NationStates

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:At this stage I would honestly prefer life under a Mexican drug cartel than the so-called "ideal society" of GVH and Purg.

At least I would be too stoned to care.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:At this stage I would honestly prefer life under a Mexican drug cartel than the so-called "ideal society" of GVH and Purg.

GVH and Purg believe in very different ideal societies.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I always did disagree with the message of A Christmas Carol. Scrooge did nothing wrong. He didn't deserve to get terrorized by a bunch of busybody ghosts who had better things to do in the afterlife.

I've always found that story so sad, I don't know about you. That perfectly respectable, long-standing businessman was guilted by a group of unpleasant, left-wing ghosts into such a state he'd buy some randomer an expensive turkey just to make them go away.

He was a nasty mean person who cared only about profit and treated his employees and everyone else like dirt. It’s like your healthcare proposal. If one has ruptured appendix of other medical emergency and they can’t pay up front 5000 pounds just pass?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
What? How? What's left to own then? No shares in companies? No patents or copyrights? No land?

Right. None of that stuff.

This is the stuff of dystopias. I mean, what's the point then? What could you own? Your toothbrush? Screw that.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:At this stage I would honestly prefer life under a Mexican drug cartel than the so-called "ideal society" of GVH and Purg.

GVH and Purg believe in very different ideal societies.

idgaf
Quacks like shit, walks like shit, shits like shit. Is Shit.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:At this stage I would honestly prefer life under a Mexican drug cartel than the so-called "ideal society" of GVH and Purg.

GVH and Purg believe in very different ideal societies.

Talking about yourself in the third person is more than a little odd. Just throwing it out there.

Purgatio wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I've always found that story so sad, I don't know about you. That perfectly respectable, long-standing businessman was guilted by a group of unpleasant, left-wing ghosts into such a state he'd buy some randomer an expensive turkey just to make them go away.

This is where the law intervenes and allows him to nullify all his gifts on grounds of duress and undue influence. Sorry Tiny Tim, Scrooge's little payment for your hospital bills is now invalid and reversed per The Universe Sentinel and Allcard v. Skinner

Now, that's what we call justice.

Purgatio wrote:Obviously that doesn't sound lovely, but I'm never gonna have to be in that situation.

so, you accept that the system is unfair and that your gains are unjust, yet you brush off all of that because it doesn't effect you? It seems that the only peoples interests you care about us your own, and that you don't care what happens to other people who you use for your interests

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right. None of that stuff.

This is the stuff of dystopias. I mean, what's the point then? What could you own? Your toothbrush? Screw that.

Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

San Lumen wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:I've always found that story so sad, I don't know about you. That perfectly respectable, long-standing businessman was guilted by a group of unpleasant, left-wing ghosts into such a state he'd buy some randomer an expensive turkey just to make them go away.

He was a nasty mean person who cared only about profit and treated his employees and everyone else like dirt. It’s like your healthcare proposal. If one has ruptured appendix of other medical emergency and they can’t pay up front 5000 pounds just pass?

I know! He was a great businessman. I personally like Christmas and give to charity, but it was his choice not to do those things.

Makdon wrote:

Purgatio wrote:Obviously that doesn't sound lovely, but I'm never gonna have to be in that situation.

so, you accept that the system is unfair and that your gains are unjust, yet you brush off all of that because it doesn't effect you? It seems that the only peoples interests you care about us your own, and that you don't care what happens to other people who you use for your interests

The overwhelming majority of people under capitalism don't live under the extreme conditions that Ostro painted tbh

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
This is the stuff of dystopias. I mean, what's the point then? What could you own? Your toothbrush? Screw that.

Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

H'Humanity' and 'Society' can completely collapse for all I care. What do they matter lol

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Yes, it is. Because property is not a private matter no matter how much people who benefit from it being seen that way wish it was.

But it is a private matter, borne out of private conveyances, private purchases, private savings, private investment choices, the growing and careful cultivation of a portfolio with private wealth managers for generations, it is ultimately a private and personal family matter and none of society's business how a family chooses to make private investment and savings decisions for their own members and their own children. Just because the estate could be used to alleviate a few social problems here and there does not change the fact that it arose out of private ordering and autonomous structuring of familial life.

Yes, it is society's business, since in a vacuum, no-one would have such extraordinary amounts of wealth. In order to even garner a moderate amount of wealth, you need:

1. Enforceable property rights
2. A monetary system enforced by the State
3. Contract law enforced by State courts
4. A system of transferable rights allowed for by some sort of civil code or system
5. A banking system and banking laws
6. A concept of legal personality seperate from natural personality
7. Tort law
8. Infrastructure built and cared for by a State.

No-one who earns money does that entirely on their own. And if the system mentioned above creates a result that is detrimental to vast amounts of people while only benefiting a select few, then the system we have built has failed. That system is not natural, it was created and is maintained by us, and we can change it if necessary. When making a balance between rights, something human rights lawyers must do all the time, the right to property is far less important than the right to life of others.

Purgatio wrote:

Makdon wrote:so, you accept that the system is unfair and that your gains are unjust, yet you brush off all of that because it doesn't effect you? It seems that the only peoples interests you care about us your own, and that you don't care what happens to other people who you use for your interests

The overwhelming majority of people under capitalism don't live under the extreme conditions that Ostro painted tbh

lol

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
This is the stuff of dystopias. I mean, what's the point then? What could you own? Your toothbrush? Screw that.

Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

Dude, the point of building up wealth is to have some financial security and safety net for you and the family you care about, if all you can own are depreciating things like toothbrushes or handbags you can't build up anything secure or long-lasting for yourself and your future. Private autonomy and private ordering and individual self-determination is impossible in this world, hence why I call it an authoritarian dystopia.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

H'Humanity' and 'Society' can completely collapse for all I care. What do they matter lol

This is the stuff that makes us respond with "Why should we care about your idea of what human rights are again?". If your point is that political ethics are pointless and it's all ultimately realpolitik and power, that's fine.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

H'Humanity' and 'Society' can completely collapse for all I care. What do they matter lol

Big Dog (Mexican Drug Cartel/HK Triad) eats Small Dog (you).

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

H'Humanity' and 'Society' can completely collapse for all I care. What do they matter lol

Because as a blind person you would be robbed and killed almost immediately because you are such an easy target for other people without empathy.

Purgatio wrote:

Makdon wrote:so, you accept that the system is unfair and that your gains are unjust, yet you brush off all of that because it doesn't effect you? It seems that the only peoples interests you care about us your own, and that you don't care what happens to other people who you use for your interests

The overwhelming majority of people under capitalism don't live under the extreme conditions that Ostro painted tbh

A very western-centric viewpoint. Still, the system forces you to work for fear of death, and what you earn for your labour is determined by people who have a vested interest in paying you as little as possible. Would you make up such a system if it didn't exist already?

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
But it is a private matter, borne out of private conveyances, private purchases, private savings, private investment choices, the growing and careful cultivation of a portfolio with private wealth managers for generations, it is ultimately a private and personal family matter and none of society's business how a family chooses to make private investment and savings decisions for their own members and their own children. Just because the estate could be used to alleviate a few social problems here and there does not change the fact that it arose out of private ordering and autonomous structuring of familial life.

Yes, it is society's business, since in a vacuum, no-one would have such extraordinary amounts of wealth. In order to even garner a moderate amount of wealth, you need:

1. Enforceable property rights
2. A monetary system enforced by the State
3. Contract law enforced by State courts
4. A system of transferable rights allowed for by some sort of civil code or system
5. A banking system and banking laws
6. A concept of legal personality seperate from natural personality
7. Tort law
8. Infrastructure built and cared for by a State.

No-one who earns money does that entirely on their own. And if the system mentioned above creates a result that is detrimental to vast amounts of people while only benefiting a select few, then the system we have built has failed. That system is not natural, it was created and is maintained by us, and we can change it if necessary. When making a balance between rights, something human rights lawyers must do all the time, the right to property is far less important than the right to life of others.

The law sometimes steps in to enforce and vindicate a person's fundamental rights, but that does not mean those rights don't exist in the moral plane absenting the State's involvement. I believe all people have a right to life and bodily integrity, but in the absence of the State and laws against murder, assault, and battery, coupled with torts like wrongful death lawsuits and trespass to the person, those rights would be pretty useless and unenforceable. That does not mean those rights aren't inalienable and central to human dignity and personhood, nor does it support an overbroad conclusion that therefore society can amend the terms of one's 'right to life' or 'right to bodily integrity' however it likes just because those rights would be hard to enforce in its absence.

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

San Lumen wrote:He was a nasty mean person who cared only about profit and treated his employees and everyone else like dirt. It’s like your healthcare proposal. If one has ruptured appendix of other medical emergency and they can’t pay up front 5000 pounds just pass?

I know! He was a great businessman. I personally like Christmas and give to charity, but it was his choice not to do those things.

And built his wealth on the backs of everyone who worked for him and forced people out of their homes because he only cared about more coin.

Your lack of empathy is scary. A hospital telling someone we won’t operate on your ruptured appendix if you don’t have the coin is disgraceful and immoral. If goes against everything being a medical professional stands for

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:'Humanity' and 'Society' can completely collapse for all I care. What do they matter lol

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:But I'm doing a human rights degree and hope to become a human rights lawyer.

The sheer amount of doublethink required to be able to hold onto and believe these two statements and for one's brain not to melt down is absolutely monstrous.

Purgatio wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Right, stuff like a toothbrush. You know. Personal property.

If the incentives on offer don't incentivize you that isn't a major problem. The only thing that matters is incentivizing the most people. You can sit in the corner instead if you want and humanity will still progress further and faster than under the current system.

Dude, the point of building up wealth is to have some financial security and safety net for you and the family you care about, if all you can own are depreciating things like toothbrushes or handbags you can't build up anything secure or long-lasting for yourself and your future. Private autonomy and private ordering and individual self-determination is impossible in this world, hence why I call it an authoritarian dystopia.

Try and follow because this is a moment where you're almost on point.

Right?

Right.

The point of a socialist society is to build up a security for you and your family that is more sustainable than a privatized version of that security because it prevents a run of bad luck fucking your descendants over entirely, including if you're rich.

Workers cooperatives are a form of ownership of means of production i'm okay with.

The New California Republic wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:'Humanity' and 'Society' can completely collapse for all I care. What do they matter lol

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:But I'm doing a human rights degree and hope to become a human rights lawyer.

The sheer amount of doublethink required to be able to hold onto a believe these two statements and for one's brain not to melt down is absolutely monstrous.

Like I said, he'll be a human rights lawyer for human rights abusers

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
The overwhelming majority of people under capitalism don't live under the extreme conditions that Ostro painted tbh

A very western-centric viewpoint. Still, the system forces you to work for fear of death, and what you earn for your labour is determined by people who have a vested interest in paying you as little as possible. Would you make up such a system if it didn't exist already?

While these conditions currently exist I was specifically referring to land enclosure. It's how current class divides were formed, you just need to look at the Pinker study of wealth over generations. Class divisions in terms of wealth in the UK are more based on the theft of common land than anything like innovation and so on.