Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
For God's sake, charity is not planned economy.
Well, I don't have a god, so I can't use exactly the same sentence, but taxes and the welfare state are not charity, they are legalized theft. "The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver."
So yes, charity is not planned economy. The welfare state is. How can you not consider the welfare state to be planned economy? The government decides where the people should spent their money on. How is that not planned economy? The government deciding in what we should invest is not central planning? Seriously.
Look, you are in favor of a mixed economy. Maybe more market economy and less planned economy than we have today, but still a mixed economy.
Well, I don't have a god, so I can't use exactly the same sentence, but taxes and the welfare state are not charity, they are legalized theft. "The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver."
So yes, charity is not planned economy. The welfare state is. How can you not consider the welfare state to be planned economy? The government decides where the people should spent their money on. How is that not planned economy? The government deciding in what we should invest is not central planning? Seriously.
Look, you are in favor of a mixed economy. Maybe more market economy and less planned economy than we have today, but still a mixed economy.
I never pretended to have any moral principle in my choices
You see, this is the problem: What do you mean by this? Do you mean that you don't use moral principles or do you mean that you do use moral principles? Because this sentence is not clear.
you really don't understand my ideas (you probably still think of me I'm a leftist..)
Of course I do. Because every opinion you have given has confirmed that. You are progressive and you are a fan of collectivism. That means you're a leftist.
Freedom is freedom. That's not a trademark of libertarians!!!
Of course not. Because libertarians tend to hate trademarks :-)
I feel free to make the rules I desire.
That's bullshit. If I follow that logic, Nazi-Germany (and no, I'm not comparing you with Nazi's, I'm not that stupid) was free too. The Nazi's just felt free to make the rules they desired.
Freedom cannot be instituted. Freedom cannot be made by making state rules. In contrary, freedom is the lack of such rules.
You see, this is the problem: What do you mean by this? Do you mean that you don't use moral principles or do you mean that you do use moral principles? Because this sentence is not clear.
you really don't understand my ideas (you probably still think of me I'm a leftist..)
Of course I do. Because every opinion you have given has confirmed that. You are progressive and you are a fan of collectivism. That means you're a leftist.
Freedom is freedom. That's not a trademark of libertarians!!!
Of course not. Because libertarians tend to hate trademarks :-)
I feel free to make the rules I desire.
That's bullshit. If I follow that logic, Nazi-Germany (and no, I'm not comparing you with Nazi's, I'm not that stupid) was free too. The Nazi's just felt free to make the rules they desired.
Freedom cannot be instituted. Freedom cannot be made by making state rules. In contrary, freedom is the lack of such rules.
fair?
a moral idea used to substain an economic view.
I'm really surprised to see it in our century.
just to be undestood, fair is not a thing you can claim to know.
Honestly, such relativisation of truth and fairness makes me want to puke.
For you is fair not to make a "tactical foul" during a match. For me it is. Nothing to discuss here. Imho.
Again, this is a straw-man argument. A tactical foul is something all teams involved are free to make and suffer the consequences. From a global perspective, this is not true in our case.
they can do whatever they want.
This is a free world.
They can't do whatever they want because you don't want a free world. They can't sell their product in your country. Their country is not rich enough to support them the way your country does for their competition. They can't make the tactical foul that you made.
look at your home democracy and pretend to enlarge your internal demand
No, but he can't PRETEND that foregin markets rules are made for him!
This is so cynical that it would make the producer puke as well.
Because it create competition only if it benefit both sides.
You probably wanted to say that it's creating competition when your side doesn't lose the game. The only problem with protectionism is that the referee is playing for the home team. ;)
But earth is not a single country (and ooking at euro I must say that this is a blessing!)
Euro will be great when certain countries stop spending more than they earn, i.e. EU has a common fiscal policy as well, i.e. EU becomes one common state, i.e. where rules apply the same for all socio-economic participants.
a moral idea used to substain an economic view.
I'm really surprised to see it in our century.
just to be undestood, fair is not a thing you can claim to know.
Honestly, such relativisation of truth and fairness makes me want to puke.
For you is fair not to make a "tactical foul" during a match. For me it is. Nothing to discuss here. Imho.
Again, this is a straw-man argument. A tactical foul is something all teams involved are free to make and suffer the consequences. From a global perspective, this is not true in our case.
they can do whatever they want.
This is a free world.
They can't do whatever they want because you don't want a free world. They can't sell their product in your country. Their country is not rich enough to support them the way your country does for their competition. They can't make the tactical foul that you made.
look at your home democracy and pretend to enlarge your internal demand
No, but he can't PRETEND that foregin markets rules are made for him!
This is so cynical that it would make the producer puke as well.
Because it create competition only if it benefit both sides.
You probably wanted to say that it's creating competition when your side doesn't lose the game. The only problem with protectionism is that the referee is playing for the home team. ;)
But earth is not a single country (and ooking at euro I must say that this is a blessing!)
Euro will be great when certain countries stop spending more than they earn, i.e. EU has a common fiscal policy as well, i.e. EU becomes one common state, i.e. where rules apply the same for all socio-economic participants.
I want to show you how much ideology is in you, you don't seem to aknowlegde it.
There are no REAL THINGS that we can call "market principles", nothing anyone agree on, nothing that is the same concept for every people. Try to think about it.
You know what? I actually thought about it a lot of times. I even thought about it just now when you asked me to. I even googled what market principles are just to think about them once again. And you know what? I am done discussing with you because your ideas are simply ridiculous. Try to think about it.
There are no REAL THINGS that we can call "market principles", nothing anyone agree on, nothing that is the same concept for every people. Try to think about it.
You know what? I actually thought about it a lot of times. I even thought about it just now when you asked me to. I even googled what market principles are just to think about them once again. And you know what? I am done discussing with you because your ideas are simply ridiculous. Try to think about it.
just to be undestood, fair is not a thing you can claim to know.
Exactly.
nothing anyone agree on, nothing that is the same concept for every people.
Exactly.
I'm going to make Legal Alien (why did you change your name btw?) puke once more. Of course we can't agree on anything with all people, every concept is different for other people. What is 'morally good' for me is not necessarily 'morally good' in your eyes or from Legal Alien's POV. That is the exact reason why we should not force our view on others. This is the exact reason why the state should be reduced to a minimum (the minimum being able to speak of a society and not of an anarchy). Why do you want to force your views (using democracy) on others? Everyone is different. Everyone's morale is different. Let's accept that and live with it, without trying to change them or forcing them to follow your morale. Thát is exactly what libertarianism is all about. Don't claim moral high ground. Don't claim the absolute truth. Or at least, you can claim it, but you can't force others to agree on it (or to pay for with whilst they disagree on it).
(editado)
Exactly.
nothing anyone agree on, nothing that is the same concept for every people.
Exactly.
I'm going to make Legal Alien (why did you change your name btw?) puke once more. Of course we can't agree on anything with all people, every concept is different for other people. What is 'morally good' for me is not necessarily 'morally good' in your eyes or from Legal Alien's POV. That is the exact reason why we should not force our view on others. This is the exact reason why the state should be reduced to a minimum (the minimum being able to speak of a society and not of an anarchy). Why do you want to force your views (using democracy) on others? Everyone is different. Everyone's morale is different. Let's accept that and live with it, without trying to change them or forcing them to follow your morale. Thát is exactly what libertarianism is all about. Don't claim moral high ground. Don't claim the absolute truth. Or at least, you can claim it, but you can't force others to agree on it (or to pay for with whilst they disagree on it).
(editado)
Well, I don't have a god, so I can't use exactly the same sentence, but taxes and the welfare state are not charity, they are legalized theft. "The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver."
The charity is not in who and how anyone does it but in the intention of the act. Voluntary can also means democratically decided. Quebec is voluntarily still in Canada.
So yes, charity is not planned economy. The welfare state is. How can you not consider the welfare state to be planned economy? The government decides where the people should spent their money on. How is that not planned economy? The government deciding in what we should invest is not central planning? Seriously.
The government budget has many expense accounts. I consider as charity accounts for:
- shelters for the homeless
- public kitchens for the hungry
- health services for seriously ill
- education for unemployed etc.
So again, charity is in the intention not in the technique.
Look, you are in favor of a mixed economy. Maybe more market economy and less planned economy than we have today, but still a mixed economy.
I am in favor of a welfare state based on market principles in which neither of the 2 gets abused. The closest to this ideal came the Scandinavian countries which are one of the best places for quality of life and this is exactly the reason why.
The charity is not in who and how anyone does it but in the intention of the act. Voluntary can also means democratically decided. Quebec is voluntarily still in Canada.
So yes, charity is not planned economy. The welfare state is. How can you not consider the welfare state to be planned economy? The government decides where the people should spent their money on. How is that not planned economy? The government deciding in what we should invest is not central planning? Seriously.
The government budget has many expense accounts. I consider as charity accounts for:
- shelters for the homeless
- public kitchens for the hungry
- health services for seriously ill
- education for unemployed etc.
So again, charity is in the intention not in the technique.
Look, you are in favor of a mixed economy. Maybe more market economy and less planned economy than we have today, but still a mixed economy.
I am in favor of a welfare state based on market principles in which neither of the 2 gets abused. The closest to this ideal came the Scandinavian countries which are one of the best places for quality of life and this is exactly the reason why.
Freedom cannot be instituted. Freedom cannot be made by making state rules. In contrary, freedom is the lack of such rules.
You cannot define freedom as the lack of rules. That's pure manipulation. It's like defining honesty as betrayal.
(editado)
You cannot define freedom as the lack of rules. That's pure manipulation. It's like defining honesty as betrayal.
(editado)
The charity is not in who and how anyone does it but in the intention of the act. Voluntary can also means democratically decided. Quebec is voluntarily still in Canada.
But individually, you don't pay taxes because you like charity. You pay taxes because otherwise, people are going to hurt you. That is not charity. That is theft.
By the way, it is ridiculous to claim that the technique doesn't matter, only the intention does. Let's take this example: The intention: make a homeless guy suffer less from cold and hunger. The technique: kill him. Is this charity? The intention is good, right? And the technique doesn't matter ...
The closest to this ideal came the Scandinavian countries which are one of the best places for quality of life and this is exactly the reason why.
And the closest to my ideal is Liechtenstein. Not a bad country to live in either.
But individually, you don't pay taxes because you like charity. You pay taxes because otherwise, people are going to hurt you. That is not charity. That is theft.
By the way, it is ridiculous to claim that the technique doesn't matter, only the intention does. Let's take this example: The intention: make a homeless guy suffer less from cold and hunger. The technique: kill him. Is this charity? The intention is good, right? And the technique doesn't matter ...
The closest to this ideal came the Scandinavian countries which are one of the best places for quality of life and this is exactly the reason why.
And the closest to my ideal is Liechtenstein. Not a bad country to live in either.
Do you mean that you don't use moral principles or do you mean that you do use moral principles?
first one!
Because every opinion you have given has confirmed that. You are progressive and you are a fan of collectivism. That means you're a leftist.
ok, this is a free wold and you can continue to think it.
I think of myself that I'm for the world I want to live in. Whatever it is and it takes.
That's bullshit. If I follow that logic, Nazi-Germany (and no, I'm not comparing you with Nazi's, I'm not that stupid) was free too. The Nazi's just felt free to make the rules they desired.
wrong example!
There is a big difference from rules that hit fundamental rights of people and rules that change the "allocation of resources".
Freedom cannot be instituted. Freedom cannot be made by making state rules. In contrary, freedom is the lack of such rules.
i think this is an error and an illusion. I think that the lack of rules is the dictatorship of the strong.
i think that philosopers of '800 showed us that an absolut freedom is a concept that take us to the denial of itself.
i think that to pursue freedom as an objective in politics and economics is the only sure way to lose it.
(editado)
first one!
Because every opinion you have given has confirmed that. You are progressive and you are a fan of collectivism. That means you're a leftist.
ok, this is a free wold and you can continue to think it.
I think of myself that I'm for the world I want to live in. Whatever it is and it takes.
That's bullshit. If I follow that logic, Nazi-Germany (and no, I'm not comparing you with Nazi's, I'm not that stupid) was free too. The Nazi's just felt free to make the rules they desired.
wrong example!
There is a big difference from rules that hit fundamental rights of people and rules that change the "allocation of resources".
Freedom cannot be instituted. Freedom cannot be made by making state rules. In contrary, freedom is the lack of such rules.
i think this is an error and an illusion. I think that the lack of rules is the dictatorship of the strong.
i think that philosopers of '800 showed us that an absolut freedom is a concept that take us to the denial of itself.
i think that to pursue freedom as an objective in politics and economics is the only sure way to lose it.
(editado)
You cannot define freedom as the lack of rules.
Actually, I can and I did.
It's like defining honesty as betrayal.
Explain to me why it is similar please, 'cause I don't get it.
Actually, I can and I did.
It's like defining honesty as betrayal.
Explain to me why it is similar please, 'cause I don't get it.
first one!
I'll show you that is incorrect.
There is a big difference from rules that hit fundamental rights of people and rules that change the "allocation of resources".
Here it is. This is a moral principle. (A principle I agree with, but still, a moral principle.)
Besides that, fundamental rights of people are different for all people. I consider the right on property a fundamental right, and therefore, I consider taxes as a violation of the fundamental rights of people.
i think that philosoper of '800 showed us that an absolut freedom is a concept that take us to the denial of itself.
I'm not a fan of absolute freedom. I am against absolute freedom (absolute freedom being anarchy).
I'll show you that is incorrect.
There is a big difference from rules that hit fundamental rights of people and rules that change the "allocation of resources".
Here it is. This is a moral principle. (A principle I agree with, but still, a moral principle.)
Besides that, fundamental rights of people are different for all people. I consider the right on property a fundamental right, and therefore, I consider taxes as a violation of the fundamental rights of people.
i think that philosoper of '800 showed us that an absolut freedom is a concept that take us to the denial of itself.
I'm not a fan of absolute freedom. I am against absolute freedom (absolute freedom being anarchy).
I'm going to make Legal Alien (why did you change your name btw?) puke once more. Of course we can't agree on anything with all people, every concept is different for other people. What is 'morally good' for me is not necessarily 'morally good' in your eyes or from Legal Alien's POV. That is the exact reason why we should not force our view on others. This is the exact reason why the state should be reduced to a minimum (the minimum being able to speak of a society and not of an anarchy). Why do you want to force your views (using democracy) on others? Everyone is different. Everyone's morale is different. Let's accept that and live with it, without trying to change them or forcing them to follow your morale. Thát is exactly what libertarianism is all about. Don't claim moral high ground. Don't claim the absolute truth. Or at least, you can claim it, but you can't force others to agree on it (or to pay for with whilst they disagree on it).
Yes, you are right. Puked again. ;)
Well, then try accepting that part of my morale is that I don't have a limitless tolerance. ;)
why did you change your name btw?
Because our local moderators allow insults made by their like-minded and not a single user stood against this practice. That inspired me to changed my identity in honor of the messages from Sting's song and I don't participate in local Freestyle forum any more.
Yes, you are right. Puked again. ;)
Well, then try accepting that part of my morale is that I don't have a limitless tolerance. ;)
why did you change your name btw?
Because our local moderators allow insults made by their like-minded and not a single user stood against this practice. That inspired me to changed my identity in honor of the messages from Sting's song and I don't participate in local Freestyle forum any more.
Honestly, such relativisation of truth and fairness makes me want to puke.
truth and fairness are relative concepts. I'm really surprised you don't agree. :(
only factual truth can be used as a reality concept!
Again, this is a straw-man argument. A tactical foul is something all teams involved are free to make and suffer the consequences. From a global perspective, this is not true in our case.
you lost the point: IN MAKING THE RULES, morality and fairness is useless.
To continue my example, you decide to give cards for tactical fouls, I would decide the opposite.
They can't do whatever they want because you don't want a free world.
a free world is a world where I do rules I need.. in freedom.
Their country is not rich enough to support them the way your country does for their competition. They can't make the tactical foul that you made.
They are free enough to make me change rules at MY home, but not enough to change the rules at their home? c'mon..
This is so cynical that it would make the producer puke as well.
this is real.
You probably wanted to say that it's creating competition when your side doesn't lose the game. The only problem with protectionism is that the referee is playing for the home team. ;)
but everybody is playing home here..
Euro will be great when certain countries stop spending more than they earn, i.e. EU has a common fiscal policy as well, i.e. EU becomes one common state, i.e. where rules apply the same for all socio-economic participants.
exscuse me.
LOL
you know nothing about euro if we are still at badpublicspendingfromsouthcountry. LIES!
not so muche time ago I posted the Friedman opinion on euro. Keynesian opinion is quite the same. Euro is a crime on european people.
truth and fairness are relative concepts. I'm really surprised you don't agree. :(
only factual truth can be used as a reality concept!
Again, this is a straw-man argument. A tactical foul is something all teams involved are free to make and suffer the consequences. From a global perspective, this is not true in our case.
you lost the point: IN MAKING THE RULES, morality and fairness is useless.
To continue my example, you decide to give cards for tactical fouls, I would decide the opposite.
They can't do whatever they want because you don't want a free world.
a free world is a world where I do rules I need.. in freedom.
Their country is not rich enough to support them the way your country does for their competition. They can't make the tactical foul that you made.
They are free enough to make me change rules at MY home, but not enough to change the rules at their home? c'mon..
This is so cynical that it would make the producer puke as well.
this is real.
You probably wanted to say that it's creating competition when your side doesn't lose the game. The only problem with protectionism is that the referee is playing for the home team. ;)
but everybody is playing home here..
Euro will be great when certain countries stop spending more than they earn, i.e. EU has a common fiscal policy as well, i.e. EU becomes one common state, i.e. where rules apply the same for all socio-economic participants.
exscuse me.
LOL
you know nothing about euro if we are still at badpublicspendingfromsouthcountry. LIES!
not so muche time ago I posted the Friedman opinion on euro. Keynesian opinion is quite the same. Euro is a crime on european people.
Explain to me why it is similar please, 'cause I don't get it.
To be more precise, it's like defining honesty as always telling the truth which includes betrayal.
To be more precise, it's like defining honesty as always telling the truth which includes betrayal.
This is a moral principle. (A principle I agree with, but still, a moral principle.
why?
this is what I think serve better myself.
Besides that, fundamental rights of people are different for all people. I consider the right on property a fundamental right, and therefore, I consider taxes as a violation of the fundamental rights of people.
I was referring to the "official" version, but you're right. your point.
why?
this is what I think serve better myself.
Besides that, fundamental rights of people are different for all people. I consider the right on property a fundamental right, and therefore, I consider taxes as a violation of the fundamental rights of people.
I was referring to the "official" version, but you're right. your point.
To be more precise, it's like defining honesty as always telling the truth which includes betrayal.
Oh, then I agree, it is similar. (But the betrayal itself - if a lie was involved - was not honest of course. But telling about it, is.)
Oh, then I agree, it is similar. (But the betrayal itself - if a lie was involved - was not honest of course. But telling about it, is.)