So, Geezer, rappy, in your ideal world, what should happen?
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 17:09
VIEWED: 12173
PAGE 6 of 15
Quote:You never do.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to.
That's a train don't come.
Mostly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So rappy, when we QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD we're somehow 'misrepresenting' you.
And when you can't find a single quote for what YOU claim we're saying, what are YOU doing?
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:You never do.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Don't have to.
That's a train don't come.
Mostly.
I usually do, but not for mundane crap like gay wedding cakes and photography for gay weddings, which is in the current news.
Whether it's lies about the GOP on Healthcare - " And with that, a Republican wants federally subsidized hospitals to turn away ill human beings who lack insurance. Certainly customary of the “pro-life” party, right? " , which is nothing but an intentional distortion of the facts...
Or you claiming crap about Ninja skills and mocking the point of fighting against Islamo Jihadists who want to kill Americans ( 9/11, Ft Hood, DC Sniper, Times Square bomber, Boston Marathon bombers, Shoe bomber, Panties bomber , etc... ) , there is a real clear and present danger, regardless of what your WISH were true.
There IS a place for NSA to be doing SOMETHING to try to connect the dots before another 9/11 happens, but it doesn't have to include granny being felt up by the TSA or everyone being watched 24/7.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So rappy, when we QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, WORD FOR WORD we're somehow 'misrepresenting' you.
And when you can't find a single quote for what YOU claim we're saying, what are YOU doing?
You're going anal here, simply because you can't win the discussion. I've given examples a plenty, so there's no need for a direct quote. Only thing is, you intentionally do this shit, so then you can go on arguing what the definition of IS is, and continue to NOT deal w/ the issue.
( And no, I never claimed you asked anyone for the exact definition of IS, dumb ass. That is an obvious and clear reference to Bill Clinton, and his obfuscating from having to simply admit he and Monica did in fact have sexual relations. He hyper twisted the language, so as to try to get out from having to simply admit what he'd done. The Left ALWAYS does this, so it's no surprise that you're trying to do it as well )
I suppose, TECHNICALLY, I should have use italics, and not quotes, but fuck, this isn't a god damn thesis. It's an informal internet forum.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?
To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. - Thomas Paine The American Crisis
OONJERAH - We are too dumb to live and smart enough to wipe ourselves out.
"You, who live in any kind of comfort or convenience, do not know how these people can survive these things, do you? They will endure because there is no immediate escape from endurance. Some will die, the rest must live."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
" In my ideal world, the vast majority of folks would understand that it was their responsibility to plan to have something in place to take care of themselves when they couldn't, and that voluntary associations would be in place for the folks whose plans didn't work out."
"So, you base your society on a notion that (most) think just like you."
"No. I base my ideal society on the notion that most people in it will share certain principles (pretty much the definition of a society)."
So, I threw these up together to see how they fared. Took out the everybody from my summary and substituted most, as that's more accurate - and it comes out the same as far as I can see. I'm not sure where the dispute is. To understand the same things is to think the same things is to share the same principles (thoughts).
The dispute is that people can share principles about a particular societal goal without having to share opinions about everything ("...think just like you"). Lots of folks in the U.S. and other democracies share the idea that representative democracy is a good thing, but differ greatly in how they see it applied, or the goals such a democracy should have.
I am impressed with the way you go back and edit your own words to try and make your argument stronger. Doesn't work, but it shows your character very well.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me.
So we've had a lot of "that won't work", reductio ad absurdum arguments arguing things no one has said, and general insult from you, but no response to KIKI's original question.
So, SignyM, in your ideal world, what should happen to KIKI's friend and folks like her? How would you set it up so that she'd be cared for?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ideally??
Drawn from real people, this is what I've seen, where it worked, where it fell short, and where it would need to be filled in:
Ideally, there would be family members nearby. Children, younger siblings, nieces and nephews. The family members who take on caring for an elder or disabled relative are carrying a TREMENDOUS burden, financial, physical and emotional. The fewer people who are involved, the worse it is. At my age and situation, I speak both from experience (daughter, MIL) and observation (mom, parents of people that I work with). But in today's society, when families split up by thousands of miles just to find work and there are fewer and fewer children, it's not always possible. Family is NOT the answer now, it won't be the answer in the future. (And it won't be the answer in YOUR envisioned future either... unless your envisioned future has families living in self-sustaining enclaves where the whole family doesn't have to hive off to find work.)
Some elderly people like to continue to live at home.
For the alone-and-mainly-functional elderly, how about minimally-intrusive help to start? Meals on Wheels, for example, is excellent minimally-intrusive assistance- they bring meals, sit and chat, do a subtle "welfare check" when they visit. It was a Meals on Wheels person who detected a gas leak in our mom's house (being elderly, her sense of smell wasn't good). Visiting nurses (part of the universal single-payer healthcare in my ideal society), even visiting GPs. (They do that in France, and pay less per person for healthcare. Why cant' we do that here?) Drivers to help take people around.
When live-in help is required, pay family members to do it. Add as necessary government-paid household assistants (housecleaners, people to help with personal care) for people who could be maintained in their own homes. When living at home is not longer possible (and it CAN be possible, under some circumstances, with enough support: My MIL lived with us to her death from cancer, our mom lived at home with our eldest sister's help until her death from COPD) or desired (some elderly prefer assisted-living) government-run assisted living. The fact that you could find a decent facility tells me that it's possible to staff one. There are programs in NYS that allow the development of small group homes or assisted-living facilities in the familiar community- in this case, they're private but they receive real-estate tax credits. Being nearby, where family members can visit often, patients are less subject to neglect. Obviously there would have to be good oversight. When we hire people to take care of our daughter, we interview a number of people who work at elder-care facilities. Some are well-meaning but ignorant, some are just callous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"I've given examples a plenty" Where?
Like every time he makes that claim - nowhere. That won't for a second stop him from claiming he did, over and over.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well I just answered that question. And what it boils down to is... if you can find that kind of care commercially, it can be done by the government.
I think the thing that Geezer fails to recognize is that people may simply not WANT the future he proposes. It's very possible that they understand the basis of his ideal society (I'm not sure I do... he's never been able to explain how it's supposed to work or even what it's supposed to achieve or what it's supposed to "look like" when it's done) but who the fuck wants a society of everyone against everyone, with all significant interactions reduced to property ownership and sales? It sounds like a fucking propertarian dystopian nightmare to me. -signy
So we've had a lot of "that won't work", reductio ad absurdum arguments arguing things no one has said, and general insult from you, but no response to KIKI's original question.-geezer
As far as the rest of your comments
The idea of HOW a libertarian "society" would work as been addressed, over and over and over, and you have NOT ONCE been able to provide a description or process by which your propertarian assumptions would turn into a functioning society. In fact, in at least one thread (the "show me a single society in which libertarianism works" one) you repeatedly disavowed the ability to do so. The only explanation you've been able to come up with is... in my ideal world, with ideal people, society would be ideal. So the only person who's engaged in reductio ad absurdum arguments, as far as I can tell, has been you.
So let me once again re-address that concept about how a functioning society can be created from propertarian assumptions, and maybe if you could finally address my concerns and questions we can get somewhere.
The essential right- in fact, the ONLY right- of people in your society is the right to own property and the right to enter into contracts and to have them enforced. Even your relationship to YOURSELF is one of ownership... And somehow, amidst this profound emphasis on property, ownership, and contractual obligation (enforced by private courts), people are supposed to have a deep familial loyalty, respect for the individual, AND a compassion for the unpropertied.
In your society, there is no minimum guarantee of property. So, one of the questions that I asked (which you never answered) was: For people who have nothing left to own or to sell- can they sell themselves into slavery? Can they sell themselves as body parts? If the contract was entered into "freely"... albeit economic compelled ... technically, in your society, I supposed it would be possible because I have not heard once about the right to liberty or right to life. Maybe it was an oversight on your part. If you meant to include it, let me know.
There is also no UPPER bound on the property that one can own. So despite the literally millenia of history in which entities get larger and larger by swallowing up smaller units (hamlets to villages to cities to duchies to kingdoms to empires; mom-and-pop shops to chains to monopolies) you imagine that people will somehow resist monopolization/ collectivization and maintain an economy of small units. So my other question would be: If that is the case, what is the additional ethic (besides a propertarian one) that limits the size of an enterprise?
The third problem I have is with the nature of people themselves, and whether they could ever start out with your assumptions and develop a society that you envision. The society that you envision is highly individualistic- atomized into independent buyers and sellers of goods and services. You see every person as a self-sufficient "unit" who can approach the remainder of society on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As I've said, I don't think it would remain in such a state for very long due to economic forces- and since a collective is ALWAYS more powerful than an in
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME