Do Socialists Understand That We Also Dream?...

Aug 2010
862
The Bushmen and the Hadza don’t. The pre-Danish polar Inuit didn’t.
Sure they didn't. They were Noble Savages who live in Edenic harmony with the world.

In comic books, before civilization, the strong preyed on the weak. Again, with the Bushmen, Hadza, and the pre-Danish polar Inuit, it didn’t happen.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Did you get this from their historical records in their libraries?

Of course not, you're speculating. And, I'll even go so far as to say you're probably right for the most part but to suggest there was no conflict with the strong taking advatage of the weak is not something you have evidence of. The same is true today. For the most part the strong don't assail the weak. But it certainly does happen. We've noted where we diverge in opinion. Yet again, we don't agree. ;)
 
Aug 2010
103
Sure they didn't. They were Noble Savages who live in Edenic harmony with the world.
I used the past tense with the Inuit, not the Hadza and the Bushmen.
We aren?t dealing with speculation here.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text
Nobody said that it was Eden, but yes, they live in harmony with the World, the little bit that civilization lets them have.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Did you get this from their historical records in their libraries?
Of course not, you're speculating.
Not every one is ignorant, some are informed. Hunter gatherer social orders exist today. There were recent encounters with recent hunter gatherer social orders which were documented. As for the polar Inuit, the Danes who went to live and trade with them in Greenland wrote books about their experiences. No, I?m not speculating, I have read books and magazine articles on the subject. I subscribe to the Scientific American and the National Geographic, in which I read the article on Hadza referenced above.
I have books on the subject such as Marshal Sahlins? ?Stone Age Economics?, Edward Hall?s ?Beyond Culture? and Charles Stanish?s ?Ancient Titicaca?.
There is informed opinion on this subject, and there is uninformed opinion.
And, I'll even go so far as to say you're probably right for the most part but to suggest there was no conflict with the strong taking advatage of the weak is not something you have evidence of.
You do tend to assume. As I have just pointed out, these social orders exist today. Yes, I do have evidence as to conflict with the strong taking advantage of the weak. Everyone who wants to be informed has evidence of that. They are free to compare the hunter gatherer social orders on that point with civilized social orders. It has been done. Yes, bullying happens on an individual basis in any social order, but it?s not institutionalized in hunter gatherer social orders. Exploitation is endemic to civilized social orders. It?s part of our social structure. It?s not a occasional thing, it is ever present.
Our social order is based on the strong taking advantage of the weak, it?s what its all about.
The same is true today. For the most part the strong don't assail the weak. But it certainly does happen. We've noted where we diverge in opinion. Yet again, we don't agree.
Again, you are clearly lost in propaganda land. Your idea of assail is somebody beating somebody up. That type of crime. Economic serfdom is not a factor in your calculus, because it isn?t a factor in the oligarchy?s propaganda. The assault on the weak is a constant in our social order, it never pauses, it may vary in intensity, but it?s always there.
 
Aug 2010
862
I used the past tense with the Inuit, not the Hadza and the Bushmen.
We aren’t dealing with speculation here.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text
Nobody said that it was Eden, but yes, they live in harmony with the World, the little bit that civilization lets them have.
OK. I'd rather not live a hunter gatherer exitence. I don't buy that they (any of those you listed) have a society free from one person taking advantage of another.

Not every one is ignorant, some are informed. Hunter gatherer social orders exist today. There were recent encounters with recent hunter gatherer social orders which were documented.
Which does not address my point. Encounters with these societies cannot be regarded as conclusive proof that these societies are free for the strong preying on the weak.

As for the polar Inuit, the Danes who went to live and trade with them in Greenland wrote books about their experiences. No, I’m not speculating, I have read books and magazine articles on the subject. I subscribe to the Scientific American and the National Geographic, in which I read the article on Hadza referenced above.
National Geographic? They are terrible fact checkers. You know there little zop code articles in the back? Well they did Fargo. The misidentified the lady sweeping snow (she is a relative of my wife'). They listed the totals of OJ, Milk etc used at an annual pancake feast... I did the math. Everyone had to drink a gallon of OJ and milk to get even close.

I started watching more closely after that. The frequency with which the got it wrong was very troubling.

Greenland.... yes, the colonies traded with the local populations. Newfouondland, they probably did though iirc the Greeland Saga also discussses warring with "skraelings." And, since we are back to comparing our background.... I don't read nat geo anymore - to was a history major - I read scholarly works on these issues.

I have books on the subject such as Marshal Sahlins’ “Stone Age Economics”, Edward Hall’s “Beyond Culture” and Charles Stanish’s “Ancient Titicaca”. There is informed opinion on this subject, and there is uninformed opinion.
Those primative cultures... you adore them. South America (and central for that matter) never got itself involved with anything so nasty as human sacrifice. Or rather they did.... a lot. But that's not the strong preying on the weak is it.

Stone age cultures never had much conflict did they... it was an era marked with lots of conflict.

You do tend to assume.
No, you assign that belief to me. You have assumed that those cultures you refer to never had issues of the strong preying on the weak. I have no evidence one way or the other. As such I said you cannot possibly know that your assumption is true. There is a big difference between me saying "you're wrong and here's why" and me saying, "you cannot know that to be true" and here's why.

As I have just pointed out, these social orders exist today. Yes, I do have evidence as to conflict with the strong taking advantage of the weak. Everyone who wants to be informed has evidence of that. They are free to compare the hunter gatherer social orders on that point with civilized social orders. It has been done. Yes, bullying happens on an individual basis in any social order, but it’s not institutionalized in hunter gatherer social orders. Exploitation is endemic to civilized social orders. It’s part of our social structure. It’s not a occasional thing, it is ever present.
Our social order is based on the strong taking advantage of the weak, it’s what its all about.
Ah, so now you are walking your edenic noble savage argument back. Glad we agree on that point. It being true that the strong preying on the weak is part of the human condition I'd prefer a society laws to walking around the Kalahari Desert lookinbg for food. I like my fridge, my AC, my cable TV.

Where is preying on the weak institutinalized today in our civilization? You made the claim, please give evidence rather than scoff at the question and change the topic.

Again, you are clearly lost in propaganda land. Your idea of assail is somebody beating somebody up. That type of crime. Economic serfdom is not a factor in your calculus, because it isn’t a factor in the oligarchy’s propaganda. The assault on the weak is a constant in our social order, it never pauses, it may vary in intensity, but it’s always there.
Ad hominem is not a useful tool in discussion unless you're looking to have an insult contest. I'm pretty good at it once I get going but I find it tedious. So, can we stick to the topic?

My idea of assail.... again, you assume, you assign a belief to me that is inaccurate. I meant assil in a much largher context, the most minimal would be actual physical violence. I meant, take advantage of... and that may take many forms.

Economic serfdom.... again you assume, you assign to me a belief to me that is inaccurate..

You don't ever speak in specifics. You carry on in vague and diaphanous assertions void of any material with which to have a discussion.

Give concrete examples of what you are talking about please. Where are these serfs?
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
103
OK. I'd rather not live a hunter gatherer exitence. I don't buy that they (any of those you listed) have a society free from one person taking advantage of another.
The old all degrees of imperfection are equal argument. It?s not a society free from one person taking advantage of another. That was never my point, and if I didn?t make that clear, my fault. However, as I stated in the beginning, it is the Elites taking from the Harvesters. Hunter gatherer societies are societies of Harvesters without a class of Elites. That doesn?t mean that they don?t have individuals who are better than others, that means they don?t have classes of privileged elites which we do.
Which does not address my point. Encounters with these societies cannot be regarded as conclusive proof that these societies are free for the strong preying on the weak.
Science is deductive, not inductive. Nothing is ever proven. There aren?t valid arguments, only strong arguments. Again, all degrees of imperfection aren?t equal. How do these social orders compare with ours as regards to predation? Do they have entrenched elites as we do? A single bully and the American oligarchy are hardly equal.
National Geographic? They are terrible fact checkers. You know there little zop code articles in the back? Well they did Fargo. The misidentified the lady sweeping snow (she is a relative of my wife'). They listed the totals of OJ, Milk etc used at an annual pancake feast... I did the math. Everyone had to drink a gallon of OJ and milk to get even close.
Again with the all degrees of imperfection are equal argument. So who does a better job? In every single case in which I have known the intimate details of the incident, the American media has gotten it wrong. So do I get my information from God, or do I muddle through?
I have books written by professional anthropologist, they more or less agree with the National Geographic on this issue. So could you give me a source for your opinion? I?m not asking for a cite, just a source.
Here you have an article by someone who visited the Hadza. As opposed to what?
I started watching more closely after that. The frequency with which the got it wrong was very troubling.
And your source that got it right? Yes, you live in Fargo, and I would expect you to know more about it than visitors. If you had lived for a few years with the Hadza, I would take your word over the National Geographic unless I thought you had a motive to lie.
Greenland.... yes, the colonies traded with the local populations. Newfouondland, they probably did though iirc the Greeland Saga also discussses warring with "skraelings." And, since we are back to comparing our background.... I don't read nat geo anymore - to was a history major - I read scholarly works on these issues.
Perhaps I didn?t make myself clear, though somehow it is very hard to do so with you, I was talking about 19th and 20th Century Danes. The people you are talking about were Vikings from Greenland. The Inuit won the test of survival with the Vikings, it was only after the Danes could use an appendage of an industrial society to allow them to exist on the Ice that they could compete with the Inuit.
Those primative cultures... you adore them. South America (and central for that matter) never got itself involved with anything so nasty as human sacrifice. Or rather they did.... a lot. But that's not the strong preying on the weak is it.
I?m interested in them because I?m interested in the origin of civilization. That?s why I know a little about the subject. The cultures you are talking about, the Inca and the Maya, were civilized. They took from the Harvester and gave to the Elites. The Incas were damn sure the strong preying upon the weak. It took an even more predatory civilization with millennia of technology and societal intermingling over them to bring them down with a
little help from the diseases they brought with them.
The Andean civilizations are especially fascinating because they give rare insights into the development of Civilization from the pre-civilized stage.
Stone age cultures never had much conflict did they... it was an era marked with lots of conflict.
Civilization could exist with lithic technology. There was conflict before civilization, but it was more on the nature of raiding and sport. Civilization developed mass warfare, that?s how they acquired their subjects. If you study the beginning of any civilization, it began with the subjugation of populations through war.
No, you assign that belief to me. You have assumed that those cultures you refer to never had issues of the strong preying on the weak.
No, you stated this.
Of course not, you're speculating. And, I'll even go so far as to say you're probably right for the most part but to suggest there was no conflict with the strong taking advatage of the weak is not something you have evidence of.
You assumed that I had no evidence, etc. . Wasn?t that an assumption?
I have no evidence one way or the other. As such I said you cannot possibly know that your assumption is true. There is a big difference between me saying "you're wrong and here's why" and me saying, "you cannot know that to be true" and here's why.
First of all, because you have no evidence, doesn?t mean that I have no evidence. It seems obvious to me that I?m far better informed on this issue than you are. It?s something I?ve been interested in for fifty years. I?m sure there are a lot of things that you know far more than I do about, like law, for example. You haven?t proven why I cannot know that to be true, you have made statements of opinion, that?s all.
Ah, so now you are walking your edenic noble savage argument back.
Where did I make the edenic noble savage argument? I don?t agree with Rosseau on that one. There was nothing noble about pre-civilized man. He was feral man. Civilized man is domesticated man. The wild dog versus the family pet.
Glad we agree on that point.
Missed the agreement.
It being true that the strong preying on the weak is part of the human condition I'd prefer a society laws to walking around the Kalahari Desert lookinbg for food. I like my fridge, my AC, my cable TV.
Your truth, my fiction. Oh course you do, domesticated animals prefer domestication. The wolf doesn?t like the life of a dog, and the dog doesn?t like the life of a wolf.
Where is preying on the weak institutinalized today in our civilization? You made the claim, please give evidence rather than scoff at the question and change the topic.
I don?t remember scoffing and changing the topic. Contract slavery is a case in point. You call it employment. Yes, the worker has an alternative, he can turn to crime or beg. By worker, I?m referring to the set without sufficient skills to find self employment.
Additional examples.
The people living in the slums are there by choice, and the people in prison are there because they want to be. This is, of course, ignoring the crimes that got our social order to its present state like slavery, cultural genocide and genocide. I am also ignoring the crimes that our social order commits outside of its boundaries.
Ad hominem is not a useful tool in discussion unless you're looking to have an insult contest. I'm pretty good at it once I get going but I find it tedious. So, can we stick to the topic?
An ad hominem has to be false, since I?m not clear what you mean, I can?t tell whether your charge is valid. If you make it clear, I will apologize.
My idea of assail.... again, you assume, you assign a belief to me that is inaccurate. I meant assil in a much largher context, the most minimal would be actual physical violence. I meant, take advantage of... and that may take many forms.
Economic serfdom.... again you assume, you assign to me a belief to me that is inaccurate..
Sorry, but I?m lost.
You don't ever speak in specifics. You carry on in vague and diaphanous assertions void of any material with which to have a discussion.
Praise from Caesar.
Give concrete examples of what you are talking about please. Where are these serfs?
Economic serfs? That?s another term for common hourly paid factory workers. They are becoming less common now that we are exporting our industrial base. Now they can be found pumping gasoline, serving hamburgers, or making beds as well. A subset of contract slave which is a subset of Harvester.
Now that you are clear on the set, you shouldn?t have too much problem locating them.
 
Aug 2010
862
The old all degrees of imperfection are equal argument.
I wasn't making an argument at all (nor would I agree, necessarily, with such an argument form).

I just said I'd rather be an American right now than a Bushman. Hardly a challenging decision.

So, when are you packing your bags for the idyllic Kalahari where life is wonderful and you can be rid of this nightmare we call the US?

Look, it is clear that our differences are so fundamental as to present us with challenges agreeing that water is wet. Further, you refuse to engage reasonable questions about your claims and assertions, as is your right... just as it is mine to be through with wasting my time.

You're welcome to your opinion as I am to mine and never the twain shall meet.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2010
92
NH
in the negative - which is to say - the lack of order

I'd equate it with chaos

I suspect you're using a more specific definition though - ok
You're right, that's not how I'm defining anarchy. No one wants chaos and lack of order except for insane people. By anarchy I mean stateless, and by stateless I mean voluntarist. In other words, society is based on the non-aggression principle.

I fundamentally disagree. But assuming you're right for the sake of argument... the state has rules that it must generally abide by (or at least suffer when it breaks them).
What rules? The Constitution? Constitutions are nothing but pieces of paper, they don't make bad men good, they don't constrain government, and they certainly don't protect you from evil doers. Bullets can go through paper. Just look at the US government today, which supposedly was bound up in the "chains" of the Constitution to prevent its growth, and consider just how intelligent the men were who devised it, how learned they were in history and philosophy. If even they couldn't come up with a piece of paper that would magically prevent the growth and corruption inherent in any government, what makes you think anyone else can? I certainly couldn't.

In the lawless society there is nothing but might making right.
No in a stateless society might makes right. All powers of government are derived from the gun. This is an essential fact.

Even in our society one's rights are only as valuable as one's ability to defend or enforce them.

Just curious.... how is the new healthcare plan preyingon the weak? how about the 99 weeks of unemployment benefits? on and on with the list of entitlements... how do they fit in?
Where does one get the money to pay for those entitlement benefits?

That's a contractual agreement that you regard as socialist.

blah blah blah

we disagree - ok
What's the difference?
 
Aug 2010
862
You're right, that's not how I'm defining anarchy. No one wants chaos and lack of order except for insane people. By anarchy I mean stateless, and by stateless I mean voluntarist. In other words, society is based on the non-aggression principle.
OK - you're using as a term of art. I was using it colloquially. I'll concede I don't understand the concept of an anarcho syndicalist commune or scimitars or even Dennis. (just in case Holy Grail)

What rules? The Constitution? Constitutions are nothing but pieces of paper, they don't make bad men good, they don't constrain government, and they certainly don't protect you from evil doers.
It is true that laws don't make people good. They provide for punishment for breaking them. Totalitarian governments tend to be much better at eliminating crime than liberal democracies because of the diverging levels of liberty. However that goes to control not personal morality. No form of government (or its lack) will be able to do that.

Bullets can go through paper. Just look at the US government today, which supposedly was bound up in the "chains" of the Constitution to prevent its growth, and consider just how intelligent the men were who devised it, how learned they were in history and philosophy. If even they couldn't come up with a piece of paper that would magically prevent the growth and corruption inherent in any government, what makes you think anyone else can? I certainly couldn't.
The growth of the government.. espeically the federal bureaucracy is a result of FDR's threat to pack the court after SCOTUS tossed a bunch of his depression era plans. As a general matter I agree with you on this point. Our government has overstepped greatly.

No in a stateless society might makes right. All powers of government are derived from the gun. This is an essential fact.
You'll need to sketch me a thumbnail of this creature you're talking about.

I still would assert that in a lawless society where there are no restraints on behavior the issue of power (be it a gun, a grenade or a syringe) would be controlling.

Where does one get the money to pay for those entitlement benefits?
Not sure even the administration knows where they're gonna get it. But you're asking me to say "taxes.

What's the difference?
the name applied.... I'd just use a different term
 
Aug 2010
92
NH
OK - you're using as a term of art. I was using it colloquially. I'll concede I don't understand the concept of an anarcho syndicalist commune or scimitars or even Dennis. (just in case Holy Grail)
It is true that the word "anarchy" has been demonized to the point where people can no longer use it and have rational discussion, it prompts too much of an emotional response (probably due to the state indoctrination people receive from public schooling). However it really just means voluntarist (to me at least).

It is true that laws don't make people good. They provide for punishment for breaking them. Totalitarian governments tend to be much better at eliminating crime than liberal democracies because of the diverging levels of liberty. However that goes to control not personal morality. No form of government (or its lack) will be able to do that.
You're going a little bit off topic. You started off my saying that states are bound by rules. I showed that these rules are meaningless when they are repeatedly broken and disregarded.

The growth of the government.. espeically the federal bureaucracy is a result of FDR's threat to pack the court after SCOTUS tossed a bunch of his depression era plans. As a general matter I agree with you on this point. Our government has overstepped greatly.
But it doesn't matter who did it or when or why. What matters is that it did indeed grow despite the most genius-ly devised Constitution ever written (supposedly).

You'll need to sketch me a thumbnail of this creature you're talking about.
Every single action taken by the state is reducible to pointing a gun at someone's head. Every law.

I still would assert that in a lawless society where there are no restraints on behavior the issue of power (be it a gun, a grenade or a syringe) would be controlling.
You're gonna have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove to me that in a stateless society there would be violence everywhere. Such thoughts are the the emotional urges, I think, people have, but they can never seen to answer how such god-awful things could actually come to pass in a stateless society.

Not sure even the administration knows where they're gonna get it. But you're asking me to say "taxes.
Yes, taxes. In other words, stolen money.

the name applied.... I'd just use a different term
It captures the essence of socialism in a stateless environment. I think it illustrates my point, which is the important thing.
 
Aug 2010
862
It is true that the word "anarchy" has been demonized to the point where people can no longer use it and have rational discussion, it prompts too much of an emotional response (probably due to the state indoctrination people receive from public schooling). However it really just means voluntarist (to me at least).
For my part I guess I never saw demonized... I just nearly never saw it used.

Who can find fault with volunteerism? I believe we have a moral obligation to help others when we can. Marx was right in part about "to each." The problem is the state deciding who needs what and from whom. So, on this specific issue I suspect we have greater agreement that we may have tought.

You're going a little bit off topic. You started off my saying that states are bound by rules. I showed that these rules are meaningless when they are repeatedly broken and disregarded.
As a concept, sure I agree. As I said, lawlessness means no one is constrained by law and might then makes right. However we are then left with a question of fact (dare I say degree) regarding lawlessness.

But it doesn't matter who did it or when or why. What matters is that it did indeed grow despite the most genius-ly devised Constitution ever written (supposedly).
True, was just a little civics point I was making. I'm of the opinion that FDR's threat was an example of lawlessness. I forget which PM did it but he threatened to make as many new peers as needed to get the House of Lords to produce the vote he wanted.... I think the issue was two fold... Irish Independence and liquor proof laws. Mweh... I forget.

And, I hold our constitution inm very high regard (shocking huh?)

Every single action taken by the state is reducible to pointing a gun at someone's head. Every law.
I'll agree that the state will always have the threat of force to back its demands.

However, we also have a system to resolve disputes be they civil or criminal before we unleash that power.

You're gonna have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove to me that in a stateless society there would be violence everywhere.
That's not what I said nor meant. I meant those willing and able to use force will not be constrained. I don't think there would be huge numbers, necessarily, of these people. I suspect scarcity of resources may play a large role in levels of violence but that's another issue. My point, the violent will win disputes with the non-violent.

Yes, taxes. In other words, stolen money.
As much as taxes piss me off to no end they are legal. Calling it stolen money is an emotional response. One I often share mind you but its still emotional.... and the more they take the more emotional I get :D

It captures the essence of socialism in a stateless environment. I think it illustrates my point, which is the important thing.
ok... but


Today those five have recourse to courts to settle issues they cannot settle themselves - what if there is a dispute - how is it resolved fairly in that stateless system?

I don't think you're relying on the general goodwill of the people are you?
 
Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
Who can find fault with volunteerism? I believe we have a moral obligation to help others when we can. Marx was right in part about "to each." The problem is the state deciding who needs what and from whom. So, on this specific issue I suspect we have greater agreement that we may have tought.
Personally, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." You'll find that to be a wide held view among socialists, despite what the Right says, we're not all evil commie Marxists. :p
 
Aug 2010
230
Socialism is a libertarian (and in some cases anarchist) ideological and economic school of thought. So as to the bolded, all I can say is you have a poor understanding of socialism.
Once again, words count. They matter very much. Socialism is an ideology that demands collectivism. Libertarianism demands and ensures individual responsibility, above and apart from government intrusion.
 
Aug 2010
862
Personally, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their contribution." You'll find that to be a wide held view among socialists, despite what the Right says, we're not all evil commie Marxists. :p
lol

never thought as such but you have no idea how much fun it is to toss that grenade at some

I don't doubt that many on the left feel that way, that it is a personal moral obligation. My problem, as I noted only comes into play when they turn it from a personal moral obligation and ask the state to assume the obligation..... with my goddamn money ;)
 
Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
lol

never thought as such but you have no idea how much fun it is to toss that grenade at some

I don't doubt that many on the left feel that way, that it is a personal moral obligation. My problem, as I noted only comes into play when they turn it from a personal moral obligation and ask the state to assume the obligation..... with my goddamn money ;)
I have no idea? I'm a socialist, who do you think dodges said grenades? :p
 
Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
yes, but you cannot know my experience of amusement.... where the hell is tortoise when I wanna pick on him
You should have fun with Dirk. For that matter, wait until you get me in conservative mode, you should have an interesting time debating a conservative socialist. :giggle: Hasn't happened yet but it will if you stick around.
 
Aug 2010
103
Once again, words count. They matter very much. Socialism is an ideology that demands collectivism. Libertarianism demands and ensures individual responsibility, above and apart from government intrusion.
Words become cups into which we pour the wine of meaning. Alfred Korzybski warned about using the is of identity. Your socialism perhaps, but it seems you are not the Emperor of English. If you will check the options given below, you will notice that people who use the word socialism may not mean what you mean. I might point out that some consider the MWUD the supreme authority on American English. Feel free to disagree. I personally consider the Inca Empire socialist, but there was nothing collective about it. However, it falls within the MWUD definition of 2.b, actually if you will note the second "or" in definition 1, it removes the limit of collectivism.
From the Merriam-Webster?s Unabridged Dictionary, CD Version 3.0
Socialism :
Main Entry:so?cial?ism
Pronunciation:*s*sh**liz*m
Function:noun
Inflected Form:-s
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property *trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community? W.E.H.Lecky* ? compare INDIVIDUALISM b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state ? compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work
 
Personally I consider Libertarianism the product of a bright, but slightly addled, vindictive White Russian with an abiding hatred of Marxism. I have never seen an actual implementation or even a near implementation. It mainly serves as a rationale for slopping the hogs. Though I must admit that Ron Paul seems rather bright compared with his contemporaries. However, I am of the opinion that his contemporaries are quite stupid.
 
 
 
 
Aug 2010
862
You should have fun with Dirk. For that matter, wait until you get me in conservative mode, you should have an interesting time debating a conservative socialist. :giggle: Hasn't happened yet but it will if you stick around.
have you considered pyschological help for that personality disorder?

;)
 
Jul 2009
5,880
Port St. Lucie
have you considered pyschological help for that personality disorder?

;)
No hope for me. If you knew me personally, you'd know what I mean. I'm totally off the rocker but lucid and logical. My friends think I'm a bit odd and my family... We'll I'm 1 of the more normal ones. :giggle:
 
Aug 2010
230
Ignoramus,

Your MWUD definition is so close to my OED definition as to make any differences too minute to be seen with the naked eye. I'm reminded of rabbis who once spent several years arguing over whether tossing used dishwater out the door was legally considered washing or sowing.

Your reference to the second "or" is similar to that dishwater discussion. By definition, government represents the collective of those who are governed, so collective applies in either case.

Do I think socialism in the sense of collectivism can work? Sure, on a small scale. A family business is certainly a form of collectivism. So are kibbutzim. On a large scale, though, collectivism has proven costly and not very productive, and often counterproductive.
 
Aug 2010
103
Ignoramus,
Your MWUD definition is so close to my OED definition as to make any differences too minute to be seen with the naked eye. I'm reminded of rabbis who once spent several years arguing over whether tossing used dishwater out the door was legally considered washing or sowing.
Your reference to the second "or" is similar to that dishwater discussion. By definition, government represents the collective of those who are governed, so collective applies in either case.
Do I think socialism in the sense of collectivism can work? Sure, on a small scale. A family business is certainly a form of collectivism. So are kibbutzim. On a large scale, though, collectivism has proven costly and not very productive, and often counterproductive.
I see that your post remains unchanged. Fortunately no well meaning soul has meddled with perfection. Rarely does one see such an excellent match between post and avatar.