I'd just be repeating myself [again] to repeat that IA has just been repeatedly calling me out to debate him on something I have no interest in debating, nor have I tried to debate or dispute a single time in this thread. I jokingly called him a heathen void of morality and you arrogantly claim I'm calling names. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not interested in debating him over my arguments which are not empirical. So he gives them 0 value. I don't care. Let's talk about the other ones if you want? Discussion closed unless you have something to add. Repeatedly responding as if I've once argued over this point is just ignorant.

You're claiming that you're not advocating more government control and that I am not understanding your position, but you want socialized education, healthcare, and welfare. Those things aren't free gifts from God. It takes money, power, and control to control them. In explaining yourself better you continue to deny this. Education, healthcare, and welfare are a huge portion of our economy. Nevermind the fact that healthcare and education suffer tremendously from federal control and welfare often incentivizes unproductive behavior (the point not being that I'm right--the point being that there's no consensus).

You have this ideal in your mind that, if we were all perfect, socialism would be the perfect system. Your statements are all accepting of that assumption. If we were robots, maybe that would be true. But we're not robots. Not close. We're human beings. And we're not perfect. We are what we are. And talking about what would be great for robots is completely irrelevant in a discussion of capitalism and its feasibility. You can continue to claim that I'm missing your point and attacking you ad-hominem, but you're ignoring the content.

What question? Justinian I has no values, so obviously the values-based logical arguments mean nothing to him. There's nothing to discuss.

V.Kemp
Attacker/Banker/Resourcer/SpecOps/whatever combo necessary/needed
[email protected]

We've all played IC before. I'd prefer, as we do this, we do it right; not have a family of SS newbies and such. Food for thought.

Nobody is arguing for "unabated" capitalism. You are contrasting your preferences to it anyway because to compare it to a capitalist state with social welfare programs leaves you with no arguments for socialism.

It is not a given that we all want to be in the same place. I do not believe you can mandate a "perfect society" and I believe that attempts to attain the power and control to create such a fictional utopia always result in great injustice. It is not my desire to create a perfect society. Do you have a perfect society in mind when you go to work or interact with your family? I certainly don't. And I don't trust any man with the power or control to push their view of a "perfect society" on me or anybody else.

I merely called you "crazy" in the sense that, in every day behavior, it would be ridiculous for either of us to wish to push our wills on the other; but that is what you propose doing on a national scale, whereas I argue that it is as unethical and ridiculous on a national scale (much more, in fact) as it would be for either of us to expect to order the other about. We pay our taxes and support a government which is intended to provide national security and run a justice system which treats all men equally. We even pay taxes to support welfare and unemployment and social security (at least, until unsustainable spending renders them broke, inflates our dollar, and we all share poverty equally). But our involvement stops there. Or, it ought to. You're arguing for more control and power over people's lives, which I argue against on both moral and economic grounds. Aside from being disgusting and violating the rights of everyone, such systems have always proven economically wasteful (increasing cost of living, decreasing standard of living) and corrupt. Regions of the Soviet Union tried to get all they could for the smallest contribution they could get away with. The result was low productivity and poverty, which they so admirably shared equally (that is, the lower class shared equally. The ruling class didn't share the suffering.) China sells us toxic products. Whatever they can get away with. When you have no rights but those the ruling class give you, you don't have the right not to poison yourself. You don't have the right to keep what you earn. You don't have a right to protest exploitation of you by the ruling class. You have nothing. If you choose to give up your rights, you give up everything.

My government is currently charged with protecting my rights from people who wish to infringe upon them. Socialism asks me to give up these rights in exchange for whatever (rights and goods) the government sees fit to give me. Maybe you're inept and you see economic benefit in such an exchange of your rights for the promises of politicians against history. Maybe you don't care about the immorality of offering yourself (and your people through the demagoguery of our electoral system, in which a majority benefit from the labors of others, having a voice but offering 0 contribution) into slavery.

Until you meet people who would choose to be slaves, Justinian I, empirically 100% of people agree that slavery is undesirable. You're arguing that there is no right behavior, that any debate of morality is pointless because there is no right or wrong. But you're not volunteering to be a slave. It seems you still take issue with slavery aside from the moral arguments I make against it. They are not the only ones I make.

Yeah, I'm behind you. That's where I need to be to stab you in the back.

Capitalism has the "goal" of producing a perfect society, You_Fool? I thought it had a purpose: To keep crazy people like you, who think capitalism and socialism have the same goal, who think that we need some blended socialist society to be successful, from interfering with my not-crazy life.

You can claim that socialism provides as much motivation and thus produces as much innovation as capitalism. Just like you can say that man can fly like a bird. (He can't.)

Irresponsible and unrestrained government has been increasing the cost of living ridiculously (lowering the standard of living) for generations in America, making us look [relative to what we could look] bad, making capitalism look bad. Regulatory agencies have been strangling competition, further increasing costs and stifling innovation.

His Warriors Have Engaged The Enemy

Take that, people optimistic about how fundamentally good mankind is!

This is the New York that Jay-Z glorifies.

This should be sticky with a sign-up list updated in the initial post.

Also, we should be the dirtiest, most underhanded family ever. We know the system. We know that it's not perfect. So let's NAP everyone and their uncle and start feeding on those weaker than us who cannot hope to fight back from the start and work our way up to #1! (And by that, I mean break the crap out of our NAPs as it suits us and reNAP only after we've stripped them bare!)

I was always on topic and addressing content. It was just with occasional content-driven insults. That makes me insulting, not a troll by any of your definitions.

My political preferences are somewhere between conservative and libertarian. Drug legalization is one of the issues I take with libertarians. Though I would make the point that something like marijuana is none of the government's business, I certainly do not support the decriminalization of most other drugs. Marijuana is a "gateway" drug in that those who sell marijuana often sell other illegal drugs to increase their profit margin, making marijuana customers familiar with a source of other illegal narcotics when a marijuana supply runs out or when they're feeling particularly stupid. I don't blame the plant for the situation we put it in.

While I also support an isolationist policy, I don't mean extreme fundamental 100% isolationism. As I presume many other libertarians don't... though I don't know how pervasive such a view is, seeing as I shy away from most any political label now because they all group me with fools! I don't believe that isolationism will solve all of the world's problems--but it will certainly keep us out of most of them. Half the time, aid only has the opposite effect of endearing us to those we aid abroad. There is always local politics to consider (which we often neglect to do responsibly--Do you trust the Obama administration [and most before him] not to harm us? Neither do I.), and local politicians [in whatever form they take] often benefit from directing animosity toward the big bad US bully abroad. A benefit they don't get if we stay 100% out of their business.

We have the bomb, if it gets that bad. And we shouldn't be afraid to use it. Better them than us. I'm really disappointed by a lack of carpet bombing in recent engagements. It only takes once or twice before the undeniable truth that It Does Not Pay to F*** With Us becomes common knowledge. And everybody wants to make business, get paid. US security is our interest. I don't care if citizens of a foreign nation we have reason to bomb are likely to invite Americans in for tea. I just want to assure that they leave us alone, as we should leave them alone.

Family is the building block upon which our society is built. Encouraging and supporting it through legal institutions strengthens our society. Therefore, marriage, the basis for family, is a positive good. Owned.