economic death match, con't.

[Lord Bennington]

Kromoh: Here's what I'm suggesting. Stop regulating trade. I'm not trying to stimulate change with death. I'm trying to get people to change any way possible, and if the only way they will do that is by dying, so be it. Here's the thing. We don't deserve anything. It's crazy, I know, but we don't deserve anything. We recieve what we recieve. We don't recieve what we don't recieve what we don't recieve. We do what we do, then we die and that's life. You don't deserve the support of socialism. I don't deserve it. We deserve what we can get; we don't deserve what we don't get. Make drugs legal. Get rid of consumer rights. Remove trade barriers, labor laws. Allow debt slavery. The economy will fall. Maybe governments will fall too. Maybe there'll never be freedom again. But at least it'll be fair. If the people get the balls to demand freedom again, that's what happens. If they don't, that's what happens. I don't see any reason why we deserve anything more than what we get.

[nerve]

(wtf I'm so dyslexic, when I saw the title I actually read "read the math, don't count") anyway um...anarchy? I don't see any reason why we deserve anything more than what we get. then why does anything have to change? I don't get it.

[Lord Bennington]

Because right now, the government is spoon-feeding people, and it's so much effort over people who don't deserve it, so why not just stop? EDIT Admittedly, that is a bit of a leap, but it's got something to do with the fact that socialism limits people, and the individual (at least me) doesn't want that limitation, and since no one but the individual matters (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, I can't say the same for others, so why bother taking care of them if they might not be real, and they aren't me anyway) we should do what the individual wants and allow total freedom. Sounds better in my head, let me think this one out.

[nerve]

...and since no one but the individual matters (cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, I can't say the same for others, so why bother taking care of them if they might not be real, and they aren't me anyway) dude, have you not read my thread does one deserve what one cannot protect? I think you might be the only person to agree with me.

[Lord Bennington]

I checked it briefly and felt behind, didn't want to jump in so late, and I was of the impression that we disagreed. Gah. Sigh. I'll be there.

[nerve]

if you actually have something to contribute to a thread, something to add, you can jump in anytime...I'd like it if more people replied, I'm trying to understand both sides... ANYWAY, back on topic: Because right now, the government is spoon-feeding people, and it's so much effort over people who don't deserve it, so why not just stop? just stop? it's not that simple. and you know, there are people out there actively participating in putting a stop to all the governments stupid actions lately. my mom is one of them, she's pretty fired up. haven't you heard anything about the tea parties going on? :\ google it or something, man. grassroots movement, tea party, whatever. the way I see it, I just don't care about politics. I don't follow what's going on, I don't care. if anarchy happens, I'll get what I deserve, like you said. probably death, because I am not currently capable of taking care of myself if such a thing happned...but I know I'd have no one to blame but myself, I know (as much as I hate to say it) it would be fair. :|

[Xei]

Kromoh: Here's what I'm suggesting. Stop regulating trade. I'm not trying to stimulate change with death. I'm trying to get people to change any way possible, and if the only way they will do that is by dying, so be it. Here's the thing. We don't deserve anything. It's crazy, I know, but we don't deserve anything. We recieve what we recieve. We don't recieve what we don't recieve what we don't recieve. We do what we do, then we die and that's life. You don't deserve the support of socialism. I don't deserve it. We deserve what we can get; we don't deserve what we don't get. Make drugs legal. Get rid of consumer rights. Remove trade barriers, labor laws. Allow debt slavery. The economy will fall. Maybe governments will fall too. Maybe there'll never be freedom again. But at least it'll be fair. If the people get the balls to demand freedom again, that's what happens. If they don't, that's what happens. I don't see any reason why we deserve anything more than what we get. All the scruples... economics has a strange way of clouding the harsh reality of how the world actually works. Oil production has peaked. We forget that modern civilisation has only ever been a physical system which converts the high entropy of oil into low entropy waste produce. Now that source of low entropy is running out, and civilisation is going to run out with it. Forget about all this economic stuff, it's just turbulence.

[Xaqaria]

To be honest, I can't stomach reading past your need to change in your second post. You hope to argue that we deserve anything and everything that we get, but make a big exception for people who get things from the government; it seems either good or bad. From where I stand, your stance looks just like a rationalization of a baseless hatred for authority in general, which would be consistent with your age group.

[Kromoh]

Benn, I've already stated my argument against that notion - you can't call the system your propose fair. It's only fair when all players of the same game start at the same level. Also, you can't just take world economy as a game - human beings are too many for anarchy. Libertarianism would only generate monopoly, social inequality, and all that bunch I've tirelessly discussed on the other thread. You can't call exploitation, slavery, murder, privileges, or selling of education, fair. In fact, doing as you propose would only make us go back in sociological development. There is no thing as "deserve", practically speaking. "Deserve" is only a tool parents use to make children behave. If there is one single thing that can be said, then it is: nobody deserves to be exploited. For those reasons, the system you propose is an oxymoron to "fair".

[Invader]

An unregulated system of trade where the most ruthless and domineering come out on top does not result in fairness, Bennington. It does not take a great deal of wisdom to see that.

[Kromoh]

An unregulated system of trade where the most ruthless and domineering come out on top does not result in fairness, Bennington. It does not take a great deal of wisdom to see that. O.o... and I was beginning to believe all people with sense had left DV.. thanks for staying

[Lord Bennington]

Depends on your definition of fair. I find it perfectly fair, as did Carnegie, Rockefeller, etc. As I said to Kromoh, outside of the thread, it's just a matter of opinion, which is why I'm not going to bother continuing to argue when it can't possibly go anywhere. Meh. If there's an actually factual point to argue, I'll jump.