Devil's advocate : what's wrong with socialism?

[Fox McCloud]

as if oppression and violence has ever been absent in history.

history hasn't been absent of poverty, stupidity, turmoil, suffering, ignorance, sin, evil, lack of knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily justify continuing all of those things.

murder is present in the world and always has been, does that justify murder? No.

 

[tremendoustie]

Unproductive in the labor perspective, where people do not go out to work and make things happen. They can afford to buy xboxes the same way we can afford to print money and fund wars, the bubble wont burst if people never think about it.

what's so good about wealth? you only have 24 hours a day to live less than 100 years, and when you die you die.

Greed is not bad period, why can't we feed some to ease some? What's wrong with taking away risk factors if we can afford to?

Someone has to make the Xbox. And, if the person's not an idiot, they won't give it to you for a wad of worthless paper you just printed up.

 

[Josh_LA]

Bubble will not burst if people never think about it? Of course they will think about it when they can't afford to buy things such as basic necessities. Who says we are able to afford printing money or funding wars? They have consequences, just LOOK AROUND YOU!

we're not continuing to print money because somebody is spoiling the fun, if we did, and continued to be asleep and ignorant, what's to stop us? the people at the end of the line getting worthless paper money

You think the chinese will keep accepting your shit currency in exchange for something of a real value? NO!

What's so good about wealth? It leads to prosperity. With out wealth, you are poor, broke, and probably starving. What's so good about starving? And how does government collect tax? On other people's productiveness. When they stop producing, no tax, no money for your xbox.

Show me one example where taking away risk is beneficial? In the short run, maybe but then in the long run it's a pure disaster. For example, take the forest. We prevent fire so the forest would not burn down. That's beneficial for the next couple of years but forests depend on fire to remain healthy. Preventing fire will simply lead to complete extinction of the forest through erosion of the soil or something like that.

the government doesn't need to collect tax, it can print money out of thin air and use a gun to enforce whatever it wants. So it can rob xbox producers for their boxes and just give them out.

yes, but in the interest of keeping trees happy, trees win. So who cares if the society has to implode later so long as people are blissfully ignorant in the meantime?

still, you are assuming we can't use force and violence to maintain our "empire" which is only unacceptable because we have compassion (for some).

 

[Fox McCloud]

Someone has to make the Xbox. And, if the person's not an idiot, they won't give it to you for a wad of worthless paper you just printed up.

unless there's a gun to your head, of course...which I wouldn't put it past the government to do just that "this is for the greater good--you must make this gaming console or people will suffer".

 

[Josh_LA]

Someone has to make the Xbox. And, if the person's not an idiot, they won't give it to you for a wad of worthless paper you just printed up.

not if you can convince them that they'll be able to enslave the world through ignorance like they did in Idiocracy. or if you have a gun to their head, whether through convincing, bribing or force, it can be done.

 

[Josh_LA]

unless there's a gun to your head, of course...which I wouldn't put it past the government to do just that "this is for the greater good--you must make this gaming console or people will suffer".

better argument.

people won't suffer if they don't have these boxes, but people will be happy slaves if you make them, it's like a permanent blue pill, what you invest today can pay off virtually forever IF you know what keeps them asleep.

Xboxes obviously don't do it for everybody, but there's gotta be a few things that can do the trick...porn? family guy?

 

[Josh_LA]

Nothing wrong with any voluntary association that is socialist. As long as you can leave or opt out at any time.

so the only reason socialism is wrong is because you're not convinced of it.

if i had some powerful brainwashing formula that can convince people its good, socialism is no worse than racism so long as people are convinced it's ok.

 

[tremendoustie]

I agree, and what's wrong with that?

And there's the key difference. It does all come down to morality. If you don't think it's fundamentally wrong to stick a gun at someone's head and take their money, then there's no common basis for reasoning.

I, and I think most libertarians, believe it is morally wrong, and that is the basis of our political philosophy.

There's no way to reason morality into existence. In order to convince you that liberty is good, I'd have to first know what you already consider the most fundamental good, and show how liberty accomplishes it.

If you believe theft and murder are a-ok, the general well being of mankind is unimportant (if well-being is even defined), and personal ambition should be pursued at any cost (whatever that ambition may be, who knows), I suggest checking out fascism, because liberty isn't for you.

 

[Josh_LA]

That doesn't make it ethical... You lose an incredible amount of security when you abolish security of rights by government. The want to enslave another for personal profit is suitable only to sociopaths. If you do not believe another person feels pain, or that their pain is less than yours, than you must either be incredibly stupid, evil, or a confused Nihilist... Unless I'm missing something I'm interested in.

Ok, go worry about ethics all you want, see if thugs care about your opinion. I'm sure they love the compliment of being called sociopath.

 

[Josh_LA]

And there's the key difference. It does all come down to morality. If you don't think it's fundamentally wrong to stick a gun at someone's head and take their money, then there's no common basis for reasoning.

I, and I think most libertarians, believe it is morally wrong, and that is the basis of our political philosophy.

There's no way to reason morality into existence. In order to convince you that liberty is good, I'd have to first know what you already consider the most fundamental good, and show how liberty accomplishes it.

I agree, circular reasoning.

A very rare honesty I can get out of libertarians and anarchists.

But don't worry, I happen to agree it's good to be moral. But I won't mind using violence to maintain what I believe is good and right.

 

[Kludge]

Ok, go worry about ethics all you want, see if thugs care about your opinion. I'm sure they love the compliment of being called sociopath.

Who thugs hurt is their own problem (well... and of the person being hurt). They have to live with what they've done for the rest of their life. You can either be willfully ignorant of others' pain, or you can, at the very least, not intentionally add to it.

 

[tremendoustie]

I agree, circular reasoning.

A very rare honesty I can get out of libertarians and anarchists.

But don't worry, I happen to agree it's good to be moral. But I won't mind using violence to maintain what I believe is good and right.

Ok, then, what do you believe is good and right?

 

[Josh_LA]

Ok, then, what do you believe is good and right?

Whatever I feel good doing and don't mind being done back to me.

 

[tremendoustie]

Whatever I feel good doing and don't mind being done back to me.

You just said you minded being mugged in an earlier post, but "who cares about the victim when you have the gun".

However, if you mind it being done to you, as you've said you do, then according to your definition of morality, you shouldn't do it to others.

 

[Anti Federalist]

But shouldn't certain things of importance be forced? Such as life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Shouldn't society's stability and safety override your stupid freedom to play xbox? (my honest answer is no, but what is yours)

No I don't see it ironic to use force to enforce liberty, we do it all the time, just a matter of what degree and what's getawayable.

Did it ever occur to you that playing XBox might be someone's definition of the "Pursuit of Happiness"?

Who are you to judge?

(For the record, I happen to regard video games as the spawn of Satan himself...but, you know)

 

[Anti Federalist]

Whatever I feel good doing and don't mind being done back to me.

So, initiation of violence you would find "unethical"?

You wouldn't want a punch in the face for no reason, would you now?

 

[Josh_LA]

Did it ever occur to you that playing XBox might be someone's definition of the "Pursuit of Happiness"?

Who are you to judge?

(For the record, I happen to regard video games as the spawn of Satan himself...but, you know)

I think you mean, that playing Xbox is NOT everybody's pursuit of happiness. I've been saying this whole time that IF xboxes is some universally sound idea of happiness, wouldn't it be right to force it on everybody?

 

[Josh_LA]

So, initiation of violence you would find "unethical"?

You wouldn't want a punch in the face for no reason, would you now?

I wouldn't want to, but there's nothing inherently wrong if it was done.

 

[Josh_LA]

You just said you minded being mugged in an earlier post, but "who cares about the victim when you have the gun".

However, if you mind it being done to you, as you've said you do, then according to your definition of morality, you shouldn't do it to others.

Yes, I shouldn't, but there's nothing wrong outside of my opinion if I changed my mind.

 

[tremendoustie]

Yes, I shouldn't, but there's nothing wrong outside of my opinion if I changed my mind.

If you consider it wrong, then you should resolve not to do it yourself, and not support those who do, by word, deed, or vote. Of course the only basis you have for your actions is your own convictions (based on all evidence of course), and there will always be those who disagree. That doesn't mean you never take any action or defend any position in your life.

You make your decisions, not some imaginary bloke who disagrees with you. It's ridiculous to think you can't support an idea because some person somewhere may disagree.

If you're a moral relativist, and wish to say, "It's my view, but I don't think my view is any more right than anyone else's". Then what exactly did you mean by your original claim, that it would be wrong to do something you don't want done to yourself? What did you mean by wrong? If you really think it is wrong, then you believe those who think it is ok are incorrect. If you simply wish not do do these things yourself, then it is a personal preference, not a moral opinion.