l0ki, yer threads are like Kasparov playing chess against 12 opps at a time. you gots you sum talent, boy.

Mofo:
"Always fun to see other's people point of view. Makes rejecting them oh so much sweeter."

Mofo:
"What is the "measure of slavery" you speak so fondly off?"

Mofo:
"What is your "morally superior" notion of deserve?"

Mofo:
"Cause frankly, your morals could mean shit to me."

Mofo:
"Well, I think everyone needs a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property. I guess everyone deserves that too."

Mofo:
"Greed."

Mofo:
"To believe that free-market capitalism is a perfect idea is just as arrogant as to believe communism is a perfect idea."

Mofo:
"So, you would agree that America, Britian, and all the other capitalist nations are, indeed, fascists?"

Mofo:
"I guess free-market capitalism would require world wide peace and cooperation then, if it can't strive off destruction. Capitalism, or whatever twisted form of it we practice, seems to though."

Mofo:
"So, free-market capitalism makes man worth less, as he can easily be replaced be a machine?"

Mofo:
"And how does reducing the workforce protect the weak from the strong."

Mofo:
"To operate the machines you;d need education, but if the poor can't afford it, doesn't it make it even harder from them to make it in life."

Mofo:
"But if a homeless man walked in, raggidity and smelling, and a man in a suit walked in, who do you think would most likely be hired?"

Mofo:
"If everyone owned the same, what is there to be bitter about?"

From Previous Discussion:
And I replied "Why, why, why?"

I know many of my questions sound rhetorical, but they mostly are not. I don't usually ask questions I'm afraid to get answers for. So, I'm asking you again and I'll give you hints to my counter arguments in (parenthesis):

1) In Communism, why would you get $10? (...if you didn't get it using force via the instrument of governemt?)

2) In Communism, why would you then keep $5? (...once you already got $10? I mean, really, if the government got you your $10, but you only get to keep $5, why didn't they just give you $5 in the first place?)

3) In Communism, why would you redistribute $5 to others who "need" it? (Since the governmet is just doling out the wealth anyway, why not just give the needy what they need in the first place?)

4) In Communism, under the above conditions, how exactly does "the whole" profit, but not just one person? (I can see how the person who is earning nothing profits by geting $5, but how is the person who earns $10 profiting by only getting $5?)

Mofo:
"I always thought of slavery in the sense of one man owning another, not two men working together towards a common goal, but that's just me I guess."

Mofo:
"By looting, do you refer to communism/sharing?"

If they are not working together volunarily, in particular if one is working under the threat of violence for a common goal that is the greater benefit to the other, then that is indeed slavery.

I think we both will agree on who, but the more interesting question is why that choice? No objective rational what-so-ever? Sheer and glaring class prejudice only?

The work force is not reduced, each member is more productive and therefore more valuable. And that which is even more valuable is skill and reasoning rather than brute force, so dumb strength holds less advantage.

Loki
The capitalist creates greater capital in the form of industrial infrastructure such that the work that was formerly that of 10 men can now be accomplished by 1 man.

Bitter about earning more and getting less.

This makes no sense. Being poor and unable to afford an education has nothing to do with the point. Being smart and trainable on the other hand is. The machines that assist in the manufacture of goods rarely require an "education," but their operation does require some intelligence. Every single manufacurer I have ever worked with trains their employees for free (often pays them while training) because it makes good sense and money to do so. So neither education or econmoic status are the limiting factor--stupidity is though. Being stupid is what really makes life

No. Because the man operating the machine is not replaced and is more productive, he becomes more valuable rather than less.

Free-market capitalism would work best with world wide peace, but it's not a requirement. And that which is being practiced is NOT thriving at all on warfare, in fact it is, and will continue to be for generations an immense drag on our and the world's economy.

I know what fascism is. I also know what I said. America, Britian, and all the other so-called capitalist nations are not free-market capitalist nations.

How "the needy" assert that they own a piece of "the productive" as a function of need, and enforce their entitlement at gun-point. That measure exactly.

All true. Yet, no one deserves a guarantee though, and no one deserves it via force or fraud.

That's no answer.

This is the grand sum of your inventory of "bad points" and "downfalls" of Free-Market Capitalism? None? Thanks!

Indeed.

Then Mofo said:
"Indeed. I think everyone agrees with you on that matter. So who are you debating that point with? No one said being forced to do anything is a good thing. But working together, mutually, towards a better goal, is that a bad thing?"

Then Mofo said:
"Indeed. And I didn't see anything in your free-market capitalism about getting rid of class prejudice."

Then Mofo said:
"Looks like reducement to me. And there's always gotta be someone to dig the ditches."

AND

"But if the machine can do the job of five men, and only one man is required to operate the machine, aren't four men out of a job? The operator is more valuable, but the four men out of a job aren't."

Then Mofo said:
"Why would you earn more and get less? If you and your comrades work towards a better life, everyone earns more and gets more. I'm sure the same is for free-market capitalism, if everyone has everyone elses well being in mind."

Then Mofo said:
"Well, it's good to know that then. It's good that some people are showing well being and charity towards others."

Then Mofo said:
"America came out of the great depression due to the lend-lease act, didn't it? And the war industry does thrive on war. Companies that make parts of all kinda thrive on war, because the government pays more."

Then Mofo said:
"I never said they were free-market capitalist nations. But you mentioned facist and socialist nations, so I thought you were America, a country that practices capitalism, a fascist/socialist nation. Otherwise, what was the point of that comment?"

What you said was:"From what I've seen, capitalism seems to strive on war and aggression. Look what WWII did for the US economy."

Then Mofo said:
"In that, do you refer to the government? Or the homeless wanting money to buy food/drugs/alcohol? I can see the government and gun-point reference, but not really the homeless/needy."

Mofo continued:
"I think the problem is that you think we support the taking of at gun-point/with force, where as we envision a mutually cooperative community."

Then Mofo said:
"I think it's better to learn for yourself than to be told the correct answer."

Mofo: Yea, I give up on debating. No one ever changes their mind in it.

vasudeva: I voted drunken hugging. ^__^

HOBO: [T]he emergence of capitalism represents a culture that is in many ways the most successful that has ever been deployed in terms of accommodating large numbers of individuals in relative and absolute comfort and luxury. It has not been as successful, however, in integrating all in equal measure, and its failure here remains on of its major problems. It has solved the problems of feeding large numbers of people (although certainly not all), and it has provided unprecedented advances in health and medicine (but, again, not for all). It has promoted the development of amazingly complex technological instruments and fostered a level of global communication without precedent. It has united people in common pursuits as has no other culture. Yet it remains to be seen when the balance sheet is tallied whether capitalism represents the epitome of “progress” that some claim.

— Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 11 - 12

It is, however, a foundational principle of Socialsm/Communism that forced cooperation is acceptable if it is deemed to benefit the many.

Socialist and Communists support forced redistribution of wealth, and forced cooperation to "benefit the community." It is manifest in their principles. Your problem with me is not what I think, rather, it's what I know.

The point is not the elimination of class prejudice. The point was to ask the question: "Is choosing the man in a suit over the "raggidity and smelling" man a function solely of class prejudice? I think it's not.

It has absolutely nothing to do with charity. Nothing.

Just because one portion of the economy realizises a short lived windfall it does not then follow that you can conclude that the entire economy will benefit from that windfall. There is no evidence what-so-ever that any economy can realize continued growth through warfare. Every bit of historical evidence and rational argument supports the assertion that destroting wealth does not contribute to the net growth of wealth, and that warfare stagnates innovation and overall growth of the economy.

The needy are certainly not asserting that they can provide for themselves, and they are certainly not ingenuously claiming that that they will "once they are on their feet." What they are saying is "give me money because I need it, and if you won't, I will have it taken from you and given to me by the government."

The entire history of industrialization refutes your assertion and supports mine. From the loom to the steam engine, to the cotton gin, to the electric drill, to the computer, machines have never replaced workers, but rather made a greater demand for them.

It is clear, however, that your mind doesn't ever change in it. You really should take a serious look into this tendency of yours to "project."

This happened:

Mofo said:
What is it then that gets the well dressed man always choosen over the "raggidity and smelling"?

Mofo said:
I believe giving away free training is a form of charity.

Mofo said:
WWII begs to differ, on a lot of your points. War, in general, has always bought a lot of innovations. Radar, more mobile medical service, better airplanes, GPS, etc. Sure, it would all come eventually, but war creates a necessity for innovation

LOki said:
The needy are certainly not asserting that they can provide for themselves, and they are certainly not ingenuously claiming that that they will "once they are on their feet." What they are saying is "give me money because I need it, and if you won't, I will have it taken from you and given to me by the government."

To which Mofo replied with:
Ok, but who disagreed with you on the fact that that is what happens?

LOki said:
The entire history of industrialization refutes your assertion and supports mine. From the loom to the steam engine, to the cotton gin, to the electric drill, to the computer, machines have never replaced workers, but rather made a greater demand for them.

Amazingly, astoundingly, fuking Mofo comes back with:
Look at farming. What used to require dozens of people can now be done by one tractor. What used to take several people to sew can now be done by one loom.

LOki said:
It is clear, however, that your mind doesn't ever change in it. You really should take a serious look into this tendency of yours to "project."

Then Mofo said:
Funny you say that, as I used to support communism and socialism a lot more than I do now. I used to hate the war in Iraq a lot more, until I had nice long threads on other forums about it.

Mofo said:
"In communism, you get 10, keep 5 for yourself, and redistribute that 5 to others who need it. That way, the whole profits, not just one person."

Steel: ...and LOki rapes Mofo with his impressive e-penis!

The best is yet to come. Mofo is working on his s3kr1t w3p0n: