JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
keep on smoking that obama juice
Socialism
- Thread starter Peregrinator
- Start date
keep on smoking that obama juice
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Peregrinator...late to your thread and having read all six pages in one sitting, I vacillated between, 'nice thread, interesting thread', to a final conclusion and that is to politely accuse you of playing 'Salome' and the Seven Veils', a bit of a tease and a provocateur par excellance....and all without dispensing of the final veil...
As you most likely have not followed my Posts over the past several years, let me attempt to extablish a background or a foundation for my following repertoire; all subject to your acceptance of my veritas, of course, anyone can say anything on the internet....
I have a formal education at four different universities with graduate level work in philosophy, economics, history and psychology. I have read everything that Ayn Rand wrote and even lectured on 'Objectivism', in the early days. I have also perhaps a hundred thousand hours arguing and debating all the subjects covered in this thread and am cognizant of all the literal references to historical sources concerning the meaning and defintion of Socialism, Communism, Fabian Socialism, Classical Liberalism, Progressivism, modern Liberalism and social democracies, just off the top of my head. The thousands of hours of debate was mainly as a Host on various talk radio programs across the western States and Hawaii for a period of twenty years....enough of my bonafides'?
I once thought, perhaps as you currently do, that there is a 'silver bullet' definition or a crystal clear statement or argument that would once and for all settle all debate and establish a fundamental platform from which to speak.
In all six pages of this thread, there was not a single mention of philosophy or the moral content of any political or economics system mentioned or offered. There-in lies the rub...one cannot effectively discuss or debate the actions of man, be they economic or political, without a moral fundamental absolute to begin with.
I suppose it would be considered 'limiting' the discussion to confine it to the legal authority of the US Constitution which provides a guideline for the function of government in this country. I sense that you, and others, prefer a metaphysical discussion of all that is possible under the sun in terms of the function of government in any and all systems. I can do either, or both and even more, I can take either side and present a logical argument to defend both extremes; and do, at times, just to hone my skills.
Using my 'Gibbs Gut' (NCIS) feeling, and taking a risk, I infer from a comment you made concerning government, that you might support Public Education as a 'right', all people should have...further, I would include Universal Health care and perhaps Abortion as issues you might support to be the proper function of government...you will no doubt correct me should I be in error.
In the bare minimalist terms of interpreting the letter, the law and the spirit of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the government is authorized to use force, the police power of government, to raise an army to defend the sovreignty of the nation, a police force to protect the unalienable rights of the individual, and a Court system to adjudicate differences. Beyond those minimum powers of government, all other actions are subject to debate and criticism.
The moral and ethical, (philosophical) paucity of this thread begs the question of when the use of 'force' the police power of the State to enforce laws, is justified, under the Constitution, in the limited discussion, or, universally, in the metaphysical one.
The definitions you insist upon don't exist as each form of government mentioned inculcates a different degree of the use of 'force' to impose its goals or ideals, again, terms that are subjective definitions at best and fuzzy and ambiguous at worst.
It is my conclusion and has been for many years, that one cannot conduct any discussion without a continual referral to the basic, axiomatic, self evident rights of man to life, liberty and property.
Without life, human life, there is no discussion of rights as the right to life for each individual is either acknowledged and underdstood as fundamental or it is not.
Withouth Liberty, the freedom to choose, there are no following rights of any kind, as they apply to human existence.
The ownership of property, one's own body and the concrete necessities of life, food, water, shelter, et cetera, is also a fundamental but corollary 'right' that must be protected for an individual human to survive.
This thread addresses none of those subjects and thus is but a trivial pursuit over how these innate rights can be ignored in search of a 'greater good', for the community at large.
Forget your quest for defintions and concentrate on the fundamental issues of how human beings can co-exist, mutually and freely associate and exchange goods and services and you will arrive at the answers that all seek.
If you, like most dreamers, have deep in your heart and soul, the hope that a 'perfect' utopian system exists, that will guide all human actions in a fair and just manner, then take the last veil from your eyes and acknowledge that human existence is, has always been, and will always be, a, 'work in progress', where we who think, attempt to better the human condition and still maintain those basic, self evident and unalienable rights to existence.
The last half century, with the failure of most of the conventional and traditional values of western society, has placed a terrible burden on those few who have the audacity to think and challenge and re-assert what the totality of human history has discovered; the primacy of the individual.
For those who have not taken the time to read Ayn Rand, and more importantly, follow the reference works included in most of her non fiction essays, I seriously recommend that you make an effort to read her and all those she offers as seminal sources of knowledge in all fields and disciplines.
It is a rewarding journey; trust me.
Amicus Veritas
~~~
Thank you for the personal reply....as your thread is now at 23 pages, I wish to acknowledge just a few of the intervening Posts: 188, 297, 343, 499, 507 (Eyer), 533, and 558, as being noteworthy...
Let me reply to your responses to my queries and assertions:
You, in my opinion, waffle on all the above issues, of course education is valuable, my question to you was should it be mandatory and financed by taxation. The same with universal healthcare, of course it is a value, but should it be mandatory, forced, and financed by public taxes and managed by government? You last issue, abortion, fails to acknowledge that aborting a viable fetus is a malicious, pre-meditated act of first degree murder, regardless of Roe V Wade.
The documents that founded our way of government, dictate that the 'right to life' is innate, inherent, and shall be protected. The consequences of a woman's indiscretion simply do not measure up to violating the right to life; life, which scientifically begins at the instant of conception, is not a subject for rational debate.
The problem many have with 'defintions' is that they consider them, 'subjective' and changeable depending upon the social environment; they are not. A study of the history of words, or language, indicates that definitions are absolute throughout all societies at all times and through time, thanks to the Greeks, Western Civilization has arrived at a time when the etymology of words and concepts has become an exact science. Of course, that is for the learned, not the masses.
As an aside, before I continue, you have rejected every offered definition of the term in question, 'socialism', and you might ask yourself why you reject them all; or perhaps, it is a good question, to urge those who use the term indiscriminately, to clarify their criticism. I will offer my own, simplified definition at the close of this essay, which, I suspect, you will also reject.
"An eye toward the practical..." There is great danger in that vision. The final solution of Hitler, was most practical. The 'one child policy' in Communist China is, 'practical'. The current policy of this administration, to, 'skyrocket' the price of fossil fuels to encourage a 'green' revolution in energy, is 'practical' if you advocate an agenda of environmentalist activism without regard to the human condition...but tell me how happy you are with $5.00 a gallon gasoline and the unaffordable electric cars?
Now for my simplistic definition of 'socialism': When any government begins to use force to change the behavior of its' citizens, it is a 'socialist' government, in that it acts to change the 'social' nature of society by the imposition of legislation and laws, 'Pigovian' laws, to achieve a 'greater good', than the individual freedoms and liberties that every person has as self evident truths, those to be protected and defended, not altered to benefit the group.
I also wish to object to your denigration of 'labels'. I am an honest man; I am a man of integrity, I am an advocate of unfettered, free market capitalism. I wish to be labelled for what I am. I suspect the objection to labelling people is that they do no wish to be held to any objective standard, as reality has become passe' and a subjective, reletavistic world in both reality and the realm of words and defintions has become the status quo.
I cannot know your background, but if you have been educated in the usual manner, the 'absolute' terms are no longer taught and you have learned that all things are subjective and open to interpretation, and that there are no 'true' things in existence and that 'truth', in any field, is impossible.
In conclusion, you do visit an interesting area of discourse. The 'Left', those who advocate the use of force to achieve their social goals, are constantly changing their 'label'. The most recent is, 'Progressive', that follows, "Liberal". 'Democrat, lasted longer than any, and is still a label for the Left. Socialist and Communist fell into disrepute with the fall of the Soviet Union, as did Fascist, with the fall of Italy and Germany. The fall of the Japanese Empire also cast a pall on the word, 'Empire', so our sad British allies don't claim an Empire, even though that Monarchy still rules eleven Nations...go figure...
It seems, as per my original Post, that those pesky terms of ethics and morals as they relate to political and societal functions, are to still be ignored as irrelevant.
sad, that...
Amicus Veritas
Originally Posted by amicus
Peregrinator...late to your thread and having read all six pages in one sitting, I vacillated between, 'nice thread, interesting thread', to a final conclusion and that is to politely accuse you of playing 'Salome' and the Seven Veils', a bit of a tease and a provocateur par excellance....and all without dispensing of the final veil...
As you most likely have not followed my Posts over the past several years, let me attempt to extablish a background or a foundation for my following repertoire; all subject to your acceptance of my veritas, of course, anyone can say anything on the internet....
I have a formal education at four different universities with graduate level work in philosophy, economics, history and psychology. I have read everything that Ayn Rand wrote and even lectured on 'Objectivism', in the early days. I have also perhaps a hundred thousand hours arguing and debating all the subjects covered in this thread and am cognizant of all the literal references to historical sources concerning the meaning and defintion of Socialism, Communism, Fabian Socialism, Classical Liberalism, Progressivism, modern Liberalism and social democracies, just off the top of my head. The thousands of hours of debate was mainly as a Host on various talk radio programs across the western States and Hawaii for a period of twenty years....enough of my bonafides'?
I once thought, perhaps as you currently do, that there is a 'silver bullet' definition or a crystal clear statement or argument that would once and for all settle all debate and establish a fundamental platform from which to speak.
In all six pages of this thread, there was not a single mention of philosophy or the moral content of any political or economics system mentioned or offered. There-in lies the rub...one cannot effectively discuss or debate the actions of man, be they economic or political, without a moral fundamental absolute to begin with.
I suppose it would be considered 'limiting' the discussion to confine it to the legal authority of the US Constitution which provides a guideline for the function of government in this country. I sense that you, and others, prefer a metaphysical discussion of all that is possible under the sun in terms of the function of government in any and all systems. I can do either, or both and even more, I can take either side and present a logical argument to defend both extremes; and do, at times, just to hone my skills.
Using my 'Gibbs Gut' (NCIS) feeling, and taking a risk, I infer from a comment you made concerning government, that you might support Public Education as a 'right', all people should have...further, I would include Universal Health care and perhaps Abortion as issues you might support to be the proper function of government...you will no doubt correct me should I be in error.
In the bare minimalist terms of interpreting the letter, the law and the spirit of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the government is authorized to use force, the police power of government, to raise an army to defend the sovreignty of the nation, a police force to protect the unalienable rights of the individual, and a Court system to adjudicate differences. Beyond those minimum powers of government, all other actions are subject to debate and criticism.
The moral and ethical, (philosophical) paucity of this thread begs the question of when the use of 'force' the police power of the State to enforce laws, is justified, under the Constitution, in the limited discussion, or, universally, in the metaphysical one.
The definitions you insist upon don't exist as each form of government mentioned inculcates a different degree of the use of 'force' to impose its goals or ideals, again, terms that are subjective definitions at best and fuzzy and ambiguous at worst.
It is my conclusion and has been for many years, that one cannot conduct any discussion without a continual referral to the basic, axiomatic, self evident rights of man to life, liberty and property.
Without life, human life, there is no discussion of rights as the right to life for each individual is either acknowledged and underdstood as fundamental or it is not.
Withouth Liberty, the freedom to choose, there are no following rights of any kind, as they apply to human existence.
The ownership of property, one's own body and the concrete necessities of life, food, water, shelter, et cetera, is also a fundamental but corollary 'right' that must be protected for an individual human to survive.
This thread addresses none of those subjects and thus is but a trivial pursuit over how these innate rights can be ignored in search of a 'greater good', for the community at large.
Forget your quest for defintions and concentrate on the fundamental issues of how human beings can co-exist, mutually and freely associate and exchange goods and services and you will arrive at the answers that all seek.
If you, like most dreamers, have deep in your heart and soul, the hope that a 'perfect' utopian system exists, that will guide all human actions in a fair and just manner, then take the last veil from your eyes and acknowledge that human existence is, has always been, and will always be, a, 'work in progress', where we who think, attempt to better the human condition and still maintain those basic, self evident and unalienable rights to existence.
The last half century, with the failure of most of the conventional and traditional values of western society, has placed a terrible burden on those few who have the audacity to think and challenge and re-assert what the totality of human history has discovered; the primacy of the individual.
For those who have not taken the time to read Ayn Rand, and more importantly, follow the reference works included in most of her non fiction essays, I seriously recommend that you make an effort to read her and all those she offers as seminal sources of knowledge in all fields and disciplines.
It is a rewarding journey; trust me.
Amicus Veritas
~~~
Thank you for the personal reply....as your thread is now at 23 pages, I wish to acknowledge just a few of the intervening Posts: 188, 297, 343, 499, 507 (Eyer), 533, and 558, as being noteworthy...
Let me reply to your responses to my queries and assertions:
You, in my opinion, waffle on all the above issues, of course education is valuable, my question to you was should it be mandatory and financed by taxation. The same with universal healthcare, of course it is a value, but should it be mandatory, forced, and financed by public taxes and managed by government? You last issue, abortion, fails to acknowledge that aborting a viable fetus is a malicious, pre-meditated act of first degree murder, regardless of Roe V Wade.
The documents that founded our way of government, dictate that the 'right to life' is innate, inherent, and shall be protected. The consequences of a woman's indiscretion simply do not measure up to violating the right to life; life, which scientifically begins at the instant of conception, is not a subject for rational debate.
The problem many have with 'defintions' is that they consider them, 'subjective' and changeable depending upon the social environment; they are not. A study of the history of words, or language, indicates that definitions are absolute throughout all societies at all times and through time, thanks to the Greeks, Western Civilization has arrived at a time when the etymology of words and concepts has become an exact science. Of course, that is for the learned, not the masses.
As an aside, before I continue, you have rejected every offered definition of the term in question, 'socialism', and you might ask yourself why you reject them all; or perhaps, it is a good question, to urge those who use the term indiscriminately, to clarify their criticism. I will offer my own, simplified definition at the close of this essay, which, I suspect, you will also reject.
"An eye toward the practical..." There is great danger in that vision. The final solution of Hitler, was most practical. The 'one child policy' in Communist China is, 'practical'. The current policy of this administration, to, 'skyrocket' the price of fossil fuels to encourage a 'green' revolution in energy, is 'practical' if you advocate an agenda of environmentalist activism without regard to the human condition...but tell me how happy you are with $5.00 a gallon gasoline and the unaffordable electric cars?
Now for my simplistic definition of 'socialism': When any government begins to use force to change the behavior of its' citizens, it is a 'socialist' government, in that it acts to change the 'social' nature of society by the imposition of legislation and laws, 'Pigovian' laws, to achieve a 'greater good', than the individual freedoms and liberties that every person has as self evident truths, those to be protected and defended, not altered to benefit the group.
I also wish to object to your denigration of 'labels'. I am an honest man; I am a man of integrity, I am an advocate of unfettered, free market capitalism. I wish to be labelled for what I am. I suspect the objection to labelling people is that they do no wish to be held to any objective standard, as reality has become passe' and a subjective, reletavistic world in both reality and the realm of words and defintions has become the status quo.
I cannot know your background, but if you have been educated in the usual manner, the 'absolute' terms are no longer taught and you have learned that all things are subjective and open to interpretation, and that there are no 'true' things in existence and that 'truth', in any field, is impossible.
In conclusion, you do visit an interesting area of discourse. The 'Left', those who advocate the use of force to achieve their social goals, are constantly changing their 'label'. The most recent is, 'Progressive', that follows, "Liberal". 'Democrat, lasted longer than any, and is still a label for the Left. Socialist and Communist fell into disrepute with the fall of the Soviet Union, as did Fascist, with the fall of Italy and Germany. The fall of the Japanese Empire also cast a pall on the word, 'Empire', so our sad British allies don't claim an Empire, even though that Monarchy still rules eleven Nations...go figure...
It seems, as per my original Post, that those pesky terms of ethics and morals as they relate to political and societal functions, are to still be ignored as irrelevant.
sad, that...
Amicus Veritas
JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
those who believe in socialism are low on the economic totem poll, or are government workers which add no value anyway to society. In farming & hunting centered economy socialism is legs, not in a modern world
Those that believe in socialism are either insane, ignorant, on drugs, have given up on life, or just to lazy.
which category do you fall in?
Those that believe in socialism are either insane, ignorant, on drugs, have given up on life, or just to lazy.
which category do you fall in?
One) "Social control of production." To democratic socialists, or utopian Marxists, among some others, this means the democratic control of production: society shares in the profits, all are entitled to, and receive, basic necessities. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Social democracy is "socialism lite," where the government does what private enterprise can't do efficiently-- such as provide public transportation and provide for health care and care for the elderly or infirm. I know this-- I can't provide a source off the top of my head, but I suspect there are thousands of writers who would more or less agree with my definition. Note that years before Lenin socialism was thought of as a way to spread democracy to the economy, at a time when child labor and sweat shops were the rule.
Two) I think most socialists in office today are "in the closet" so to speak. Note that most people who consider themselves to be socialists do not consider the president to be one of them. I must stress that point. Perhaps your Bernie Sanders is a socialist. I don't know you well enough to prove you're a socialist.
...by the way
JenAltArmy- Teachers, the police, firefighters, librarians, highway workers, many janitors, some scientists, and many others are government workers. Oh, and soldiers.
JenAltArmy- Teachers, the police, firefighters, librarians, highway workers, many janitors, some scientists, and many others are government workers. Oh, and soldiers.
Actually, "corporatism" means something entirely different from "rule by or in the interest of business corporations."
JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
Government is like vitamins, you need a little; have too much and government becomes toxic
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
Could you edit this so it's readable please?
Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
Peregrinator...late to your thread and having read all six pages in one sitting, I vacillated between, 'nice thread, interesting thread', to a final conclusion and that is to politely accuse you of playing 'Salome' and the Seven Veils', a bit of a tease and a provocateur par excellance....and all without dispensing of the final veil...
As you most likely have not followed my Posts over the past several years, let me attempt to extablish a background or a foundation for my following repertoire; all subject to your acceptance of my veritas, of course, anyone can say anything on the internet....
I have a formal education at four different universities with graduate level work in philosophy, economics, history and psychology. I have read everything that Ayn Rand wrote and even lectured on 'Objectivism', in the early days. I have also perhaps a hundred thousand hours arguing and debating all the subjects covered in this thread and am cognizant of all the literal references to historical sources concerning the meaning and defintion of Socialism, Communism, Fabian Socialism, Classical Liberalism, Progressivism, modern Liberalism and social democracies, just off the top of my head. The thousands of hours of debate was mainly as a Host on various talk radio programs across the western States and Hawaii for a period of twenty years....enough of my bonafides'?
I once thought, perhaps as you currently do, that there is a 'silver bullet' definition or a crystal clear statement or argument that would once and for all settle all debate and establish a fundamental platform from which to speak.
In all six pages of this thread, there was not a single mention of philosophy or the moral content of any political or economics system mentioned or offered. There-in lies the rub...one cannot effectively discuss or debate the actions of man, be they economic or political, without a moral fundamental absolute to begin with.
I suppose it would be considered 'limiting' the discussion to confine it to the legal authority of the US Constitution which provides a guideline for the function of government in this country. I sense that you, and others, prefer a metaphysical discussion of all that is possible under the sun in terms of the function of government in any and all systems. I can do either, or both and even more, I can take either side and present a logical argument to defend both extremes; and do, at times, just to hone my skills.
Using my 'Gibbs Gut' (NCIS) feeling, and taking a risk, I infer from a comment you made concerning government, that you might support Public Education as a 'right', all people should have...further, I would include Universal Health care and perhaps Abortion as issues you might support to be the proper function of government...you will no doubt correct me should I be in error.
In the bare minimalist terms of interpreting the letter, the law and the spirit of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, the government is authorized to use force, the police power of government, to raise an army to defend the sovreignty of the nation, a police force to protect the unalienable rights of the individual, and a Court system to adjudicate differences. Beyond those minimum powers of government, all other actions are subject to debate and criticism.
The moral and ethical, (philosophical) paucity of this thread begs the question of when the use of 'force' the police power of the State to enforce laws, is justified, under the Constitution, in the limited discussion, or, universally, in the metaphysical one.
The definitions you insist upon don't exist as each form of government mentioned inculcates a different degree of the use of 'force' to impose its goals or ideals, again, terms that are subjective definitions at best and fuzzy and ambiguous at worst.
It is my conclusion and has been for many years, that one cannot conduct any discussion without a continual referral to the basic, axiomatic, self evident rights of man to life, liberty and property.
Without life, human life, there is no discussion of rights as the right to life for each individual is either acknowledged and underdstood as fundamental or it is not.
Withouth Liberty, the freedom to choose, there are no following rights of any kind, as they apply to human existence.
The ownership of property, one's own body and the concrete necessities of life, food, water, shelter, et cetera, is also a fundamental but corollary 'right' that must be protected for an individual human to survive.
This thread addresses none of those subjects and thus is but a trivial pursuit over how these innate rights can be ignored in search of a 'greater good', for the community at large.
Forget your quest for defintions and concentrate on the fundamental issues of how human beings can co-exist, mutually and freely associate and exchange goods and services and you will arrive at the answers that all seek.
If you, like most dreamers, have deep in your heart and soul, the hope that a 'perfect' utopian system exists, that will guide all human actions in a fair and just manner, then take the last veil from your eyes and acknowledge that human existence is, has always been, and will always be, a, 'work in progress', where we who think, attempt to better the human condition and still maintain those basic, self evident and unalienable rights to existence.
The last half century, with the failure of most of the conventional and traditional values of western society, has placed a terrible burden on those few who have the audacity to think and challenge and re-assert what the totality of human history has discovered; the primacy of the individual.
For those who have not taken the time to read Ayn Rand, and more importantly, follow the reference works included in most of her non fiction essays, I seriously recommend that you make an effort to read her and all those she offers as seminal sources of knowledge in all fields and disciplines.
It is a rewarding journey; trust me.
Amicus Veritas
~~~
Thank you for the personal reply....as your thread is now at 23 pages, I wish to acknowledge just a few of the intervening Posts: 188, 297, 343, 499, 507 (Eyer), 533, and 558, as being noteworthy...
Let me reply to your responses to my queries and assertions:
[/I]
You, in my opinion, waffle on all the above issues, of course education is valuable, my question to you was should it be mandatory and financed by taxation. The same with universal healthcare, of course it is a value, but should it be mandatory, forced, and financed by public taxes and managed by government? You last issue, abortion, fails to acknowledge that aborting a viable fetus is a malicious, pre-meditated act of first degree murder, regardless of Roe V Wade.
The documents that founded our way of government, dictate that the 'right to life' is innate, inherent, and shall be protected. The consequences of a woman's indiscretion simply do not measure up to violating the right to life; life, which scientifically begins at the instant of conception, is not a subject for rational debate.
The problem many have with 'defintions' is that they consider them, 'subjective' and changeable depending upon the social environment; they are not. A study of the history of words, or language, indicates that definitions are absolute throughout all societies at all times and through time, thanks to the Greeks, Western Civilization has arrived at a time when the etymology of words and concepts has become an exact science. Of course, that is for the learned, not the masses.
As an aside, before I continue, you have rejected every offered definition of the term in question, 'socialism', and you might ask yourself why you reject them all; or perhaps, it is a good question, to urge those who use the term indiscriminately, to clarify their criticism. I will offer my own, simplified definition at the close of this essay, which, I suspect, you will also reject.
"An eye toward the practical..." There is great danger in that vision. The final solution of Hitler, was most practical. The 'one child policy' in Communist China is, 'practical'. The current policy of this administration, to, 'skyrocket' the price of fossil fuels to encourage a 'green' revolution in energy, is 'practical' if you advocate an agenda of environmentalist activism without regard to the human condition...but tell me how happy you are with $5.00 a gallon gasoline and the unaffordable electric cars?
Now for my simplistic definition of 'socialism': When any government begins to use force to change the behavior of its' citizens, it is a 'socialist' government, in that it acts to change the 'social' nature of society by the imposition of legislation and laws, 'Pigovian' laws, to achieve a 'greater good', than the individual freedoms and liberties that every person has as self evident truths, those to be protected and defended, not altered to benefit the group.
I also wish to object to your denigration of 'labels'. I am an honest man; I am a man of integrity, I am an advocate of unfettered, free market capitalism. I wish to be labelled for what I am. I suspect the objection to labelling people is that they do no wish to be held to any objective standard, as reality has become passe' and a subjective, reletavistic world in both reality and the realm of words and defintions has become the status quo.
I cannot know your background, but if you have been educated in the usual manner, the 'absolute' terms are no longer taught and you have learned that all things are subjective and open to interpretation, and that there are no 'true' things in existence and that 'truth', in any field, is impossible.
In conclusion, you do visit an interesting area of discourse. The 'Left', those who advocate the use of force to achieve their social goals, are constantly changing their 'label'. The most recent is, 'Progressive', that follows, "Liberal". 'Democrat, lasted longer than any, and is still a label for the Left. Socialist and Communist fell into disrepute with the fall of the Soviet Union, as did Fascist, with the fall of Italy and Germany. The fall of the Japanese Empire also cast a pall on the word, 'Empire', so our sad British allies don't claim an Empire, even though that Monarchy still rules eleven Nations...go figure...
It seems, as per my original Post, that those pesky terms of ethics and morals as they relate to political and societal functions, are to still be ignored as irrelevant.
sad, that...
Amicus Veritas
Sonny Limatina
Ding dong ding
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2006
- Posts
- 21,875
That was him being terse and coherent.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,431
Trying to make a point here and you are fragging my ass with pedantic friendly fire.
JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
but I'm sure you are use to taking some in the ass?
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
This might be the post of the thread.What a strange, quirky, totally meta thread this has become...
http://livingstontalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/palin-the-socialist3.jpg
1. The basics. Defense form foreign powers and defense from theft, any theft be it malicious, deceitful, or even completely unintended as when "big evil business" "poisons" its consumers...
2. Anyone who tried to fight or deceive it.
3. Covered in one. Plus, as an aside, the writing style guide does not call for two spaces after a period.
4. Covered in 2. Yes. Disruption of energy supplies and making war on our alliances. Libya has been kinetically engaged in a quid-pro-quo with our allies. I oppose it, but since we elected multi-cultural Socialists, we get great deference to France, who btw, held the egalitarian revolution they so love, full of "payback."
5. Covered in 1.
6. Pretty easy call based upon his book, his past associations, and his proclivities when talking "SCIENCE."
I submit that this reply indicates a tacit admission that you cannot tell me when doing good ends and that you have not thought out the logical consequences, for example, if Republicans get their hands on SCIENCE. My definition prevents them from doing stupid shit with unintended consequences. Your definition leads to Oligarchy. There are so many things wrong with your interventions, but your unshakable belief in yourself, your SCIENCE and the good works of government lends a certain nobility to your views and, of course, those of us who would challenge those views and the slow strangulation of government by illogical thinking would, of necessity be opposed to your good works, and thus rather unsavory characters, but you see, we fear for your Liberty and its future in this country as year after year of doing good leads us into a Grecian Formula as deadly as if Darius and Xerxes had actually prevailed over Greece and prevented the spread of individual Liberty and the idea of Republic.
1. How does that define "easy taxes?" Who decides what is "tolerable?" Your answers have as many slippery-slope judgment calls as anyone else's. Is it theft if you pour toxic chemicals into the air? At how many ppm does it become "theft" as opposed to "cost of doing business?" Who has that authority? Who decides what is legal business practice and what is theft?
2. Israel spied on the US. Are they friend or enemy? Cuba has done nothing worth speaking of to the US lately. Are they friend or enemy?
3. "Anyone who tried to fight or deceive it" covers internal enemies as well? Does that include organizations with lobbyists? How about, say, pharmaceutical companies not disclosing what part of their budget is spent on research and what part is spent on direct-to-consumer advertising? Contractors who overcharge the government? Aside: Which style guide? There is no THE style guide.
4. Disrupting energy supplies is grounds for war? Does that justify other countries attacking us for the same reason? Alliances? See my #2 above.
5. So whose responsibility are these things? If someone dumps a lot of shit in the MS River in MN, who sues them? Everyone downstream?
6. Call it what you will...it's still fear-mongering. Remember when he was going to take everyone's guns away and make ammunition impossible to find? If fear-mongering is a bad idea, then why do you engage in it yourself?
You can see tacit admissions of whatever you want. You seem to think that only one side is a slippery slope, and I keep showing you that both are. What's wrong with Republicans using science? Your definition of what? My definition of what? Socialism? I have yet to define it. Limits of state intervention? I haven't defined that either. Your last paragraph has an immense and pervasive infection of straw people.
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
That's quite an iceberg.
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
http://bt.eutorrents.com/imagehost/images/filmsocial.jpg
Socialism
Year: 2010
Original title: Film socialisme
Runtime: 1 hour, 37 minutes
Country: Switzerland | France
Language: French
Subtitles: English | Spanish (.sub/.idx)
Genre: Drama
Director: Jean-Luc Godard
Cast
Catherine Tanvier ... La mère
Christian Sinniger ... Le père
Jean-Marc Stehlé ... Otto Goldberg
Patti Smith ... La chanteuse
Robert Maloubier ... Personne de la vraie vie
Alain Badiou ... Le philosophe
Nadège Beausson-Diagne ... Constance
Élisabeth Vitali ... La journaliste FR3 Regio
Eye Haidara ... La cameraman FR3 Regio
Quentin Grosset ... Lucien
Olga Riazanova ... Agent secret russe
Marine Battaggia
Marie-Christine Bergier
Agatha Couture
Dominique Devals
Plot / Synopsis
One of cinema's greatest provocateurs, Jean-Luc Godard, presents another barbed but thoughtful meditation on culture, politics and cinema in this experimental drama. Shot using high definition video equipment and a consumer-grade cell phone, with the crisp images of the former playing off the grain and distortion of the latter, Film Socialisme is divided into three segments. The first takes place on a luxury liner cruising the Mediterranean, as tourists from different lands attempt to communicate in their different languages. In the second, a French family calls a private tribunal, as the children challenge their parents on the issues of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity while the media watches from outside. And finally, Godard and his crew visit six different places -- Barcelona, Egypt, Naples Odessa, Palestine and "Hellas" (the latter could be Greece or France) as he confronts issues of truth versus myth and where the global community is headed. While Film Socialisme features dialogue in a number of different languages, the English-language subtitles which appear in the film deliberately confuse matters by being made up of statements which bear no relation to what is being said on screen, and usually have a provocative political undercurrent. Film Socialisme received its world premiere at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival; to the displeasure of some distributors, it was made available though Video On Demand the day after its debut screening.
Socialism
Year: 2010
Original title: Film socialisme
Runtime: 1 hour, 37 minutes
Country: Switzerland | France
Language: French
Subtitles: English | Spanish (.sub/.idx)
Genre: Drama
Director: Jean-Luc Godard
Cast
Catherine Tanvier ... La mère
Christian Sinniger ... Le père
Jean-Marc Stehlé ... Otto Goldberg
Patti Smith ... La chanteuse
Robert Maloubier ... Personne de la vraie vie
Alain Badiou ... Le philosophe
Nadège Beausson-Diagne ... Constance
Élisabeth Vitali ... La journaliste FR3 Regio
Eye Haidara ... La cameraman FR3 Regio
Quentin Grosset ... Lucien
Olga Riazanova ... Agent secret russe
Marine Battaggia
Marie-Christine Bergier
Agatha Couture
Dominique Devals
Plot / Synopsis
One of cinema's greatest provocateurs, Jean-Luc Godard, presents another barbed but thoughtful meditation on culture, politics and cinema in this experimental drama. Shot using high definition video equipment and a consumer-grade cell phone, with the crisp images of the former playing off the grain and distortion of the latter, Film Socialisme is divided into three segments. The first takes place on a luxury liner cruising the Mediterranean, as tourists from different lands attempt to communicate in their different languages. In the second, a French family calls a private tribunal, as the children challenge their parents on the issues of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity while the media watches from outside. And finally, Godard and his crew visit six different places -- Barcelona, Egypt, Naples Odessa, Palestine and "Hellas" (the latter could be Greece or France) as he confronts issues of truth versus myth and where the global community is headed. While Film Socialisme features dialogue in a number of different languages, the English-language subtitles which appear in the film deliberately confuse matters by being made up of statements which bear no relation to what is being said on screen, and usually have a provocative political undercurrent. Film Socialisme received its world premiere at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival; to the displeasure of some distributors, it was made available though Video On Demand the day after its debut screening.
JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 74,229
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Fifty some odd years ago I was advised to 'dumb down' my rhetoric to a ninth grade level education in the US.
I have limited my exposition to mininmal multisyllabic words, refrained from quotations from established resources and even held back on offering reference material that might educate my readers.
How much more simple can I make it for you?
I have read every Post on this Thread, and if there is a single descriptive word for you, it would be, 'flibbertigibbet', see, "Joe and the Volcano' for a full understanding.
If you ever get serious, gimme a shout...
ami
Last edited:
Can't you handle a simple unmixed metaphor?
amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
~~~
Oral Dave, just for the sake of conversation, accept that everyone in the world would like to feed and house the poor and provide them with health care as they need it...okay?
By what right do you take my money to feed your kid?
Simple question.
Amicus Veritas
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,543
~~~
Oral Dave, just for the sake of conversation, accept that everyone in the world would like to feed and house the poor and provide them with health care as they need it...okay?
By what right do you take my money to feed your kid?
Simple question.
Amicus Veritas
By the same right that you take my money to defend your kid. By the same right that the caveman demanded that you stay up watching for sabretoothed tigers so he could sleep and that he demanded the other stay wake other hours so he could sleep.
neci
flagged
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Posts
- 38,120
hence the reason god made big sunglasses.
~~~
Oral Dave, just for the sake of conversation, accept that everyone in the world would like to feed and house the poor and provide them with health care as they need it...okay?
By what right do you take my money to feed your kid?
Simple question.
Amicus Veritas
what about the children who belong to none?
whose responsibility are they?
simple question.
JenAltArmy
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Posts
- 2,504
heads up:
Government is like vitamins, you need a little; have too much and government becomes toxic
Government is like vitamins, you need a little; have too much and government becomes toxic
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
The issue isn't the level of discourse. It's the impossible to follow editing, viz:
Fifty some odd years ago I was advised to 'dumb down' my rhetoric to a ninth grade level education in the US.
I have limited mygimme a shout...Doc said:
ami
