|
Effectronica posted:I stand against any motivations for doing anything or taking any action, and I'm glad to see other people standing against ideology with me. hey now, you're not supposed to be serious in this thread
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 09:49
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:D&D's collective posting has always been prettty lovely. But to be honest, lately it's gotten so bad I have literally no idea who is being serious about any given topic and the whole exercise has come to seem like an elaborate and long running performance art piece. I support tracking down anyone who loves pinochet and castrating them. Also I think multiculturalism doesn't work, as all societies need a identity to function. But then I also think most people who ant about immigrants are just being idiots. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 10:22 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Also I think multiculturalism doesn't work, as all societies need a identity to function. I think you're just anti-immigrant. But I dunno maybe you're right about societies needing to keep out people who think or act differently so they don't contaminate the volkscharakter.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If you're gonna go through all of the effort that your plan entails you might as well go for full socialism while you're at it. Maybe you missed the part in a later post where I described a government with the power to abrogate the property rights and maybe even the personal rights of Captains of Industry who piss it off. Uneasy lies the head that possesses a portfolio.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I think you're just anti-immigrant. But I dunno maybe you're right about societies needing to keep out people who think or act differently so they don't contaminate the volkscharakter. Remember everyone not holding to some 1990s fantasy means  Also I prefer a society where bad actors effectively cease to exist because they live in fear of being identified and being removed Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 18:04 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
The country already deports people for DUI. Pretty easy to imagine they do it for everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:When you say "market socialist" do you mean "with robust social programs and regulations, like Norway or something" Like this, more or less. As technology gets better and living standards improve demand for services and social infrastructure will grow and be accomodated. It's in everybody's interest as long as the status quo isn't disrupted too much. The revolution is so much impotent fantasy, though, IMO.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Like this, more or less. As technology gets better and living standards improve demand for services and social infrastructure will grow and be accomodated. It's in everybody's interest as long as the status quo isn't disrupted too much. Yeah as long as bad actors exist you cannot get this. Eliminate bad actors and you can attempt it.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah as long as bad actors exist you cannot get this. Eliminate bad actors and you can attempt it. I don't think you can get rid of the bad actors without getting rid of all humans.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I think you're just anti-immigrant. But I dunno maybe you're right about societies needing to keep out people who think or act differently so they don't contaminate the volkscharakter. Any good self-identified leftist should oppose immigration because it causes the drain of wealth and expertise from poor countries to rich ones. goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 18:33 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
I hate puppies and think they should die.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
goatse.cx posted:Any good self-identified leftist should oppose immigration because it causes the drain of wealth and expertise from poor country to rich ones. Why would leftists care about countries, as opposed to people?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:I hate puppies and think they should die. congratulations on being the republican candidate for NYC mayor
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:congratulations on being the republican candidate for NYC mayor Or Michael Vick.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Why would leftists care about countries, as opposed to people? Why should we not help countries lift themselves up, rather than force them to suffer a drain of talent that just causes the cycle of poverty to exacerbate itself?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Why would leftists care about countries, as opposed to people? What do you mean??? Nations are consortia of people and brain drain have very real consequences for people living in the third world? goatse.cx fucked around with this message at 18:52 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Why should we not help countries lift themselves up, rather than force them to suffer a drain of talent that just causes the cycle of poverty to exacerbate itself? Corruption is the biggest barrier.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:47
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah as long as bad actors exist you cannot get this. Eliminate bad actors and you can attempt it. What does Rob Schneider have to do with this??
|
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What does Rob Schneider have to do with this?? I'll admit that made me laugh. Nonsense posted:Corruption is the biggest barrier. As I said eliminate the bad actors.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Maybe you missed the part in a later post where I described a government with the power to abrogate the property rights and maybe even the personal rights of Captains of Industry who piss it off. Uneasy lies the head that possesses a portfolio. I read that fine, which leads me to reiterate my question, if you're going to expend the herculean effort to get something like that in place, why not just go for full socialism instead? Why leave the economic power of society in the hands of people who are going to do their damndnest to dismantle your control system at the earliest opportunity they get?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:congratulations on being the republican candidate for NYC mayor
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I read that fine, which leads me to reiterate my question, if you're going to expend the herculean effort to get something like that in place, why not just go for full socialism instead? Why leave the economic power of society in the hands of people who are going to do their damndnest to dismantle your control system at the earliest opportunity they get? Because the point of the system is to break the power of economics in general and subordinate it to politics. The new administrative class would be technocrats and academics drawn from universities, and the academy would replace the corporation as the center of power. As for why, I strongly doubt the ability of full socialism to avoid falling into the autocratic Leninist trap on a large scale, especially if it comes under attack by liberal states. Woolie Wool fucked around with this message at 20:26 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Because the point of the system is to break the power of economics in general and subordinate it to politics. The new administrative class would be technocrats and academics drawn from universities, and the academy would replace the corporation as the center of power. And how do you prevent the people with all the money from bribing this new elite of yours to dismantle your control system? Seriously dude, I don't think that you've thought your clever plan all the way through.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
How much leverage does your bribe really have against people who control the military and the educational system (because they came from the educational system) and have a class interest in keeping you down. I am fully aware that capitalists will resist this state of affairs, but their efforts would be in vain because they have nothing to back them up.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:How much leverage does your bribe really have against people who control the military and the educational system (because they came from the educational system) and have a class interest in keeping you down. I am fully aware that capitalists will resist this state of affairs, but their efforts would be in vain because they have nothing to back them up. They have control of the entire economy to back them up. Your military, your education system are all funded by taxes that come from capitalists. The government requires capital be happy and paying taxes to function in any sort of social democracy. So why not get rid of the middle man and actually adopt a socialist system?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:How much leverage does your bribe really have against people who control the military and the educational system (because they came from the educational system) and have a class interest in keeping you down. I am fully aware that capitalists will resist this state of affairs, but their efforts would be in vain because they have nothing to back them up. Why the hell would your hypothetical elite have a class interest in keeping the capitalists down when they can instead enrichen themselves by collaboration and keep their power at the same time? The inevitable result of your system would be that capital and your elite ally themselves against everybody else, since they would have the monopoly on military, economic and social power in that case. Your system is inherently self-defeating.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Another counterbalance is, as I said, ever larger and more consolidated unions that encompass millions of workers each so that the economy is never more than one strike away from disaster. Once they become reach a critical mass it would become extremely difficult to get away with angering them because entire industries would walk off the job at once. You cannot break a strike of 5,000,000 people.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Yeah, this is why most workers in the US still belong to a union. But seriously, why keep capital around? If you've identified that they are actively working against the interests and well being of society and will do everything in their power to dismantle your society and dominate it, why keep them around at all? They aren't useful in any way unless you buy into the myth of the "job creator". It's not as if capital needs to be kept alive as they are the only source of some rare nectar so we should imprison them and keep them on life support as they are too useful to get rid of despite their danger. They aren't some "necessary evil" worth developing a complex and fragile society built entirely around containing them yet not quite eliminating them.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I have tried to get Rich People to donate and i have tried to get poor people to donate. Almost without expection the wealthy people i dealt with were arrogant shithead. Wealth is krokodil for the soul. Feels great at first, but then the rot sets in.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:I have tried to get Rich People to donate and i have tried to get poor people to donate. Almost without expection the wealthy people i dealt with were arrogant shithead. Wealth is krokodil for the soul. Feels great at first, but then the rot sets in. I know and know of many wealthy people who give to charity so idk maybe you got unlucky or your pitch didn't appeal?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:But seriously, why keep capital around? If you've identified that they are actively working against the interests and well being of society and will do everything in their power to dismantle your society and dominate it, why keep them around at all? They aren't useful in any way unless you buy into the myth of the "job creator". Capitalists allocate economic resources to build wealth. They're not job creators but they do play an essential role in the economy by investing capital in production. Depending on the economic climate they can do this much faster and more efficiently than a centralized bureaucracy or even a worker's syndicate. A single actor is more decisive and flexible than a committee. I really don't get the obsession with profit. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting a return on investment. The problem is the degree to which capitalists are allowed to influence the political system through campaign finance, and the proportion of the nation's wealth they are allowed to own.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I read that fine, which leads me to reiterate my question, if you're going to expend the herculean effort to get something like that in place, why not just go for full socialism instead? Why leave the economic power of society in the hands of people who are going to do their damndnest to dismantle your control system at the earliest opportunity they get? Because your solution is to give their economic power to different people who are no less likely to try those bad things you just listed. And if history is an indicator, they're more likely to suceed within socialism. Well put. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone not holding to some 1990s fantasy means when was the last time you were in a major city
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Remember everyone not holding to some 1990s fantasy means I too prefer a society where people are punished for being "bad actors" are No seriously this is literally fascist rhetoric you're spouting.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I know and know of many wealthy people who give to charity so idk maybe you got unlucky or your pitch didn't appeal? While this may be the case, a poor (or even middle class) person giving just $1 to charity means more than a wealthy person giving $1,000,000. If a rich person kept giving to charity until he/she became poor or middle class, then - and only then - would it make any sense to think highly of them* as a result. *I'm ignoring the fact that it's often pragmatic to stroke the egos of the wealthy in an effort to get them to donate money.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While this may be the case, a poor (or even middle class) person giving just $1 to charity means more than a wealthy person giving $1,000,000. If a rich person kept giving to charity until he/she became poor or middle class, then - and only then - would it make any sense to think highly of them* as a result. Real talk, that is a pretty cracked outlook. Like, seriously consider seeking therapy. Rich people are just people. Poor people are just people. Being poor doesn't make someone virtuous and being rich doesn't make them wicked.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Real talk, that is a pretty cracked outlook. Like, seriously consider seeking therapy. don't be such a dick to Jesus there dude
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While this may be the case, a poor (or even middle class) person giving just $1 to charity means more than a wealthy person giving $1,000,000. If a rich person kept giving to charity until he/she became poor or middle class, then - and only then - would it make any sense to think highly of them* as a result. Maybe it's just me, but I think the actual number of dollars and how effectively they are utilized seems a lot more important than how much the money given "means" or worrying about if we "think highly" of the person. Pretty sure my local food bank can help more people with some rich dude's $10,000 dollar donation than my $10 donation.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:23 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:being rich doesn't make them wicked. Science suggests you're wrong. http://nymag.com/news/features/money-brain-2012-7/
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 04:12
|
|