NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you telling me I need to pay protection to Gang A in order to avoid expropriation by Gang B, which may or may not exist, just because Gang A waves a badge?

I suggest you not bother asking questions that history has answered for you. There is a reason ordered society exists.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

I suggest you spend less time memorizing pithy phrases and more time learning how to make an intelligent argument.

Are you telling me I need to pay protection to Gang A in order to avoid expropriation by Gang B, which may or may not exist, just because Gang A waves a badge?

Not just to avoid expropriation by ruthless capitalists, but also to ensure that the people with whom you enter into contracts with don't welsh on their deal.

Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Alright, at which point you get a dictator up top, which is absolutely a might-makes-right way of leading.

Given the context, I thought you were giving connotations of it being inherently anti human rights. By your criteria however, every economic model disregards human rights. If it concerns more than one right, it ceases to be just an economic model, and becomes a political theory - classical liberalism for example (liberal non economic rights and property rights), or Marxism (egalitarianism both socially and economically).

What about things like public healthcare? Isn't that an economic policy meant to affirm a political right (i.e. the right to life and health)?

What about things like public healthcare? Isn't that an economic policy meant to affirm a political right (i.e. the right to life and health)?

Well this is where you step into positive rights rather than negative rights, but this doesn't amount to a 'complete disregard for human rights', this is just ONE right (a right to a decent standard of living) that SOME capitalists think do not exist. But you can be capitalist and have an NHS, it's called welfare capitalist.

I voted Other, as I consider myself somewhere inbetween Menshevik & Anarchist-Communist

I voted Other, as I consider myself somewhere inbetween Menshevik & Anarchist-Communist
Oh christ -_-

-_-

Oh christ -_-

I don't think even he can help you with that one.

I don't think even he can help you with that one.
I dunno, I'm not that well read in terms of the Bible. He have anything inspiring to say about incredibly tragic MC guilt about not being a pleb? Or overly romantic teenagers?

I suggest you not bother asking questions that history has answered for you. There is a reason ordered society exists.



I suggest you spend less time memorizing pithy phrases and more time learning how to make an intelligent argument.

On the contrary; the statement is true and accurate. Prove that it is not.

"History has answered?" That is an argument akin to the notion that laissez-faire is responsible for the current financial crisis.

The simple objective fact of the matter is that total free-market capitalism is the ONLY moral system, and nothing else matters.

Actually it is one of the few systems where morality doesn't come into play

I'm sorry. Did you not understand the question? Define the state of nature.I understood the question. I thought you wanted me to define the state of nature so you could make a bad argument from it, so I preempted you.
The state of nature is, to paraphrase, Hobbes, "nasty, chaotic, and brutish". People join society and form governments to get out of the state of nature.

Just in case any of the preceding is unclear: The employees, in the scenario proposed by Jello Biafra, have stolen (appropriated, if the Orwellian term makes anyone feeeeeel better) the owner's property. They have therefore initiated force against the employer.Incorrect. The social contract, in this example, no longer recognizes the employer's right to the means of production. You can't steal something from somebody if they don't have the right to it.