Who is responsible for YOU?

[Agnapostate]

Interesting theory. I can't say that I agree, because there is no chance that a complex economic system such as ours would function properly without a system of leveled management to oversee various operations of a business, all the way up to the very top. I think KK hit the nail on the head when she said that the problem isn't with hierarchy, it's with those in power not making ethical choices. There are plenty of instances where one person runs an entire company and is still able to not only maximize employee productivity AND satisfaction, but also show high profits, growth, and returns. The SAS Institute is a prime example. Ironically, they specialize in software that allows companies to better their enterprise resource management.

I don't believe that's the case, primarily because of the aforementioned principal-agent problems, as well as the prevalence of asymmetric information throughout the capitalist economy.

Specifically in the context of microeconomic analysis, Logue and Yates have certainly indicated that workers' self-management can generate efficiency that equals or exceeds that of a traditional capitalist firm. We might also consider the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain, which is operated through a system of workers' self-management and is the largest corporation in the Basque region and one of the largest corporations in Spain. We might consider the repossessed factories and workplaces in Argentina, such as the Hotel Bauen, the Brukman factory, and the Fabrica Sin Patrones, which have fared better in a system of worker control and democratic participation.

In a larger regional context, we might consider the Israeli kibbutzim, though I would hesitate to refer to them as an optimal example because of their strong associations with the ideology of Labor Zionist groups like Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim Dror. In a regional/national context, we could refer to Titoist Yugoslavia, and the benefits that it derived from worker-owned enterprises, although I'd be inclined to say that the same "ideological" issues exist there.

The most important example would be the Spanish Revolution and the horizontal federations of decentralized anarchist collectives and communes that existed for several years in Aragon, Catalonia, and the Levant. The 20% efficiency gain that I mentioned in Aragon is obviously of paramount importance, as well as important municipal gains that occurred in parts of Catalonia, such as Barcelona, for instance.

 

[Bern80]

Interesting theory. I can't say that I agree, because there is no chance that a complex economic system such as ours would function properly without a system of leveled management to oversee various operations of a business, all the way up to the very top. I think KK hit the nail on the head when she said that the problem isn't with hierarchy, it's with those in power not making ethical choices. There are plenty of instances where one person runs an entire company and is still able to not only maximize employee productivity AND satisfaction, but also show high profits, growth, and returns. The SAS Institute is a prime example. Ironically, they specialize in software that allows companies to better their enterprise resource management.

I don't believe that's the case, primarily because of the aforementioned principal-agent problems, as well as the prevalence of asymmetric information throughout the capitalist economy.

Specifically in the context of microeconomic analysis, Logue and Yates have certainly indicated that workers' self-management can generate efficiency that equals or exceeds that of a traditional capitalist firm. We might also consider the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain, which is operated through a system of workers' self-management and is the largest corporation in the Basque region and one of the largest corporations in Spain. We might consider the repossessed factories and workplaces in Argentina, such as the Hotel Bauen, the Brukman factory, and the Fabrica Sin Patrones, which have fared better in a system of worker control and democratic participation.

In a larger regional context, we might consider the Israeli kibbutzim, though I would hesitate to refer to them as an optimal example because of their strong associations with the ideology of Labor Zionist groups like Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim Dror. In a regional/national context, we could refer to Titoist Yugoslavia, and the benefits that it derived from worker-owned enterprises, although I'd be inclined to say that the same "ideological" issues exist there.

The most important example would be the Spanish Revolution and the horizontal federations of decentralized anarchist collectives and communes that existed for several years in Aragon, Catalonia, and the Levant. The 20% efficiency gain that I mentioned in Aragon is obviously of paramount importance, as well as important municipal gains that occurred in parts of Catalonia, such as Barcelona, for instance.

Here's the problem. The system we are under came from someplace. In the countries infancy, no one said to the budding entrepreneurs 'this is how you must structure your business'. In a sense they had to have done exactly what you advocated on one level. They experimented and did what worked. The country was founded on the concept of freedom and it is what allowed business, profitability and job growth to flourish the way it has. I don't know how we can hold to the ideals of freedom while mandating that level of restriction on business.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Then let's see what you've got, boy.

You already failed to reply to my other discussion of imperfect contracting in the "pillars of communism" thread, so I expect similar failure here.

OK.... so as predicted there is nothing indicating a deposit has been registered with admin, there is no evidence presented in support of yet another empty accusation, there is nothing but ethereal projections...

Isn't it AMAZING how someone who represents themselves as an "Anarcho-Communist' is only able to argue through the projection of fantasy... A fantasy which begins with her Oxymoronic self-lable, through her self image as having maintained such a dominant argument that her opposition simply will not engage her argument; and this while she refuses every challenge which has been set before her.

What we have in, Ag-whatshername, friends, is DELUSION ON PARADE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you can't explain what it is SPECIFICALLY, that leads you to believe that confiscating the product of Person A's labor and giving it to Person B; who did NOT earn it and is NOT required to even CONSIDER paying it back, can be argued to be anything EXCEPT theft?

thus you're refusing to substantiate your feelings with even a discernable, let alone a sufficient basis to avoid the conclusion that you're 'feelings' amount to little more than anarcho-communist bull-shit.

(snip'd annoyingly large idiocy)

See kids, there's nothing difficult about exposing leftists as fools... ya just need to let them to speak long enough to make an assertion and ask them to support it; whereupon they'll fail every single TIME...

Are you a complete and utter moron? Did someone bash you in the head with a heavy or sharp object? Apart from AllieBabble, I've never encountered such rancid, putrid stupidity.

You have such an absurdly fallacious conception of market exchange, believing in your utopian (and possibly drug-induced) free market fantasies. This is why you've failed to answer any criticisms of your moronic position based on the absence of perfect or costless information in a market. Asymmetric information exists in a market; hence, adverse selection and moral hazard problems will exist in a capitalist economy.

The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting (which you are incapable of understanding).

You're serious? ROFL...

You want to rest what little bit of credibility that you may enjoy in the creepier pockets of this board, on this farce; "The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting"?

Now, before I respond to this... In the name of fairness, I just want you to clarify that you're satisifed with this position and are resting your entire thesis on this point.

Feel carefully here Ag... as this will be the last chance you have to 'clarify' your position...

Take your time and do not return to this thread until you've had a chance to REALLY FEEL ABOUT IT.

If you feel that you need to 'tweek' it... change it, revise it, run from like it was a vacuous abyss of idiocy and change the subject, hoping no one notices... just go ahead and I'll respond accordingly.

OH! And I'm paying $10 each for examples of where I've failed to answer "failed to answer any criticisms of {my} position based on the absence of perfect or costless information in a market". Now for the payoff of $10/EA for ALL of THESE EXAMPLES YOU HAVE STORED UP and which you NO DOUBT ARE PREPARED TO ADVANCE IN REFUTATION... I'll require you to paypal $50 deposit with the Admin Gunny... With your deposit simply have the Gunny e-mail me that he has the deposit, which he can give to the fund supporting the forum upon your certain failure.

Now once that happens I will send to your PP account the sum of $10 for EACH EXAMPLE YOU PROVIDE which meets the above criteria.

(For the record, this idiot will not set the required $50 deposit; she will not advance even a SINGLE such example, as there are no such examples... she simply wants to project that such is the case as a means of appealing to what she perceives is a popularly held opinion in hopes of propping up a fatally wounded reputation... she's an imbecile of the frist order.)

Then let's see what you've got, boy.

You already failed to reply to my other discussion of imperfect contracting in the "pillars of communism" thread, so I expect similar failure here.

OK.... so as predicted there is nothing indicating a deposit has been registered with admin, there is no evidence presented in support of yet another empty accusation, there is nothing but ethereal projections...

Isn't it AMAZING how someone who represents themselves as an "Anarcho-Communist' is only able to argue through the projection of fantasy... A fantasy which begins with her Oxymoronic self-lable, through her self image as having maintained such a dominant argument that her opposition simply will not engage her argument; and this while she refuses every challenge which has been set before her.

What we have in, Ag-whatshername, friends, is DELUSION ON PARADE.

 

[KMAN]

How many more times do the American people have to get screwed by politicians before they figure out that 90% of the Federal Government only cares about themselves?

 

[KittenKoder]

How many more times do the American people have to get screwed by politicians before they figure out that 90% of the Federal Government only cares about themselves?

This isn't the problem, the real problem is there are not enough to stand up to it nor a leader to lead the movement. They are too happy to instead whine "libs did this" or "cons did that".

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So you can't explain what it is SPECIFICALLY, that leads you to believe that confiscating the product of Person A's labor and giving it to Person B; who did NOT earn it and is NOT required to even CONSIDER paying it back, can be argued to be anything EXCEPT theft?

thus you're refusing to substantiate your feelings with even a discernable, let alone a sufficient basis to avoid the conclusion that you're 'feelings' amount to little more than anarcho-communist bull-shit.

(snip'd annoyingly large idiocy)

See kids, there's nothing difficult about exposing leftists as fools... ya just need to let them to speak long enough to make an assertion and ask them to support it; whereupon they'll fail every single TIME...

Are you a complete and utter moron? Did someone bash you in the head with a heavy or sharp object? Apart from AllieBabble, I've never encountered such rancid, putrid stupidity.

You have such an absurdly fallacious conception of market exchange, believing in your utopian (and possibly drug-induced) free market fantasies. This is why you've failed to answer any criticisms of your moronic position based on the absence of perfect or costless information in a market. Asymmetric information exists in a market; hence, adverse selection and moral hazard problems will exist in a capitalist economy.

The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting (which you are incapable of understanding).

You're serious? ROFL...

You want to rest what little bit of credibility that you may enjoy in the creepier pockets of this board, on this farce; "The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting"?

Now, before I respond to this... In the name of fairness, I just want you to clarify that you're satisifed with this position and are resting your entire thesis on this point.

Feel carefully here Ag... as this will be the last chance you have to 'clarify' your position...

Take your time and do not return to this thread until you've had a chance to REALLY FEEL ABOUT IT.

If you feel that you need to 'tweek' it... change it, revise it, run from like it was a vacuous abyss of idiocy and change the subject, hoping no one notices... just go ahead and I'll respond accordingly.

OH! And I'm paying $10 each for examples of where I've failed to answer "failed to answer any criticisms of {my} position based on the absence of perfect or costless information in a market". Now for the payoff of $10/EA for ALL of THESE EXAMPLES YOU HAVE STORED UP and which you NO DOUBT ARE PREPARED TO ADVANCE IN REFUTATION... I'll require you to paypal $50 deposit with the Admin Gunny... With your deposit simply have the Gunny e-mail me that he has the deposit, which he can give to the fund supporting the forum upon your certain failure.

Now once that happens I will send to your PP account the sum of $10 for EACH EXAMPLE YOU PROVIDE which meets the above criteria.

(For the record, this idiot will not set the required $50 deposit; she will not advance even a SINGLE such example, as there are no such examples... she simply wants to project that such is the case as a means of appealing to what she perceives is a popularly held opinion in hopes of propping up a fatally wounded reputation... she's an imbecile of the first order.)

Then let's see what you've got, boy.

You already failed to reply to my other discussion of imperfect contracting in the "pillars of communism" thread, so I expect similar failure here.

OK.... so, as predicted there is nothing indicating that a deposit has been registered with admin; there is no evidence presented in support of yet another empty accusation, there is, AS USUAL, nothing but ethereal projections...

Isn't it AMAZING how someone who represents themselves as an "Anarcho-Communist' is only able to argue through the projection of fantasy... A fantasy which begins with her Oxymoronic self-lable and extends through her self image as having maintained such a dominant argument that her opposition simply will not engage her argument; and all the while she steadfastly refuses every challenge which has been set before her...

ROFLMNAO... BRILLIANT!

What we have in, Ag-whatshername, friends, is DELUSION ON PARADE.

LOL... Which is kinda cool... as it keeps the requirements for a suitable response (that of the lethal variety), fairly short.

The original theft springs from the subordination of labor under capital, given the nature of imperfect contracting

So we're told that the subordnation of labor, under capital, given the nature of 'imperfect contracting' is theft...

Fascinatin'...

First I suppose we should define the terms being advanced as the frame work of the argument:

Suborn: persuade another to do wrong: to persuade somebody to commit a crime or other wrongdoing, e.g. to bribe another party to tell lies in court.
Capital (we're forced to presume the intended context, which are numerous, but I suspect this one is the closest): 7. wealthy people: the capitalist class considered as a group (capital's influence on government policy)
Labor:supply of work: the supply of work or workers for a particular job, industry, or employer
Imperfect: faulty: having a fault or defect; the absence of perfection.
Contracting:formal agreement: a formal or legally binding agreement, e.g. one for the sale of property, or one setting out terms of employment

Well... so, redundancy has run amuck throughout our opposition’s reasoning, hasn't it? Once again we find that the common leftist is found swimming in circular reasoning; reasoning which she advances as tho' it possesses the very essence of a sound intellect.

Now it's readily obvious how she comes to her erroneous conclusion that 'Capitalism is theft...' Her premise establishes, absent even a discernable basis, let alone an intellectually sound, logically valid basis, that labor under Capitalism is, in and of itself, a subornation; which is to say that the very act of exchanging one's labor for a mutually agreed upon value of measured capital and what's more a value which is AGREED UPON BY BOTH PARTIES; thus BOTH PARTIES ARE EXCHANGING acceptable VALUE FOR ACCEPTABLE VALUE, is a crime of some unstated variety; whereupon she then uses THAT FATALLY FLAWED BASELESS PREMISE, to CONCLUDE that 'Labor under Capital' is theft... AGAIN! She's basing her conclusion upon the unsubstantiated, fatally flawed supporting premise… meaning she states an untruth, which is not a fact and uses that untruth which is not a fact, to establish what she projects, if not emphatically asserts, TO BE A TRUE FACT. Sorry sis... but as they say in Maine... "'can't get there... from here..."

She of course fails to define the crime; preferring to describe this keystone of her argument in as vague a set of terms as is humanly possible, without thoroughly rinsing the means of the listener to understand what she is saying; and this is intentional; as to do otherwise would require the reasonably intelligent listener to conclude that she is crazier than a shit-house rat; as the next element of her argument is to project that perfection in contracting is obtained by another exchange in value... this value based in NOTHING BUT: a SENSE OF PERFECTION; a sense which rests in abstract THEORY; a theory which as has been TESTED MANY TIMES with EACH TEST CONCLUSIVELY PROVING that this theory is so absurdly lacking in perfection, so utterly flawed... that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE THROUGHOUT HUMAN HISTORY, WHERE SUCH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS A BASIS OF ECONOMY, FROM THE FIRST EUROPEAN SETTLERS TO THE AMERICAN CONTINENT, THROUGH THE COMMUNIST EXPERIEMENTS IN ASIA AND EASTERN EUROPE; EACH EXPERIMENT BASED UPON THIS THEORY HAS RESULTED IN NOT ONLY ABSOLUTE ECONOMIC FAILURE, BUT CULTURAL CALAMITY, CHAOS AND CATASTROPHE; the result of which has been cultural TYRANNY and the MURDER OF 150 MILLION INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS.

The idea that the free exchange of goods and services to the mutual benefit of both parties (Capitalism) is CORRUPT; that it stands absent perfection; that Capitalism fails to equitably (which in left speaks is analogous to; FAIRLY) distribute goods and services, because the Capilalist exchange is based upon a set value of currency, where one or BOTH of the individuals may CHOOSE to hold part or ALL of the VALUE EXCHANGED IN RESERVE... rests upon NOTHING BEYOND THE IDIOCY WHEREIN THE HOLDER OF THIS NOTION SENSES THAT THOSE RESERVED VALUES REPRESENT GOODS AND SERVICES WHICH ARE BEING UNFAIRLY KEPT< STOWED AWAY; HORDED, THUS PREVENTING THE MASSES FROM GAINING ACESS TO THOSE VALUES... THAT SUCH RESERVES ARE THUS, NOT AVAILABLE TO "LABOR," THUS LEAVING THE LOWLY LABORER IMPOVERISHED, DUE TO THE INHERENT DEFICIT OF AVAILABLE VALUE CREATED BY THOSE VALUES HELD IN RESERVE... IS LUDICROUS.

This Left-think thesis requires that there is a static supply of value (of which the example exchanges); that the available value never increases, that it CANNOT BE INCREASED, that where YOU have ONE... there is ONE LESS AVAILABLE... and WHILE YOU HAVE IT... SOMEONE ELSE DOES NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT... Thus "it's not fair"...

First, the premise is wrong, the available value is not static, it is fluid and increases as the scope of the economy increases; secondly, without regard to who controls the means of production, USING THEIR REASONING... assuming for the sake of argument, that the supply of value IS STATIC... THE RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME... Where one possess a given element of value, that value would be off the economic table, as long as one is in possession of it. The Left is working off the delusion that because the fictional static economic value is sliced to produce a higher resolution; where everyone is given an equal share; a share which can only be accomplished by slicing the static pie in sufficiently thin slices, that each worker realizes an equal share with the next, that this represents "FAIRNESS"... when in reality, each slice is so thin that it provides little value to anyone... thus, inevitably, the 'needs of the workers' cannot be met; thus the IMPERFECTION IN CONTRACTING of this 'theory', which, need we remind ourselves, stands at the very basis OF this 'theory' BECOMES PATENTLY OBVIOUS and again quite inevitably, the workers must begin to seek alternative means and guess which one they choose?

Without fail, these experiments in theoretic collectivist production fail, because the workers inevitably return to what is later rationalized as CORRUPTION; what Ag herself uses to reject that the Soviets were even Communists at ALL... but were instead "State Capitalists," the workers, particularly the BRIGHTER WORKERS, begin PRIVATELY EXCHANGING GOODS AND SERVICES TO THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH PARTIES, WHERE THEY CHOOSE TO HOLD PART OR ALL OF THE EXCHANGED VALUE IN RESERVE SO AS TO BE ABLE TO EXCHANGE FOR GREATER VALUES IN THE FUTURE... BECAUSE IN SO DOING, THEY REALIZE A GREATER VALUE...

They provide FOR THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND THOSE FOR WHOM THEY ARE INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

ROFLMNAO...

I just adore the last word...

Let's call this one: CHECK MATE!

 

[Peejay]

Great argument except there is one extremely important facet, one little monkey in the wrench, that has been left out: Usury. Taking profits simply by being in the position of excess funds. The concept of the value of time on money.

The rest works out ok and is absolutely fair.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Great argument except there is one extremely important facet, one little monkey in the wrench, that has been left out: Usury. Taking profits simply by being in the position of excess funds. The concept of the value of time on money.

The rest works out ok and is absolutely fair.

Usury generally reflects management of somekind, thus there is a value of their management... with the exception of taxation.

 

[Peejay]

That's a good baloney answer I guess.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's a good baloney answer I guess.

Baloney?

How so... and this time, perhaps you should really swing for the fence and offer up a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument.

I find that doing so often helps to moves the conversation along...

BTW, are you as fascinated with the new found reticence which seems to have fallen over Comrade Agconstipate?

 

[Peejay]

That's a good baloney answer I guess.

Baloney?

How so... and this time, perhaps you should really swing for the fence and offer up a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument.

I find that doing so often helps to moves the conversation along...

BTW, are you as fascinated with the new found reticence which seems to have fallen over Comrade Agconstipate?

Agna is an idealistic youngster. Lots of "book sense", obviously well read. Perhaps a little more experience with the way things are will mitigate those ideas into something useful someday besides theoretical conversation.


As far as a well reasoned argument against usury, there really isn't much to it. Let's see what some people have reasoned about the subject:

Aristotle
The Greek philosophers wrestled with the question of whether money can be lent at interest. Most notably, Aristotle concluded that it could not. Aristotle defined money as a good that was consumed by use. Unlike houses and fields, which are not destroyed by use, money must be spent to be used. Therefore, as we cannot rent food, so we cannot rent money. Moreover, money does not reproduce. A house or a flock can produce new value by use, so it is not unreasonable to ask for a return on their use. Money, being barren, should not, therefore, be expected to produce excess value. Thus, interest is unnatural.

Francis Bacon
Usury dulls and damps all industries, improvements, and new inventions, wherein money would be stirring if it were not for this slug.

I'll get around to my own well reasoned argument at an earlier hour. Or maybe I'll post a link to another thread I started here on the subject. Can't remeber what all I said but I'm sure it was brilliant.

 

[KittenKoder]

How so... and this time, perhaps you should really swing for the fence and offer up a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid argument.

I find that doing so often helps to moves the conversation along...

BTW, are you as fascinated with the new found reticence which seems to have fallen over Comrade Agconstipate?

Compared to yours?

... Peejay doesn't abuse language at least.

 

[editec]

If you are completely and totally responsible for YOU, then why care what the government or anyone else is doing?

You can take yourself, right?

 

[sealybobo]

If you are completely and totally responsible for YOU, then why care what the government or anyone else is doing?

You can take yourself, right?

Wow! What a great point.

I was going to say, "we are all in this together".

 

[DiamondDave]

If you are completely and totally responsible for YOU, then why care what the government or anyone else is doing?

You can take yourself, right?

You really can't be this ignorant, can you?

You are responsible, and you are the only one who is supposed to be responsible for your own well being.. taking care of yourself, keeping yourself fed, keeping yourself in shelter, etc... nobody else is responsible for your debts, your choices (good or bad) and their consequences, etc

The government manages our laws.. our system that is SUPPOSED to ensure that we keep that personal freedom, without infringing on the personal freedoms of others... we are to care when government is growing out of control and getting it's grubby little hands into more and more places that it is not supposed to be

As for what you are doing... you can shoot heroin into your eyeball with a rusty needle for all I care.. that is your choice to endanger yourself, break the law, etc.. you can CHOOSE to do it if you wish.. but if you get caught with that illegal substance or get caught giving it to someone else, then be prepared to reap the consequences for breaking our system of law... but hey, it's still your choice and I don't care what your choice is

 

[editec]

If you are completely and totally responsible for YOU, then why care what the government or anyone else is doing?

You can take yourself, right?

You really can't be this ignorant, can you?

That's why I asked...because I cannot understand how anyone can honestly think that they are the captains of their own fates in this society.

I think at best we can be second luies with some degree of control over our fates, but we can only respond as individuals to the titantic events which effect the whole nation.

You are responsible, and you are the only one who is supposed to be responsible for your own well being.. taking care of yourself, keeping yourself fed, keeping yourself in shelter, etc... nobody else is responsible for your debts, your choices (good or bad) and their consequences, etc

Yeah, I get that that's you position.

But that doesn't address my question to those of you who make the claim that you are masters of your own destinies, does it?

If you were truly masters of your own destinies, it wouldn't matter what was happening to anyone else, now, would it?

You would still have complete control over your own fates.

ARe you telling me that the people here who claim they are all self made men might not be?

I'm shocked that you are finally willing to acknowledge the absurdity of such statements.

The government manages our laws.. our system that is SUPPOSED to ensure that we keep that personal freedom, without infringing on the personal freedoms of others...

A truly self made man wouldn't CARE what our system does, would he?

After all a self made man cannot be a victim of circumstance since they obviously are impervious to any fate that they don't choose, right?

we are to care when government is growing out of control and getting it's grubby little hands into more and more places that it is not supposed to be

Well I care about that, naturally, because I do not think I am entirely in control of my own destiny.

But I still don't understand why the people here who claim to be self made men care what the government does, and you have, thus far, failed to address that question.

As for what you are doing... you can shoot heroin into your eyeball with a rusty needle for all I care.. that is your choice to endanger yourself, break the law, etc.. you can CHOOSE to do it if you wish.. but if you get caught with that illegal substance or get caught giving it to someone else, then be prepared to reap the consequences for breaking our system of law... but hey, it's still your choice and I don't care what your choice is

I don't know what the fuck the above is supposed to be addressing.

Your dislike of me personally, perhaps? So noted.

It surely has nothing to do with the question I posed, however.

Would you like to respond to that question or are you satisfied insulting me for no reason other than you cannot answer my question, not only to my satisfaction, but to yours, either?

 

[DiamondDave]

If you are completely and totally responsible for YOU, then why care what the government or anyone else is doing?

You can take yourself, right?

That's why I asked...because I cannot understand how anyone can honestly think that they are the captains of their own fates in this society.

I think at best we can be second luies with some degree of control over our fates, but we can only respond as individuals the titantic events which effect the whole nation.



Yeah, I get that that's you position.

But that doesn't address my question to those of you who make the calim that you are masters of your own destinies, does it?

If you were truly masters of your own destinies, it wouldn't matter what was happening would it?

You would still have complete control over your own fates.

ARe you telling me that the people here who claim they are all self made men might not be?

I'm shocked that you are finally willing to acknowledge the absurdity of such statements.





A truly self made man wouldn't CARE what our system does, would he?

After all a self made man cannot be a victim of circumstance since they obviously are impervious to fate that they don't choose, right?



Well I care about that, antureally because I do not think I am entirely in control of my own destiny.

But I still don't care why the people here who claim to be self made men care what the government does, and you have, thus far, failed to address my question.

As for what you are doing... you can shoot heroin into your eyeball with a rusty needle for all I care.. that is your choice to endanger yourself, break the law, etc.. you can CHOOSE to do it if you wish.. but if you get caught with that illegal substance or get caught giving it to someone else, then be prepared to reap the consequences for breaking our system of law... but hey, it's still your choice and I don't care what your choice is

I don't know what the fuck the above is supposed to be addressing.

Your dislike of me personally, perhaps?

It surely has nothing to do with the question I posed.

You can be self made and where you are in life because of what you have done, what you have chosen, etc AND STILL complain about things the government is doing overall... the government still collects taxes and still operates in areas that you cannot personally... but that has NOTHING to do with being personally responsible for yourself, your personal well being, and what consequences you have from your decisions

You are the one with this absurd position that because there is government that you cannot be self made or personally responsible for yourself... because one complains about governance and spending does not detract from this FACT that your choices and actions decide what position you are in in life

What next?? You gonna say that you cannot be 'self made' because someone could walk up to you without your knowing and take things from you or kill you and that is beyond your control?

Personal responsibilities and actions does not equate to "Master of Destiny" or some other ludicrous title you may come up with... it is you who have failed to tie together that because you cannot control everything about other people's actions and other thing's actions, that you are then not to be the one responsible for taking care of yourself, supplying for yourself, and earning for yourself.. and that such things mean that in spite of your choices and actions that the reason you are what you are and are where you are is because of someone else or something else

 

[DiamondDave]

Were the grades you received because of your efforts and what you did, or because of some other person?
When confronted with choices in situation, was your decision and the outcome more influenced by you or was it 'fate' that determined it?

You are the one who ultimately has the absolute greatest influence over your life.. Your choice to cross the street at the proper time instead of darting between rushing traffic is more an influence on whether you got hit and killed than the person who struck you with their truck... Your choice to advance your skills, rather than only sitting home and doing bong hits, is the primary factor on whether you are considered for a job you apply for... Your choice to commit a crime is the leading factor on why you are sitting in prison, and not the fault of the cop who caught you and the jury that convicted you...

You are friggin' ridiculous to think you are nothing more than a minor low ranking pawn in playing the game that is your life