Extremism and the Internet

[SOCALHUSKER]

I know what is best for me better than anyone else and there’s 100% truth in that.

 

Would you agree with a meth addict saying that? Just curious.

 

Yes I would. And along with free choice comes personal responsibility and accountability. A meth addict might think that drugs are the best thing for him, whether they are or not is trivial, for as long as each individual is held accountable for his actions why should he not be able to make that choice.

[SOCALHUSKER]

sorry...subjective.

 

god i'm an idiot today.

 

We all have our days.

 

How do you figure that me knowing what is best for myself is subjective? Doesn't each person, who wishes to live, naturally do what is in their best interest? If they do, how is that not objective?

[SOCALHUSKER]

sorry...subjective.

 

god i'm an idiot today.

 

Calling "truth" subjective or objective is besides the point anyways. What about the contradictions of government? Or the non-contradictory philosophy of anarchy, do you wish to address those points?

[huskerjack23]

how are they contradictions when they aren't "true"? if "truth" is subjective, then the contradictions aren't true. they're just opinions.

 

i also can't address argue x, y and zed on a/c versus government because you have a, b, and c already queued up to counter whatever i have to say, regurgitated out of the echo chamber.

 

i'm not well versed on it and i'm not really into the cold, heartless economic philosophy of a/c. (which ISN'T an endorsment of state-run socialism, believe it or not. i'm still young, trying to find a good worldview.)

[SOCALHUSKER]

how are they contradictions when they aren't "true"? if "truth" is subjective, then the contradictions aren't true. they're just opinions.

 

i also can't address argue x, y and zed on a/c versus government because you have a, b, and c already queued up to counter whatever i have to say, regurgitated out of the echo chamber.

 

i'm not well versed on it and i'm not really into the cold, heartless economic philosophy of a/c. (which ISN'T an endorsment of state-run socialism, believe it or not. i'm still young, trying to find a good worldview.)

So you can't argue my points because I might have an answer, that sounds convenient? What would happen if I said that to you about your arguments? Why don't you just answer the questions and I'll do my best to answer yours. Or is it that you know you're wrong and are just choosing to overlook the truth?

 

Truth is not subjective. Yes, you and I might not always know the truth and someone’s account of the truth might be subjective, but that doesn't mean the truth either didn't happen or is subjective. The events and actions that occur are the truth. Truth is always objective.

 

How can you say the contradictions of government are opinions? Calling them subjective couldn't be further from the truth. Is taking from an individual that which is rightfully theirs not theft? Does the government not take from individuals that which is rightfully theirs? Since they do, how is theft not true? Since the truth is objective, theft is objective. Is there a subjective instance of theft? If theft is not true, why can’t everybody go around taking from individuals that which doesn’t belong to them? Isn’t it a contradiction that government is allowed to steal but then makes laws in which you and I are not allowed?

 

Is killing someone by initiating force against him or her not murder? Self-defense is not considered initiating force, therefore is not murder. Does the government not initiate force by going to war? When’s the last time we fought a defensive war? Since they do initiate force, how is that not the truth? Is there a subjective instance of initiating force? If murder isn’t true, why can’t everybody go around killing? Isn’t it a contradiction that the government can kill, but not everybody else can?

 

The list of contradictions is endless, is coercion not objective? What about fraud? These actions are not opinions. Stealing, killing, coercion and fraud are objective and are actions taken by the system you support everyday. How you can say they are opinions and not contradictions is beyond me. Maybe you can explain? To say that I will regurgitate an answer to your rebuttal just proves that you already know that which you are supporting is wrong; you are just choosing to ignore it.

 

I don’t care if you are young or not, if you think the economic philosophy of the free market is cold and heartless, you really have a lot to learn. Are you scared of personal responsibility or do you really believe in some utopian free world that requires absolutely zero work? How is a system that allows free choice considered cold or heartless? Is the philosophy of slavery thoughtful and kind? There can only be one or the other, either you are free or you are a slave. To say otherwise is both naïve and false.

 

How is a system that allows those to benefit from their actions considered cold and heartless? Is stealing from productive individuals to supposedly benefit a select few considered noble and just? There are no other alternatives, either a person is allowed to enjoy the full benefits of their labor and choices or they are forced to give up some to pay for welfare by theft. Forcing the creation of a welfare state by propping up individuals at the expense of others not only decreases the incentive to prosper but it also increases the rate at which other entitlements are considered necessary. This is fact. Tag this along with the fact that stealing is flat out immoral and then tell me again which system is cold and heartless.

 

How is a system that has proven to be the driving force of prosperity throughout the world considered cold and heartless? It is individuals and the free market, despite the intervention of government, which have created prosperity throughout history, not the other way around. What has government created besides tyranny, wars, inflation and poverty? Is a system that brings society to an equal level of poverty considered wise and grand? Maybe you can explain how poverty, tyranny and wars are not cold or heartless?

 

The free market is the only way to ensure the full benefit of your actions, peace, freedom and prosperity, what is cold and heartless about that? And now that you say you don’t advocate full-on socialism, what do you advocate? Please, clue me in on a system more fair, prosperous, and non-contradictory than one that allows individuals to choose for themselves and either benefiting or suffer the consequences and actually learning from their mistakes. I’m all ears.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[huskerjack23]

a/c does not guarantee against any of those things. how is the poverty level equal? no one is equal based on intelligence and region and resources, etc., so a person would have to work either that much harder to get to that so called "equality" or be left in the wake.

 

i guess evolution would tell us that in the long run those people who get left in the wake will no longer exist and by sheer natural selection, everything will be equal.

 

how is THAT not cold and heartless?

 

and the a/c way of thinking of that is, it doesn't matter. no one forced you to not be equal, so it's all good. the market chose you not to be equal.

 

fight or die. if you don't have the means to fight, you will die. COLD AND HEARTLESS.

[SOCALHUSKER]

a/c does not guarantee against any of those things. how is the poverty level equal? no one is equal based on intelligence and region and resources, etc., so a person would have to work either that much harder to get to that so called "equality" or be left in the wake.

 

i guess evolution would tell us that in the long run those people who get left in the wake will no longer exist and by sheer natural selection, everything will be equal.

 

how is THAT not cold and heartless?

 

and the a/c way of thinking of that is, it doesn't matter. no one forced you to not be equal, so it's all good. the market chose you not to be equal.

 

fight or die. if you don't have the means to fight, you will die. COLD AND HEARTLESS.

No, anarchy doesn't guarantee against poverty or anything, but it does guarantee you a choice in life. Government doesn't.

 

Is it your right to be equal? F@CK NO, it isn't. If it were, we would all be born rich, handsome, tall, athletic, etc... Each human being is different, which means we each have different values. Forcing or trying to make each of us equal, with equal values, is not only wrong but impossible. You try to justify your "equality" by forcing rules upon men, when in reality all you are really promoting is equal poverty.

 

The only equality we have is the equal right to life and to make choices to better your life by any means necessary, as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's rights. The free market is the only way this is possible. Read a book on economics and learn something please!! Yes, some people make stupid choices, but such is life. What's so cold and heartless about accountability? Does it scare you that much?

 

Do you really believe what you are stating? Do you live in the real world? Who fights and dies besides those the government kills or forces to fight? I don't see men out in droves knocking each other off for no reason, do you? What makes you believe it would happen when men are actually held accountable for their actions?

 

(PS - You still didn't answer any of my questions.)

[huskerjack23]

it's cold and heartless to you for someone not to be able to achieve all they can and be as rich as possible.

 

i think it's cold and heartless for someone not to be able to get to that same status because they were accidentally born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, without the right nature given tools, etc etc etc.

 

to you, the only way for the world to prosper is for the haves to have and the have nots to wither away, based on the only equality of life.

 

hey, you were born. that's your only right. now get to work or die.

[HuskersNow]

it's cold and heartless to you for someone not to be able to achieve all they can and be as rich as possible.

 

i think it's cold and heartless for someone not to be able to get to that same status because they were accidentally born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, without the right nature given tools, etc etc etc.

 

to you, the only way for the world to prosper is for the haves to have and the have nots to wither away, based on the only equality of life.

 

hey, you were born. that's your only right. now get to work or die.

 

The government can't change the fact that people are born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, or without the right tools, etc. The government also can't make a "level playing field" withoug harming other people who are lucky and have the right parents, etc. By redistributing wealth through a variety of ways like welfare, healthcare, etc., the government may only slightly help and, more often than not, will harm the people it is trying to help. The end result is that more equity may be reached, but everyone will be a little poorer.

 

Is that what you mean by not being cold and heartless?

 

Also, you say a person can't change what circumstances they were born into. This is true, but it doesn't mean that they will be debilated the rest of their lives. There's nothing that says a free man can't work hard, and through that hard work, become a rich man. Or become a part of the middle class and live a comfortable existence like the many Americans.

 

Capitalism is a system that rewards hard work. Those who are lazy and contribute almost nothing to their jobs will get fired or at the very least not advance. If a business is full of employees like that, they will soon fail, unless of course the government is there to prop them up so they can keep on failing and losing money. A person who works hard and contributes to his company will be rewarded through higher pay and advancement. But if the company doesn't pay him his market value, then he can simply move onto another job.

 

In summary, the government is incapable of making the poor richer while simultaneously not bringing everyone down with them. Wealth distribution has never, and will never, work. It only makes for a larger poor population and more suffering than there needs to be. By keeping the government out of our lives, you decrease the amount of harm it causes to nothing and allow people to reach their full potential, whatever that may be.

[SOCALHUSKER]

it's cold and heartless to you for someone not to be able to achieve all they can and be as rich as possible.

 

i think it's cold and heartless for someone not to be able to get to that same status because they were accidentally born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, without the right nature given tools, etc etc etc.

 

to you, the only way for the world to prosper is for the haves to have and the have nots to wither away, based on the only equality of life.

 

hey, you were born. that's your only right. now get to work or die.

 

The government can't change the fact that people are born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, or without the right tools, etc. The government also can't make a "level playing field" withoug harming other people who are lucky and have the right parents, etc. By redistributing wealth through a variety of ways like welfare, healthcare, etc., the government may only slightly help and, more often than not, will harm the people it is trying to help. The end result is that more equity may be reached, but everyone will be a little poorer.

 

Is that what you mean by not being cold and heartless?

 

Also, you say a person can't change what circumstances they were born into. This is true, but it doesn't mean that they will be debilated the rest of their lives. There's nothing that says a free man can't work hard, and through that hard work, become a rich man. Or become a part of the middle class and live a comfortable existence like the many Americans.

 

Capitalism is a system that rewards hard work. Those who are lazy and contribute almost nothing to their jobs will get fired or at the very least not advance. If a business is full of employees like that, they will soon fail, unless of course the government is there to prop them up so they can keep on failing and losing money. A person who works hard and contributes to his company will be rewarded through higher pay and advancement. But if the company doesn't pay him his market value, then he can simply move onto another job.

 

In summary, the government is incapable of making the poor richer while simultaneously not bringing everyone down with them. Wealth distribution has never, and will never, work. It only makes for a larger poor population and more suffering than there needs to be. By keeping the government out of our lives, you decrease the amount of harm it causes to nothing and allow people to reach their full potential, whatever that may be.

 

Spot on, thank you!!

 

I would also like to point out that when you mention capitalism, sometimes people mistake it for America's current economic system. We do not have capitalism, aka - a free market, aka - a laissez faire economy in this country. Instead what we have is a facist economic system, corporatism, in which the so-called "private" business owners shoulder all the risks, while the government through regulations, taxes, licensing, monetary policy, etc... actually controls the market and reaps all the rewards, all while taking zero risks. There is a world of difference and one that I think needs to be pointed out.

[SOCALHUSKER]

it's cold and heartless to you for someone not to be able to achieve all they can and be as rich as possible.

 

i think it's cold and heartless for someone not to be able to get to that same status because they were accidentally born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, without the right nature given tools, etc etc etc.

 

to you, the only way for the world to prosper is for the haves to have and the have nots to wither away, based on the only equality of life.

 

hey, you were born. that's your only right. now get to work or die.

 

Yes, it is actually your view that is cold and heartless. What other way is there to describe such insanity, that which rewards failure and punishes success? You would rather have everybody poor than anybody rich, sounds brilliant!! What type of incentives do you plan on offering people for that to succeed?

 

If free to make your own decisions, you can get to whatever status you choose, who's saying you can't? Do you not believe in people overcoming obstacles? I'm sure Helen Keller, Jim Abbott, Ray Charles and plenty of nameless others would find that line of thinking both amusing and disturbing at the same time. Do you really understand what you are proclaiming?

 

And as for rights, what exactly do you think are your rights? I can't wait to hear your response for this one.

[huskerjack23]

it's cold and heartless to you for someone not to be able to achieve all they can and be as rich as possible.

 

i think it's cold and heartless for someone not to be able to get to that same status because they were accidentally born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, without the right nature given tools, etc etc etc.

 

to you, the only way for the world to prosper is for the haves to have and the have nots to wither away, based on the only equality of life.

 

hey, you were born. that's your only right. now get to work or die.

 

Yes, it is actually your view that is cold and heartless. What other way is there to describe such insanity, that which rewards failure and punishes success? You would rather have everybody poor than anybody rich, sounds brilliant!! What type of incentives do you plan on offering people for that to succeed?

 

If free to make your own decisions, you can get to whatever status you choose, who's saying you can't? Do you not believe in people overcoming obstacles? I'm sure Helen Keller, Jim Abbott, Ray Charles and plenty of nameless others would find that line of thinking both amusing and disturbing at the same time. Do you really understand what you are proclaiming?

 

And as for rights, what exactly do you think are your rights? I can't wait to hear your response for this one.

All those people you mentioned HAD TO BE HELPED to get where they got. people sacrificed parts of themselves, which is anti-life according to you, to help them have a better life.

 

and i'm not proposing rewarding failure. rewarding people who go out of there way to not work for themselves is immoral.

 

and you know what? i bet your style of a/c would work f'ing wonders over this f'ing government. yes everyone just feeds the corporations and lets our government run rampant. if the electorate wasn't so fat, lazy, and content with whats going on, we would've revolted in the seventies.

 

If free to make your own decisions, you can get to whatever status you choose, who's saying you can't?

the free market of course! if you weren't born with the right personality traits of sociability, intelligence, etc, your "terminal status" would peak at a certain point without help. so you really can't choose a status. i liken this with a mythbusters myth, the penny falling off the empire state building can kill. first, it couldn't because it would get caught in an updraft. second, it's terminal velocity isn't enough to kill a person. a penny isn't made to kill people at it's terminal velocity via gravity, something that occurs in nature. it would need HELP, via a gun i.e. a man, to kill a person.

 

but who cares? that is what the market chose for you. there are several people who work beyond that peak status (behind the curtains they were HELPED along the way SURELY), so why can't you?

 

and of course if this person can't afford a kid, they won't have them. their traits won't be passed on to the next generation, and in thousands of years, natural selection would give us the equality without government we've all been seeking. what a utopia!

 

hey SOCAL, i'll see you in the year 300,009 when that equality exists!

[SOCALHUSKER]

it's cold and heartless to you for someone not to be able to achieve all they can and be as rich as possible.

 

i think it's cold and heartless for someone not to be able to get to that same status because they were accidentally born of the wrong parents, in the wrong region, without the right nature given tools, etc etc etc.

 

to you, the only way for the world to prosper is for the haves to have and the have nots to wither away, based on the only equality of life.

 

hey, you were born. that's your only right. now get to work or die.

 

Yes, it is actually your view that is cold and heartless. What other way is there to describe such insanity, that which rewards failure and punishes success? You would rather have everybody poor than anybody rich, sounds brilliant!! What type of incentives do you plan on offering people for that to succeed?

 

If free to make your own decisions, you can get to whatever status you choose, who's saying you can't? Do you not believe in people overcoming obstacles? I'm sure Helen Keller, Jim Abbott, Ray Charles and plenty of nameless others would find that line of thinking both amusing and disturbing at the same time. Do you really understand what you are proclaiming?

 

And as for rights, what exactly do you think are your rights? I can't wait to hear your response for this one.

All those people you mentioned HAD TO BE HELPED to get where they got. people sacrificed parts of themselves, which is anti-life according to you, to help them have a better life.

 

and i'm not proposing rewarding failure. rewarding people who go out of there way to not work for themselves is immoral.

 

and you know what? i bet your style of a/c would work f'ing wonders over this f'ing government. yes everyone just feeds the corporations and lets our government run rampant. if the electorate wasn't so fat, lazy, and content with whats going on, we would've revolted in the seventies.

 

If free to make your own decisions, you can get to whatever status you choose, who's saying you can't?

the free market of course! if you weren't born with the right personality traits of sociability, intelligence, etc, your "terminal status" would peak at a certain point without help. so you really can't choose a status. i liken this with a mythbusters myth, the penny falling off the empire state building can kill. first, it couldn't because it would get caught in an updraft. second, it's terminal velocity isn't enough to kill a person. a penny isn't made to kill people at it's terminal velocity via gravity, something that occurs in nature. it would need HELP, via a gun i.e. a man, to kill a person.

 

but who cares? that is what the market chose for you. there are several people who work beyond that peak status (behind the curtains they were HELPED along the way SURELY), so why can't you?

 

and of course if this person can't afford a kid, they won't have them. their traits won't be passed on to the next generation, and in thousands of years, natural selection would give us the equality without government we've all been seeking. what a utopia!

 

hey SOCAL, i'll see you in the year 300,009 when that equality exists!

Once again, it is only you calling for so-called “equality” of man. I understand that naturally human beings are born different; therefore we can never be equal. It’s impossible. You and other government supporters; through laws, regulation, and government; trying to force people to be equal doesn’t, can’t and won’t ever work. If anything it only brings about greater inequality. The only way to ensure prosperity is to allow individuals to make choices and to either reap the benefits of them or learn from and be held accountable for mistakes.

 

I like how you discredit the accomplishments of individuals by pointing to the fact that they may have been helped, but when did I ever say people couldn’t be helped? I said sacrifice is wrong because sacrifice is giving up something for nothing or something of less value than that which is given up. Did it ever occur to you that some people actually LOVE to help, aren't forced, and RECEIVE joy from helping others? They value joy more than they value that which they gave up, so therefore it isn't sacrifice but compensation. For example, giving to charity because you want to is in no way considered sacrifice. Being forced to give because your church, your parents, or the government says you must is. There's a difference.

 

So, if you aren't proposing universal poverty, what are you proposing then? I don't see how your utopia of "equality" can lead to anything but poverty. Take a look at history and all evidence throughout points to that same conclusion. You can't take from the productive segment of society in order to prop up the unproductive, and hope that all will be equally prosperous. What you create instead is disincentive, discontent, more entitlement, less production and alas more poverty.

 

I have no clue where you are going with your penny analogy, but you lost me from the get go!! There are no myths in what I’m saying, so maybe it's your lack of understanding the basics of the free market that leaves you grasping at the limits of the inequalities you state. In fact, the free market actually works to the contrary of what you say and think. It is actually the people with the best products, ideas, workers, prices and customer service who prosper. More easily stated, it is those who think the best that prosper.

 

In order to succeed a business must employ the most productive workers, give the best wages, and sell their products at the best price with the best customer service. If they don’t, free market competition ensures that they won’t be in business very long. It is this process that allows any human to succeed if he chooses to think enough. Every human has the capacity to think, whether they do or not is up to him or her. Those who think the best will no doubt receive the most benefits and prosper, those who choose not to think, will not. What is either cruel or utopian about that?

 

I have noticed that when you start speaking of economics; you make the common mistake of comparing the free market with the disastrous state-run economic system of today. There's a huge difference. With a free market there are no limits, as you express them, to what a man can accomplish. It is only a system saddled with taxes, tariffs, subsidies, and unnecessary regulation that create limits. Free choice allows a man to do whatever he wants. The limits are that he cannot infringe upon the rights of another person, period. Beyond that, to whatever extent a man’s mind can think, he can accomplish. It is actually the limits, laws, government and regulations you propose that leaves man forever stuck in poverty and creates the inequality you so wish to rid the world of.

 

Unlike me, it is you who looks at the world and sees the need for some type of equality utopia. This is because you see man as a non-thinker. You don’t understand that every man has the capacity to think; therefore you feel the government needs to think for him. I see the world for what it is. Humans, who when they are allowed to make choices, always do so with their own best interest in mind. We are humans and we do make mistakes but those who choose to think also learn from mistakes. It is the government and its supporters, with intentions to promote “equality,” that disallows men to learn. And unless man can learn, he can never prosper.

 

As I have said before, the contradictions in government ideology are endless. This is just another example. When the majority of man catches on about the myth of “equality” and is educated enough to understand that free choice is the only way, the voice of reason will prevail and only then will we truly see prosperity. Every day more and more people are learning, seeking the truth and finding it. If I was a betting man, I’d bet the under on your year 300,009 prediction. It may not happen in my lifetime, but the day will come when man will realize that he really can think for himself and that prosperity is in each individual’s mind. When that happens there is nothing left for government but to be abolished and only then can man truly start living.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump