Political Crossfire Forums

[Free Thinkr]

The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.
Well, there you have it.

Perhaps... but that cynisism is why I do not call myself a Communist.
I don't really think it's cynical. When things go bad, and they always will from time to time, people look out for themselves and their families first. People will usually share when there is plenty, but when the chips are down they look out for themselves. Communists are overly idealistic when it comes to man's empathetic nature, IMO.

[FinnMacCool]

Quote: No, I'm asking if there is a method in anarchism that protects those who do not wish to kill others from those who do.

No because something like that isn't needed.

Quote: You mean gun? A gun is physical power.
If you say so. Doesn't really make a difference anyways, its all semantics.

Quote: Yes. If I get a group of boys together in your little anarchist utopia, a war will break out and it will quickly devolve into, well, anarchy. But not the kind you're talking about.

So your saying that your recruitment of boy prostitutes to stand in town is an act of war?

Seriously though, what you refer to is a universal truth of any political or economic system.

Quote: The problem is how it is you're going to have detectives charged with catching criminals, yet not answerable to any authority.
Who needs authority?

Quote: Because a lot of places such as gas stations don't have people paid exclusively to clean toilets
So I guess you would pay someone minimum wage for them to wash toilets for 8 hours. And then they would be clean?

Quote: No you didn't, not once.

Your rather thick, aren't you? Check above.

Quote: That's true, but they wouldn't clean them anyways. I mean honestly, would you? Would you stop and a clean a f***ing toilet on your way to work? I don't think so. Everyone would look to everyone else to clean it, and it'd never get done.
This is true but it doesn't always have to be true. Someone who is looking for something to do but can't find anything, and someoen directs them to the toilet cleaning problem, they can say "Why not clean the toilets?"

[FinnMacCool]

LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free. Are you serious? There is a state and it is your master :?. Who truly wants to be equal? What if we're all equally poor, would you want that? Why does my intellect/abilities earn me no merit beyond what a normal person can achieve?

And are you not controlling them by not allowing them to get what they want even if someone else doesn't? Or by not allowing them to have better things than anyone else?

THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!! Wrong and heres why. If there was no State who's going to force people to share the products of their labor?

Nobody.

[The Impeacher]

Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.
Well, there you have it.

Perhaps... but that cynisism is why I do not call myself a Communist.
I don't really think it's cynical. When things go bad, and they always will from time to time, people look out for themselves and their families first. People will usually share when there is plenty, but when the chips are down they look out for themselves. Communists are overly idealistic when it comes to man's empathetic nature, IMO.

Looking out for your family is not a form of empathy?

It's interesting to note I used to agree with you, but have come to realize that the key element is "when things go bad," as I find that man is capable of anything.

But then, I've also read both Adam Smith's and David Hume's essays on Moral Sentiments...

[Atlas Bergeron]

FinnMacCool wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: LetsGetReal wrote: issaiah1332 wrote: CrossEyedMary wrote: social wrote: Its gona have to be communism. The amount of people who conflate communism as a theory with communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, etc. is astounding.
Same here. Communism is completely different from the fascism posing as communism you see in all those countries.

I feel the same! If 100% of the time you stub your toe when you walk what is the chance it will happen again?

You act like these Communist states happened like this because of the people, not the idea. You must be either taking a naive look at communism or truly don't know what your talking about. Communism will only bring upon itself death of the individual, of society, and of all who participate in it. There is a reason it has always happened this way look at my analogy for further clarification. :wink:

And to see a Libertarian in support/defense of Communism is quite eye opening.:shock:

Facism is in direct relationship with the idea of Communism. How else would you enslave the whole country?


The idea is not flawed at all only your understanding. In Communism there is no slavery. It is impossible to be a slave, in true Communism, when there is no master over the slave. Everyone works, everyone is equal, everyone gets what they need. No one is controlling them, they are not a slave to how much money they have, and there is no state. Who is the slave owner? Everyone works is commune, to help each other. When one works together one can truly be free. Are you serious? There is a state and it is your master :?. Who truly wants to be equal? What if we're all equally poor, would you want that? Why does my intellect/abilities earn me no merit beyond what a normal person can achieve?

And are you not controlling them by not allowing them to get what they want even if someone else doesn't? Or by not allowing them to have better things than anyone else?

THERE IS NO STATE IN COMMUNISM!!!! Wrong and heres why. If there was no State who's going to force people to share the products of their labor?

Nobody.

How small can you guys get the box in the center? :-D

[Free Thinkr]

The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.
Well, there you have it.

Perhaps... but that cynisism is why I do not call myself a Communist.
I don't really think it's cynical. When things go bad, and they always will from time to time, people look out for themselves and their families first. People will usually share when there is plenty, but when the chips are down they look out for themselves. Communists are overly idealistic when it comes to man's empathetic nature, IMO.

Looking out for your family is not a form of empathy?
No, I think its a form of direct concern; it's pure self interest to wish to protect those you love. I don't love you, Impeacher. I hope you don't die or suffer pain out of empathy, but I'd gladly stab you in the heart if I had to choose between you and my family, and I believe you'd do the same.

Quote: It's interesting to note I used to agree with you, but have come to realize that the key element is "when things go bad," as I find that man is capable of anything.
This is true, but note that the Oscar Schindlers were relatively few and far between.

Quote: But then, I've also read both Adam Smith's and David Hume's essays on Moral Sentiments...
Huzzah!

[The Impeacher]

Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: That said, if force is necessary to "make" people share, communism will never truly occur.
Well, there you have it.

Perhaps... but that cynisism is why I do not call myself a Communist.
I don't really think it's cynical. When things go bad, and they always will from time to time, people look out for themselves and their families first. People will usually share when there is plenty, but when the chips are down they look out for themselves. Communists are overly idealistic when it comes to man's empathetic nature, IMO.

Looking out for your family is not a form of empathy?
No, I think its a form of direct concern; it's pure self interest to wish to protect those you love. I don't love you, Impeacher. I hope you don't die or suffer pain out of empathy, but I'd gladly stab you in the heart if I had to choose between you and my family, and I believe you'd do the same.

Sorry, that's jus the circular self-interest axiom and its really boring. All you do is go "other interest is really self-interest" and blah blah blah.

Just because empathy helps you survive and pass on your DNA does not make it "self-interest". It is just the way you are wired, and your DNA host is not yourself.

And again, you assume I am going to stand between you and your family, when the reality of the situation if times are that hard I will kill allof you without remorse, risking my life, and removing any choice you think you have.

And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: It's interesting to note I used to agree with you, but have come to realize that the key element is "when things go bad," as I find that man is capable of anything.
This is true, but note that the Oscar Schindlers were relatively few and far between.

Oh yes, the Holocost was the best of the times.... :roll:

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: But then, I've also read both Adam Smith's and David Hume's essays on Moral Sentiments...
Huzzah!

I doubt you really understand what that means.

[Free Thinkr]

The Impeacher wrote: Sorry, that's jus the circular self-interest axiom and its really boring. All you do is go "other interest is really self-interest" and blah blah blah.
Well, isn't it? Have you ever felt someone else's feelings? No, you work from your own self outward.

Quote: Just because empathy helps you survive and pass on your DNA does not make it "self-interest". It is just the way you are wired, and your DNA host is not yourself.
Empathy is an emotion.

Quote: And again, you assume I am going to stand between you and your family, when the reality of the situation if times are that hard I will kill allof you without remorse, risking my life, and removing any choice you think you have.
Why is that, pray?

Quote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.
You will do it because it's in your self interest to prevent the bad feelings you'd get from losing your family. It's a function of your reason acting on your emotions: a fine example of self-interest.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: It's interesting to note I used to agree with you, but have come to realize that the key element is "when things go bad," as I find that man is capable of anything.
This is true, but note that the Oscar Schindlers were relatively few and far between.

Oh yes, the Holocost was the best of the times.... :roll:
Not sure what you're trying to say here, considering my point was that empathy is weak and tends to be ignored when the chips are down.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: But then, I've also read both Adam Smith's and David Hume's essays on Moral Sentiments...
Huzzah!
I doubt you really understand what that means.
:lol:

Went to the well and it was dry, I suppose.

[The Impeacher]

Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Sorry, that's jus the circular self-interest axiom and its really boring. All you do is go "other interest is really self-interest" and blah blah blah.
Well, isn't it? Have you ever felt someone else's feelings? No, you work from your own self outward.


Predicated on "in hard times" as you seem to forget.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Just because empathy helps you survive and pass on your DNA does not make it "self-interest". It is just the way you are wired, and your DNA host is not yourself.
Empathy is an emotion.

Self-interest is an emotion, better thought of as a moral sentiment, as I was trying to indicate above - but it seemed your well was dry.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: And again, you assume I am going to stand between you and your family, when the reality of the situation if times are that hard I will kill allof you without remorse, risking my life, and removing any choice you think you have.
Why is that, pray?

In hard times, self-interest can certainly prevail, or have you become so dense as to think I have not already agreed to that?

My self-interest in said example is due to risking my life for the life of others, which is, guess what, actually due to my empathy for my family.

My self interest would be to not get killed for others.

Empathy is the driver, I did not need to kill all of you just for myself. My other-interest is the driver.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.
You will do it because it's in your self interest to prevent the bad feelings you'd get from losing your family. It's a function of your reason acting on your emotions: a fine example of self-interest.

It's a funtion of my emotions driving my reason. My other-interest outweighs my self-interest as I am risking my presevation for the preservation of others.

No hero qualification necessary.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: It's interesting to note I used to agree with you, but have come to realize that the key element is "when things go bad," as I find that man is capable of anything.
This is true, but note that the Oscar Schindlers were relatively few and far between.

Oh yes, the Holocost was the best of the times.... :roll:
Not sure what you're trying to say here, considering my point was that empathy is weak and tends to be ignored when the chips are down.

Empathy is strong and tends to be stronger when the chips are down.

Does Schindler strike you as the type of person to risk his own life when things are good?

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: But then, I've also read both Adam Smith's and David Hume's essays on Moral Sentiments...
Huzzah!
I doubt you really understand what that means.
:lol:

Went to the well and it was dry, I suppose.

In your case, it seems to be.

[Atlas Bergeron]

The Impeacher wrote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.
I think someone is mixing up the definitions between empathy and love here...
Empathy involves experiencing feelins of another becuase you recognize you possess some similarities (like both being human), love involves attachment on a level which goes far beyond experience and deep into the person's values on life. Love could be called a deeper form of empathy--but they are hardly ever called equal.

here is a demonstration, in your own words, of the difference.

TheImpeacher wrote: My self-interest in said example is due to risking my life for the life of others, which is, guess what, actually due to my empathy for my family.

My self interest would be to not get killed for others.
People would rarely die for another becuase of 'empathy' (although they may support that person). However, they will die for love. The reason is becuase they cannot imagine life without the person they would sacrifice their life for--the other person's existance has become so hardwired into thier own. In this way, it is a selfish act-although it is for another. People normally don't commit suicide for selfless reasons--They do it becuase they want 'to escape'.

[The Impeacher]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: The Impeacher wrote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.
I think someone is mixing up the definitions between empathy and love here...
Empathy involves experiencing feelins of another becuase you recognize you possess some similarities (like both being human), love involves attachment on a level which goes far beyond experience and deep into the person's values on life. Love could be called a deeper form of empathy--but they are hardly ever called equal.

here is a demonstration, in your own words, of the difference.

TheImpeacher wrote: My self-interest in said example is due to risking my life for the life of others, which is, guess what, actually due to my empathy for my family.

My self interest would be to not get killed for others.
People would rarely die for another becuase of 'empathy' (although they may support that person). However, they will die for love. The reason is becuase they cannot imagine life without the person they would sacrifice their life for--the other person's existance has become so hardwired into thier own. In this way, it is a selfish act-although it is for another. People normally don't commit suicide for selfless reasons--They do it becuase they want 'to escape'.

Love and empathy are both terms for "other-interest" that is not self-interest, your point is moot. Empathy was the relevant term as it was assumed "in hard times," and my goal is to alleviate their suffering while increasing the likelyhood of my own.

How you think this would not be an issue of self-sacrifice seems puzzling to me, perhaps you were just trying to clarify?

[Free Thinkr]

The Impeacher wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: The Impeacher wrote: Sorry, that's jus the circular self-interest axiom and its really boring. All you do is go "other interest is really self-interest" and blah blah blah.
Well, isn't it? Have you ever felt someone else's feelings? No, you work from your own self outward.

Predicated on "in hard times" as you seem to forget.
No, all the time. Hard times just make this obvious.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Just because empathy helps you survive and pass on your DNA does not make it "self-interest". It is just the way you are wired, and your DNA host is not yourself.
Empathy is an emotion.
Self-interest is an emotion, better thought of as a moral sentiment, as I was trying to indicate above - but it seemed your well was dry.
Self-interest is an emotion? LOL! Gotta love self-evidently false claims.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: And again, you assume I am going to stand between you and your family, when the reality of the situation if times are that hard I will kill allof you without remorse, risking my life, and removing any choice you think you have.
Why is that, pray?
In hard times, self-interest can certainly prevail, or have you become so dense as to think I have not already agreed to that?
Well its nice to see you stop dancing around it and explicity state it. Mission accomplished.

Quote: My self-interest in said example is due to risking my life for the life of others, which is, guess what, actually due to my empathy for my family.
Your love for your family. Love is much stronger than empathy. If you think you can lie your way through this discussion by mixing terms, you are dead wrong.

Quote: My self interest would be to not get killed for others.

Empathy is the driver, I did not need to kill all of you just for myself. My other-interest is the driver.
bulls**t. Your self-interest is to protect what you love. You know that if your loved ones are killed before you, it will bring you much pain, a pain that outweighs your fear of death.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.
You will do it because it's in your self interest to prevent the bad feelings you'd get from losing your family. It's a function of your reason acting on your emotions: a fine example of self-interest.
It's a funtion of my emotions driving my reason.
No, not unless you go nuts and literally cannot control your emotions. That'd be the case where you emotions drove your reason; otherwise, your reason acts on your emotions.

Quote: My other-interest outweighs my self-interest as I am risking my presevation for the preservation of others.

No hero qualification necessary.
LOL. I like this "other-interest" term you are bandying about. So this "other-interest" isn't a function of your mind, of your self? That's interesting. Must be a product of the ether, I suppose! :rotf:

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: It's interesting to note I used to agree with you, but have come to realize that the key element is "when things go bad," as I find that man is capable of anything.
This is true, but note that the Oscar Schindlers were relatively few and far between.

Oh yes, the Holocost was the best of the times.... :roll:
Not sure what you're trying to say here, considering my point was that empathy is weak and tends to be ignored when the chips are down.

Empathy is strong and tends to be stronger when the chips are down.

Does Schindler strike you as the type of person to risk his own life when things are good?
Depends on what you mean. If Shindler were strolling by a lake and saw someone drowning, sure, I think he'd risk his life. Would he travel the world like Caine from Kung Fu helping other people? No. But he was in a very special circumstance that allowed him to take a fairly minimal risk (initially) and save many lives. Once he was in for a dime, he was in for a dollar.

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: But then, I've also read both Adam Smith's and David Hume's essays on Moral Sentiments...
Huzzah!
I doubt you really understand what that means.
:lol:

Went to the well and it was dry, I suppose.

In your case, it seems to be.
Strike two! :lol: Consult a diviner, my friend, lest you dehydrate!

[Atlas Bergeron]

The Impeacher wrote: Atlas Bergeron wrote: The Impeacher wrote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own.
I think someone is mixing up the definitions between empathy and love here...
Empathy involves experiencing feelins of another becuase you recognize you possess some similarities (like both being human), love involves attachment on a level which goes far beyond experience and deep into the person's values on life. Love could be called a deeper form of empathy--but they are hardly ever called equal.

here is a demonstration, in your own words, of the difference.

TheImpeacher wrote: My self-interest in said example is due to risking my life for the life of others, which is, guess what, actually due to my empathy for my family.

My self interest would be to not get killed for others.
People would rarely die for another becuase of 'empathy' (although they may support that person). However, they will die for love. The reason is becuase they cannot imagine life without the person they would sacrifice their life for--the other person's existance has become so hardwired into thier own. In this way, it is a selfish act-although it is for another. People normally don't commit suicide for selfless reasons--They do it becuase they want 'to escape'.

Love and empathy are both terms for "other-interest" that is not self-interest, your point is moot. Empathy was the relevant term as it was assumed "in hard times," and my goal is to alleviate their suffering while increasing the likelyhood of my own.

How you think this would not be an issue of self-sacrifice seems puzzling to me, perhaps you were just trying to clarify?
You were being redundant with "empathy and love" and I wasn't sure if you actually thought they were differn't or if you recognized that love is just a stronger form of empathy.
Ultimately what I was trying to point out is that you would not do it for empathy, you would do it for love. Other interest is fine (and is probably one point which I disagree with Rand becuase she was confused), but you require something more than simply 'empathy'--something more than recognizing that they are in a similar situation than you--to make great sacrifices (or as I would call them, compromises), at least, reasonably valid ones.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: Quote: And I will do it because of the empathy and love I have for my family, because I care as much about their survival as I do my own. You will do it because it's in your self interest to prevent the bad feelings you'd get from losing your family. It's a function of your reason acting on your emotions: a fine example of self-interest. It's a funtion of my emotions driving my reason. No, not unless you go nuts and literally cannot control your emotions. That'd be the case where you emotions drove your reason; otherwise, your reason acts on your emotions.
It is more a function of your morals driving you reason, instead of your emotions. You connote that emotions are absent of morals--but I would counterargue. Hitler was not driven by some divine source of emotions from which we all drink, neither are cold blooded murderers or any other scum of the earth. It is thier morals which corrupt thier emotions.
So the question is--Is it in your own self interest to help others when it is not very much of a sacrifice to yourself? My answere is--only when it suits you. It does not need to be a direct material gain, but instead the ability to understand thier experieince makes it yours in a small amount--the more you understand and agree with a person, the more you care about thier wellbeing becuase the more they are you. At a certain point, probably at the point when you would be willing to risk--if not sacrifice--you life to save the life of the other person, empathy becomes love.
Empathy is the moral hold which guarantees that you will not disrespect the rights of others, becuase you see your own rights within thiers.

[Libercrat]

It's obviously got to be Islam. Look at the big-name modern terrorists today who profess jihad in the name of their religion! Not every Muslim in the United States and abroad feels like suicidal terrorism is the key to Allah's approval.

[Atlas Bergeron]

Libercrat wrote: It's obviously got to be Islam. Look at the big-name modern terrorists today who profess jihad in the name of their religion! Not every Muslim in the United States and abroad feels like suicidal terrorism is the key to Allah's approval.

um.... :shock:
WHAT!
I feel stupider. What was this? Posted on the wrong thread?

Edit: oh... hahaha. With the flow of the discussion, forgot the point of the whole thread...
:!oops:

[Saf]

Capitalism. No contest.