Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Essay on Democracy


Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deuce wrote:
Basicly libertarian view needs complete self sufficiency or in the modern world 100% employment. I think its not possible these days, either of these, as much as Id like them. What happens to the people that inevitably are unemployed or cant survive on their own? What does the view do to them? Human has always cared about others in some way or another, depended on one another, do libertarians try to say each person is on its own? Heck, screwed up thinking, imo. Sad


Not at all. We believe wholeheartedly in private charity. We just do not believe that it is moral to rob from one person to give to another. If you want to help someone, then help them, but do not put a gun to someone else's head and force them to do it in your stead. Also, if you look at programs such as welfare, they serve only to keep people in their unfortunate situation. Privately, personally handled charity would be done much more to the benefit of those recieving the care, while also being on an entirely higher moral platform, as no theft took place.
Back to top
Deuce



Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But what happens to the people that won't get private aid? Private sources aren't that reliable I'd think.. It depends on how greedy, selfish or emphatetic the helper is. I see taxing as robbery when most of it goes to battling against other humans and violating human rights but I don't see how its robbery if it benefits all the people rather than few fortunate ones that have born with golden spoon in their mouth. Modern human is raised to be selfish, holding its own et cetera and usually those people in position to help have these attributes in modern world because so called "success" demands these attributes. I wouldnt say it was like this when we were hunter/collectors so I think private helping can't work in larger extent in todays world. Anyway, if taxes go to get you free healthcare I don't see as robbing, my work bears fruit to me and the community which human has done always, lived in pack/community. Not sure if democrazy is the way to go but as for now it works fine, here excluding some things like military spending. People pay taxes happily to secure themselves and others in need via free healthcare and social security if one loses a job. And I don't see how it would be higher moral platform.. I guess its just different view on moral..

PS. If one feels taxation is theft, he can go on some secluded steppe and be self sufficient. Thats possible so I dont see the whine.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deuce wrote:
But what happens to the people that won't get private aid? Private sources aren't that reliable I'd think.. It depends on how greedy, selfish or emphatetic the helper is. I see taxing as robbery when most of it goes to battling against other humans and violating human rights but I don't see how its robbery if it benefits all the people rather than few fortunate ones that have born with golden spoon in their mouth. Modern human is raised to be selfish, holding its own et cetera and usually those people in position to help have these attributes in modern world because so called "success" demands these attributes. I wouldnt say it was like this when we were hunter/collectors so I think private helping can't work in larger extent in todays world. Anyway, if taxes go to get you free healthcare I don't see as robbing, my work bears fruit to me and the community which human has done always, lived in pack/community. Not sure if democrazy is the way to go but as for now it works fine, here excluding some things like military spending. People pay taxes happily to secure themselves and others in need via free healthcare and social security if one loses a job. And I don't see how it would be higher moral platform.. I guess its just different view on moral..

PS. If one feels taxation is theft, he can go on some secluded steppe and be self sufficient. Thats possible so I dont see the whine.


Why do I need to submit to robbery if I want to interact with other people? Also, regardless of the where the money goes, taking it forcefully is always the same act, and is always theft. As for private charity, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that there is enough of it when people have their own needs met. If someone needs help, someone is far more likely to provide it if they know where their next meal is coming from. As such, the best way to ensure that charity happens is enact policies that raise the tide as a whole, and allow it to naturally lift all ships.
Back to top
Deuce



Joined: 06 Oct 2007
Posts: 112

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its not forcefully taken if one agrees to it. If one doesnt agree, he can try to be self sufficient like I said. There might be evidence for private charity to work but there is also a lot of examples for it to not work. People with billions after billions of money have certainly their needs met and more. They also certainly know where their meal is coming from and health et cetera but they don't share much of that with community or those in need.

I myself pay taxes happily. I get my meals and health and everything cheap, I have clothes, roof over my head and I even have something to spare and I use some of the excess wealth to lend/give to people in need. Though right now am at civil service and get some 300 euros per month but with that I can live happily. I can't comprehend why people claim they need more and more even after their needs are certainly met. Just using myself as an example.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deuce wrote:
Its not forcefully taken if one agrees to it. If one doesnt agree, he can try to be self sufficient like I said. There might be evidence for private charity to work but there is also a lot of examples for it to not work. People with billions after billions of money have certainly their needs met and more. They also certainly know where their meal is coming from and health et cetera but they don't share much of that with community or those in need.

I myself pay taxes happily. I get my meals and health and everything cheap, I have clothes, roof over my head and I even have something to spare and I use some of the excess wealth to lend/give to people in need. Though right now am at civil service and get some 300 euros per month but with that I can live happily. I can't comprehend why people claim they need more and more even after their needs are certainly met. Just using myself as an example.


As I said in the previous post, wanting to interact with society and agreeing to being taxed are entirely different things. I should be allowed to trade with someone without a 3rd party putting a gun to my head and robbing me. As for billionaires, the vast majority do donate to charity, or do so by proxy through corporations. As for your own tax dollars, do you not think that more good could be done with your money if you yourself got to pick what charity or cause you could donate to, and would you not yourself derive more satisfaction if you could yourself be involved in the charitable work? As previously stated, programs such as welfare and employment insurance only serve to keep people in the state they are currently in.
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coolcreep you agreed to taxation under the social contract. A legitimate government is a minimal one that operates under the rule of law correct?

Taxation of the wealthiest 1% is a general law that doesn't name Bill Gates himself. It includes a scope of people and operates under rule of law.

If you're saying it's illegitimate you have to explain why. Your reason why is because it's robbery. How is it robbery if it doesn't violate the rule of law? A higher % for certain income brackets is required in order for the government to protect everyone's natural rights. If a 75% tax was enforced on lower income families they would all become homeless. So we have tax brackets to fund our government. You say it is unjust? Explain.

There are lots of countries that have universal healthcare. In fact among modern civilizations it has become the norm. People in those governments have decided that they want to protect their citizens natural right to life.
~

Here's another thing you might want to think about.

Everyday everyone uses someone as a means to an end. I use myself as a means to write on this forum. I do nothing wrong. When I say fuck you I am treating you without respect and I am violating the categorical imperative.


You are altruistic to selective groups because there's a face to it. There are other forms of appreciation and one is respect. It applies to everyone. no names no faces.

The fact that you refuse a universal healthcare shows a lack of respect. So I treat you as such, without respect, like the savage beast you are. You do not care about the social contract nor do you care about natural rights and you are trying to harm people's rights.

You believe in Locke's property laws, but you completely reject its foundation.

You try to say universal healthcare is about forced altruism - it's not. It's about respect (to the Kantean) or upholding natural rights (to the Lockean).

This is America and our constitution is heavily based off Lockean view. So you can't argue against democracy without attacking its roots, because all you are doing is arguing for more limitations on government.

~ attacking democracy itself using arguments presented for a more minimal democracy is not an attack on democracy. Which is why your essay is garbage and if you can't understand that then you're a fool.

In fact Socialism doesn't violate the social contract in the Lockean sense nor does it violate our constitution. Communism does because it promotes a hierarchy. Capitalism doesn't violate the social contract in the Lockean sense nor does it violate the constitution.

In old times communes were commonplace (native Americans lived in communes) and they still exist today even in modern society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commune_(intentional_community)

~ So if socialism was inherently evil then why do people go out of their way to live like it? You think they like all their neighbors? Yet they agree to terms and join the community and participate in helping another. In your mind you think these people like to rob from each other.

Your essay is really about arguing for a more minimal government, by attacking the maxim.

John Rawls and Robert Nozick have spent hours debating each other at Harverd University about this and writing books.

If you want to find arguments for a minimal state. I suggest you read Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

AKA the modern libertarian handbook.

But don't use attacks against the maxim form of democracy as an attack against Democracy as a whole... that's just absurd.[/b]

Libertarians truly don't believe in unalienable rights because then you don't really own yourself for if you truly owned yourself then you could commit suicide as an option. If you can't kill yourself that means you own yourself more is circular logic to the libertarian. Kant properly explains the categorical rule or law against suicide through the categorical imperative. You don't have to read it to understand that suicide lacks self respect. Therefor you can't trade your right to life[/b]


Last edited by dwarfas on Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What is even more absurd is your claim of the majority oppressing the minority and even going so far as calling it tyranny. JFK was the only person to Campaign for a decentralized government and he was assassinated. Why? Because a centralized government is more susceptible to outside coercion, duress, bribery, extortion or what have you. A centralized government keeps the wealthy in power.

You think the wealthy are being oppressed? There used to be 13 freaking tax brackets at one point and taxes got as high as 90%. It wasn't oppression then. You know how much money politicians get thrown at them by businesses and even individuals? That's essentially buying votes. You are claiming that the majority is oppressing this minority when they can freaking buy votes.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dwarfas wrote:
Communism does because it promotes a hierarchy.[b]


No, it doesn't. Stalinism might, but Communism doesn't.
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

idiot wrote
Quote:
Libertarians concede the need for police, courts, and the military, because we see these institutions as necessary for the free market to function.


Warrant your assertions or observations please. The way I see it is without police, courts, or a military you would be in the state of nature. [bIn the state of nature the free market still functions; you can trade and barter with people. Everyone is the executor when it comes to violations of rights.[/b] How does an outside institution enable a free market to function? When it already does. Last I checked there are still tribal societies that barter amongst themselves.

The need for police and courts arises because when people are the executors they tend to punish their violations of rights too harshly and it is often an inconvenience. Ie who is going to kill the Neighborhood Sniper? Ie. Someone stole from me so I cut off his hand so now he can't steal.

The need for a military arises because we formed a government and we need to protect it.

The libertarian view is nothing new. It was around during slavery so you could whip cotton picking niggers, it was around when you put Chinese men on boats and forced them into labor and dumped them off their boats when they got ill, and it was around in the trail of tears.

They were coerced into signing a contract and held at gunpoint to uphold it or die. Because apparently you can trade your life away because you own it and since blacks traded their lives away they can't do anything about it.

If you disagree with me then you concede there are unalienable rights and in this case, a right to self ownership is unalienable and you cannot trade yourself away. That upsets you because you are the white devil. And if people have a right to self ownership then you can't dispose of them however which way you please for a utilitarian purpose or any purpose for that matter, because they are not property to be used however you please.

Keep drinking that libertarian haterade; it's centuries old and has been used to defend slavery[/b]
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
No, it doesn't. Stalinism might, but Communism doesn't.


Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism.

As a political movement, communist regimes have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power.
~

Communism is a branch of socialism. Much like laissez faire is a branch of capitalism.

Laissez-Faire has never really existed because of the policies made within central government.
Do I want Laissez-Faire to exist? Hell no. Every time we deregulate the policies made within central government bad things happen for example: sub prime mortgage crisis, savings and loan scandal, and monopoly.
Back to top
ChuckNorris



Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dwarfas wrote:


Karl Marx never provided a detailed description as to how communism would function as an economic system, but it is understood that a communist economy would consist of common ownership of the means of production, culminating in the negation of the concept of private ownership of capital, which referred to the means of production in Marxian terminology. In modern usage, communism is often used to refer to Bolshevism or Marxism-Leninism.


What do you know about Bolshevism or Leninism? If you'd read any Lenin at all you'd know he consistently argued against bureaucratic hierarchy, for common absolutely democratic control of society.

dwarfas wrote:
As a political movement, communist regimes have historically been authoritarian, repressive, and coercive governments concerned primarily with preserving their own power.


Yes, this sums Stalinism and Maoism up to a T. Not Bolshevism, not Leninism.

dwarfas wrote:
Communism is a branch of socialism. Much like laissez faire is a branch of capitalism.


To me, the terms are interchangeable.
Back to top
dwarfas



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 58

PostPosted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

To me, the terms are interchangeable.


They are not interchangeable. Neither Communism nor Laissez-Faire allow for a mixed market. Where as socialism and capitalism are broader terms that can encompass a mixed market.
Back to top
SJM



Joined: 17 Apr 2009
Posts: 415

PostPosted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tl;dr

You've discovered the concept of the "tyranny of the majority."

Grats bro, welcome to 10th grade.

You mistakenly believe that Democracy has existed in the past 2,000 years anywhere on Earth.

Europe is still, to this very day, under the thumb of totalitarian monarchies that declare themselves superior because of which vagina they came out of. America is a representative republic which was built upon a white male landed gentry electing other white male landed gentry to make decisions for everyone else. These days they put on a dog and pony show every 2 years that allows the peasantry to pick one of two candidates hand selected by the elite for their obedience. On every issue that the elite actually care about the two party system is really a one party system (see how much "change" Obama brought about on issues that matter to the elite? - none). The elite allow the peons to squabble over irrelevant issues such as abortion, gay rights, and other tripe that doesn't interfere with their economic and political power.

You've got a lot to learn. Enjoy your reality television, which is all that the current concept of "democracy" as you understand it equates to.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy