If this show is all about lip syncing then this is the worse lip syncing Ive ever heard! ( @lucky760 Groucho Marx smiley would be gold right here.)
>> ^csnel3:

That was the actual recording of the song, right? So this is a lipsyncing show? I dont get it. Translate please.

Spengler from GhostBusters looks like Groucho Marx.

So you are saying Hitler contradicts himself constantly in his own book (if that's where your quotes came from, since most of them only site page numbers and not the source) much like the Bible? Sorry not buying it.

>> ^shinyblurry:

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
Hitler on propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)


>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

That's what we call propaganda. This is what Hitler really thought:

13th December, 1941, midnight:

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)


21st October, 1941, midday:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

14th December, 1941, midday:

Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

27th February, 1942, midday:

It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler on propaganda:

"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)





>> ^Duckman33:
We can't explain how the tides work? You can't be serious.
Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)
"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)
"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)
“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
I can post more if you're still not convinced.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, we can't explain that.
The reply:
Bennett is completely correct. It’s an important conceptual point, and we blew it.
As far as the Holocaust goes, I wasn't originally intending to pin it on anyone, but since the topic has surfaced, Hitler may have claimed in his propaganda to be Christian, but his statements to the nazi party tells a much different story:
27th February, 1942, midday
"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me..
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Although there is no proof that the sun will rise tomorrow, you accept it on faith that it will.
IE, the holocaust.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

Thanks for the reply. There were things I really didn't understand about Krugman's Hangover Theory article, especially that very point that you quote. In fact I tried to ask in a post above about this but maybe you missed it. To me it seems only natural that there is no unemployment in the boom and there is some in the bust. Both are big reorganisations of labour, it is true. However, to start with the boom is much slower and longer so adaptation is easier. Also the booming industry can afford to pay slightly above average wages so will easily attract unemployed or 'loose' labour. As it is paying above average, there will be little resistance to people changing work to it. The boom is persistent enough that people will train and invest to enter the work created by it. The information for entering the boom industry is clear and the pay rise makes the work change smooth. I see no reason for unemployment.
The bust however is short and sudden. There is no other obvious work to return to. That information of what the worker should do is much less clear. The answer may involve taking a small pay cut or on giving up things in which people have invested time and money. Many people wait and resist doing this. They may well not know what to do or try to wait for opportunities to return. Thus there is plenty of reason for unemployment to be generated by the bust.
If I hire 100 people it can probably be done in a month or two. If I fire 100 people it may be a long time before they are all employed again. For me this difference seems so obvious I have a real trouble to understand Krugman's point. I know he's a very smart guy but I can't make head nor tail of his argument here. Can you explain it to me?


I'm trying to think how to connect what you're saying to the point Krugman's making (at least as I understand it).

At a minimum, he're Caplan making the same point in less space:

The Austrian theory also suffers from serious internal inconsistencies. If, as in the Austrian theory, initial consumption/investment preferences "re-assert themselves," why don't the consumption goods industries enjoy a huge boom during depressions? After all, if the prices of the capital goods factors are too high, are not the prices of the consumption goods factors too low? Wage workers in capital goods industries are unhappy when old time preferences re-assert themselves. But wage workers in consumer goods industries should be overjoyed. The Austrian theory predicts a decline in employment in some sectors, but an increase in others; thus, it does nothing to explain why unemployment is high during the "bust" and low during the "boom."

Krugman saying the same thing in more accessible language:

Here's the problem: As a matter of simple arithmetic, total spending in the economy is necessarily equal to total income (every sale is also a purchase, and vice versa). So if people decide to spend less on investment goods, doesn't that mean that they must be deciding to spend more on consumption goods—implying that an investment slump should always be accompanied by a corresponding consumption boom? And if so why should there be a rise in unemployment?

And as a bonus, here's Brad DeLong making a similar case.

My real handicap here is that I'm not familiar enough with the fine details of the Austrian theory to say with authority what they believe. So if I misrepresent their position, it's out of ignorance.

What I gather is that ultimately the Austrian theory of boom and bust is that central banks are messing with the "natural" balance of investment and consumption goods, with a boom happening when investment is being artificially stimulated (by low interest rates), and a bust happens when interest rates eventually go back up (due to inflation, or expectations thereof).

The response from people like Caplan and Krugman is to point out that since aggregate income has to equal aggregate expenditure (because everyone's income is someone else's expenditure, and vice versa), a fall in investment should mean a rise in consumption, and a rise in investment should mean a fall in consumption. Which means we should never see an overall boom or an overall bust, just periods of transition from a rise in consumer goods and a fall in investment, to a fall in consumer goods and a rise in investment. We should never see a situation where they both fall at the same time.

But we do see a fall in both during the bust. Why?

Keynes's answer was that it happens because people are hoarding cash. Either people are themselves stuffing mattresses with it, or more likely, banks start sitting on reserves and refusing to lend out, either out of a fear of their own solvency (Great Depression), or because a deflationary cycle with high unemployment makes sitting on cash look like a good, safe investment for them (Great Depression, and now). Put simply, depressions are the result of an excess demand for money. And since money is an arbitrary thing, it doesn't have to be a scarce resource, we can always just make more...

Despite some crazy ideas about the inevitability of communism, even capitalists are beginning to realize Marx was right about capitalism.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197468/20110813/roubini-nouriel-roubini-dr-doom-financial-crisis-debt-crisis-europe.htm

That is some *quality high energy fun music you found there Mr. Harpo Marx I liked most of the other vids in your pqueue too, you should post more!

Ten Ways Progressive Policies Harm Society's Moral Character
By Dennis Prager
7/19/2011

While liberals are certain about the moral superiority of liberal policies, the truth is that those policies actually diminish a society's moral character. Many individual liberals are fine people, but the policies they advocate tend to make a people worse. Here are 10 reasons:

1. The bigger the government, the less the citizens do for one another. If the state will take care of me and my neighbors, why should I? This is why Western Europeans, people who have lived in welfare states far longer than Americans have, give less to charity and volunteer less time to others than do Americans of the same socioeconomic status.

The greatest description of American civilization was written in the early 19th century by the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville. One of the differences distinguishing Americans from Europeans that he most marveled at was how much Americans -- through myriad associations -- took care of one another. Until President Franklin Roosevelt began the seemingly inexorable movement of America toward the European welfare state -- vastly expanded later by other Democratic presidents -- Americans took responsibility for one another and for themselves far more than they do today. Churches, Rotary Clubs, free-loan societies and other voluntary associations were ubiquitous. As the state grew, however, all these associations declined. In Western Europe, they have virtually all disappeared.

2. The welfare state, though often well intended, is nevertheless a Ponzi scheme. Conservatives have known this for generations. But now, any honest person must acknowledge it. The welfare state is predicated on collecting money from today's workers in order to pay for those who paid in before them. But today's workers don't have enough money to sustain the scheme, and there are too few of them to do so. As a result, virtually every welfare state in Europe, and many American states, like California, are going broke.

3. Citizens of liberal welfare states become increasingly narcissistic. The great preoccupations of vast numbers of Brits, Frenchmen, Germans and other Western Europeans are how much vacation time they will have and how early they can retire and be supported by the state.

4. The liberal welfare state makes people disdain work. Americans work considerably harder than Western Europeans, and contrary to liberal thought since Karl Marx, work builds character.

5. Nothing more guarantees the erosion of character than getting something for nothing. In the liberal welfare state, one develops an entitlement mentality -- another expression of narcissism. And the rhetoric of liberalism -- labeling each new entitlement a "right" -- reinforces this sense of entitlement.

6. The bigger the government, the more the corruption. As the famous truism goes, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Of course, big businesses are also often corrupt. But they are eventually caught or go out of business. The government cannot go out of business. And unlike corrupt governments, corrupt businesses cannot print money and thereby devalue a nation's currency, and they cannot arrest you.

7. The welfare state corrupts family life. Even many Democrats have acknowledged the destructive consequences of the welfare state on the underclass. It has rendered vast numbers of males unnecessary to females, who have looked to the state to support them and their children (and the more children, the more state support) rather than to husbands. In effect, these women took the state as their husband.

8. The welfare state inhibits the maturation of its young citizens into responsible adults. As regards men specifically, I was raised, as were all generations of American men before me, to aspire to work hard in order to marry and support a wife and children. No more. One of the reasons many single women lament the prevalence of boy-men -- men who have not grown up -- is that the liberal state has told men they don't have to support anybody. They are free to remain boys for as long as they want.

And here is an example regarding both sexes. The loudest and most sustained applause I ever heard was that of college students responding to a speech by President Barack Obama informing them that they would now be covered by their parents' health insurance policies until age 26.

9. As a result of the left's sympathetic views of pacifism and because almost no welfare state can afford a strong military, European countries rely on America to fight the world's evils and even to defend them.

10. The leftist (SET ITAL) weltanschauung (END ITAL) sees society's and the world's great battle as between rich and poor rather than between good and evil. Equality therefore trumps morality. This is what produces the morally confused liberal elites that can venerate a Cuban tyranny with its egalitarian society over a free and decent America that has greater inequality.

None of this matters to progressives. Against all this destructiveness, they will respond not with arguments to refute these consequences of the liberal welfare state, but by citing the terms "social justice" and "compassion," and by labeling their opponents "selfish" and worse.

If you want to feel good, liberalism is awesome. If you want to do good, it is largely awful.

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

>> ^dgandhi:
The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.Then you wouldn’t need to quote other ideologies to make that point.
>> ^dgandhi:
Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?Don’t feign ignorance. Marxism is based on the collective's right to the individual.
>> ^dgandhi:
Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from.Production comes from nowhere. Thanks for clearing that up.
>> ^dgandhi:
What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?There’s no test needed, it’s inherent to human life. If I build a net, then I rightfully own it. If I catch fish with my net, then I rightfully own the fish.
>> ^dgandhi:
You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?Liberty is self-ownership. If you believe someone else can own you (e.g. selling yourself), then you don’t believe in liberty. Nice try though.
>> ^dgandhi:
But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.
No, I said you were wrong regardless of whether or not you accepted my property claims. And your current social contract is meaningless if you decide to violate my liberty.
>> ^dgandhi:
If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.Production doesn’t come from anywhere, remember? How about you prove this is true: If I steal something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

>> ^marbles:

No, you’re quoting “objectivism” for its absurdity like it has another meaning.

objective

>> ^marbles:

You have failed to make any argument that liberty is self-contradicting.

The ideology expressed by the video is self contradicting, calling it liberty does not change that.

Please re-read my original post (watch out for the quotes) for three arguments for self-contradiction.
3 ≠ 0

>> ^marbles:

Incorrect. Marxism does not share that premise.

Please enlighten us, on what basis does Marx argue that workers have the right to the results of their labor?

>> ^marbles:

Where does production come from? If it is a social construction then it would be self-evident.


Production does not come from anywhere, you might as well ask where blue comes from. Please rephrase your question so that it makes grammatical sense.

>> ^marbles:

Fact: Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits.


What mechanism in the physical world can be used to test this supposed fact?

>> ^marbles:

No, Liberty insists slavery is categorically wrong, you insist it doesn’t exist and never could.


You ideology allows the following:
1)You can sell what you own.
2)The product of my property is also my property.
Therefor : If your mother sold herself to me before you were born I own you.

If 1 is false, then your mother didn't own herself, and couldn't sell herself to me.
If 2 is false, then you have no right to the fruits of your labor on the basis of self ownership.
Which do you give up so that you don't support slavery?

>> ^marbles:

False. Social contracts are not by default based on protecting liberty.


But you said I was wrong BECAUSE disregarding property claims doesn't work in my current life. If you meant to actually make a point on some logical grounds, you should have.

You, not I, used my current social contract as evidence of the rightness of your philosophy. Now that I point out the stupidity of that argument, you claim not to have made it.

Pro-tip: Consider the consequences of your arguments before you make them.

>> ^marbles:

False again. If I produce something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

If I touch something, it belongs to me. No social contract needed. I am perfectly within my rights to defend against someone attempting to take it from me.

I changed one word. Please, provide some proof that either of these statements is false, without, simultaneously disproving the other.

@dgandhi

You seem to have a problem understanding how quotations work.

I’m still trying to figure out how something can be “ideology indistinguishable” from objectivism and also a Marxist axiom. Fascinating that it can capture the essence of two polar opposite philosophies. But nevertheless, it doesn’t matter--since it’s neither.

Re: "state of nature" is a well developed concept, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

From the video: “Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use.” That’s reality. It’s self-evident.

Re: The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

Citation please.

Re: You say this, but what do you mean?
I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.
Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

And others live in places that don’t share the same freedom you have. What’s your point? Did your choices and actions produce anything of value?

Re: The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

Thanks, you just ended slavery all over the world! It's amazing!

Re: Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Think again.

Re: Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

You don’t have to accept my property argument. And I don’t have to accept your nonsense that property isn’t property. But guess who wins—the one with the property. Don’t believe me: Go ahead and “make use of all the things” of your nearest neighbor. Take his car, his money, his clothes. Let me know how that works out.

>> ^marbles:

@dgandhi
Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.


Okay, one at a time then(again):

"objectivism" is a ref to the content, It is in quote because Rand's name for her ideology is a troll, and should not be taken seriously, it is relevant to the vid in that the vid describes an ideology indistinguishable from Rand's.

marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces" is a ref to the bit that starts at 1:45, that claims legitimacy on the same grounds as Marx, except that the basis of the claim is false, because nothing in the modern world is not already owned.

Objects existing in a "state of nature" is a necessarily prerequisite for the ability to own your work, that exactly matched the vids claim at 1:58, this is also quote for absurdity, not because it is a direct quote from the vid.

>> ^marbles:
False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels.

This video was not made pre-Marx. The basis for property rights made is indistinguishable from Marx, until the twist of it never being possible, and therefor not a coherent basis, is thrown in at the end.

>> ^marbles:

Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

I am not quoting the video at this point, I am referencing the video, there is a difference. I am also using reasonably clear names for positions the video creator takes, not typing out a transcript.

>> ^marbles:
Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property.

You say this, but what do you mean?

I am alive, and I have the power to make choices and take actions, these are not rights they are facts.

Others have the power to act and make choices as well, this is simply a fact.

Sometimes people decide not to mess with each other, they form a society and grant each other contractual rights that serve their best interests as they understand them.

Fee simple property is one of these arrangements where a group of people agree to protect privileged access to some resource to particular people, this too is only a right by contract.

The Randian trick of trying to conflate the contract with the fact, and somehow make it universal and immutable, is cute in its naivete, but really has no basis in reality.

The entire self ownership argument is based on the premise that self directing entities can be owned, and therefor you must own yourself to stop anybody else from owning you. If we dispense with the whole idea of owning (because it's silly) or even just with the idea of owning people, there is no need to own yourself. You, and everybody else can just be un-owned, and un-ownable (but not un-pwnable). There you go, one great (and contrived) moral quandary averted, you're welcome.

>> ^marbles:
False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.


Okay fine, I disregard your silly property claims, and I will make use of all the things you claim to own whenever I wish, since I am perfectly within my rights to not be constrained by your threat to initiate force when I use these things.

Of course, we both know that's not what you, or the author, meant. You both mean that I have an obligation to accept your property arguments, that I can think whatever I want as long as I obey. Sorry, again, that does not seem to fit the general accepted definition of the word liberty in English.

@dgandhi

Maybe I was unclear. Your incoherent use of quotations has little to no context regarding the video.

Re: This is a perfect example of the absurdity of "objectivism".
The premise is the basically marxist axiom "labor has the right to all it produces", but with some arbitrary caveat about that only being true when the things worked on are "in a state of nature".

False, and false. Liberty was a philosophy long before Rand, Marx, or Engels. Your 3 quotes have no reference in the video.

Re: The "Voluntary Mutual Consent" principle, is also similarly constrained by the unexplained arbitrary limitation, that you are required to consent to some arbitrary property system, of course with no coherent way to decide which property system is the "right" one. This "principle" like the "state of nature" special case, must be taken on faith.

Life is not arbitrary. Property is the inherent, human-right of control over one's own labor and its fruits. Tangible items that we refer to as property are only representations of property. Life is constrained by “property systems”. That’s because most property systems exist so one group of people can steal from another. Voluntary mutual consent exists beyond any property system. 4 quotes, only 1 reference, no context.

Re: "The Marketplace of Values" is similarly not open to any disagreement or experimentation with regards to market and property systems. We are only allowed to experiment once we have given up the right to hold a contrary opinion.

False. The quote from the video is “Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal”. The opposite suggests you give up your right to ANY opinion.