afford to pay someone else to do the things that I don't want to do.
I got to this point in my life by making good decisions, and working my ass off. As my business grows, and I hire additional employees, then I will reward those who work hard with greater pay and responsibility. How is that oppression?
If an employer treats employees badly, then why don't they leave? Why don't they form a union and strike? Why don't they build their own business? Absent physical force, this is the single most fair system mankind has ever encountered.
If I sat here and drew a caricature of your beliefs, then I could easily knock it down as well. FWIW, when I first saw your signature here, I posted it on my blog, Twitter, and Facebook. It looks like I have a different interpretation, though.
While I indeed challenge the moral authority of anyone who attempts to control my personal life, I also recognize that I do not have the authority to do the same to others.
As for the "free market", I have no such allusions - it is not some mystical being that loves everyone at all. "Free markets" are simply the natural state of economies - they are what happens completely absent regulation. I observe that regulation is always a net negative - as an extension of that, I believe that an unregulated state is the optimum state for commerce.
I care deeply about freedom - the freedom to do as you please, the freedom to make what you will of yourself, and the freedom to fail. The consequences are an integral part of concept, they cannot be separated from it.
I seek the benefit of living in a society of equals, with all the consequences that come along with it.
I read it as meaning that he thinks that since marriage has a religious root, then legislation should be determined by religion.
Very flawed, but not the same thing as "all law should be judged based upon religion", which is how I read the partial quote.
We're nitpicking here, though.
As a sort-of-libertarian, sort-of-Objectivist who identifies with the Right -- you're absolutely correct. They piss me off too.
Hell, I think they should promote him to GeneralTaco.
He's a left-leaning centrist with Socialist/Fascist tendencies. He has done some things that have surprised me, the Kagan nomination being one of them.
Overall, though, he's still 90%+ anti-libertarian - and that's who you see doing the stirring right now, not the people who are Republicans because their parents were Republicans.
Nice quote out of context. The guy has a flawed understanding of the role of government, but he's not advocating for a theocracy
I believe marriage is a religious institution therefore if it contradicts religious beliefs it should not be legal.
I have that original comic book, somewhere... I wonder how many will understand the reference?
Want me to name names, then? One of the core devs, a Canadian, is well known for his attitude. As I said, he's a great dev and know his shit, he jsut lacks tact. WTF would I have to gain from promoting Django or CI? If I was trying to drop name, why wouldn't I drop the name of *my CMS*?
Yep, that's how it works.
But it's open source, so stop whining and go rewrite it in Python, or Perl, or Assembly or something. Or Brainfuck.
I disagree. Art is in black and white.