Questions for capitalists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2013, 12:58 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 11:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  As much as you think you're the opposite of Chas, Revenant, cjlr, etc., you guys are on the SAME side of the issue. You all agree that the problem to the corrupt government/corporation collusion is to make the two even more intertwined. Only libertarians are on the opposite side arguing they need to be separated.

No, I don't. Please stop ascribing to me views I have not espoused.

Really? So you're opposed to the way, for example, Obamacare intertwines government and health insurance? You agree with me that government and private health insurance need to be kept completely separate?

From what I've read, on every issue we've debated, you HAVE supported getting government and corporation more intertwined with regulation, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 01:44 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 12:58 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, I don't. Please stop ascribing to me views I have not espoused.

Really? So you're opposed to the way, for example, Obamacare intertwines government and health insurance? You agree with me that government and private health insurance need to be kept completely separate?

From what I've read, on every issue we've debated, you HAVE supported getting government and corporation more intertwined with regulation, etc.

I can't help your misunderstanding of my views or not knowing them when I haven't explicitly stated them,
but please stop assuming you know them and asserting what you do not, in fact, know.

And, no, I don't agree with you on health care. I rather like the Swiss system.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 01:51 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 01:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I can't help your misunderstanding of my views or not knowing them when I haven't explicitly stated them,
but please stop assuming you know them and asserting what you do not, in fact, know.

And, no, I don't agree with you on health care. I rather like the Swiss system.

This exchange just proved that I actually understand your views better than you yourself. When I previously suggested that you were in favor of intertwining government and corporate entities you balked and insisted it wasn't true. Well, what do you call the Swiss system? There are private corporations providing the service, but it's regulated by a government agency that sets the prices and determines what the terms and conditions are of the insurance.

I'm not saying whether the Swiss system is good or bad (imo it's better than Obamacare but worse than a free market system, but that's beside the point). The point is that the government and corporate entities are tightly intertwined and you DO advocate this. Just like I and I.

I'll bet you'd like to see governments get more intertwined with the banking industry as well, right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 03:01 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 01:51 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 01:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  I can't help your misunderstanding of my views or not knowing them when I haven't explicitly stated them,
but please stop assuming you know them and asserting what you do not, in fact, know.

And, no, I don't agree with you on health care. I rather like the Swiss system.

This exchange just proved that I actually understand your views better than you yourself. When I previously suggested that you were in favor of intertwining government and corporate entities you balked and insisted it wasn't true. Well, what do you call the Swiss system? There are private corporations providing the service, but it's regulated by a government agency that sets the prices and determines what the terms and conditions are of the insurance.

I'm not saying whether the Swiss system is good or bad (imo it's better than Obamacare but worse than a free market system, but that's beside the point). The point is that the government and corporate entities are tightly intertwined and you DO advocate this. Just like I and I.

I'll bet you'd like to see governments get more intertwined with the banking industry as well, right?

And there you go again. Just fuck off with assuming what I will or won't support.

Did you not understand my post on my being a pragmatist?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-11-2013, 05:09 PM
Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 09:56 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 08:53 AM)I and I Wrote:  "How these corporations get to do what they do" They set up a government that is by them and for them, which they have now. You seem to think the government and the capitalist class are two distinct entities, when in reality corporate execs, business leaders often go into politics and very often after they leave politics they go right back to the business corporate world. Why do you insist on thinking that the government and the capitalist class are two distinct entities?

@I and I, for fuck sake, read what I'm actually writing!. I NEVER insisted that the government and capitalist class are two separate entities. Read the posts I've written several times about Booz Allen. I keep shouting that the government and corporations ARE the same, and that they have a revolving door where corporate execs head up government agencies, give their corporations billions in government contracts, and then go back to the corporations to collect millions in paychecks.

You keep insisting we are on different sides of this issue. We are NOT!!! We are on the same side. The only thing we disagree on is what to do about it!

We both agree the problem is this incestuous relationship with corporations and government. My solution is to put up a barrier to force corporations and government to stay completely separate and, as much as we can, force the corporations to exist on their own without the government. Your solution to the problem is to wed corporations and government together into one communist system.

Imagine, instead of corporations and government, the problem we're talking about is a son and a daughter who are fucking in some sick incestuous relationship and creating monstrous deformed babies. Now we're deciding what to do about it. My solution is to separate the two, ship one off to Europe, the other to South America, and do everything we can to make sure they can't keep mingling. Your solution is to just marry them and give them one house to live in together. How on earth is that going to solve the problem?! As much as you think you're the opposite of Chas, Revenant, cjlr, etc., you guys are on the SAME side of the issue. You all agree that the problem to the corrupt government/corporation collusion is to make the two even more intertwined. Only libertarians are on the opposite side arguing they need to be separated.

Communists want the people out of power power who in a capitalist system one day wear a business suit and some days wear a politician suit. The corporate world is in charge politically in a capitalist system. We don't want any aspect of that to remain in power. We want the capitalists out of power and the way we do that is to overthrow their tool for power (their government) then instead of by corporate and for corporate political system put in place a by workers and for workers political and economic structure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 05:21 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Did you not understand my post on my being a pragmatist?

To paraphrase Helmuth von Moltke, "No theory survives first contact." and "Strategy is a system of expedients."

Pragmatism is all there is. The rest is just fucking beating off mental masturbation.

Breathing - it's more art than science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
03-11-2013, 06:49 PM
Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 05:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Did you not understand my post on my being a pragmatist?

To paraphrase Helmuth von Moltke, "No theory survives first contact." and "Strategy is a system of expedients."

Pragmatism is all there is. The rest is just fucking beating off mental masturbation.

Masturbation-sex with someone you love.


Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 07:48 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just fuck off with assuming what I will or won't support. Did you not understand my post on my being a pragmatist?

Was that a deliberate attempt at humor? You do understand 'fuck off.... I'm a pragmatist' is kind of an oxymoron.

If I predict your response to a given situation, the pragmatic person says either: a) you're right, or b) you're wrong, my position is actually [x].

Saying 'fuck off' is the way non-pragmatic say "You're right, but I can't admit it, so I'll fly off in an emotional rage and call you names and change the subject."

You're just pissed off because you HATE that all the predictions have come true. The very first one I made after reading a couple of your posts is that every single time we disagreed on anything it would boil down to me wanting people to exercise their free will, and you wanting to threaten them with violence and force to coerce them into doing something against their will. You were furious, naturally. But, after a month of debating a bunch of topics, the prediction has been 100% accurate.

And this keeps continuing. This morning on the subject of health care I predicted that, whereas I want people to be able to exercise free will and opt-out, you want government and corporations to be more intertwined, working together more closely with government playing a more active role, and forcing people to do things against their will, like a mandate to buy insurance or participate in a single-payer system. You balked at this and were appalled that I would presume your position, but it was subsequently revealed that WAS precisely your position. A pragmatic person would have no problem admitting that their positions are predictable. Just like your positions are easily predictable, so are mine. Pick ANY issue you want to solve, and if you're solution involves threatening people at gunpoint, I will oppose it. If it does not, I will support it. There's absolutely no shame in being predictable. In fact, being able to lay out a simple formula, or rule, that will accurately predict your response shows that you understand yourself pretty well. If you insist that your results are NOT predictable, and that you'll make everything up on a case-by-case basis, that shows you're just emotional and reactionary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2013, 08:09 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 08:16 PM by Chas.)
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(03-11-2013 07:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 03:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Just fuck off with assuming what I will or won't support. Did you not understand my post on my being a pragmatist?

Was that a deliberate attempt at humor? You do understand 'fuck off.... I'm a pragmatist' is kind of an oxymoron.

If I predict your response to a given situation, the pragmatic person says either: a) you're right, or b) you're wrong, my position is actually [x].

Saying 'fuck off' is the way non-pragmatic say "You're right, but I can't admit it, so I'll fly off in an emotional rage and call you names and change the subject."

You're just pissed off because you HATE that all the predictions have come true. The very first one I made after reading a couple of your posts is that every single time we disagreed on anything it would boil down to me wanting people to exercise their free will, and you wanting to threaten them with violence and force to coerce them into doing something against their will. You were furious, naturally. But, after a month of debating a bunch of topics, the prediction has been 100% accurate.

And this keeps continuing. This morning on the subject of health care I predicted that, whereas I want people to be able to exercise free will and opt-out, you want government and corporations to be more intertwined, working together more closely with government playing a more active role, and forcing people to do things against their will, like a mandate to buy insurance or participate in a single-payer system. You balked at this and were appalled that I would presume your position, but it was subsequently revealed that WAS precisely your position. A pragmatic person would have no problem admitting that their positions are predictable. Just like your positions are easily predictable, so are mine. Pick ANY issue you want to solve, and if you're solution involves threatening people at gunpoint, I will oppose it. If it does not, I will support it. There's absolutely no shame in being predictable. In fact, being able to lay out a simple formula, or rule, that will accurately predict your response shows that you understand yourself pretty well. If you insist that your results are NOT predictable, and that you'll make everything up on a case-by-case basis, that shows you're just emotional and reactionary.

I had previously expressed a liking for the Swiss system, so you made no surprising prediction there.

What I truly admire is Switzerland's use of coercion to force health care on its people. Drinking Beverage

Look, if you want to believe you know what I think, go ahead and enjoy your delusion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Questions for capitalists.
(09-10-2013 08:21 PM)I and I Wrote:  What are your thoughts on indentured servitude? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant

What is a free choice?

With the respect to the market a free choice is ideally one that is be made with the most amount of availability and variety so that the individual shapes the market and provides the best possible choices for everyone having the market conform to the most valued choice. Individuals use their own discretion as to what the value of something is so that things which are priced more than they're worth, according to the market molded by free decisions, become extinct.

What is the market?

Where anything that has value is bought, sold or traded.

Do you believe that each individual is Solely responsible for his poverty or his wealth?

No, i don't know of any capitalist who believes this without exception. The individual is expected to meet his best possible output and then the rest of society provides for those, who don't have the ability to contribute a positive value or wealth, are taken care of financially. These individuals are able to be helped because when all others are contributing optimally enough wealth is created so that the few unable can be supplemented and there is still positive growth in the economy.

Do people in x country have the sovereign right to benefit from the resources that are in their country? Example: what do you guys think about leaders that absolve all foreign owned entities in their country?

It's up to a sovereign nation to decide how its domestic resources are handle. Foreign entities and resources allowed to exist in a sovereign nation will only survive if they price what they offer. Domestic resources that survive alongside foreign resources allow for the lowest cost of a resource to the people of that nation. Domestic entities that survive alongside foreign entities or instead of them are stronger because their product they can provide is sold at the optimal value. A country that can provide a resource at the optimal value will create more wealth domestically. A country that allows foreign entities will give its people the best for the lowest price and the nations economy will grow because of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: