axeman for president!
F. P.
F. P.
CAPITALISM: I used to think the Republican side was clearly better...
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
"You know what I hear when I read "swipes"? I hear frustration that one's own ideas about what is "right" and "good" and "proper", even "rational", are being challenged -- that 'Oh my God, you mean my point of view isn't the only one!? Great gadzooks!'."
I don't mind having my views challenged, because I know
I can back them up. However, your views are very
contradictory and deserve some swiping as I will soon show.
axe
eople like Alfonso DO exist and are the enemy to
any rational system of government.
alfonso:That is simply BS axeman, and I think you know it.
No I don't thinly it's BS. Your position IS irrational as I will prove.
alfonso:If you disagree, then please prove to me how your preferred system of government is any more "rational"? (Or better yet, try proving to me the propositions of objectivism.
I'm not here to argue for objectivism, but I will be happy
to show that your position is irrational.
I'm here to argue for a more rational government, in line
with what our founders created.
alfonso:How the hell can you even define what is rational government until you define what the purpose of government is? And in that case, why should I simply accept, axiomatically, your point of view on what the purpose of government is?
The purpose of OUR government (USA), is stated in our
constitution. Maybe you should go read it.
Especially the part under the 5th amendment which states:
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
axe:He is a die hard socialist, or better yet, as Rearden put
it, "communist light".
alfonso:Well, I've harbored suspicions before that you really don't understand what I'm on about, otherwise you'd never make such a ridiculous comment. (Unless, in true Randian style, you've invented your own definition of "socialist".)
Lol, would a "hardline" socialist be pro-business? And pro-capitalism (not to the extreme, but generally yes)? Yet those are precisely what I have stated in previous posts of mine.
Just because I think high (very high) estate taxes, on the very rich, would be beneficial to society (and, in the long run, to the heirs of these rich) you cannot go from that to calling me "hardline" socialist. Not with a straight face you can't.
First of all, I called you a socialist, not a hardline socialist.
Secondly, calling yourself pro-business, and pro-capitalist, and
then agreeing that very high estate taxes are ok, IS A CONTRADICTION
to your very claims. What good is capitalism if the government
redistributes the majority of what I earn???
I can call you a SOCIALIST with a straight face, and i'm sure
the majority of people who know what socialism is, would agree with me.
Your pro-capitalist claim is a facade.
axe:If I TRULY have a right to my property, then I also have
a RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give it to when I die.[/b]
alfonso:Well, tell me then, do you "TRULY" have a right to your property?
Can you prove this? Or is another axiom I'm supposed to simply accept "cos I said so"?
Ahem.... have you even READ the constitution?
Better check the 5th amendment again.
We in fact DO have property rights here as guaranteed by
our constitution.
I'll repeat: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Tell me exactly HOW real high estate taxes is NOT taking
property for public use WITHOUT just compensation.
Here, you are simply wrong.
alfonso:"Now, before you all rip my head off, I'm in agreement that ironclad property rights are a fundamental aspect of any successful capitalistic (even socialistic) society.
But why should we extend them to you after you are dead?"
This is a silly argument.
Are you saying the law does not apply after death?
Are WILLS therefore completely invalid? Give me a break.
I could simply sign ALL my property over to my heirs
shortly before death. YOU would STILL want to tax it though,
because you do NOT believe as our founders, in property rights.
alfonso:If we can make certain alterations to the basic principle of personal property, in order to create a better society, why shouldn't we do it?
Because it's not rational. See the common theme here?
Whereas the USA focuses on the protection of INDIVIDUAL
rights above all, YOU focus on "social" rights.
This gets to the core of the argument. This is precisely
what makes your a SOCIALIST.
We are a REPUBLIC because the founders recognized the
importance of individual/minority rights over majority rule.
alfonso:Basically, yes. I am in favor of a more egalitarian society. Gee, what a crock.
Egalitarian - Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.
How can you possibly claim this?
In the USA we DO have equal political, economic, social
and civil RIGHTS. However, this does NOT mean that I
get FREE property, stolen from the accomplished.
We do not have equal ACCESS to property in this country
because we are NOT communists.
axe:the real question is.... WHY THE HELL DO THESE OTHER PEOPLE
DESERVE THE MONEY I WORKED SO HARD FOR INSTEAD OF
MY OWN KIDS?!?!?!
alfonso:Well, why do your kids deserve it any more than anyone else? (!?!?!?!)
This is beyond absurd and irrational.
Do I really need to state the obvious???
They deserve it more because the LAW states that
I have property rights and therefore have the RIGHT
to CHOOSE who I give my property TO.
alfonso:Look, axeman, unless you're going to be worth, say, $10MM by the time you die, you really don't have to worry. Because my beef isn't with a kid inheriting a few hundred thousand and a family home, okay.
Oh I see.... so there is a magical # where the LAW, which
is SUPPOSED to apply to everyone, suddenly vanishes???
What happened to your claim of a more egalitarian society?
I quote: belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for ALL people."
I guess this doesn't apply to the RICH?
You contradict yourself AGAIN.
How irrational of you.
The super rich, somehow, magically, should have THEIR
rights STRIPPED from them because alfonso says so?
axe:Any way you cut it, it does not make any sense and is not
a defendable position.
alfonso:That is just not true at all.
You are completely deluding yourself if you think there will ever be found any "rational" solution to government. It is ALWAYS going to come down to what people think, on an emotional level, is the best thing to do.
I see.... so here you admit that your world view is simply
based on EMOTIONS instead of logic and reason!
Wonderful... I think you just fully conceded the debate.
I rest my case.
peace
axeman
I don't mind having my views challenged, because I know
I can back them up. However, your views are very
contradictory and deserve some swiping as I will soon show.
axe
eople like Alfonso DO exist and are the enemy toany rational system of government.
alfonso:That is simply BS axeman, and I think you know it.
No I don't thinly it's BS. Your position IS irrational as I will prove.
alfonso:If you disagree, then please prove to me how your preferred system of government is any more "rational"? (Or better yet, try proving to me the propositions of objectivism.
I'm not here to argue for objectivism, but I will be happy
to show that your position is irrational.
I'm here to argue for a more rational government, in line
with what our founders created.
alfonso:How the hell can you even define what is rational government until you define what the purpose of government is? And in that case, why should I simply accept, axiomatically, your point of view on what the purpose of government is?
The purpose of OUR government (USA), is stated in our
constitution. Maybe you should go read it.
Especially the part under the 5th amendment which states:
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
axe:He is a die hard socialist, or better yet, as Rearden put
it, "communist light".
alfonso:Well, I've harbored suspicions before that you really don't understand what I'm on about, otherwise you'd never make such a ridiculous comment. (Unless, in true Randian style, you've invented your own definition of "socialist".)
Lol, would a "hardline" socialist be pro-business? And pro-capitalism (not to the extreme, but generally yes)? Yet those are precisely what I have stated in previous posts of mine.
Just because I think high (very high) estate taxes, on the very rich, would be beneficial to society (and, in the long run, to the heirs of these rich) you cannot go from that to calling me "hardline" socialist. Not with a straight face you can't.
First of all, I called you a socialist, not a hardline socialist.
Secondly, calling yourself pro-business, and pro-capitalist, and
then agreeing that very high estate taxes are ok, IS A CONTRADICTION
to your very claims. What good is capitalism if the government
redistributes the majority of what I earn???
I can call you a SOCIALIST with a straight face, and i'm sure
the majority of people who know what socialism is, would agree with me.
Your pro-capitalist claim is a facade.
axe:If I TRULY have a right to my property, then I also have
a RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give it to when I die.[/b]
alfonso:Well, tell me then, do you "TRULY" have a right to your property?
Can you prove this? Or is another axiom I'm supposed to simply accept "cos I said so"?
Ahem.... have you even READ the constitution?
Better check the 5th amendment again.
We in fact DO have property rights here as guaranteed by
our constitution.
I'll repeat: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Tell me exactly HOW real high estate taxes is NOT taking
property for public use WITHOUT just compensation.
Here, you are simply wrong.
alfonso:"Now, before you all rip my head off, I'm in agreement that ironclad property rights are a fundamental aspect of any successful capitalistic (even socialistic) society.
But why should we extend them to you after you are dead?"
This is a silly argument.
Are you saying the law does not apply after death?
Are WILLS therefore completely invalid? Give me a break.
I could simply sign ALL my property over to my heirs
shortly before death. YOU would STILL want to tax it though,
because you do NOT believe as our founders, in property rights.
alfonso:If we can make certain alterations to the basic principle of personal property, in order to create a better society, why shouldn't we do it?
Because it's not rational. See the common theme here?
Whereas the USA focuses on the protection of INDIVIDUAL
rights above all, YOU focus on "social" rights.
This gets to the core of the argument. This is precisely
what makes your a SOCIALIST.
We are a REPUBLIC because the founders recognized the
importance of individual/minority rights over majority rule.
alfonso:Basically, yes. I am in favor of a more egalitarian society. Gee, what a crock.
Egalitarian - Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.
How can you possibly claim this?
In the USA we DO have equal political, economic, social
and civil RIGHTS. However, this does NOT mean that I
get FREE property, stolen from the accomplished.
We do not have equal ACCESS to property in this country
because we are NOT communists.
axe:the real question is.... WHY THE HELL DO THESE OTHER PEOPLE
DESERVE THE MONEY I WORKED SO HARD FOR INSTEAD OF
MY OWN KIDS?!?!?!
alfonso:Well, why do your kids deserve it any more than anyone else? (!?!?!?!)
This is beyond absurd and irrational.
Do I really need to state the obvious???
They deserve it more because the LAW states that
I have property rights and therefore have the RIGHT
to CHOOSE who I give my property TO.
alfonso:Look, axeman, unless you're going to be worth, say, $10MM by the time you die, you really don't have to worry. Because my beef isn't with a kid inheriting a few hundred thousand and a family home, okay.
Oh I see.... so there is a magical # where the LAW, which
is SUPPOSED to apply to everyone, suddenly vanishes???
What happened to your claim of a more egalitarian society?
I quote: belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for ALL people."
I guess this doesn't apply to the RICH?
You contradict yourself AGAIN.
How irrational of you.
The super rich, somehow, magically, should have THEIR
rights STRIPPED from them because alfonso says so?
axe:Any way you cut it, it does not make any sense and is not
a defendable position.
alfonso:That is just not true at all.
You are completely deluding yourself if you think there will ever be found any "rational" solution to government. It is ALWAYS going to come down to what people think, on an emotional level, is the best thing to do.
I see.... so here you admit that your world view is simply
based on EMOTIONS instead of logic and reason!
Wonderful... I think you just fully conceded the debate.
I rest my case.
peace
axeman
Let me ask you something. Are you a trader? If so just curious what you trade and what country you live in. The reason I ask is that it seems odd that you can be a socialist and a trader at the same time. I mean the two words almost completely contradict each other. What is the upside to trading as a socialist or better yet trading in a socialist country. I never understood that. Maybe you could explain these things. Also I still would like to hear about your thoughts and opinions about working in my hypothetical socialist trading office that I mentioned earlier. Thanks.
Alfonso, If your collectivist ideals are so terrific in practice, why weren't the 1961-1989 WEST Germans risking their lives to jump the wall, and join their comrades in utopic East Germany?
excellent point. Also why are the Cubans risking their lives on a piece of crap life raft to make it to Florida. Why are Floridians not risking their lives to paddle to Cuba? Why are people so from all over the world trying so hard to get into our country? All over europe and Asia and the middle east. If our system is so bad maybe you better inform all these people how bad it is over here and how good they have it.
Maverick, I am from Argentina, living in Australia.
I trade stocks, holding from days to weeks. I don't do it for a living and I don't ever plan to.
As for being a trader and being a 'socialist', those positions can only "completely contradict" each other if people feel they must classify everybody into neat little boxes.
Secondly, there are some very, very strange definitions of socialist floating around. I suggest you all pull out a copy of your Marx and Engels and compare them to my views and see if I'm a socialist or not. (Note: desiring to see broad 'social'/'societal' effects does not, in and of itself, make one, what has traditionally been known as, a "socialist".)
If I am permitted to define my own political stance -- rather than have it defined for me by people who simply do not understand it, like axeman -- there is no conflict between being a trader, a businessman or entrepreuneur and living under the sort of government I envision.
Because the "collectivist ideals" practised in East Germany, and other nations behind the Iron Curtain, are vastly different to the "collectivist ideals" I espouse.
Of course, this crucial point is immediately lost on anyone who insists on dumping everybody that dares suggest social improvements into the "Socialist" bin.