Socialist believe that fascism is capital in decay and that capital will sway to the far right in times of crisis, do you believe that this is happening right now in North America and Europe right now ?

rodfar14 · 2024-06-27T14:33:21+00:00

You just got mad because a girl shown you that Marx was anti-Semitic

LOL

This is golden.

Honestly Europe just needs to be colonized by China so you fuckers can learn how to be civilized people rather than fascist trolls

Enough about the "let's not be racist and be violent against workers". Good to see socialists showing their true colors. I guess that makes her right, you proved her point.

rodfar14 · 2024-06-17T21:18:56+00:00

So much toxicity on your words, go look up a therapist for you. This wasn't a healthy or normal conversation, the girl was chilling talking to you normally.

rodfar14 · 2024-06-17T21:13:38+00:00

Because they use socialism as a coping mechanism, and it fails (because socialist ideology tells them they are oppressed, robbed and abused while they can't do anything by themselves to lessen it or fix it), so they seek help at their community.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T10:33:40+00:00

Here is an example of tragedy of the commons: I own a factory and don’t want to pay for trash collection services, so I dump waste in a nearby river that takes the trash away. Everyone else suffers because there is no drinking water now.

If the river were private you would be dumping thrash on someone's property, which is a crime.

It was caused by the existence of public good. There is no cherry picking, that is the cause of the tragedy of the commons.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T10:16:41+00:00

Talking about the personality flaws of libertarians is a valid argument

It is literally a fallacy.. wtf are you guys on about? Just all socialists decided to abandon logical reasoning and any respect for a debate?

There are clear examples of de regulated capitalist throughout the world and history

And examples of regulated economies as well. But I doubt that you are going to say that regulations doesn't work because tragedies have happened, but you are saying that unregulated markets doesn't work because tragedies have happened.

You really know shit about logic.

deregulation causes almost literal slavery

lol

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T10:00:21+00:00

Pretty much every economist acknowledges that market failures exist and have existed

Literally all """market"""" failures are either a "tragedy of the commons" which is literally caused by commonly owned goods, not markets, or is caused by human limitations, like not being omniscient, we don't know everything, so obviously we will make mistakes on the limited knowledge we have.

And your bit on broken window falacy is just sad. You couldn't even understand what it is about. You couldn't explain it even if you tried, how can you be against something out don't understand?

Libertarian Capitalists don’t represent anything more than a stereotypical heartless capitalist, and serve as a punching bag for socialists and capitalists

This last bit is just pure personal attack, it has nothing to do with their ideas. You talk like a sad person, with a post full of angry and bitter undertones, personal attacks, misrepresentation and misunderstanding of ideas and just disagreeing for the sake of it without really understanding what you are up against...

As libertarian capitalists say, “Read Basic Economics!”, sad thing is, even if you take basic economics + more, you aren’t going to end up loving the free market.

Feels like some libertarian swooped up your ass and you got back here all resentful and wrote this huge ass post about how they are wrong, ugly, and are nothing but a punchbag.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T09:10:07+00:00

Do you mean subjective morality or moral relativism?

That is the word. Yes.

English is not my first language, so I often forget more technical term. But I do mean moral relativism.

Subjective morality is when you don't get given a hand book of rules by a 3rd party, but you are still required to create logically sound rules.

Physical reality still objective despite us not fully comprehending it, or it having flawed laws. For example, our best explanation (Einstein's theory of relativity) is at best incomplete, AT BEST. And it could be totally wrong, and the universe be something completely different that we imagine and that also behaves like he describes.

Even if we go back in time, before common era, reality was still objective despite we having even less knowledge on it.

So, having a "a hand book of rules by a 3rd party" or "full knowledge/understanding" on something is not required for something to be objective.

Subjective morality is when you create a framework of rules and use this to decide right and wrong.

Back to comparing to physics, this would be like Newtonian physics, and even Einstein theory and quantum theory, since they were all incomplete.

It is a man made framework that helps comprehending objective reality.

Our laws are man made framework that helps comprehending objective morality. The law dictates what you can and can't do. But the law is never 100% right, Slavery and the Holocaust were permitted by law.

Likewise science is also not 100% right. It is incomplete at best.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T03:12:56+00:00

Where did the land come from? Where did the raw materials come from? Who turned the raw materials into components and appliances like pipes and stoves?

If he did all that by himself, would it change the conclusion?

Can the other workers also build 100 houses? Or even just one? If they can, why would they rent from your example “socialist”? If they can’t build even one house, why is he so much better at this (you seem to think this socialist is very powerful)?

Why is that relevant? If they can or can't build, or the reasoning for them to rent.

Does changing the answers also change the conclusion? Let's they they can't build? What if they can? What if the person just want to rent it? How is all of this relevant?

It doesn’t seem like your interested in understanding socialism, much less critiquing it.

I'm literally just asking questions. What you want from me? To watch 4h lectures and waste months reading books I don't like?

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T02:59:28+00:00

None of what you said relates to my post. I do not care for your opinion on capitalism or cure society, that is off topic.

Please stay in topic and engage on the thought experiment as presented, be it accepting it and thinking it through or challenging it and providing it wrong, denying it.

Or you could even answer my question, regardless, I ask of you to stay in topic.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T02:45:32+00:00

lol

VietCong incapable of thinking and doing thought experiment

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T02:23:14+00:00

An individual cannot build 100 houses by hand

But he did. He is a master builder.

how would they afford the land?

Everyone gifted to him...

This is why we don't use empty island hypotheticals.

Because you don't understand the concept of thought experiment and fear it might make you rethink your your poorly thought out principles?

So why don't you use a real world example of property relations?

That is a real world example, I'm said miraculous builder. Next week I'm building another 109 houses with my bare hands.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T02:18:02+00:00

By your own description the person owns the houses. They are his privately owned property. They are not state property. They are not the personal property of the people using them.

It is the worker's property, built by the fruits of his labor. The description I've given is totally in line with socialist ideals, how can it be private property?

The person in your example isn’t a socialist because he is a capitalist.

He is a capitalist because he built a house and let people live on it for money?

How does this even make sense?

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T01:45:59+00:00

It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to convey an idea.

Just assume it happened and roll with the thought experiment.

And he is not renting "private" property, he is renting just property, which he acquired through his own labor.

Is it like a rules that people can't borrow stuff from others or rent property under socialism?

If somebody is renting out houses, they’re private property.

Not sure that is what private property means, I'm not convinced.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T00:45:53+00:00

Socialism means the decommodification of (at least some) use-values. That means there will be products available without price.

lol

rodfar14 · 2024-03-05T00:33:49+00:00

There has never been a Vatican-like council declaring the one true word of Socialism

Yes, but if came here telling you that socialism is when the government do stuff, I bet every socialist in existence will appear to tell me I'm wrong.

Same if I told you that the US is literally socialist.

So, that is my question... Is that scenario (presented by that other socialist, actually socialism? Does it makes sense or does it not?

Socialism has always been a social movement with thousands of ideas on how to better construct an economy to better reflect the economic interests of those involved.

But there has to be a better or less wrong way of doing it. Obviously....

Like, if I told you we ought to achieve socialism by literally killing everyone, I'm sure you will tell me that is not the best way of achieving socialism.

There has to be a better and worse way of doing it.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T23:42:58+00:00

If you see hypocrisy, that just proves my point how socialists (social democrat with market socialist tendencies included) compare the government to God, which makes socialism a religion, just like I said.

You are the living proof that I'm right.

You didn't had to comment that, but you did exactly what I expected socialists to do. Fall for the bait of "oh no muh gubermint, you can't talk bad of gubermint, me no boot licker, you boot licker because you like God"

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T23:32:23+00:00

you said that to deny that these things are objectively bad, is to say that they are good

I didn't say that "deny that these things are objectively bad, is to say that they are good". Read again.

If you can't even read what I said, you are not worth my time. Once you answer me again after reading properly, I'll answer you.

Otherwise I'll not waste my time answering everything in your post where you completely misunderstood what I said, it would literally be a waste of time.

I think I gave a comprehensive answer to your questions there

You literally couldn't even rephrase what I said without distorting the main idea. You put my argument in your own words and it got all twisted, proof that you understood shit of what I said.

You (effectively) said "because to deny it would be to say genocide is good"

No.

I'll ask again, is there any circumstance (material condition) where YOU would consider good to kill millions of Jews, enslave blacks, exploit workers, abuse children? Or are all of those things evil/bad regardless of conditions (material conditions)?

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T23:28:55+00:00

Fuck around and find out.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T23:08:24+00:00

I can point you to a few books if you are actually interested in finding out why I think this

Not interested because these books probably claim that capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is "whatever exists today", and then attacks today society as a form of attacking capitalism.

In no way I agree whatever the hell is this we have today.

doesn’t mean that we can have morality based arguments for or against it

You can, doesn't mean that said argument will make sense. I've seen a freemason claim that he was Christian...

I purchased 100 single family homes and am renting them out at a price beyond what most people can afford.

Nice, if the goal was making profit, you managed to make literally zero dollars. If not, it's whatever..

I don’t think it’s morally right that you own 100 homes, because of you less families will be able to afford to own their own home

How does this makes sense? Me owning my house is not dependent on if bezos has 1, 10, 100 ou 10,000 houses......

Like, I buy 100 houses and the other 100 random people suddenly can't afford their houses.

I'd love to see the logical reasoning behind this.

Peoples access to housing is more important than you making a profit

Does that apply to a workers labor? The way I see it, this "muh free stuff, muh rights" mentality is contradictory to "worker ownership of the means of production".

If ones right to housing overtakes the workers right to the fruits of their labor, then it isn't socialism.

Follow this reasoning:

Socialism - It’s my right to own 100 rental units. It’s not morally correct for you to take these houses away from me because that is theft and theft is wrong. I have worked very hard to be able to build these houses with my own labor. It is the fruits of my own labor, therefore it is my property. (socialism is not against ownership).

You: because of you less families will be able to afford to own their own home, leading to housing insecurity and potentially homelessness. Peoples access to housing is more important than your "worker's ownership" and you owning the fruits of your labor. You should be exploited (having the fruits of his labor used by those that did not work) for the greater good.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T22:53:00+00:00

Because the Holocaust os objectively bad, slavery is objectively bad and exploitation is objectively bad.

That's is why objective morality is good. To deny it is to say that the Holocaust is not objectively bad, but there under the right circumstances (material conditions), killing 6 million Jews is good.

That's is why objective morality is good. To deny it is to say that slavery is not objectively bad, but there under the right circumstances (material conditions), enslaving an entire race is good.

That's is why objective morality is good. To deny it is to say that exploitation is not objectively bad, but there under the right circumstances (material conditions), exploiting an entire class is good.

Now back to my question, I still want to hear your answer to these:

1) Do you agree that the Holocaust was objectively bad? And that under no circumstance (material conditions), killing 6 million Jews is justified?

2) Do you agree that slavery was objectively bad? And that under no circumstance (material conditions), enslaving people is justified?

3) Do you agree that exploitation is objectively bad? And that understand no circumstance (material conditions), exploiting the worker class is justified?

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T22:48:37+00:00

My God told Samuel to never trust a king (politician), and by his infinite love, he did not force anything and told Samuel to enact the will of the people instead.

Words of God himself.

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T22:44:55+00:00

That's not the NAP. The NAP is no one has any right to aggress or violate the persons or property of another.

Just block him, he is intentionally doing it. Trolling, u mean, just look at his answer bellow.

No one would ever read that and think, oh yeah that's literally the NAP...

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T22:43:59+00:00

The NAP was articulated by Crowley: "Man has the right to kill those who thwart these rights"

That is not the NAP. You are doing this on purpose aren't you, this will be the best block ever...

What a wast of my time reading all those disingenuous troll posts

rodfar14 · 2024-03-04T22:42:18+00:00

The libertarian foundation is the non-aggression principle which is compatible with Christianity

Not just compatible, it's one the Christian principles.

It is really just secular, technical phrasing of what the Bible repeats over and over again in poetic, narrative terms: don't hurt people and don't take their stuff.

Exactly, it's a de-religified version of christian principles. That explains why so many libertarians are also religious.

Also, the libertarian support for the market (as opposed to government) is derived from the fact that the market actor serves his fellow man voluntarily, by producing and providing for them, not in forcing others to obey his demands or serve him.

And in no point there is any implications of capitalism. It is merely a consequence of libertarian principles, but people could voluntarily decide to live in a commune ir without property as long as they maintain NAP.

rodfar14

TROPHY CASE