Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 451 to 454 of 454

Thread: We Urgently Need To Revert To Classical Economics

  1. #451


    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post

    Stupid garbage.

    Strawman. You can't address what I said, so you make up some stupid $#!+ and pretend I said it.

    Strawman. You can't address what I said, so you make up some stupid $#!+ and pretend I said it.

    "Grounded in" doesn't mean "related to." You're just lying. As usual.

    Wrong again. A moral statement that expresses an objective fact of human nature is a positive fact.

    Your constant, despicable dishonesty is the source of my sickness.

    Nope. Moral statements are positive claims about how human actions in society affect reproductive success through society. They can be true or false, and it can be extremely difficult to determine which is which, but their content is a positive description. Normative statements are a subset of positive statements, not a disjoint set.

    But they cannot both be right.

    Opinions cannot change facts. That is one of your problematic beliefs. Moral sentiments are typically opinions rather than facts because it is so hard to judge the facts, but their actual content is still positive, whether true or false.

    No. He demonstrated an empirical fact. The didn't prove a theorem. That is why it is called the theory of evolution and not a theorem.

    ROTFL!! You just made a prize fool of yourself again, Steven. The reason I can't prove it is because it IS an empirical issue, and not an exercise in mathematics or formal logic.

    Oh? A "byproduct"? He stated quite clearly that the human moral faculty was a necessary adaptation given human social existence.

    Non sequitur. Nature doesn't "intend" anything. Nevertheless, the result of that blind, undirected process of evolution is a positive, objective fact: the genetic make-up of a given organism. And just as a given length of finch beak is objectively correct or incorrect in a given physical environment, so is a given moral principle objectively correct or not depending on the environment, especially the societal and cultural environment.

    OTC, nature is constantly judging all moralities on exactly that basis, and could in principle, by that means, determine which are objectively correct and incorrect. In practice, we don't arrive at any neat, final product, but in principle it is possible to describe one, and to judge how closely other ones come to it.

    No, he was clear that human moral capacity was fairly uniform, and had to be to confer a reproductive advantage.

    Nonsense. The human moral capacity must reside on a fairly modest number of genes, and those will, by sheer chance, sometimes be identical in two given individuals. Moreover, there is nothing abstract or subjective in the biological capacity. The abstractions and subjective opinions are built USING that capacity.

    Nor do I. I simply observe that for a given set of conditions, there is probably one or at least a very small number of moral systems that will work best, and are therefore objectively correct under those conditions.

    But they aren't all equally correct, (i.e., effective in achieving reproductive success) and that is the POINT of their being part of our evolving nature: they will be winnowed, the inferior and incorrect being supplanted by the superior and thus more correct.

    I didn't say it was indisputable, stop lying. For example, you do not believe in an equal individual right to liberty. That's a moral point you dispute with me, right there.

    But however much we may dispute it, it's a positive claim about what will work objectively, in society, not a mere subjective difference in taste, and we can't both be right about it.

    It is not only grounded in positive fact, but is a statement that ASSERTS a positive fact, whether it is actually true or not.

    I have explained WHY it is objectively true: i.e., why it will make society stronger and better able to compete.

    Ah, yes, you most certainly do.

    I make no such appeal. I identify objedctive facts and their logical implications.

    It's true that unlike you, I do not respect (let alone subscribe to) false, absurd and dishonest views.

    You are at liberty to refuse to know the facts I identify.

    No, BASING IT ON fact.

    No, by objective causal entailment, not mere association. My opinions might be right or wrong, but they are opinions ABOUT propositions that are either true or false.

    NEWS FLASH: Those do not by any means mean the same thing.

    I notice you snipped the context to make it look like I said ACTUAL states can't be immoral, when the context makes it clear I said the state per se can't inherently be immoral. Certainly a given individual state can be immoral, just as an individual human being can, and history is filled with the corpses of both sorts. But the doctrine of original sin notwithstanding, the state can't be immoral in its basic nature any more than man can.

    Do they? What do you mean by "gangs"? Most gangs do a piss-poor job of surviving, and their members do even worse.

    Right. Evidence but not proof, as time and chance happeneth to all.

    Power is often dangerous to those who hold and wield it -- in some societies the most common manner of royal succession has been assassination, and dynasties have wiped themselves out in pursuit of the throne -- but in the long run, survival is the only feasible criterion for judgment of right.


    Stupid lie.

    Stupid, evil lie.

    Stupid, evil, despicable lie.

    Fabricated out of whole cloth by you.

    Another lie. I've just explained how the state's morality can be judged.


    No, you're constantly chanting stupid garbage about the state always being bad, and you know it.

    You constantly lie your silly head off, and you call MY view amoral and sociopathic?

    You don't argue, period. You just assert.

    And name-call, of course.

    Wrong again. The first is irrelevant, as slavery proved, and the second is only an approximation of the third.


    No, that's just another stupid lie from you. The first is BASED ON the second, at least in democratic societies.

    Non sequitur. Nature doesn't intend people to see, either, but we can certainly deduce that people who can see are better equipped for survival than people who can't.

    Bald lie. Evolution works on the basis of individuals' survival and reproduction. It just happens, as a contingent empirical fact, that individual human survival is intimately linked with societal strength and health. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for chimpanzees and gorillas. It DOESN'T go for orangutans, which are solitary.

    "Good"? Isn't that just you begging the question again with a normative claim?

    No, you're just lying again, this time about what YOU have plainly written. Your actual "contribution" to moral evolution is that non-collectivized individuals, up to and including the majority in society, should be robbed, enslaved, and sacrificed for the unearned profit of landowners.

    Self-contradiction. Legal rights only exist in the context of the collective, the society that encodes and secures them.

    Based on what? Blank out.

    No, such impoverished conceptions do not permit even the most elementary understanding of rights.


    Stupid garbage.

    Ah. That must be why you slag it so relentlessly and dishonestly.

    Lie. The balance of LVT + UIE is exquisitely just and efficient.

    Eventually, my version will prevail. It's just a question of how much evil, misery and slaughter apologists for landowner privilege will inflict on long-suffering humanity in the meantime.
    I hope you have shortcut keys for some of these lines.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #452


    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I hope you have shortcut keys for some of these lines.
    I hope you have a delete key to snip the large quoted content which you never commented on. Your post was just unwanted noise.
    “I have made speeches by the yard on the subject
    of land-value taxation, and you know what a supporter
    I am of that policy.”

    - Winston Churchill

    The only war Winston Churchill ever lost was
    against the British landlords.

    - Fred Harrison (economic writer)

  4. #453


    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    It's by the same right that I have to steal pixies right off of your front lawn. In broad daylight! Prove the pixies exist, and then prove they were yours, and then sue me.
    So you are admitting that you consider the right to liberty in the same category as pixies: i.e., non-existent. That's what I've been telling you: you do not believe in a human right to liberty. What you believe in is a self-contradictory "right" to property: a right to appropriate for yourself what nature provided for all by using it, but to do so without having any liberty right to use it.

    Which is a bald self-contradiction.
    There, I fixed it for you. But I'll stipulate to it. I stole your pixies, I'm without remorse, and I'd do it again.
    You again openly confess that you do not believe in a right to liberty, only a right to deprive others of their liberty: to rob, enslave and murder them for your own unearned profit.

    Which is evil, self-contradictory filth.
    Sounds like a gas. I guess you don't much care for scalpers either.
    Thank you for proving that you favor parasitism.
    My pixies are more real than your pixies. Stop oppressing my pixies.
    "Ah got me a real property right in mah niggahs! The law says so, and the law is all that mattuhs!"
    It's implied, given all that "value" from community individuals that "soaks" into the land, like so much piss.
    No, the fact that land has value doesn't imply it has rights, any more than a car having value implies it has rights. You are just saying any stupid, dishonest thing that comes into your head in order to avoid knowing the facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.
    I can see why you avoid that analogy, because it forces you to deal with the fact that you're in effect treating the land, not people, as if it had rights.
    Nope. You're just lying again. There is nothing in anything I have said that implies the land rather than individuals have rights. That's just a flat-out lie with no basis in logic, fact or evidence. It is something stupid that you made up out of whole cloth.
    Wow, I guess Crusoe sucks as an emperor of his island. So much for state benevolence. He should have offered Friday a UIE. Despicable, evil filth.
    Now you're getting it. Because even you have limits to how much fact you can evade.
    Beg that self-congratulatory stupidity somewhere else.
    You admitted you have no interest in justice or efficiency. That's just a fact.
    Being in favor of LVT (as you envision it) is not evidence of interest in justice or efficiency.
    Oh, but it is. That is why many very intelligent individuals who were known to be interested in justice and/or efficiency have been in favor of LVT: John Stuart Mill, Leo Tolstoy, Winston Churchill, Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, etc.
    Is Crusoe the king? The state?
    No, just the land"owner." And thus, by your "logic," rightfully entitled to enslave Friday by force.
    ...which "untaxed" would be "all real people/individual Citizens" only in my scenario. Thanks for the backhanded endorsement of my plan.
    Well, your plan couldn't very well be pure evil in every way, could it? That's not going to get very far. But it is still essentially a recipe for feudalism as landownership concentrates in fewer and fewer hands.
    In ancient Egypt, it was the priests. That's not ALL real people.
    In Rome, it was the noble senatorial families. Again, not ALL real people.
    And...? So what?
    In Mughal India, it was the Muslims. Again, not ALL real people.
    But in the predominantly Muslim areas that are now Pakistan and Bangladesh, it was pretty close to all real people, and that didn't stop land from concentrating in the hands of a few rich, greedy parasites while the great majority were robbed and enslaved. LOOK AT PAKISTAN. That is the result of effectively tax-free landownership extended to effectively the entire population: a tiny minority ends up owning virtually all the land, and the condition of the landless is indistinguishable from that of slaves.
    Kazzactly. And thanks again for that confession, that ringing backhanded endorsement.
    "Same as Pakistan and Bangladesh" is not an endorsement, hello?
    Nah, it just destroys the advantages of those who are taxed.
    No, it mostly gives an advantage to those who hold land tax-free: a massive welfare subsidy giveaway of publicly created value paid for by other people's taxes. The more land they hold, the more they are enabled to steal from everyone else.
    And if it's not real people with rights, whose advantages are being destroyed?
    The rights of the landless are being destroyed, for the unearned advantage of the landed.
    You wish. You so wish.
    It is indisputable fact, and I have proved it.
    Go collectivize someone else, Privilege Communist.
    Go lie about what someone else has plainly written, Lying Sack of $#!+.
    No, to really do a number on Mom and Pop, it needs to seek out additional artificial advantages, like exemptions and abatements -- inducements by local governments to come to their cities to compete with their Moms and Pops, rather than another city's Moms and Pops.
    No, it can easily outcompete Mom and Pop without those artificial advantages through its immense economies of scale. The land use favors, property tax abatements, etc. just shovel additional money into WalMart's pockets.
    Whose economy?
    Society's. The community's. Ours.
    Who's invigorated by it?
    The productive (whom you would prefer be robbed and enslaved).
    As a hive-minded, aggregate-only-thinking collectivist,
    Stupid "poopypants" yammering with no basis in fact.
    you'd be blind to any such distinctions, unable to comprehend that you have indeed chosen winners and losers.
    I know perfectly well I have "chosen" the same winners and losers the free market chooses: with LVT the honest and productive win; the dishonest, unproductive and greedy lose. That is exactly why you hate and fear it with such maniacal ferocity.
    Fortunately, most people don't buy that mush-brained, class warmongering collectivist crap.
    It is objective fact, as proved by your continuing inability to answer The Question:

    "How, exactly, is production aided by the landowner's demand that the producer pay HIM for what government, the community and nature provide?"
    So you end up right where Henry George ended up -- losing, and all for lack of critical thinking skills, wisdom and common sense where it counts most.
    Nope. The truth can never lose. It can fall behind, even far behind, but it will and must always win in the end. Landowner privilege has destroyed hundreds of societies over 5000 years, but it will ultimately lose because it is based on lies. Take it to the bank.

  5. #454


    Quote Originally Posted by Roy L View Post
    So you are admitting that you consider the right to liberty in the same category as pixies: i.e., non-existent.
    Which liberty, Roy? That is more of your disingenuous, intellectually dishonest collectivizing at work - your usual, circular, question-begging fallacy of composition, as you failed (quite deliberately) to distinguish which kind of liberty you are referring to when you say "right to liberty". You have never gotten away with that, Roy, save in your own irrelevant mind, which billions of people on Earth take no notice of, do not agree with, and do not give a $#@! about.

    There are millions of liberties that you yourself don't consider rights, morally speaking, and that you personally do not believe ought to be recognized and codified as "liberty rights" by the state. Does that mean that you are against the "right to liberty"? Yes, in those cases, once the specific meanings are clarified, it very much does. With regard to those particular liberties, you are against the "right to [those] liberties".

    Now onto your fantasy Pixies Liberty. What you specifically mean when you dishonestly say the "right to liberty", is the nonexclusive access and use of any and all land within your immediate personal "community" vicinity. This could indeed be a physically liberty if others didn't exist. That is the liberty you are calling a "right", and hoping to get away with referring to it as a generic "right to liberty". But that particular type of liberty exists, only in your mind and those like-minded, as a moral right. It does not exist as such in my mind, nor does it exist in hundreds of millions of other minds (thus making it the equivalent of a fantasy pixie).

    Legally, however, such a right does not exist anywhere on Earth -- because that so-called "liberty right" that you are claiming exists (of non-exclusive access to every individual to the very best lands in their community) is physically impossible to reconcile, and remains a deprivation even under LVT. The fact that you believe LVT and UIE would [economically] "reconcile" such deprivations does not physically secure those liberties which you are calling rights. Quite the opposite, as it only secures the physically irreconcilable deprivation of those liberties.

    That's what I've been telling you: you do not believe in a human right to liberty-as-meant-when-Roy-writes-it.
    Fixed it for you, Roy, by including what you shamelessly and deliberately omitted. And that is absolutely, positively correct. I do not believe in a human right to liberty-as-meant-when-Roy-writes-it.

    Go sell your crazy human enslavement snake-oil contraption somewhere else.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 08-28-2012 at 09:58 AM.

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516

Similar Threads

  1. Urgently need some real help
    By osan in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 12:26 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-08-2015, 02:09 PM
  3. Best books/articles to read to understand Classical Liberalism and Austrian Economics?
    By NOVALibertarian in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-30-2012, 06:49 AM
  4. Ron Paul Roadies urgently need your help.
    By eleganz in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-21-2012, 02:46 AM
  5. Calculus Please Help! Urgently
    By Dripping Rain in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-05-2010, 01:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts