How is BP still in business?

read it again

No you.

man exploits man

In reverse would be "nam stiolpxe nam" or "man exploits man". It's a palindrome.

And what about situations where violence is arguably justified (ie: war). Do you suggest that soldiers don't have the right to fight?

That is why I used the phrase "initiation of force". Retaliation is not the same as initiation. As a member of the libertarian party I signed a non-initiation of force pledge that i would not initiate force in order to achieve political goals. Force should only be used in defense of person or property.

By the way, I would be curious to hear more about Sweden and Switzerland. However I am not sure if they are really attempting to be socialist. Does a person have a right to own property in those countries? If so then they aren't entirely socialist. The only way to move towards socialism is for the government to gradually begin to take over businesses which we already have seen. The problem with this is that accountability won't happen any faster should some disaster occur. If anything under socialism the government will simply find ways of propping up failed businesses instead of letting them fail which is not going to result in accountability of any kind. The bank bailouts were an example of socialism, not capitalism. Under capitalism we should let banks fail. Under socialism the government establishes ownership by injecting money to prop up the business and that is a defacto takeover because the money comes with strings attached. Under capitalism we should allow lawsuits against BP and if they are sued into oblivion, oh well. Of course we don't really want to bankrupt them otherwise the lawsuits are pointless. You want to hurt them but also ensure that the people suing actually get something for the damage that was caused to them. If the government has to participate in any cleanup effort then they can certainly do it and then sue BP to have the bill paid (that is if BP just won't pay it voluntarily). That isn't socialism.

We are arguing in circles about the purpose of law and the definition of liberty and aren't getting anywhere. If this doesn't change your mind then I don't see how anything will. If you understand the proper definitions of liberty and law then the only logical conclusion is that laws are supposed to exist to protect liberty and therefore does not restrict liberty in any way. Unfortunately our minds have been perverted over the years by being subjected to illegitimate laws and government authority.

In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism — including, of course, legal despotism?

I submit to you that laws can be destructive of liberty but they are not inherently destructive of liberty. This is why the jury is sometimes referred to as the 4th branch of government. This is why we have jury trials, that is to protect our fellow citizens from illegitimate laws. A socialist government does not recognize individual liberty and therefore would never recognize an individual's right to judge the laws passed by a democratic government. Consider a law that states, "it is illegal to pollute your neighbors well". Does that law restrict liberty? Of course not. Under the definition of liberty you never had a right to harm your neighbor in the first place. Therefore the law is not destructive of liberty. Now consider a law that states, "it is illegal to criticize a representative of parliament, president, or prime minister". That law is destructive of liberty since criticizing the government is a reasonable thing to do in some cases. In a jury trial I would expect the citizens of a free society to reject the law as illegitimate and refuse to convict. I submit to you that legitimate laws do not restrict liberty in any way.

Hey Chrisname. I guess he got me with the palindrome. I had never heard of that concept before however given that I seem to be sorely outnumbered here I interpreted that to mean the reverse of "exploit" is true under socialism since that is what most socialists try to argue. I also have a problem with the phrase "man exploits man" being associated with either capitalism or socialism since man exploiting man has nothing to do with either. Man has exploited man ever since man has existed.

I had just a few more questions for the supporters of socialism. Have you ever tried suing the government? If the government owns the oil companies and screws up causing a massive oil leak into a major body of water who is responsible? The government right? But under socialism the government owns all wealth anyway so where is the incentive for the government to protect the environment? What would be the point of suing a socialist government? A private entity naturally wants to protect the wealth that it owns and doesn't want to do anything that will result in major lawsuits that might seriously harm the company. I don't think that anyone here believes that BP would do this on purpose. There are quite a few offshore oil rigs in operation and tankers carrying oil all over the world as we speak. Why don't these accidents happen more often if these corporations are so careless and irresponsible?

closed account (z05DSL3A)

m4ster r0shi wrote:
I now begin to understand why helios calls Grey Wolf a fence sitter.

If by fence sitter you mean that I don't come down on the side of either of two extremist views, then I take that as a compliment.

In this case; arguing over which is the better of the equally flawed systems, with people that seem to have a very distorted view of the other side is ultimately futile. The fact is no perfect Political-Socio-Economic system and all extremists are wrong.

filipe (1165)

Disch wrote:
PS: I'm enjoying the convo filipe. I really have fun with back and forths like these. It's fun to share ideas with someone of opposing views that actually has a brain and can remain civil. I find that rather rare on the internet!

I enjoy it too. I'm in a bit of a hurry today, but I'll get back to it when I can.

Disch (13742)

I didn't get a chance to check in on this thread so I'm all behind now and don't have time to reply to all of it, but I do want to address these quickly:

Grey Wolf wrote:
In this case; arguing over which is the better of the equally flawed systems, with people that seem to have a very distorted view of the other side is ultimately futile. The fact is no perfect Political-Socio-Economic system and all extremists are wrong.

I know it probably sounded like it, but I'm not advocating true socialism in the United States. No more than I would advocate true capitalism.

My original point was that the US needs to move more towards socialism because right now it's too far towards the capitalistic extreme.

From there the conversation sort of spiraled into socialism vs. capitalism and picking sides between the two. Although honestly the right balance is what I would hope for.

m4ster r0shi wrote:
Well, the existence of the law that says "if you steal you'll go to prison" doesn't remove from you the option to act as a thief. It just says that if you're caught, you'll go to prison. Also, nobody restricts you from going out in the streets and start slaying people.I guess, what you want to say is that you can't just do it and then get away with it. True. But you can do it. You have that option.

m4ster r0shi wrote:

Well, the existence of the law that says "if you steal you'll go to prison" doesn't remove from you the option to act as a thief. It just says that if you're caught, you'll go to prison. Also, nobody restricts you from going out in the streets and start slaying people.I guess, what you want to say is that you can't just do it and then get away with it. True. But you can do it. You have that option.

That takes all the meaning out of the word "freedom". I mean if you go by that definition, then no law reduces freedom. I mean you always have the option to break the law, so no matter what laws there are you're always free in that sense, unless you're physically bound somehow.

Which, by the way, brings up another counterpoint. Jail is the ultimate removal of freedom. You live in a cage, are told what to do and when to do it, etc, etc.

So I guess what it sounds like you're saying is "law doesn't restrict freedom, law [i]enforcement[i] does" -- which really is splitting hairs.

Disch wrote:
Jail is the ultimate removal of freedom. You live in a cage

Disch, you already live in a cage. That would be your body.

Grey Wolf wrote:
If by fence sitter you mean that I don't come down on the side of either of two extremist views

Yes, that's what I mean.

Grey Wolf wrote:
then I take that as a compliment

You are welcome!

In fact, I just decided to come and sit by you.

It's not meaningful to talk about the perfect economic system. Or, at least, it's more meaningful to talk about the best performing economic system while certain parameters have some specific values.

Let's take the population size and the individual's ability to fend for himself in a competitive environment (I'll call it survivability from now on) as the parameters. The first one is self explanatory. The second needs some clarification. I'll divide it into two parts. One that is granted to the individual upon birth (good genes etc...) and one that must be cultivated (knowledge, experience etc...) in order to be effective.

At the early stages of civilization (tribal communities) the population size is small, the mean of survivability is also small (because knowledge of the environment structure and function is small), but the variance is rather big, as survivability mostly depends on the individual's genes.

At a later stage, the population size is increased a bit, the mean of survivability goes up too (as people have a better understanding of the environment based on the experience acquired from the interaction with it). The variance of survivability now begins to shrink. You see, the first part of survivability remains the same (the human gene pool evolves much much slower than the collective knowledge of the human society increases), but the second part is increased for all members of the society, so any differences caused by the first part tend to disappear.

So, what we have here is a continuous increment of both the population (up to the carrying capacity of the planet) and the understanding of the environment (up to the limits imposed by our ability to understand -i.e. limitations of the human senses, theorem of incompleteness etc...). Also, the increment of practical knowledge results to an increment of the survivability mean and a decrement of the survivability variance.

Ok, that was enough introductory talking, let's see what these things have to do with the various economic systems.So, the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that in the former the means of production are public (i.e. entrusted by the community to a bunch of people that are supposed to know how to handle them efficiently), while in the latter the means of production are private (i.e. owned by individuals). Another difference, that is a direct result of the one just mentioned, is that in socialism we have a centrally planned economy, while in capitalism we have a free market economy.

Public ownership and centrally planned economy perform better when applied to a small-sized community where only few people are capable of making the right decisions (because they are smarter or/and more knowledgeable than the average population).

Private ownership and free market economy perform better when applied to large-sized populations where all people are (almost) equally capable of making the right decisions.

That said, it is only natural for a community to begin with socialism as an economic system and gradually turn to capitalism. This doesn't at all mean that capitalism is a better economic system. It just means that after a certain point, it is safe/efficient to give more power to the individuals because they are ready (and mature enough) to handle it.

EDIT: Fixed misc typos.

Last edited on

How can you be "inside" your body? You are your body!

Disch (13742)

onoes I can see it already

Topic shifts:

- BP oil spill
- governmental corruption
- capitalism vs socialism
- law vs freedom
- religion/spirituality

Uh oh. He's right.

On the other hand, Crom laughs at your four winds.

Last edited on

chrisname wrote:
You are your body!

No, you are not. I'll redirect you to something I posted here a while ago. If you didn't read it back then, it would be a good idea to do it now.

http://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/24744/#msg130995

Because you are in your essence a light energy that is of a greater vibratory frequency than the density of matter, if you did not possess an embodiment of matter you would pass through the matter of this plane. Thus the body is what allows you, through its density and sense organs, to perceive and experience and interact with the matter of this plane.

One way to have an embodiment is to be born through the birth canal. The only other way to have a body in order to experience this plane is to be born through the birth canal, wholly maintain the integrity of self, and activate the entirety of the organ called the brain. Once you have opened your brain capacity to full use, you can at will command the body to raise its vibratory frequency to the point where it goes out of the frequency level of matter and into the vibratory frequency of light. That is called ascension. Ascension is simply the means of taking the entirety of your being into another dimension of your accepted consciousness. Death is certainly one way to get there, but that means allowing the structure of the embodiment to fall into age and decay and to be no longer. Then you are without the embodiment. Ascension is taking your embodiment with you. [...] Then you have retained your body for all times and can thus be a traveler upon any plane at any moment you choose.

Disch wrote:
Topic shifts

Well, wouldn't it be boring to talk about one thing all the time? :D

Too long, didn't read.

chrisname wrote:
Too long, didn't read.

Which one?

This -> http://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/26038/page4.html#msg139948 ?

Or this -> http://cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/24744/#msg130995 ?

Both.