sarge87 Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 You're probably the best I've heard at debating for your side of the spectrum. I'd like to figure out how to debate this guy. Mostly he describes that his "utopia" that on a planetary scale people should be given all the essentials, food, shelter, clothing, water, etc. and must contribute back to that society the equal amount. But that apparently doesn't limit their freedom to do whatever they wish, as long as they contribute what they were given. And they can do whatever they want to do with their lives as well. Money also doesn't exist. His philosophy is so full of holes and it's predicated on the fact that resources on earth are completely unlimited. That's where I kept getting stuck because I couldn't think of a limited resource other than time and land. So, could you help me out? Also, don't like to something cuz I don't really want to read. I just kind of want to discuss with you. What happens when a person stops, doesn't want to contribute, or keeps what he produces for himself? Link to comment
Husker_x Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 You're probably the best I've heard at debating for your side of the spectrum. I'd like to figure out how to debate this guy. Mostly he describes that his "utopia" that on a planetary scale people should be given all the essentials, food, shelter, clothing, water, etc. and must contribute back to that society the equal amount. But that apparently doesn't limit their freedom to do whatever they wish, as long as they contribute what they were given. And they can do whatever they want to do with their lives as well. Money also doesn't exist. His philosophy is so full of holes and it's predicated on the fact that resources on earth are completely unlimited. That's where I kept getting stuck because I couldn't think of a limited resource other than time and land. So, could you help me out? Also, don't like to something cuz I don't really want to read. I just kind of want to discuss with you. You're not in a rational debate here. By what you've provided of his viewpoint, you're probably wasting your time completely. Sounds like a guy who's read Thomas More or some kind of Marx-lite. If you had to offer a response, tell him to read Orwell's Animal Farm. The issue with all thoughts of Utopia is that it appeals to the simple minded. Theoretical Utopias are a dime a dozen. They're the easiest thing to construct, yet nowhere do they appear in nature, certainly not in places with significant populations and limited resources. If the population in question was given all their basic needs, the first question is by whom? How do they acquire these resources without money? In our own welfare state here in the United States, we've had nothing but trouble from the notion that people are entitled to care from the government, leading to bankruptcy-prone programs and generational poverty. What is the motivation for someone to contribute when everything is provided? Who is going to make them (aka-enforce the laws), and how will you pay them to do it? As for limited resources, how about food in a time of famine, water after a natural disaster, oil, technology, or a host of other daily needs and conveniences? Utopian philosophy amounts to nothing but a lot of pretty-sounding ideas that morons flock to because they require the bare minimum of thought and effort. Solving real problems in the real world is infinitely more challenging because the people who live in the real world don't obey like the automatons in La La Land. Link to comment
huskerjack23 Posted February 25, 2010 Author Share Posted February 25, 2010 Yeah this is probably why I was getting so frustrated. It was totally irrational, the things he was bringing up. Every inconsistency that I'd find in his argument, he'd just say "no, that's not how it is". It was total BS. Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Yeah this is probably why I was getting so frustrated. It was totally irrational, the things he was bringing up. Every inconsistency that I'd find in his argument, he'd just say "no, that's not how it is". It was total BS. Dude, sorry it took me so long to answer this, I've been super busy!! Anyways, the first thing I'd suggest is that anyone trying to pass off their subjective "utopia" as an objective reality is not only irrational but also full of sh@t!! I wouldn't even waste my time arguing. Secondly, how does your "commie" buddy plan on carrying out his plan of equality for all without initiating force against other individuals? Since he will need to, how is this force enacted? Is it by a legalized monopoly on force? If so, how does he consider himself an anarchist? How does he plan on maintaining freedom, while at the same time forcing individuals to do things they do not want to do? This is a blatant contradiction and pretty much nullifies any argument he may have. Also, the premise of socialism/Communism is based upon the labor theory of value, which is completely absurd and proven so, because obviously every individual has different values, preferences, etc... so how could value be anything but subjective? Since this is true, his whole economic philosphy is based on a falsehood and should be pretty easy to dismantle. As far as his lack of property rights, does he not believe he owns himself? If not, who owns him? Link to comment
SOCALHUSKER Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 Did he ever say why he believes money would not exist? Is he not aware that money is merely a medium of exchange? And that because it is impossible for any civilized individual to be completely self-sufficient, unless he chooses to live as a poverty stricken hermit, that he will always need to exchange/barter and therefore need some form of money to exchange for the goods and services he needs. Link to comment
Recommended Posts