Switch Theme:

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain



Welwyn Garden City, Herts



Opalescence

What you refer to above is Obsolescence (or built-in obsolescence).

   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





richred_uk wrote:


Opalescence

What you refer to above is Obsolescence (or built-in obsolescence).


You're right. My bad.

Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?
   
Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain



Welwyn Garden City, Herts

Traditio wrote:
richred_uk wrote:


Opalescence

What you refer to above is Obsolescence (or built-in obsolescence).


You're right. My bad.

Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?


Well it's kind of an age-old conundrum. Partly, you could argue that the continued replacement of *stuff* brings us ever better *stuff* (consider how in not much more than 100 years, the telephone has gone from a rarity to ubiquitous and now virtually a computer in everyone's pocket - in the UK & US at least), but certainly, companies rarely have a 'corporate pride' in their products once they reach a certain size, unlike say an artist or craftsman. I'm not sure that taking everything back to artisan production would be a good thing for society though.

   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Traditio wrote:
Because the goal of capitalist entrepreneurs is the production of money, and not the fulfillment of human need, the way to maximize profits is to produce a product which will last for a little while, and then need to be replaced.


Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

The thing about obsolescence is that it was a natural progression from artisan production to industrial manufacturing. At a certain point, it's cheaper to replace something than to repair it. At that point, obsolescence becomes the standard,

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Sometimes they difference between need and want is opalescent. Do I need another pair of hive tyrant wings from that bits seller on eBay to pimp my Night Lords' knight Titan? Yes, yes I do.

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





dogma wrote:Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.


I don't think that you're following me.

The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack. If a company is in the business of selling sofas, their goal should be to make sure that they get good sofas to the people who want them. Where does profit come in? Profit should only come in: 1. to pay the individuals in the corporation enough to have a reasonable standard of living and 2. to make sure that the company can keep making good sofas.

Profit should be the fuel for the business machine, sofas the product.

In point of fact, that's not how companies operate.

Sofas are only the fuel, and profit is the real "product."

Consider, e.g., how GW operates.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/03 20:19:45


 
   
Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain



Welwyn Garden City, Herts

Traditio wrote:
dogma wrote:Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.


I don't think that you're following me.

The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack. If a company is in the business of selling sofas, their goal should be to make sure that they get good sofas to the people who want them. Where does profit come in? Profit should only come in: 1. to pay the individuals in the corporation enough to have a reasonable standard of living and 2. to make sure that the company can keep making good sofas.

Profit should be the fuel for the business machine, sofas the product.

In point of fact, that's not how companies operate.

Sofas are only the fuel, and profit is the real "product."

Consider, e.g., how GW operates.


You say what the goals of companies *SHOULD* be, but you are assuming that we all agree that these *SHOULD* be their goals. What if (to pluck something from mid-air) I say that the goal of a company should be to provide maximum employment in a particular locale? Our differing goals might well now be in conflict. I'm not sure where you are taking the authoritative *should* from when it comes to defining the role of business in society.

   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





richred_uk wrote:You say what the goals of companies *SHOULD* be, but you are assuming that we all agree that these *SHOULD* be their goals. What if (to pluck something from mid-air) I say that the goal of a company should be to provide maximum employment in a particular locale? Our differing goals might well now be in conflict. I'm not sure where you are taking the authoritative *should* from when it comes to defining the role of business in society.


I would answer that your putative goal doesn't make any sense. Servile labor isn't a bonum honestum (a good-in-itself).

If more people can enjoy sofas with fewer people actually having to make them (presupposing that those fewer people are no more burdened thereby), that's even better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/03 20:30:03


 
   
Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain



Welwyn Garden City, Herts

Traditio wrote:
richred_uk wrote:You say what the goals of companies *SHOULD* be, but you are assuming that we all agree that these *SHOULD* be their goals. What if (to pluck something from mid-air) I say that the goal of a company should be to provide maximum employment in a particular locale? Our differing goals might well now be in conflict. I'm not sure where you are taking the authoritative *should* from when it comes to defining the role of business in society.


I would answer that your putative goal doesn't make any sense. Servile labor isn't a bonum honestum (a good-in-itself).

If more people can enjoy sofas with fewer people actually having to make them (presupposing that those fewer people are no more burdened thereby), that's even better.


Then you are wanting to set your thought experiments in a utopia where those without employment are not harmed by it. You are running a thought experiment in an unrealistic universe and starting out by defining a set of rules that conform to your personal prejudices. As such, it is very difficult , nigh on impossible to discuss with you - if you want to discuss real wold application of political ideas I'm happy to join in, but philosophy experiments in Traditio's unbelievable mental construct universe holds no interest for me.

   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





richred_uk wrote:Then you are wanting to set your thought experiments in a utopia where those without employment are not harmed by it. You are running a thought experiment in an unrealistic universe and starting out by defining a set of rules that conform to your personal prejudices. As such, it is very difficult , nigh on impossible to discuss with you - if you want to discuss real wold application of political ideas I'm happy to join in, but philosophy experiments in Traditio's unbelievable mental construct universe holds no interest for me.


Then, in point of fact, I'll answer you that the maximization of employment also is not an actual business goal. In point of fact, corporations love to minimize their labor force whenever it's profitable to do so. Less employees often means more money.

I'm sure you're aware of Wal-Mart.

Why do you think Americans take so few vacations? Part of it, I bet, is because of the lack of worker redundancy to compensate for it.

At any rate:

Economic activity is defined as the production and distribution of goods and services. All material goods exist in order to succor human needs. As such, the economy exists for man, and not the other way around.

The problem with capitalism is that it perverts, undermines and rejects this basic truth. [This is a point, mind you, which, I believe, the holy father has been making repeatedly throughout his tenure as supreme pontiff, no?. Before him, again, Jacques Maritain makes this point repeatedly.]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'd like to note further, RichRed_UK, that the notion that you reject as utopian and unrealistic actually is neither utopian nor unrealistic:

What's so unrealistic about the notion of a universal minimum income?

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2016/04/03 20:52:49


 
   
Made in gb
Dipping With Wood Stain



Welwyn Garden City, Herts

Very Brief as I have to go to bed imminently to be ready to push numbers around and reject basic truths in the morning

What you are coming up with is "Capitalism Bad". Something that has been come up with by many people on both the left and right over many years.

Here's the problem - accepting the premise that Capitalism comes up with situations that are not perfect, what can you suggest that has a chance of working any better?

Oh and you are still taking as gospel that your interpretation of business goals are correct and immutable. There are many corporations that don't have maximisation of profits as their raison d'etre and your thesis doesn't allow for that.

   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





richred_uk wrote:
Very Brief as I have to go to bed imminently to be ready to push numbers around and reject basic truths in the morning

What you are coming up with is "Capitalism Bad". Something that has been come up with by many people on both the left and right over many years.

Here's the problem - accepting the premise that Capitalism comes up with situations that are not perfect, what can you suggest that has a chance of working any better?

Oh and you are still taking as gospel that your interpretation of business goals are correct and immutable. There are many corporations that don't have maximisation of profits as their raison d'etre and your thesis doesn't allow for that.


The popes have offered alternatives repeatedly. Consider Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII.

I have especially in mind the words of Pope Francis from Evangelii Gaudium:

"Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills... A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which has taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/03 21:07:50


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

Traditio wrote:
dogma wrote:Even if that isn't a "human need" it is certainly a human want. Most people want a surplus of things which enable them to fulfill their needs.


I don't think that you're following me.

The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack. If a company is in the business of selling sofas, their goal should be to make sure that they get good sofas to the people who want them. Where does profit come in? Profit should only come in: 1. to pay the individuals in the corporation enough to have a reasonable standard of living and 2. to make sure that the company can keep making good sofas.

Profit should be the fuel for the business machine, sofas the product.

In point of fact, that's not how companies operate.

Sofas are only the fuel, and profit is the real "product."

Consider, e.g., how GW operates.


You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.

Sofas are the product sold by sofa manufacturers. Sofa making companies exist to make sofas that people want that are available for a price that people can afford. That's capitalism; the exchange of goods and services for money. If the manufacturer makes sofas that nobody wants and/or charges prices that inhibit many or any sofas from selling then the company goes out of business, employs no one and makes no profit. Profit is the result of selling sofas, there would be no profit if the company didn't meet peoples' sofa needs and desires at an affordable price.

The primary problem with a guaranteed minimum income is that it artificially inflates the cost of labor which increases prices and makes it harder for lesser skilled or educated people to get jobs and incentivizes automation.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Prestor Jon wrote:You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.


Fair point.

Sofas are the product sold by sofa manufacturers. Sofa making companies exist to make sofas that people want that are available for a price that people can afford. That's capitalism; the exchange of goods and services for money. If the manufacturer makes sofas that nobody wants and/or charges prices that inhibit many or any sofas from selling then the company goes out of business, employs no one and makes no profit. Profit is the result of selling sofas, there would be no profit if the company didn't meet peoples' sofa needs and desires at an affordable price.


I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think it contradicts my points.

The primary problem with a guaranteed minimum income is that it artificially inflates the cost of labor which increases prices and makes it harder for lesser skilled or educated people to get jobs and incentivizes automation.


I think you may be working with an errant conception of what a gauranteed minimum income is. That's where the government makes sure that everyone gets at least x amount of dollars per year. Let's say that the GMI is $12,000 per year. The government sends out checks to anyone making less than that to make sure that they have at least that much every year. This is presumably compensated for by taxing the higher bracket income earners. But it has nothing to do with the cost of labor.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/03 22:58:19


 
   
Made in us
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?





Fort Worth, TX

So, this Panama Papers leak, anybody think we'll see any familiar names? Clinton, maybe?

"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me."
- Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, this Panama Papers leak, anybody think we'll see any familiar names? Clinton, maybe?


Sanders won't be. I know that much.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Prestor Jon wrote:

You do realize that profit is the amount of money remaining after goods or services are purchased and the cost of providing those goods and services is deducted right? Wages are part of the cost of labor they are factored into the price that is charged. Nobody pays wages out of profit.



Actually, they do.... This is because there's Net Profit, and Gross Profit.
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

Speaking of Sanders...

Just read that he actually "won" Nevada:

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Oxfordshire

Traditio wrote:

Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?

You were doing alright until you used atheistic as a pejorative.
Seriously, screw you.
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






 TheMeanDM wrote:
Speaking of Sanders...

Just read that he actually "won" Nevada:

http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-wins-nevada-democratic-caucus/


From another site whose every headline isn't smearing Clinton and extolling the virtues of Sanders: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04/03/a-scrappy-sanders-campaign-narrows-the-nevada-delegate-count-six-weeks-after-the-caucuses/

Long story short he is still behind, but the delegate allocation still isn't done. To me this is a good example of how convoluted the caucus process can be and why every state should be a primary, not a caucus. Vote, leave, count. It really shouldn't be this difficult people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Henry wrote:
Traditio wrote:

Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?

You were doing alright until you used atheistic as a pejorative.
Seriously, screw you.


I'm pretty sure it was established last week that he is trolling this thread particularly hard. Just put him in ignore and be done with him.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 01:04:45


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Easy E wrote:
Just to be clear. This was a very black humored joke. I do not expect that too happen and I don't think Mrs. Clinton had anything to do with Mr. Foster's unfortunate suicide.


I know you were joking, but there's jokes and there's jokes, you know. I apologise if I read it more harshly than I should, but in the context of people honestly continuing with that story and many others, I think my reading was fair.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ulgurstasta wrote:
Thats my understanding of how the democratic primaries work yes, The fact that she tries to blame Sanders for this seems to prove that.


Well, no race is over until its over, but Sanders best chance at the nomination at this point is probably Clinton's spontaneous combustion. And I don't mean that in a figurative sense, a campaign meltdown, I mean Clinton actually just :poof: up in flames.

Sanders attempts to play underhand politics on half truths at this stage is basically working for the Republicans at this stage.

I´m not entirely sure what you are trying to claim here, but yes, politicians usually favor the people/companies that give them money, not a controversial statement exactly


Less than half of 1% of Clinton's funds comes from the energy sector. The claim that they've bought her influence is very, very stupid indeed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Honestly, any real attempt at cutting the dept in a significant manner, would have to be a combination of raising certain taxes (on those who can afford to have their taxes raised), removing loopholes, cutting incentives, and budget cuts.


The primary driver of debt reduction will come from growth. Both population growth and productivity. Over the Clinton years there was an expansion in total debt of almost 2 trillion, but given the economic growth during that period debt per GDP actually dropped about 15%.

This seems like a nitpick but the reality is that if you can move to a budget position which is break even, or even just close to break even, then the debt to GDP will steadily reduce as long as growth continues.

This should inform people as to how little actually has to be done to bring the US to a long term sustainable position. The talk about slashing welfare and all that just makes no sense, it isn’t necessary given the current budget position. It’s favoured for entirely ideological reasons.

Really, very minor cuts to the major programs in addition to very minor tax increases (which would be more than achieved simply by taxing CG and dividends as income) would bring the budget on track. This doesn’t happen for lots of reasons, of course, but it is important to realise how little actually has to be done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Breotan wrote:
Social Security is paid for with FICA and SECA taxes, not general revenue taxes. It is not part of the budget. Even were we to eliminate SS, it would have no effect on the debt or deficits.



Not quite. Because SS is a defined benefits scheme, the amount paid out each year is not directly tied to the amount received. The difference between revenues taken in and amounts paid out is an impact on the government bottom line.

The issue that's been watched and waited for for a long time now is the baby boomer demographic bulge combined with increasing life expectancy past retirement. This has meant that the SS scheme, its revenues and expenditures, that once used to bring in more than it paid out, is now looking at a being a deficit program for some decades to come.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
If you want the ultra wealthy to pay *something*...

Tax their wealth/assets.


Taxes on wealth are much easier to avoid, and much more economically problematic than taxes on income. They produce all sorts of distorting effects, where people put money in bad and non-productive kinds of investments simply to hide the wealth.

And/or re-classify what exactly is "income" to capture those scenarios...


The answer is to stop classifying seperately. Treat all income as equal. The current system says if you earn a paycheck they'll take anywhere up to 39.6% in income tax. That's at the very high end, but even the median income earner will be losing 25% of every new dollar he earns.

On the other hand if you make capital gains tax revenue that'll be taxed at 15%.

Two people, one earns a salary of $50,000, while the other makes $50k in realised capital gains during the year, and the former is taxed more. That should piss people off before they realise that capital gains income is more likely to $500k, and taxed at a lower rate than the guy on $50k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote:
We're paying the interest on the Treaury notes with borrowed money. We don't collect enough taxes to cover all of our spending which includes paying out interest. The fact that we have to buy T notes because the amount of SS collected is less than what is paid out is just proof of its insolvency. The federal govt is spending extra money paying interest into SS because there isn't enough money generated by SS collections to meet obligations.


You are right that SS pays out more than it takes in and so is now a drain on the government budget, but describing the position as insolvency is kind of silly. You can't split out one part of government and call it insolvent based on its revenues and expenditures. In that sense defense is insolvent - it brings in almost nothing and pays out a couple of trillion.

SS needs to be understood as it is - a government program that funds retirement, mostly funded through specific taxes, but with the remainder made up out of general revenue.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 02:05:43


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Henry wrote:You were doing alright until you used atheistic as a pejorative.
Seriously, screw you.


I was using "atheistic" as a bare descriptive. In point of fact, communism, as formulated by Marx and Engels, and expressed, say, in Soviet or Chinese communism, is avowedly and dogmatically atheistic. Communism isn't simply an economic system. It's loaded up with all kinds of philosophical underpinnings. Among these are:

1. Atheism
2. Dialectical materialism.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/04 02:14:26


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Prestor Jon wrote:
Depends on what gets cut and by how much. We've piled up 18 trillion in debt and we're spending 3.7trillion annually (with annual increases)


18 trillion is a junk number, it includes about 5 trillion in debt that government owes to itself. The real figure is about 13.5 trillion. Still high, of course, but part thinking about this in real terms is focusing on the numbers that really matter.

Simply raising taxes isn't going to kickstart prosperity either.


Trying to tie spending and taxing programs to future economic growth has produced a lot of nonsense thinking. Outside of acute collapses in aggregate demand like 2008 that you and most of the rest of the world are slowly walking out of, there's no real argument for government spending to prop up demand. And despite years of effort and countless theories being written, re-written and recycled, there is basically no real world evidence that tax cuts, either individual, corporate or CG, do anything to drive GDP growth (outside of tax havens, but that's not applicable to major economies).

Strip all that away and the reality becomes very simple. Money that you spend is money that has to be raised in taxes, there's no magical 'growth' argument that can be used to justify excessive spending or excessive tax cuts. There's some wiggle room because long term growth of around 3 or 4% over the long term means you can run small deficits without impacting debt to GDP, but that's it, outside of that you just need to make sure everything spent is covered with tax revenues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote:
Do you have any thoughts about the rest of what I wrote, word choice mistakes aside?


Its not wrong, but it's also nothing new. Because people are self-interested, any system will produce situations in which utility maximising individuals will operate in ways that are perverse from a society wide utility point of view.

There's not really anything that can done about this, no system can overcome self-interest, outside of combining every human brain into a single, collective conscious. Which is probably not going to happen any time soon.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 02:28:45


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

Traditio wrote:

I don't think that you're following me.


I am, I'm just way better at philosophy than you are.

Traditio wrote:

The teleology (the goal) of businesses should be the succoring or fulfillment of human need or lack.


"Should" is not "is" or "could", pretending otherwise is foolish because human beings will always attempt to maximize the benefits for the things they care about.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





sebster wrote:Its not wrong, but it's also nothing new. Because people are self-interested, any system will produce situations in which utility maximising individuals will operate in ways that are perverse from a society wide utility point of view.

There's not really anything that can done about this, no system can overcome self-interest, outside of combining every human brain into a single, collective conscious. Which is probably not going to happen any time soon.


I think you underestimate the power of the State. I quote Judge Dredd from America:

"Justice has a price. The price is freedom."

There is such a thing as economic justice. The State should either teach businesses their place, in order that they might learn and accept it joyfully, or else, the State should put them in their place.

For starters:

I propose life imprisonment and massive fines for anyone guilty of knowingly hiring an illegal immigrant.

Failure to pay taxes on business income? Life imprisonment and confiscation of all property.

Seeking tax shelters in the cayman islands? Life imprisonment and confiscation of all property.

Outsourcing to the third world and not obeying US labor laws with respect to the outsourced labor? Life imprisonment and confiscation of all property.

Shutting down and liquidating your business or otherwise leaving the country to evade economic laws? Confiscation of all property. You leave naked and penniless.

And iso-cubes.

The State should build iso-cubes specifically for those capitalists who dare to violate economic justice.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 03:44:52


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






I think you underestimate the power of satire i.e. your quoting of Judge Dredd as if it were not.

Propose all you want. Earlier you proposed the deportation of all Muslims from the US. Please propose some more so people can quit taking your posts seriously.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 03:43:40


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think you underestimate the power of satire i.e. your quoting of Judge Dredd as if it were not.

Propose all you want. Earlier you proposed the exportation of all Muslims from the US. Please propose some more so people can quit taking your posts seriously.


Do you have a compelling argument against enacting harsh laws against capitalists who violate economic justice? Do you have a compelling argument against exporting all Muslims?

I could, with but little effort, show you the great danger of Islam and the great harm that can be enacted by underhanded capitalists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I am, I'm just way better at philosophy than you are.


I only wish that this were true, dogma! May your facility and education in philosophy far exceed mine, as also your humility and virtue.

"Should" is not "is" or "could", pretending otherwise is foolish because human beings will always attempt to maximize the benefits for the things they care about.


1. "Ought" implies "can." If capitalists should have a spirit of stewardship in their business dealings, then they can do it. If the people should have such an economic system which works for the benefit of men, and not the other way around, then the people most certainly could have such a thing (so long as they are not economically dependent on someone else). If the State ought to enact certain forms of legislation, then they most certainly could.

Ultimately, your objection throws doubt on the notion of law and order at all: "Should not commit murder" is not "does not" or "could stop them from doing it." Pretending otherwise is foolish...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 03:51:04


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






Traditio wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I think you underestimate the power of satire i.e. your quoting of Judge Dredd as if it were not.

Propose all you want. Earlier you proposed the exportation of all Muslims from the US. Please propose some more so people can quit taking your posts seriously.


Do you have a compelling argument against enacting harsh laws against capitalists who violate economic justice? Do you have a compelling argument against exporting all Muslims?

I could, with but little effort, show you the great danger of Islam and the great harm that can be enacted by underhanded capitalists.


The US Constitution Amendment 8. The US Constitution Amendment 1.

Aww, go ahead and put a little effort into it. I'm sure it will be terribly enlightening and not at all trolling.

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon





Gordon Shumway wrote:The US Constitution Amendment 8.


Your citing amendment 8 begs the question. I'll simply answer that what I've proposed isn't excessive, cruel or unusual.

The US Constitution Amendment 1.


Perhaps the 1st amendment should be amended.

Not all religions are created equal. Some are actually subversive to the State. Cases in point?

Here's a non-controversial example: scientology.

Do you have an argument to the contrary?

Aww, go ahead and put a little effort into it. I'm sure it will be terribly enlightening and not at all trolling.


Islam:

How do you want to look at it? Do you want to look at their beliefs? Their history? The man that they venerate as the very messenger of God and as the chief and prime exemplar of human conduct? Or do you want to consider them solely empirically as a current/modern national/global threat?

Economic injustice:

The crash of 2008 happened. Nuff said.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/04 04:05:33


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: