Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

By perfect worls I mean one in which everyone works hard to earn there wealth, does not lie, cheat or steal and I feel that everyone should feel free to do asthey wish so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

... wow, under these few premises, her philosophy works? It's all right then, except even he smurfs couldn't use it, even them lie occasionally. 

My philosophy, when it come to politics, is that there is a very definable common good, which is health-care, education, well-being and freedom for everyone, and that serving it should be the primary aim of the state.
The citizen must choose the poeple that govern, and direct through vote, the different action aimed at serving this common good.
If you agree vote for... well... actually... skulk in your room and play df (or form a party, I'll vote for you)

[fqllve]

By perfect worls I mean one in which everyone works hard to earn there wealth, does not lie, cheat or steal and I feel that everyone should feel free to do asthey wish so long as they do not violate the rights of others. Is there anything wrong with that? Because that is what Objectivism boils down to.

Speculating about what would or wouldn't work in a perfect world is counter-productive. If an ideology requires some set of things to be true to work and that set is impossible in reality, then basically all you're doing is fantasizing.

As opposed to communism which argues the productive should be enslaved to some undefinable "common good" which acts as an excuse for the priesthood, or in a modern sense the government to leach off of those productive people. This has been the default moral code for humans since the beginning because the priests saw a chance to better their own standing. They aregue for "self-sacrifice" because if everyone is sacrificing they may be the ones to collect the sacrifices. Like tithing in the judeo-christian faith.

I thought communism argued that the people who are most productive (laborers) receive the least compensation and should "seize the means of production" or something. Thereby redistributing wealth to favor the working class. I mean, I know jackshit about communism other than what you've said is a strawman, so I'm probably wrong too.

Socialism might(?) be about those things you said?

I would like to know so I can elucidate upon their fallacies.

Don't you think it's a little arrogant to automatically assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you bases their ideas on fallacious reasoning?

Also, EXCUSE MY EXTREME PEDANTRY: _{(elucidate doesn't require a preposition)} God, now I feel like a dirty prescriptivist. Happily enough, though, this should disclose my philosophy. Descriptivist Grammar.

[Earthquake Damage]

Also as I asked earlier what are your philosophies? I would like to know so I can elucidate upon their fallacies. Please don't ignore that request again it is unfair to leave me unable to reply in kind to you.

Translation from Smugese:  State your opinion so I can tell you why you're wrong.  I've been dying for an excuse to lecture the ignorant masses.  Also, I think of Ayn Rand when I masturbate.

I should note that last bit is by no means an insult.  This is sex incarnate right here:

[Realmfighter]

You can never create a perfect world because no one agrees on what that means.

Utopia for one is Dystopia for another.

[Leafsnail]

By perfect worls I mean one in which everyone works hard to earn there wealth, does not lie, cheat or steal and I feel that everyone should feel free to do asthey wish so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

Only you're forgetting:
- Everyone can work to earn their worth
- Noone feels they have rights which violate other people's perceived rights
- Workers won't get screwed over under such a system
- Everyone has equal opportunities, and no kind of oligarchy will develop

Also as I asked earlier what are your philosophies? I would like to know so I can elucidate upon their fallacies. Please don't ignore that request again it is unfair to leave me unable to reply in kind to you.

Didn't you just say that philosophies don't work in the real world?  Well, one thing I do believe in is equal opportunies.  I've always found it odd when conservatives disagree with this ideal, though.

[ed boy]

Equal opportunities is something that is debateable at the best of times. For example, some would say that rich people shouldn't be penalised for being rich and they should pay the same taxes and fees as everyone else, whereas others say that rich people should pay more because they can pay more.

However, I refuse to accept "rich people should pay more because they can" as a valid argument. The argument is based off the assumption that it is good to force someone to do something they don't want to in order to benefit others. Using that assumption, I could easily conclude that people should be forced to give up their kidneys for transplant (as people can survive without a kidney and there are many people needing one), or that people without families should be killed and their organs transplanted into people with families to support (someone with a family to support would require organs a lot more than someone without a family to support).

If you want to demand that people get equal opportunities, then you're going to have to (among other things) prevent parents from providing for their children and replace it with standardized care.

Also, your clause of "workers won't get screwed over" is incredibly subjective. Nowadays, people consider anything less than a house, free healthcare, free education, and holidays to be "being screwed over". In the past, even a house has been an incredible luxury.

[Realmfighter]

By that stream of logic taxes are wrong, as they shouldn't be forced to pay money to the government.

[Earthquake Damage]

By that stream of logic taxes are wrong, as they shouldn't be forced to pay money to the government.

This.

[Leafsnail]

Equal opportunities is something that is debateable at the best of times. For example, some would say that rich people shouldn't be penalised for being rich and they should pay the same taxes and fees as everyone else, whereas others say that rich people should pay more because they can pay more.[/quote[
This is not what I mean at all.

Equal opportunities means "everyone should have the same chance to do well in life".  As in, if you're born poor you aren't arbitrarily trodden on by factors outside of your control.

However, I refuse to accept "rich people should pay more because they can" as a valid argument. The argument is based off the assumption that it is good to force someone to do something they don't want to in order to benefit others. Using that assumption, I could easily conclude that people should be forced to give up their kidneys for transplant (as people can survive without a kidney and there are many people needing one), or that people without families should be killed and their organs transplanted into people with families to support (someone with a family to support would require organs a lot more than someone without a family to support).

No.  Doing so would cause seriously instability and utter chaos as people fight to retain their organs.  The organ donor argument simply doesn't work.

It's great to say "everyone should have the same rate of tax" until you actually try and implement it.  Then you realise it's a completely unworkable idea.

If you want to demand that people get equal opportunities, then you're going to have to (among other things) prevent parents from providing for their children and replace it with standardized care.

Not necessarily.  Ensuring a decent standard of education should be sufficient.

Also, your clause of "workers won't get screwed over" is incredibly subjective. Nowadays, people consider anything less than a house, free healthcare, free education, and holidays to be "being screwed over". In the past, even a house has been an incredible luxury.

The last sentence is what I mean by "workers being screwed over".  Apart from anything else, it's unsustainable - if the poor are too poor to buy anything that's produced, the economy collapses.

[Earthquake Damage]

The last sentence is what I mean by "workers being screwed over".  Apart from anything else, it's unsustainable - if the poor are too poor to buy anything that's produced, the economy collapses.

According to neoclassical economics, the reduced demand would cause prices to drop.  That's not to say the neoclassical model is always accurate (see:  Great Depression).  Whee, learning is fun!

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[ed boy]

Equal opportunities is something that is debateable at the best of times. For example, some would say that rich people shouldn't be penalised for being rich and they should pay the same taxes and fees as everyone else, whereas others say that rich people should pay more because they can pay more.

This is not what I mean at all.

Equal opportunities means "everyone should have the same chance to do well in life".  As in, if you're born poor you aren't arbitrarily trodden on by factors outside of your control.

But what qualifies as a factor outside of one's control? A parent would want to provide the best for their children, and in many cases this takes the form of trying to get them into as good a schoolas possible. This means that parents who can afford better education for their children give their children an unequal advantage. If you tried to stop parents from choosing which school their children went to, you'd have mass outrage.

However, I refuse to accept "rich people should pay more because they can" as a valid argument. The argument is based off the assumption that it is good to force someone to do something they don't want to in order to benefit others. Using that assumption, I could easily conclude that people should be forced to give up their kidneys for transplant (as people can survive without a kidney and there are many people needing one), or that people without families should be killed and their organs transplanted into people with families to support (someone with a family to support would require organs a lot more than someone without a family to support).

No.  Doing so would cause seriously instability and utter chaos as people fight to retain their organs.  The organ donor argument simply doesn't work.

It's great to say "everyone should have the same rate of tax" until you actually try and implement it.  Then you realise it's a completely unworkable idea.

I'm not saying that taxing everybody the same amount is a good idea, I'm trying to say that, upon seeing a bad idea, you should not think that that gives merit to the opposite idea.

If you want to demand that people get equal opportunities, then you're going to have to (among other things) prevent parents from providing for their children and replace it with standardized care.

Not necessarily.  Ensuring a decent standard of education should be sufficient.

There are a lot of other factors at work. Healthcare, for example. Parents who are richer could afford better healthcare (especially in countries where it is not funded by the government).

Even on the education front, there is more than just going to school. Richer parents can provide a home that is more suited for learning and development. Furthermore, they can supplement their child's educaiton with things like private tutors.

Also, your clause of "workers won't get screwed over" is incredibly subjective. Nowadays, people consider anything less than a house, free healthcare, free education, and holidays to be "being screwed over". In the past, even a house has been an incredible luxury.

The last sentence is what I mean by "workers being screwed over".  Apart from anything else, it's unsustainable - if the poor are too poor to buy anything that's produced, the economy collapses.

I'm confused. Do you mean that the situation where a house is an incredible luxury is a situation where workers are being screwed over?

[Leafsnail]

According to neoclassical economics, the reduced demand would cause prices to drop.  That's not to say the neoclassical model is always accurate (see:  Great Depression).  Whee, learning is fun!

Yes, and this "reduced demand" and "price drop" is what we call "economic collapse" in the real world.

But what qualifies as a factor outside of one's control? A parent would want to provide the best for their children, and in many cases this takes the form of trying to get them into as good a schoolas possible. This means that parents who can afford better education for their children give their children an unequal advantage. If you tried to stop parents from choosing which school their children went to, you'd have mass outrage.

You can have school choice, sure, as long as all the schools are at least adequate.  As in, they will give you a decent chance to do well.

There are a lot of other factors at work. Healthcare, for example. Parents who are richer could afford better healthcare (especially in countries where it is not funded by the government).

Which would be part of why I support state healthcare?

I'm confused. Do you mean that the situation where a house is an incredible luxury is a situation where workers are being screwed over?

Yes, if workers are forced to live in slums, they are probably being screwed over.

[ed boy]

But what qualifies as a factor outside of one's control? A parent would want to provide the best for their children, and in many cases this takes the form of trying to get them into as good a schoolas possible. This means that parents who can afford better education for their children give their children an unequal advantage. If you tried to stop parents from choosing which school their children went to, you'd have mass outrage.

You can have school choice, sure, as long as all the schools are at least adequate.  As in, they will give you a decent chance to do well.

Making sure all the schools are adequate would just even out the lower end of the spectrum, not the higher one. A brilliant school is still better than an adequate one.

As a metaphor, imagine that every child is given the opportunity to collect £100 from the government on their birthday. Poorer families would benefit from this, as they would not be able to afford such a large amount by themselves, but richer families would be able to give their children far more.

There are a lot of other factors at work. Healthcare, for example. Parents who are richer could afford better healthcare (especially in countries where it is not funded by the government).

Which would be part of why I support state healthcare?

State healthcare may be an option, but the top of the line stuff is private. Even if the government provides a lot of services of decent quality (e.g. education), there will always be supplements/replacements that richer people can afford (e.g. private tutors) that will give them/their children an advantage over other people.

I'm confused. Do you mean that the situation where a house is an incredible luxury is a situation where workers are being screwed over?

Yes, if workers are forced to live in slums, they are probably being screwed over.

But what people consider to be slums is constantly changing. Not long ago to have a house with electricity was truly extravagant, but nowadays lots of people would consider housing as unacceptable if it didn't have electricity.

[Cthulhu]

Also as I asked earlier what are your philosophies? I would like to know so I can elucidate upon their fallacies. Please don't ignore that request again it is unfair to leave me unable to reply in kind to you.

Translation from Smugese:  State your opinion so I can tell you why you're wrong.  I've been dying for an excuse to lecture the ignorant masses.  Also, I think of Ayn Rand when I masturbate.

I should note that last bit is by no means an insult.  This is sex incarnate right here:

I'd like to lay rails to her San Sebastian mien.