Obama To Venture Into The Private Sector In Unprecedented Fashion

[popeye]

This is the only question I have: is this belief based on something you have read in a book or your REAL LIFE experience traveling around the world and PERSONALLY witnessing how people in different economic systems live?

This could possibly be one of the most ignorant post I have ever seen on this forum. I could be dickrolled 10 times over and not be as distressed as I am reading this post.

So you don't know what communism/socialism is??? why are you posting in this thread then? Look up the definition of socialism please.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Personal liberty depends on economic liberty. Economic liberty demands the right to own property and access to free markets.

Personal liberty = f(economic liberty)


–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty, a. free from captivity or restraint. b. unemployed; out of work. c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.

There are 9 definitions of liberty. You are basically arguing that the definition of liberty that is of import to YOU (namely no.1) must necessary define liberty (i.e. definition 1).

You can make a contention and call it an opinion but you can't conclude that it HAS TO DEFINE that state for everyone. You would get a lot further with your arguments if you would admit that these are your OPINIONS and not based on something that is a fact beyond dispute. Your opinions are simply a view of the word.

You're always assuming that some how you "see the light" while others are simply unwilling or unable to understand the subtleties of your arguments. For every single point you make I can easily point to numerous individuals with far more credibility or accolades than you who would argue differently.

You can't present arguments as if they are indisputable natural laws - because they aren't. And if you were to try to argue this, it would only take one counter example where what you say isn't the case to null your hypothesis.

 

[guerilla]

is this belief based on something you have read in a book or your REAL LIFE experience traveling around the world and PERSONALLY witnessing how people in different economic systems live?

No. I have traveled and personally witnessed people in different economic systems, but this particular piece of knowledge is the argument von Mises used to discredit Marx. It is based on a rational understanding of the role prices play to order capital efficiently in an economy.

This is the only question I have

It's a shame dear. I really thought you would have more.

 

[guerilla]

You can make a contention and call it an opinion but you can't conclude that it HAS TO DEFINE that state for everyone. You would get a lot further with your arguments if you would admit that these are your OPINIONS and not based on something that is a fact beyond dispute. Your opinions are simply a view of the word.

But they aren't opinions. They are based on objective reality. I don't care how many definitions there are in dictionary. That's totally irrelevant. A marijuana cigarette is a joint, it's a blunt, but it's still a marijuana cigarette.

Remember when Vinny Lingo called you out for saying there is no objective reality? There is. Your opinion or my opinion is irrelevant to objective reality. I *try* as an imperfect being, to align my opinions with objective reality. I do not wish to imagine the world differently than it is.

You're always assuming that some how you "see the light" while others are simply unwilling or unable to understand the subtleties of your arguments. For every single point you make I can easily point to numerous individuals with far more credibility or accolades than you who would argue differently.

Yes, you will make appeals to authority. That is a logical fallacy in debate. Instead, trying arguing what I have written. We will both learn more that way.

You can't present arguments as if they are indisputable natural laws - because they aren't. And if you were to try to argue this, it would only take one counter example where what you say isn't the case to null your hypothesis.

Indeed. So where is your counter argument?

No need to personalize this. It's not about what expert said what, who went to what country, who does do.

It's about what is rational and objective in the world. You might *FEEL* socialism is acceptable, in some dose. That's fine. But the objective truth about socialism, is that it is predicated on coercion. And if we can agree that the fundamental tenets of a civilized society are "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal", than socialism is an immoral system which violates liberty and happiness through the use of coercion.

I have never encountered a defense of socialism that is not predicated on an "ends justify the means" argument. Will you be the first to make one?

 

[riddarhusetgal]

No. I have traveled and personally witnessed people in different economic systems, but this particular piece of knowledge is the argument von Mises used to discredit Marx. It is based on a rational understanding of the role prices play to order capital efficiently in an economy.


It's a shame dear. I really thought you would have more.

–adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. 2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator. 3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational. 4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings. 5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty. 6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation. 7. Mathematics. a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers. b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials. 8. Classical Prosody. capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.
–noun 9. Mathematics. rational number.

You haven't presented any piece of evidence that your views are based on "rationality" (see above). They're clearly driven by your emotional views regarding what YOU think is right.

You want to really get technical, you're not making conclusions based on your frontal cortex (logic); they're based purely on the emotional side of the brain.

I would really encourage you to investigate this. The Frontal Cortex

 

[guerilla]

You haven't presented any piece of evidence that your views are based on "rationality" (see above).

Uhm, how so? Do you really want a full blown economics lesson?

I'll provide it, provided you save your criticism until I am done, and you don't make use of ad hominems (arguments against me, rather than my positions).

Your call.

They're clearly driven by your emotional views regarding what YOU think is right.http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/

I believe them to be based on objective reality, and can be argued rationally. Human action is derived a priori. And everything I have posted is based on the a priori knowledge that man acts.

You want to really get technical, you're not making conclusions based on your frontal cortex (logic); they're based purely on the emotional side of the brain.

You're continuing to attack me personally, without attacking my arguments. I don't think I am the one with an emotional investment in the outcome of the discussion. If socialism was a superior and rational system, I would back it. But it isn't, and that can be proven.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

You can try to obfuscate the argument all you want.

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

This is my contention. When you present some evidence that can convince any onlooker to the contrary, let me know.

 

[guerilla]

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

I have. I have explained my positions rationally. They are rationally coherent.

Whether or not you use choose to understand or embrace them, is up to you. I have provided a rational foundation IN DETAIL for what I have proposed. Thus far, you have proposed no contradictory arguments, but merely personal attacks on what you claim are opinions, and not facts.

If they are not factual, and you are not convinced, then surely you see a weakness in my argument, so by all means, make that point.

This is my contention. When you present some evidence that can convince any onlooker to the contrary, let me know.

So are you going to skulk away again? I should be so lucky. It is tiresome defending myself.

As for convincing you, I have no capacity to do so. If you choose to make the argument personal, or refuse to think or listen, I do not have the capacity to make a rational argument to you, any more than I could share knowledge with a rock or a butterfly.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

You're continuing to attack me personally, without attacking my arguments. I don't think I am the one with an emotional investment in the outcome of the discussion. If socialism was a superior and rational system, I would back it. But it isn't, and that can be proven.

Honestly, this has little to do with socialism. This has to do with my one and sole contention:
You can try to obfuscate the argument all you want.

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.


There are people living in unhappiness and poverty in capitalist systems; there are people living in unhappiness and poverty in socialist systems....

There are people living in happiness and wealth in capitalist systems; there are people living in happiness and wealth in socialist systems....

"Good" or "Bad", "Right" or "Wrong" is a matter of choice. You can call the Swedes or Norwegians or Chinese stupid because they don't embrace what you do (100% free markets). They can call you stupid because you don't embrace their way of living (socialism/mixed economies).


The fact of the matter, is AND WILL ALWAYS BE:

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.


It's called free choice and it's the quintessence of Free Liberty (see all definitions above).

 

[egreenie]

You can try to obfuscate the argument all you want.

Can anyone say projection?

Guerilla - You are making excellent, well thought out points that I can tell are coming from your thoughts and experiences, and aren't copied and pasted from various sites around the internets.

I wouldn't even bother getting into it any further with her, she obviously has no interest in trying to understand what you are saying.

 

[guerilla]

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

Again, I cannot be responsible for what other people think. If I was, that would violate free will.

So that's 1 point for me.

There are people living in unhappiness and poverty in capitalist systems; there are people living in unhappiness and poverty in socialist systems....

There are people living in happiness and wealth in capitalist systems; there are people living in happiness and wealth in socialist systems....

Happiness is not a measure of rationality. No on is guaranteed happiness, and no one thing makes everyone equally happy, if it can make everyone happy at all.

Point 2.

"Good" or "Bad", "Right" or "Wrong" is a matter of choice. You can call the Swedes or Norwegians or Chinese stupid because they don't embrace what you do (100% free markets). They can call you stupid because you don't embrace their way of living (socialism/mixed economies).

Name calling is more your thing than mine. You have just demonstrated that you do not even understand my argument, which makes your accusations of my obfuscation either your unfortunate ignorance, or your willful malfeasance.

Point 3.

It's called free choice and it's the quintessence of Free Liberty (see all definitions above).

I have never argued about free choice. If a man wants to jump out of a 40 story high window, and plunge to the concrete, the laws of gravity and physics will force him to accept the objective reality he will splatter, whether he thinks he is a birdie, or if it makes him happy or sad.

Water is still water, just because some people like to drink it, and others do not. The nature of truth doesn't change with emotion. That would be a foundation for doublethink.

No ma'am, up and down do not change position depending on how you feel today, or whether or not it makes you happy.

In order to be free, you have to be free of oppressive force. Socialism is predicated on the use of force, not voluntary consent.

Economically, socialism is non-viable because it doesn't conform to what we understand about human action. It rewards everyone equally for unequal contributions. An economic system based on such a pricing system, inevitably will mis-allocate capital until it collapses. This is precisely what happened to the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries. China was smart enough to start implementing free market reforms, rather than return to the policies of Stalin and Mao, where they murdered a combined 100 million of their own citizens in order to maintain control, and attempt to "right size" the economy and continue central economic planning.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

I have.

This was my premise:

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

in·dis·put·a·ble
Beyond dispute or doubt; undeniable: indisputable evidence.
indisputability in'dis·put'a·bil'i·ty or in'dis·put'a·ble·ness n.
indisputably in'dis·put'a·bly adv.


You haven't presented ONE ARGUMENT that is by definition indisputable (see definition)

For you to continue to argue and believe you have despite all obvious evidence to the contrary is both irrational and illogical.

 

[guerilla]

For you to continue to argue and believe you have despite all obvious evidence to the contrary is both irrational and illogical.

What evidence to the contrary?

 

[riddarhusetgal]

Capitalism is "better" to YOU than socialism. As an example, as crazy as it sounds polygamy is better for some women than a monogamous relationship. What you do incessantly is try to argue that because something is better for YOU it is better - full stop.

I'll go back to my premise:


YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

The essence of the entire discourse is my contention that you can't logically and rationally present your personal opinions as indisputable facts. The onus is on you.....

 

[guerilla]

I'm still waiting for the evidence you claimed to have.

Also, please make it indisputable. That is the standard you claim to uphold.

I'm waiting.. .. ..

 

[riddarhusetgal]

The onus is on you...

You haven't said anything that could nullify my very simple premise:

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

"Economically, socialism is non-viable because it doesn't conform to what we understand about human action."

vi·a·ble Pronunciation: \ˈvī-ə-bəl\ Function:adjective Etymology:French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita — more at vitalDate:circa 1832 1: capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>3 a: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b: capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1): having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2): financially sustainable <a viable enterprise>
— vi·a·bil·i·ty \ˌvī-ə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
— vi·a·bly \ˈvī-ə-blē\ adverb

There are counties that practice socialism that by definition are VIABLE. Your or my PERSONAL OPINION is another story.

Therefore your argument is not based on fact.


Once again, you present an OPINION as if it is an INDISPUTABLE FACT.

Going back to my premise:

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

 

[Rapidrobert19]

You cut and paste Wikipedia entries, then cut and paste dictionary definitions, and finally descend to merely quoting your prior posts ad nauseum. With debate skills like yours, you clearly are not "an independent thinking person" qualified to judge guerilla's thoughtful and articulate position.

 

[riddarhusetgal]

You cut and paste Wikipedia entries, then cut and paste dictionary definitions, and finally descend to merely quoting your prior posts ad nauseum. With debate skills like yours, you clearly are not "an independent thinking person" qualified to judge guerilla's thoughtful and articulate position.

That's fine. If you can present something that nullifies the premise you can fairly call it null and void. Cutting and pasting a premise does not have anything to do with its value. If you want to argue that my consistent presentation of a premise makes it null and void, that says more about your understanding of things that anything....

Here is the premise:

YOU HAVEN'T and WILL NOT present any information that can convince an independent thinking person THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS are INDISPUTABLE FACTS.


I'll continue to state the premise so that it is not obfuscated. I'm still waiting for guerilla to present some evidence THAT HIS PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS.

 

[LogicFlux]

This thread took a turn for retardville.