The unspoken moral dilemma of socialists

[jc456]

Saying the word black does not make one a racist. If he had said stop obsessing about cantaloupes, does that mean he has a bias against cantaloupes? The word is so over used it has lost any impact. Everyone is a racist now.
Nobody hates facts facts facts, they just think your wrong wrong wrong.

hell, they don't even like their neighbors, :
Boy shot on porch while playing released from hospital

"CHICAGO (WLS) --
Tavon Tanner, the 10-year-old boy who was playing on his front porch on Chicago's West Side when he was shot in the chest in August has been released from the hospital.

There is a celebration Thursday night. Tanner is still in pain, but he's relieved to be home and back in the arms of his mother after spending more than a month at Mt. Sinai Hospital."

And it is daily, and the counts go up over weekends. FACT, FACT, FACT. they can ignore the FACTs but they are merely IGNORING.

BTW, a tree that falls in the woods does make a sound.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Not a bro. Don't drink and here is exactly what I described:

Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. An economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets.

Dumbass, I know quite well what capitalism is, which is exactly why understand it's limitations and you do not.

I also know that "where you are" there is plenty of government run laws, regulations, enforcement, judicial system, infrastructure, entitlements, education etc. etc. etc. etc. that are missing in your fantastical representation of how "where you are" actually manages to function. It is far from "pure capitalism" that is being discussed.

Apparently you don't, if you think my scenario is fantastical. Capitalism works quite well, with or without government. The less government, the better it works. "Where I am" I depend on it for a living, and so do my employees. And it has served me well. Beats the hell out of government lines for toilet paper. You are so caught up on the word pure that you keep missing the Capitalism. Pure capitalism is one with little interference from government, not a complete removal of government.

 

[AntonToo]

Not a bro. Don't drink and here is exactly what I described:

Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. An economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets.

Dumbass, I know quite well what capitalism is, which is exactly why understand it's limitations and you do not.

I also know that "where you are" there is plenty of government run laws, regulations, enforcement, judicial system, infrastructure, entitlements, education etc. etc. etc. etc. that are missing in your fantastical representation of how "where you are" actually manages to function. It is far from "pure capitalism" that is being discussed.

Apparently you don't, if you think my scenario is fantastical. Capitalism works quite well, with or without government. The less government, the better it works. "Where I am" I depend on it for a living, and so do my employees. And it has served me well. Beats the hell out of government lines for toilet paper. You are so caught up on the word pure that you keep missing the Capitalism. Pure capitalism is one with little interference from government, not a complete removal of government.

You didn't dispute a single word I said about "where you are".

Where you are government performs many important functions that have direct effect on how business and society works.

Your absolutist pleading about how less government is always better is nothing but wing-nutter ideology with no grounding in reality.

 

[jc456]

Not a bro. Don't drink and here is exactly what I described:

Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. An economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets.

Dumbass, I know quite well what capitalism is, which is exactly why understand it's limitations and you do not.

I also know that "where you are" there is plenty of government run laws, regulations, enforcement, judicial system, infrastructure, entitlements, education etc. etc. etc. etc. that are missing in your fantastical representation of how "where you are" actually manages to function. It is far from "pure capitalism" that is being discussed.

Apparently you don't, if you think my scenario is fantastical. Capitalism works quite well, with or without government. The less government, the better it works. "Where I am" I depend on it for a living, and so do my employees. And it has served me well. Beats the hell out of government lines for toilet paper. You are so caught up on the word pure that you keep missing the Capitalism. Pure capitalism is one with little interference from government, not a complete removal of government.

You didn't dispute a single word I said about "where you are".

Where you are government performs many important functions that have direct effect on how business and society works.

Your absolutist pleading about how less government is always better is nothing but wing-nutter ideology with no grounding in reality.

what was the intent of our government? Have you read the constitution?

 

[Onyx]

Rules? Who formalizes and enforces the rules?

These rules exist without system. No one needs to formalize them. Formalization is the basis for establishment, and the established law is evil.

The NAP for example, is to not cause physical harm to anybody that does not first attempt physical harm on you.

That is the basic rule, and a good one. It gives moral justification towards the individual and the militia to step in and defend someone being attacked or violated.

You can "believe in them" all you want, but they cannot function in your elective anarchy.

All rules have consequences, and therefore all rules are functional.

You do not seem to know much about this area of political philosophy.

 

[AntonToo]

Rules? Who formalizes and enforces the rules?

These rules exist without system. No one needs to formalize them. Formalization is the basis for establishment, and the established law is evil.

You are fucking crazy, typing this nonsence out of the confines of a closet you seem to live in.

Rule: don't steal.
I steal from you, because I don't give a shit about your little rule.

What the fuck was the point of the rule?

See here, out in the civilization, stealing is a punishable crime. So you can call the police, who will investigate the matter, detain me, give me due process in the court of law and finally administer the punishment for me and/or award damages to you.

Hmmm sounds like a much better system. A system not possible in your voluntary anarchy.

 

[Onyx]

Rule: don't steal.
I steal from you, because I don't give a shit about your little rule.

What the fuck was the point of the rule?

I gave you a simplified version of the NAP.

My version of the NAP: Do not cause physical harm to the personhood or property of another unless they cause physical harm to the personhood or property of yourself or another.

Basically it just gives moral justification to the community to find you and twist your arm for my money back.

 

[AntonToo]

I gave you a simplified version of the NAP.

My version of the NAP: Do not cause physical harm to the personhood or property of another unless they cause physical harm to the personhood or property of yourself or another.

Basically it just gives moral justification to the community to find you and twist your arm for my money back.

What exactly is "community" that you have in mind.

20-30 people?

There are 300+ million people in this country, with some "communities" that are counted in the millions. WHO in this community has a right to twist my arm over what you say I supposedly stole from you?

Whatever happened to moral justification for fair arbitration and due process???

 

[Onyx]

What exactly is "community" that you have in mind.

20-30 people?

The map does not need to be drawn out, because it already exists.

Everyone is self aware of what constitutes their community. Most of us already have names for our communities.

WHO in this community has a right to twist my arm over what you say I supposedly stole from you?

What is this self imposed court that claims to have the moral authority to judge human life?

Whatever happened to moral justification for fair arbitration and due process???

When did the US criminal justice system ever involve fair arbitration and due process?

I do not care for bickering over minor civil disputes such as petty theft. They are minor and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, and society can fight about it amongst themselves. That is human nature anyways (and a great opportunity for private detective agencies)

All that matters is physical aggression does not run amok and society is adequately defended. Everything else is petty and abusive politics.

 

[Onyx]

See here, out in the civilization, stealing is a punishable crime. So you can call the police, who will investigate the matter, detain me, give me due process in the court of law and finally administer the punishment for me and/or award damages to you.

A nice way of spinning it.

On the contrary, they ostracize you from human interaction by contacting the government to act as arbitrators of civil disputes, at which point you are involuntarily stripped of your liberties and forced to jump through several very annoying government hoops. You will then be presented to a judge that has either been appointed by a soulless politician, or elected into office by the uneducated and moronic masses. Those uneducated and moronic masses will also oversee your case, and determine your fate in ways that will impact the rest of your life. Most likely for this petty felony, you will get several years in prison. 500$ = losing three years of your life in modern "civilization," is that not great? Best yet, after you are through with the governments civilized system, you will be marked for life, and it will be incredibly difficult to get employed or sustain social interactions with your history, whether you did or did not commit the offense in the first place.

Yeah, you are right. The civilized way is SO much better...

 

[francoHFW]

You have no idea what welfare is.They have to prove they're looking for work, are screened for drugs, work for benefits at minimum wage, all kinds of meetings and counseling. Idiot. No one wants to be on welfare. Thanks for wrecking the middle class and the country, New BS GOP.

oh bullshit. Dude, i had a sister in law on it. Don't feed me that lefturd line.

I know, I know, standard protocol.

That's the way it is in NY. You must live in a dumbass red state with stupid GOP budget cuts.

I live in Chicago, in one of the worst welfare states in the country. People on welfare are not required to look for work. that's lefturd protocols in attempt to deflect. haahahahahaahahaha. Dude post up a link with information in it to make your point valid. Ok? I'll wait for the crickets.

If they're not disabled, they are. Blaming our woes on the poor is ridiculous after 35 years of GOP pander to the rich policies AND a corrupt GOP world depression. We basically have a flat tax now, despite your propaganda, dupe, and almost all the new wealth stays with the rich. Great job, New BS GOP and silly hater dupes. Get the hell out of the way of reform.

I know, a tax cut for the rich- Big Orange Idiot.

It is the poor that commit most crime. statistics don't lie.

The Poverty-Crime Connection

"High Crime Rates Among Poor: Why
It is a fact that neighborhoods where the poor are concentrated are more prone to high crime rates, and poor residents are the most common victims of crimes. Beyond a simplistic answer of "poor people want/need more stuff so they have to take it," what are other, more researched answers? Oscar Newman offered several in "Creating Defensible Space" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996, $15):#• A one-parent household headed by a female is more vulnerable to criminal attack.
• Families with only one adult present are less able to control their teenage children.
• Young teenage mothers are often victimized by their boyfriends.
• The criminal activity by the poor is tolerated, if not condoned, among the poor.
• The poor, and particularly the poor members of racial minorities, are unable to demand as much police protection.
• Committing crimes against residents in rundown and "ghetto" areas requires minimal skill and risk."

Brilliant. Living wage?

 

[francoHFW]

Investment in training? Infrastructure bill? And Dems want more poor people? RW dupery...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I believe this happens because socialists have a bad track record of creating good environmental, charitable, and international NGO groups that have no capacity for a robin hood complex.

It's not a Robin Hood complex, Robin Hood stole from an oppressive, greedy government and gave back to the people. He never actually stole from "The rich", he gave people back the money that the government was stealing.

 

[francoHFW]

I believe this happens because socialists have a bad track record of creating good environmental, charitable, and international NGO groups that have no capacity for a robin hood complex.

It's not a Robin Hood complex, Robin Hood stole from an oppressive, greedy government and gave back to the people. He never actually stole from "The rich", he gave people back the money that the government was stealing.

Who were the greedy idiot rich in charge. Today, the GOP.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I believe this happens because socialists have a bad track record of creating good environmental, charitable, and international NGO groups that have no capacity for a robin hood complex.

It's not a Robin Hood complex, Robin Hood stole from an oppressive, greedy government and gave back to the people. He never actually stole from "The rich", he gave people back the money that the government was stealing.

Who were the greedy idiot rich in charge. Today, the GOP.

That's adorable, he thinks the Democrat party isn't run by the Establishment as well. Don't feel bad, it's normal for Democrats to be uninformed.

 

[francoHFW]

I believe this happens because socialists have a bad track record of creating good environmental, charitable, and international NGO groups that have no capacity for a robin hood complex.

It's not a Robin Hood complex, Robin Hood stole from an oppressive, greedy government and gave back to the people. He never actually stole from "The rich", he gave people back the money that the government was stealing.

Who were the greedy idiot rich in charge. Today, the GOP.

That's adorable, he thinks the Democrat party isn't run by the Establishment as well. Don't feel bad, it's normal for Democrats to be uninformed.

Look at policy some day. "I know, a tax cut for the rich" -GOP ALWAYS.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I believe this happens because socialists have a bad track record of creating good environmental, charitable, and international NGO groups that have no capacity for a robin hood complex.

It's not a Robin Hood complex, Robin Hood stole from an oppressive, greedy government and gave back to the people. He never actually stole from "The rich", he gave people back the money that the government was stealing.

Who were the greedy idiot rich in charge. Today, the GOP.

That's adorable, he thinks the Democrat party isn't run by the Establishment as well. Don't feel bad, it's normal for Democrats to be uninformed.

Look at policy some day. "I know, a tax cut for the rich" -GOP ALWAYS.

Tax cuts and tax increases don't effect the Establishment, only their competitors. That's why the Democrats love raising taxes. Not that it actually bothers them to start with, since it's only passed down to the middle class.

On the other hand, if you actually paid attention, you'd notice the Establishment supporting the Clintons, the Bush family, and Obama. It's too much to ask for you to be observant, though, of course. It's not like the liberal media was obviously supporting each of those Democrats listed, and all the recent Republican nominees were practically Democrats.

Of course, I can point out the obvious all I like, but the blind still won't see it.

 

[Onyx]

It's not a Robin Hood complex, Robin Hood stole from an oppressive, greedy government and gave back to the people. He never actually stole from "The rich", he gave people back the money that the government was stealing.

It depends what version of Robin Hood you are talking about.

He is a fictional character after all. In most versions he steals money from aristocrats with his band of merry men, which is distributed to peasants and such.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Not a bro. Don't drink and here is exactly what I described:

Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. An economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets.

Dumbass, I know quite well what capitalism is, which is exactly why understand it's limitations and you do not.

I also know that "where you are" there is plenty of government run laws, regulations, enforcement, judicial system, infrastructure, entitlements, education etc. etc. etc. etc. that are missing in your fantastical representation of how "where you are" actually manages to function. It is far from "pure capitalism" that is being discussed.

Apparently you don't, if you think my scenario is fantastical. Capitalism works quite well, with or without government. The less government, the better it works. "Where I am" I depend on it for a living, and so do my employees. And it has served me well. Beats the hell out of government lines for toilet paper. You are so caught up on the word pure that you keep missing the Capitalism. Pure capitalism is one with little interference from government, not a complete removal of government.

You didn't dispute a single word I said about "where you are".

Where you are government performs many important functions that have direct effect on how business and society works.

Your absolutist pleading about how less government is always better is nothing but wing-nutter ideology with no grounding in reality.

As far as capitalism is concerned, less government interference is better, as it is often the case with government.
Here it is in business:
What is pure capitalism? definition and meaning
www.businessdictionary.com/definition/pure-capitalism.html
Definition of pure capitalism: System of economics with little governmental interference.

Here it is in law:
What is PURE CAPITALISM? definition of PURE CAPITALISM (Black's ...
thelawdictionary.org/pure-capitalism/
Definition of PURE CAPITALISM: A economic system that shows little interference from a government body. The system is run by big business and revolves ...

And here it is, describing exactly, the scenario I used about capitalism in my cafe, where I am. And,
where I am has nothing to do with the definition of capitalism. It is an example of capitalism, and I nailed it!

Cap·i·tal·ism
(kăp′ĭ-tl-ĭz′əm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
^ The definition remains the same where I am and where you are.

And you sir, are an idiot.

 

[AntonToo]

See here, out in the civilization, stealing is a punishable crime. So you can call the police, who will investigate the matter, detain me, give me due process in the court of law and finally administer the punishment for me and/or award damages to you.

A nice way of spinning it.

On the contrary, they ostracize you from human interaction by contacting the government to act as arbitrators of civil disputes

Wow...I mean wow what fucking crazy nonsense. I think I had enough of these very special olympics.