progress and freedom

Post Reply New Topic

Do you think you can fight them and win? Don't you think that they will need at least some intellectual peons? Most of the businesses of the world need intellectual peons. Some of these peons that justify their actions are not from the highest of backgrounds, so if they are efficient then at this point there is some room to get into some luxury.

What do you suspect me to be then?

Number one, your aspie, to them your "disabled". And I know your not what they consider upper class, yahoonews.com just recently posted an add about how the "million-aire middle class" was having trouble finding housing. If I can dig it up you can see for yourself.

Meh, there are aspies who are rewarded with glory. I tend to doubt that the NWO really gives a crap.

How do you know I am not a/descended from a multi-millionaire with political connections?

So that's your excuse for oppressing millions of people?

Pathetic. Your probably just some pansey assed little twirp, I could probably break you in half like a slim jim.

Does one need an excuse?

Another debatable question? lol

No it isn't debatable, nobody has a right to oppress people. Stop watching Mtv, it might make your brain hurt but you might actually learn a thing or two.

I'm ignoring AG because you can only expect him to say something like that. But you GB are even further proving my point by inquiring if there is a viable excuse to oppress people.

I think I should have added quotation marks, and I am too tired and find it exhausting to give this a big deal
what point did you mean I was proving?

That people have lost any ability to have sentient thought.

Oh s**t my bad GB, I just got what you meant lol, I misunderstood you the 1st time. I was really agitated earlier by lots of things going on around me at the time, sorry if I was a little cranky.

Why do people have a right to not be oppressed either though? I mean, the issue is less of a universal right to oppress because not all people can be oppressors, but rather whether people have a right to not be oppressed. Can you prove the existence of a right to not be oppressed?

I agree.

Something needs to be done, but the question is, what needs to be done and how is it to be achieved.

I think that bringing true justice is paramount to progress.

Communists are one group that I think should be tolerated, so long as they don't get violent. Anarchist protests can go to hell. Law and Order is essential.

I believe that society should be fair and just.

Of course, AG, his usual libertarian/ultra-capitalist self, disagrees.

Would you like to live in a society where people are oppressed for stating opinions which challenge those of the government? What about a place where corporations are unregulated, allowed to profiteer from anything, and consumerism has meant that resources are scarce. Yes, we would have to colonise other planets and mine asteroids, and no doubt that will be done before it gets to such a severe stage.

What about grain which is destroyed in order to keep prices? Would less well-off countries not benefit from it?

Justice in society before being the top of the league in economic growth.

True justice is just an abstraction, people cannot agree on the morals that comprise justice, how can there necessarily be much truth in justice.

Just tolerate people as much as it is profitable to do so. Anarchists aren't necessarily bad unless they are dangerous radicals. Not all of those who want to abolish the government are currently using force.


Well, I don't like the government. I don't see many corporate regulations as that necessary. The most important thing there is the maintenance of good property rights structures, other things can resolve themselves once these things are established. As well, the defense against scarcity in the future is saving in the present, and that can be done by markets as saving for the future can mean future profit as the resource becomes more scarce. Supply and demand will match each other in the long run.

What about the government price controls that make this overproduction a wise choice by farms in the first place? I mean, less grain and I would argue very little grain would have to be destroyed if there was not government protection for that industry because the supply of grain and the demand for it would start equaling each other due to the pricing mechanism. Less well-off countries could benefit from this grain, in fact, if we changed a lot of our policies to be pro-market then a lot of benefit could be gotten.

We disagree on what is just though.

Alright, you can always make the nihilist argument that morals are subjective. Importantly, I think that people should have the rights to freedom in peacetime, and people and organisations should be prosecuted for theft, fraud, and falsifying data in all forms.
If an individual or organisation infringes upon the rights of another person without there being a law which provides an exception in certain circumstances, e.g you can kill someone if they are posing a threat to your or someone else's life, and you or the other victim aren't committing a crime in the process. You can take their rights away before they take away your proportional rights.

Laws require alot of forethought and care to write, you have to define a "theft", and so on, with utmost detail.