Thread: Direct Democracy. Would you vote for it?

Originally Posted by Sharke

Originally Posted by MK27

You're simply out to bring the Third World home.

That's a pointlessly offensive and thoroughly stupid remark to make and so I'm just going to ignore it.

I have no qualms about offending offensive people. You're a fascist, and nobody but fascists will take you seriously. Considering you just described in detail how you plan to do exactly what I predicted, I decided to stop reading at this point.

Good luck Mr. Selfish & Mean!

Originally Posted by Sharke

I guess if I had been making the argument that the disposal of private property should be the right of the state, then that would make me a fascist.

You are (making the argument that the disposal of private property should be the right of the state). No government, no law regarding a definition of private property. Your government, your rules regarding the extremes to which you can go exercising your greed imperitive -- and aforementioned fascist government friends will lend you support WRT "the disposal" because you literally need each other. Or maybe you thought fascism was somehow more abstract and idealistic? This is what I meant by the "cream cheese foundation" of libertarianism. It is, at best, a mockery of rational, intelligent philosophy. You just want to direct attention away from the fact that what you are recommending is in fact a very strong, hegemonic, governmental system, by pretending that people "naturally" recognize a 5000 acre ranch as private property -- so they will naturally ignore the fascist government you intend to install.

The "natural recognition" will go easier if you use weapons -- but I am sure that is all part of yer plan too, Mr. 2nd amendment

Originally Posted by MK27

You are (making the argument that the disposal of private property should be the right of the state).

No I am not. Stop lying. Quote one line of mine which appears to imply that I think the state should control the disposal of private property. Since I have quite explicitly been arguing the exact opposite throughout this thread I can only conclude that you have a mental illness which causes you to perceive the mirror image of everything that's said to you.

Originally Posted by MK27

No government, no law regarding a definition of private property.

Again, stop lying. We're two lines into your post and you've lied exactly twice. I have never argued for "no government" or "no definition of private property."

Originally Posted by MK27

Your government, your rules regarding the extremes to which you can go exercising your greed imperitive -- and aforementioned fascist government friends will lend you support to boot.

How much wealth somebody else has is no business whatsoever of yours or the state's, unless of course that wealth has been stolen or otherwise obtained through the abrogation of someone else's property rights. Whether or not I'm greedy is not for you to decide, nor is any other aspect of my aspirations or priorities, given that I am in possession of my life and not you. I don't mind how much you or anyone else earns, as long as you are not stealing it from me or defrauding it in any way. I don't begrudge anybody their success. Nor am I a fascist, nor do I have any fascist friends. I think it's clear that your posts from here on in will just be an incoherent patchwork quilt of deranged lies.

Originally Posted by MK27

This is what I meant by the "cream cheese foundation" of libertarianism. It is, at best, a mockery of rational, intelligent philosophy.

Yet you have not at this point been able to make one coherent or rational argument against it. I have yet to identify one argument of yours that is either rational or intelligent.

Originally Posted by MK27

You just want to direct attention away from the fact that what you are recommending is in fact a very strong, hegemonic, governmental system, by pretending that people "naturally" recognize a 5000 acre ranch as private property -- so they will naturally ignore the fascist government you intend to install.

There is nothing strong or hegemonic about a limited libertarian government. It's only role is to protect the rights of individuals to go about their daily business and do what they have to do to make a living without the threat of the physical coercion of others. It's obvious you have a fundamental problem with the idea of private property. Naive young leftists are fond of denouncing private property, until of course someone suggests that this means that they have the right to come and take their private property - whether it be their iPhone, their laptop or their car for example - at which point they're quite happy to assert their ownership of said property and dial 911 to call for assistance should someone attempt to use force to take it. I have no problem whatsoever with private property and recognize the right to own property as a basic human right which flows quite naturally from the primary human right, which is to own yourself. I'm presuming from your youthful naivety that you don't have children. Wait until you have a family and have worked hard to provide for that family, perhaps by buying a home to keep that family safe. Then listen to someone whining on about how property is oppressive and evil, see how amusing you find it.

I will of course reiterate the fact that I am not a fascist and nor do you have any idea whatsoever what fascism means.

Originally Posted by MK27

The "natural recognition" will go easier if you use weapons -- but I am sure that is all part of yer plan too, Mr. 2nd amendment

I have the right to protect my life and the property which keeps me safe by use of physical force, if someone uses physical force against me. That is a basic human right, one that is not necessarily recognized or protected by the government, especially of the state I reside in at the minute.

To sum up here: I understand what rights are and what they're not. I understand the basic right of ownership of my own life and how I need to own property in order to live a safe, prosperous life. I understand that property rights are the cornerstone of any civilization and that the extent to which they're enforced and protected distinguish a poor society from a prosperous one. I understand what libertarianism is and what it's not; I also understand what fascism is and what it's not. You understand none of this and are quite content to reach into a grab bag of straw man arguments, outright lies and childish political slogans in order to compose a post. I don't think you've showcased your debate skills too well in this thread.

Originally Posted by Sharke

No I am not. Stop lying. Quote one line of mine which appears to imply that I think the state should control the disposal of private property.

I am having a hard time imagining how you believe that without a strong state supporting you in your greed, you would have any property at all to theorize about.

Pie in the sky.

Originally Posted by Sharke

Yet you have not at this point been able to make one coherent or rational argument against it.

Yes, the same is true of my contention that there is no God. I just cannot make any rational arguments against it!

It's obvious you have a fundamental problem with the idea of private property.

Not at all. I would just prefer to limit the scope of what might be considered such. Don't worry tho -- you are free to keep your house.

However, if you expect me to believe that anyone who has ever lived deserves millions of dollars while close to half the world lives on a dollar a day, you're wrong. In what sense (by here I mean, a sense worthy of rational consideration or respect) is one person worth 1,000,000 times more than another? Since by no rational standard could these people be considered deserving of this wealth, I must conclude they are the beneficiaries of a violent and inhuman history which they would prefer to gloss over and have everyone forget.

As I pointed out earlier, your concern with "freedom" is clearly just about the freedom to allow people to waste and hoard resources. And then you want to turn around and argue about the "rights" such people "deserve". You don't want "a society". You just want to act like Jabba the Hut.

If you want the right to make up the rules on your personal property, that's fine, I'm with you there. However, that should not include property which belongs to a limited liability corporation, etc, or a business which employs others for wage labour. I do believe in the value of individual enterprise -- that is, that the economy is better off run by private citizens rather than being managed directly by the state. However, to be a citizen you must agree to some form of social contract. You cannot just demand a one sided relationship with everyone else. If you think the founding fathers you love so much envisioned Jabba the Hut running sweatshops and destroying the Earth just to prove no one tells Jabba what to do, you need to get a life.

Originally Posted by Sharke

1) I will ask you for the forth or fifth time to stop lying about me having expressed the opinion that we should have "no state."

I have not said that even once. I was pointing out that all your rhetoric about wanting "less government" is really about wanting a government only for the purpose of assisting property owners to exploit people. I would not call that less government, I would call it a government with a different focus.

When I referred to "no government" as an outcome (but not your intention), I meant that a government with such a narrow focus -- that exists only to serve the interests of property (and not people) will in time cease to resemble anything respectable and (in effect) simply serve as a principle uniting a bunch of semi-independent fiefdoms (as has been observed, eg, in parts of Africa and Afghanistan), where a small number of people own everything, and so everyone else is forced to do whatever they ask just in order to have somewhere to live. Very "Noble" minded you are, Sharke.

That's entirely due to your inability to reason objectively.

If reasoning by your standards is just spouting rhetoric and throwing mud, no, I guess I don't see how anyone is going to do that "objectively".

No private corporation or business has the right to abrogate anyone else's rights. For example, they have no right to physically enslave an employee or otherwise force them to work. They do, however, have the right to offer whatever wages they want to offer, the same as an employee has the right to accept those wages or take his labor elsewhere.

Well, here's an idea for you. If you are all about freedom (which, to me implies choices, and not a lack thereof), I think a sort of "opt-in" system would be in keeping with the idea of "direct democracy" and also a very interesting social experiment. So as a business owner, you could opt in to pay taxes and be responsibly regulated (labour standards, environmental standards, the FDA, etc) or, you could "opt-out", pay no tax and be subject to no regulation. The difference would be that you could then make no claims (other than unverifiable personal ones) about the safety of the workplace and your products. In other words, if you want to pay people $2 hour, dump toxic sludge into the river, and sell food with cholera and lead flakes in it, you can go right ahead.

It could be that everyone would just opt out. However, it could also be that there would be enough people who'd prefer to spend their money in places that are held up to guaranteed, third party standards, and which contribute back to the community in a reasonably objective manner thru taxation, to ensure that such willing partners in society exist. Of course, no one in the opt-in system would have as good a chance to amass as much individual wealth as those who opt-out (in theory, at least), but the opt-in would obviously come with some public perks, such as services like health care, education, et. al. Probably everyone would be happier that way since they would be making a choice, instead of being forced to participate in something they resent.

I'd be very fascinated to see where that would go -- I think it would better reflect the general will of the population from place to place (so some places would end up mostly opt-in, others would end up all opt-out). At that point, you're free to move.