4 ms·
> so why should anyone care what you think about this? > because it fits your weak ass ideology's account of what it represents. > Learn to read pal > And st
by dmfdmf 8y ago
> so why should anyone care what you think about this?
> because it fits your weak ass ideology's account of what it represents.
> Learn to read pal
> And stop using this cop out to ignore what I've said.
Looks like I hit a nerve. Set aside all the BS and answer the question. On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing lives? We can certainly disagree about what is or is not Capitalism but this is what Socialism does and you know it. BTW, this is my original point; the Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate cannot be answered in politics or economics, your efforts notwithstanding. It is an ethical question that you are evading and ultimately will lose.
> Expropriation doesn't require violence, and there's historical examples of socialists who have expropriated without violence beyond self-defense.
I selected this out of all of what you wrote because it perfectly illustrates the (poor) level of your thinking. This claim is a clear self-contradiction. The opposite of expropriation is a voluntary trade or donation. To say that property or lives can be expropriated without violence is complete non-sense. The fact that socialism disarms the victims and controls the legal system so as to threaten violence if the expropriation is opposed is a massive evasion of the facts. Moreover, the rest of your thoughts on this are a mish-mash of equivocations, false analogies, contradictions, irrelevancies, misrepresentation and other errors.
No, I have no interest in identifying all these errors in your essay because that (should be) your responsibility. I will only give one example regarding rights. You equivocate on its meaning by claiming that societies or collective have "rights". Only individuals have rights because only individuals need them to live in society free of interference from others. In modern parlance it is called freedom. Moreover, joining a collective does not grant you extra power to expropriate other people's property, i.e, the power to violate THEIR rights. That is mob rule even if you vote on it or do it under the cover of the law.
>If you're going to actually respond to my points, I'm happy to continue the conversation, but otherwise stop wasting my time.
I am not going to respond to your points because I refuse to get sucked into a pointless discussion of politics or economics. It is pointless to discuss these topics until you explicitly state your ethics and justification for expropriation under Socialism. Moreover, as is typical of a socialist, you put the blame on me for wasting your time but that is entirely your choice, not mine.
- almostdeadguy 8y ago> Looks like I hit a nerve. Set aside all the BS and answer the question. On what moral grounds does Socialism justify confiscating property and sacrificing lives? We can certainly disagree about what is or is not Capitalism but this is what Socialism does and you know it. BTW, this is my original point; the Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate cannot be answered in politics or economics, your efforts notwithstanding. It is an ethical question that you are evading and ultimately will lose. This is weak ass "u mad" stuff because you can't respond to anything I've said. Rapidly alternating between referencing history and refusing to respond to points in return that also reference history makes your argument look weak and makes you sound like an ass. > I selected this out of all of what you wrote because it perfectly illustrates the (poor) level of your thinking. This claim is a clear self-contradiction. The opposite of expropriation is a voluntary trade or donation. To say that property or lives can be expropriated without violence is complete non-sense. lol most people would not consider taxation or squatting or repossessing capital assets "violence". Ask I dunno, anyone if they'd think that > The fact that socialism disarms the victims and controls the legal system so as to threaten violence if the expropriation is opposed is a massive evasion of the facts. Moreover, the rest of your thoughts on this are a mish-mash of equivocations, false analogies, contradictions, irrelevancies, misrepresentation and other errors. This is not what socialism is. Please stop referencing history if you flatly refuse to engage with any of my references to history, and especially if you don't even understand what you're talking about. lol the "this is flim flam fiddle faddle" remark at the end is convincing to nobody if you don't actually engage w/ the arguments in a concrete way.
- dmfdmf 8y ago> Ask I dunno, anyone if they'd think that LOL, talk about weak. So now your argument is "everyone agrees with ME". That is not an argument and is a logical fallacy. >This is not what socialism is. Please stop referencing history if you flatly refuse to engage with any of my references to history I think you know this is exactly what socialism is but you refuse to admit it. It is impossible to have a discussion in a vacuum without any reference to history, that is a strawman representation of my position. My position, and my original post comment, was that the Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate can't be resolved with discussions about politics, economics or technology and that it is essentially an ethical debate not that history in these fields is irrelevant. Moreover, the fact is (and you are proof of this) that one cannot even comprehend historical facts or even economic systems without first identifying the ethical system that underlie them. Your ignorance on these issues is a direct result of your ignorance of the ethical issues. Like Weinstein, you need to get out of politics and economics and study ethics if you are sincere about understanding Capitalism -vs- Socialism debate. If you disagree with me on that point then feel free to move on.