Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 My posts are independent of me. They stand by themselves. They don't will not change if I change. Their veracity has nothing to do with me. I never said it did. You did. Can you answer the question? Yes. What will you do if I come with my brothers to make use of the contents of the house in which you live? Nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I never said it did. You did. No I didn't. I haven't said anything. Nothing. Good. Then Ill be round in the morning. I guess you won't mind Merv inflating the currency away too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I never said it did. You did.Yes. Nothing. No I didn't. I haven't said anything.Good. Then Ill be round in the morning. I guess you won't mind Merv inflating the currency away too? Why don't you guys go and get a room? (no offence, your both great posters, but the sexual tension in this exchange is killing me ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Why don't you guys go and get a room? (no offence, your both great posters, but the sexual tension in this exchange is killing me ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No I didn't. I haven't said anything. Yeah you did. Good. Then Ill be round in the morning. Very good. Door will be locked, the dogs will be hungry and I might think you are going to attack me and hit you with something heavy, but go for it. I guess you won't mind Merv inflating the currency away too? Of course I mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) Very good. Door will be locked, the dogs will be hungry and I might think you are going to attack me and hit you with something heavy, but go for it. Great ! So private property = violence Violence is violence. Not much difference between you and the violence of the state is there. Pyschopaths the lot of yer ! Edited July 25, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Of course I mind. I thought fiat money didn't exist? I'm confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalRockSuperstar Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I thought fiat money didn't exist? it's those stay-out-of-jail tokens with the Queen on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Great ! So private property = violence No, You seem to be mistking me defending myself with attacking others. Violence is violence. Not much difference between you and the violence of the state is there. Pyschopaths the lot of yer ! Righto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) This is why I asked BBC to define his terms way back.For me socialism = state control (and therefore violence) Free markets = power of refusal for everyone (and therefore little violence) The difference is the violence. For BBC, I suspect - Socialism = benevolent state handing down resources from it's infinite supply Free markets = greedy men using the state to enhance their corporate power Unless he defines his terms in some behavioural sense, we have no clue what's going on. socialism isnt state control, that is state capitalism. to take resources away from one person and reallocate to another is capitalism controlled by a central body. the system only works through the enforcement of rules and law. socialism puts the control to the people rather than the state, bottom up rather than top down, like a co-operative. in fact capitalism requires a large state in order to enforce the rule of the game. the evolution of socialism is towards no state at all. nothing we have seen today is remotely like socialism because it doesnt work today. under a selfish society it doesnt work. it need to evolve in the aftermath of capitalism, and we havent finished with capitalism yet countries like sweden are moving in that direction though. for example you would hardly call the swedish government, a large oppressive government controlling all resources and how the population works. Edited July 25, 2009 by mfp123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 No, You seem to be mistking me defending myself with attacking others. You seem to think I should be resisted from taking you for my own exclusive use. I never agreed to that. Not much difference between your fat and sinew and a chair. Both are carbon. Both are stardust. One would look nice in my front room and the other nice in the cellar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 You seem to think I should be resisted from taking you for my own exclusive use.I never agreed to that. Not much difference between your fat and sinew and a chair. Both are carbon. Both are stardust. One would look nice in my front room and the other nice in the cellar. Interesting. Why do you think you are only carbon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Interesting.Why do you think you are only carbon? I didnt say that. Carbon is one of the most prevelant elements in the human body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) I didnt say that.Carbon is one of the most prevelant elements in the human body. carbon's only about 18% - you're primarily oxygen. Edited July 25, 2009 by apr400 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) carbon's only about 18% - you're primarily oxygen. Still one of the most prevelant Edited July 25, 2009 by Alan B'Stard MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Still one of the most prelevant true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I didnt say that.Carbon is one of the most prevelant elements in the human body. I'm starting to think that you think this word game is actually relevent to anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan B'Stard MP Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I'm starting to think that you think this word game is actually relevent to anything. Bingo. Ever followed an injin thread before? It's all word games. Ridiculous isn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) also consider that profits are shared not between the shareholders and owners but the people that work there like a john lewis, or dare i say it, at an extreme level, an investment bank, where it is the workers that get paid the profits. there is less need to tax people because profits are already distributed at the grass roots level, rather than the few owners. its still possible to earn more than others (investment bank) but the change occurs in that the state doesnt control the means of production and allocate resources, the people do. Edited July 25, 2009 by mfp123 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athe Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 also consider that profits are shared not between the shareholders and owners but the people that work there like a john lewis, or dare i say it, at an extreme level, an investment bank, where it is the workers that get paid the profits.there is less need to tax people because profits are already distributed at the grass roots level. its still possible to earn more than others (investment bank) but the change occurs in that the state doesnt control the means of production and allocate resources, the people do. This post seems completely OT - what does it have to do with Injin's attack dogs or Alan's carbon fetish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 There is nothing wrong with people forming voluntary socialist collectives as a means of providing for themselves, but any attempt at trying to run a centralized state socialist economy will fail because the economy needs price signals. IMO that nails state socialism on the head. Besides, how people can always think that changing one banner for another will work or make any difference is beyond me. It's like been given a new job title for doing your old job. You can call yourself a landscape architect if you want, but you'll still be cutting the grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PropertyGuru Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) socialism. That's right. It's in human nature to be altruistic. Deep down inside, everyone wants to slave away for the benefit of complete strangers. That's why there's never any need to legislate for it, or coerce the population into doing it. People just willingly work selflessly for the greater good. not. In the same way that school bullies use coercion to make you hand over your pocket money, 'socialists' use coercion to force you to 'be good'. Anyone doesn't get that is a flaming retard or a liar, I'm afraid. The true altruists are few and far between, and tend (like me) to be that way because they can afford to be Edited July 25, 2009 by PropertyGuru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfp123 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 socialism.That's right. It's in human nature to be altruistic. Deep down inside, everyone wants to slave away for the benefit of complete strangers. That's why there's never any need to legislate for it, or coerce the population into doing it. People just willingly work selflessly for the greater good. not. In the same way that school bullies use coercion to make you hand over your pocket money, 'socialists' use coercion to force you to 'be good'. Anyone doesn't get that is a flaming retard or a liar, I'm afraid. The true altruists are few and far between, and tend (like me) to be that way because they can afford to be so er, who do you work for then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Ok, so we agree that your position is that you have no unilateral claim to own your own body. This logic is consistent with me not owning the result of my labour. Bogbrush can I ask a question? I see that you regard both your own body, and the produce of your own labour, as belonging to you. I assume by extension you would apply this to other people? What about other entities? Where would you draw the line? Foreigners? criminals? babies? orang-utangs? cows? horses? fish? bees? apple trees? oil wells? is it theft to remove the oil from the well? Genuinely curious as to thoughts on this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromage Frais Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 (edited) What do you guys think about Georgism? Edited July 25, 2009 by Fromage Frais Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.