Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

You seemed to base your arguments on two viewpoints - that people are where they are socially and economically totally through their own personal and individual efforts and choices. You seem to also argue that that this was a natural process that was not open to outside influences, it was just how things were, like being born taller or shorter than others.

These ideas seemed to colour your views on the role and function of government – if the two views were correct then there was little need for government, if left alone individuals would find their own levels in life’s ‘free market’ - the naturally ‘fittest’ would rise and the naturally ‘weak’ would decent.

Also if the two arguments were correct then government social programmes were useless and worse a distortion of the ‘natural free market’. Helping the ‘weak’ was useless because they would remain weak because if they were ‘fit’ they wouldn’t be needing help – and it was a distortion of the ‘free market’ because money was taken from the ‘fittest’ to be given to the ‘weak’ dragging down the obviously superior ‘fittest’ and artificially elevating the inferior ‘weak’.

The problem is that the two views you seem to be basing your ideas on seem to be wrong. You now seem to admit that unearned advantage and unwarranted disadvantage exist and you now seem to realise that advantage and disadvantage are not ‘natural’ they are just part of an artificial, human constructed structure.

In other words you don’t seem to have any logical, rational or reasonable arguments in support of an unfair system, you just want an unfair system because you do, not only that you seemingly want to make it even more unfair

So your arguments don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny and you seem incapable of defending them from criticism – I’ll ask again why do you continue to hold onto these ideas?

 

my main problem with him is religion but other than that i prefer him to the running dems and reps available since i have started voting. not saying i agree with everything im just saying overall compared to...

 

What do indoctrinated socialists make?

(And unless Individual is over 78 years old, that would include him being indoctrinated.)

* And I'm paying for his social security!

What does he even mean by left? As if it is not painfully obvious that the US government is thoroughly sold out to the corporate agenda... the last time I checked, corporations were 'right.'

 

Not at all -- as I said: "my information / opinion is based on personal knowledge and experience of and with the US housing market and not just what I’ve read and find convenient for proving the point to myself or anyone else."

I formed an opinion based on first hand knowledge and personal experience rather forming an opinion and then searching for ways to validate it.

You do apologize alot. There's really no need of it so often. LOL

And, as ususal, you twist the words of others to make it seem as if something that wasn't said, was said. You are rather proficient at such -- ' due credit for that.

Anything can be criticized. Wouldn't you agree that one should always examine the validity of criticism, rather than just accept it as valid?

 

Bal,

You 'seem' to go to great length in an attempt to claim that I have made admissions that I have not. Advantages and disadvantages do exist, and I find nothing unnatural about that.
Is it unnatural for a human to protect and provide for their own offspring, their Grandchildren, etc.?

Why do you hold on to the ideas you have? I would like to leave my children and their offspring in a better position than that which I have acquired, and not put them in a position of needing, wanting or having to ask government to provide for their needs or wants.

 

out2,

77, but educated when parents were much more active in school operations locally.

Socialism is not Communism, nor is communism practical in the modern world.

Yes, if you are working and paying taxes, you are indeed paying for my social security, which by government mandate I was forced to participate in.

Both Left and Right wing forms of government need money to operate, and Corporations and the wealthy are a primary source of obtaining it, especially if they are provided with the means of recouping their losses. Socialism cannot exist without capitalism as the means of providing the means by which it expands.

 

Of course, neither can communism in a large, modern scale, as the soviets and chinese have proven very well.

But as you say, one must look out for their offspring-I feel the need to say that in the smaller societal units you prefer, if one person holds all the wealth and doesn't share what a tribe or group needs, they will be stripped of it, and maybe of their lives, or else the whole gropu will fail. In a society like ours parts of the society fail but it's large enough that they can claim to be distanced from those parts..... but they're generally NOT.

And yes, wealthy people and corporations SHOULD be great places for the government to obtain wealth, but as it is, that's what you agrue AGAINST.

 

I believe I just stated that that, and I don't think the Soviets or the Chinese governments are properly defined as Communist.

No one person holds or could ever hold all the wealth.

I don't it to be governments purpose to obtain wealth or create laws or programs intended to redistribute wealth. The wealthy and corporations do pay taxes, and according to the IRS data, quite a large portion of the total revenue collected. Government simply spends too much, borrows too much, and creates more programs than it can feasibly afford to fund perpetually.

 

Indie

Ah but what is your definition of ‘natural’, it may be ‘natural’ to provide for your offspring but ‘in nature’ that is provision is basic (and in many case once adulthood is reached the dynamic changes and the offspring are seen as rivals and attacked driven off or abandoned).

Human society is much more complex and artificial, as I’ve pointed out to you before, I mean you could give a child the same ‘natural’ upbringing as give to other animals (food protection from being eaten) but the resulting child/adult is unlikely to fit in well with the human society we have created.

The way we provide is in many ways artificial and we can only provide them because of artificial human structures. Animals forage or hunt, most people go out to work (artificial) to make money (artificial) to buy food (artificial) from a distributer (artificial).

So we come onto human structured ‘advantages and disadvantages’ these are not naturally given like height or baldness they are artificial.

For example a lion that is leader of a pride can pass on his genes but he can’t make a will bequest his position to one of his offspring that is legally bidding because of laws enacted by a government and is backed up by judicial and enforcement institutions.

LOL – I’ve never suggested you couldn’t I’ve said -

Is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

Notice the exclusive.

 

Indie

I’ve told you hundreds of times, do you ever listen to what’s said to you?

OK again – because I can defend my ideas from criticism – if I couldn’t I wouldn’t hold them.

That is why I ask you why you hold onto ideas even when you seem incapable of defending them from criticism.

 

Balbus, your head is going to crack if you keep banging it against a wall.

 

He is patient. I don't have that much patience.

 

Bal,

Your relentless attempt to achieve acceptance or submission to your views is built entirely on an artificial foundation of achieving equality where it does not exist naturally. The human species is much more diverse than any other animal species, which is the primary reason that our species has become the dominant species, and although the result can be properly envisioned or recognized as having produced much greater inequalities, the benefits to all cannot be ignored. To sustain life requires the acquisition of basic needs, which can be obtained through one of three methods, labor, charity, or theft.
Labor, for example is ones own efforts put to use in producing ones needs, or producing the means by which needs beyond our individual capacity allow us to obtain our needs.
Charity, on the other hand is what others provide of their own free will in assisting others whose needs are not being met.
Theft, is taking from those who possess what we define as a need or want, and is the primary causation of government and laws.
Neither labor or charity has a negative social impact, while theft does which necessitates the artificial construct of government, laws, and the means of enforcement.
It should be obvious that the people who make up the society are the creators of the government, and those who are given the task of governing are empowered and constrained by those same people. Each power given to government results in a loss of freedom by those who are governed, therefore it is essential that the people maintain tight control over those they allow to govern them or their freedoms can be gradually eroded nearly completely over time without recognition.

You've asked the same question numerous times, and the answer remains firmly a 'YES'.
I have noted the use of the word 'exclusive' and wonder why you feel it necessary? A right belonging to someone is simply a right. You include what I feel to be an opinion by insertion of 'advantages they didn't deserve' and wonder how you come to a conclusion in determining which advantages are not deserved and which advantages are deserved? In addition you appear to assert that ALL those who are disadvantaged are disadvantaged through no blame of their own. Without use of a premise in which can be agreed on, your views seem to be corrupt and of no value worth pursuing.

You waste much time trying to place blame where it does not belong in the pursuit of your agenda.

While you may feel you have defended your ideas from criticism, you have failed totally in convincing me in any way I could find acceptable. So why should I be any less satisfied with my attempts to respond to your criticisms of my views than you claim to be of mine? It's somewhat difficult to listen to written words, but reading them I've not seen anything worthy of changing my views.

You very easily could have made a single post, which leaves me wondering if you get paid by the number of posts or something of that nature?

 

I agree with you that corporations and the wealthy are the primary source of the needed money. That is exactly why I say there is no economic "left" in the US; corporations and the wealthy are economically "right."

We currently live under right (capitalist) -authoritarian governments; are you claiming we live under left (socialist) -authoritarian governments?

 

Indie

As I’ve pointed out before you seem to post more than me. But the reason I split things up is because there are often different themes and issues and taking them separately seems more logical than bunching them in a single reply.

But really does it matter if it is one post or a few since you don’t seem able to actually address the criticisms if they were in one or a hundred.

Anyway here we go…

 

Indie

Oh hell Indie we have covered that many, many times now – to pick an example here is how I answered something similar in post 1214 of this thread –

To repeat from just a few posts ago - you know we’ve been through this many times – you like to claim that your opponents are malicious utopians that want to force everyone to be equally poor.

It’s another of you con games.

As I told you many times, I don’t think total equality is possible, but I do think societies should be run in the best interests of everyone rather than just a few. I’ve also argued that their needs to be balance between the interests of wealth and the interests of everyone else.

I’d like to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of fulfilling their potential and having a healthy and worthwhile life.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a worse society.
And that is why I can’t understand your thinking or that of other right wing libertarians and neoliberals, because they and you do seem to want to live in a worse society.

 

Indie

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘diverse’ humans are not that genetically diverse so do you mean ‘adaptable’ I mean the main reason humans became the dominate species was the ability to create artificial means to overcome natural environmental problems – defence against predators with fire and weapons, wearing furs in cold areas, using irrigation to grow things in dry areas etc.

Again I’m not sure of what you are saying – in what way does the supposed ‘diversity’ produce much greater inequality?

 

Indie

Part One

But as I pointed out in modern human society there is a difficulty with just supplying basic needs in nature amongst animals - provision is basic (and in many case once adulthood is reached the dynamic changes and the offspring are seen as rivals and attacked driven off or abandoned).

Human society is much more complex and artificial, as I’ve pointed out to you before, I mean you could give a child the same (basic) ‘natural’ upbringing as give to other animals (food protection from being eaten) but the resulting child/adult is unlikely to fit in well with the human society we have created.

The way we provide is in many ways artificial and we can only provide them because of artificial human structures. Animals forage or hunt, most people go out to work (artificial) to make money (artificial) to buy food (artificial) from a distributer (artificial).

So we come onto human structured ‘advantages and disadvantages’ these are not naturally given like height or baldness they are artificial.

For example a lion that is leader of a pride can pass on his genes but he can’t make a will bequest his position to one of his offspring that is legally bidding because of laws enacted by a government and is backed up by judicial and enforcement institutions.

Part 2

Or being born into it or getting it through inheritance.

Also labour, charity and thief are all artificial – a lion will hunt for food they don’t go to work for pay to buy the meat – some animals may have symbiotic relationships but organised charity is not undertaken by any other animal but humans – as for theft, if a lion steals a hyenas’ kill the hyena cannot get the law involved and have the lion arrested, laws are artificial human creations not natural.

 

Indie

Slaves put in there own effort but what they produce goes to the master. That’s the same in a system with high levels of exploitation, were people can work for long hours for little pay with the profit going to others. As I’ve pointed out you seem to want to increase the possibility of exploitation while I’d prefer a system with less, where people would get a fair working wage.

In the thirty odd years or so that neoliberal ideas became dominant the real term incomes of the middle and lower groups have stagnated or fallen while those of wealth have ballooned hugely. To me the balance needs to be restored, you seem to want to make it worse.

We have been through this many, many, many times – it comes up against the deserving and undeserving argument - The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

We have been through this before and you have already said you countenance such ‘theft’ in that you believe in compulsory taxation.

To repeat you are not an anarchist who wants no government (unless you have changed your views)

And let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population but nobody knows which half. (*)

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they may not be inclined to go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’.

It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not. Some might help out of compassion and for the good of society but others might think ‘I’m all right jack’ and decide it’s none of their business if others suffer - something I’m sure they wouldn’t think if they didn’t now they wouldn’t be effected.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

But as pointed out you have argued against democracy and have even suggested that wealth should have more voting power so it can block or veto the voice of the majority.

But as also pointed out many, many, many times – that’s all you seem to have – no logical, rational or reasonable argument just ‘YES’ shouted into the face of the criticisms you seem incapable of defending that statement against.