NationStates

Well then:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... tar-claims

Deacarsia wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:Happy Brexit Day

Such a lovely message of inclusion and peace.

Indeed.

So now we're supposed to be blase about hate crimes?

Fartsniffage wrote:Happy Brexit Day

Such a lovely message of inclusion and peace.

What utter cunts.

Fartsniffage wrote:Happy Brexit Day

Such a lovely message of inclusion and peace.

Cant wait until people realise that HM the Queen is a German.

"the the queens english"

Utter spastic cant even proof read their little flyer.

Celritannia wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Would be cosmic irony if Boris did just that and GVH loses the posh cushion of his family's assets afterwards.

I mean, he is technically a socialist in the family aspect, as he accept money off his parents they earned.

....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

Purgatio wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
:rofl:

I mean, he is technically a socialist in the family aspect, as he accept money off his parents they earned.

....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

When I grow up I shall release rats in a Swiss bank vault genetically engineered to excrete aqua regia. And then I shall laugh. <.>

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

When I grow up I shall release rats in a Swiss bank vault genetically engineered to excrete aqua regia. And then I shall laugh. <.>

I have no clue what any of that nonsense has anything to do with what I just said, but I can't help but find it hilarious that the most you can muster up is a rather hapless retelling of your personal bizarre fantasies and daydreams.

Purgatio wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:When I grow up I shall release rats in a Swiss bank vault genetically engineered to excrete aqua regia. And then I shall laugh. <.>

I have no clue what any of that nonsense has anything to do with what I just said, but I can't help but find it hilarious that the most you can muster up is a rather hapless retelling of your personal bizarre fantasies and daydreams.

Give me a break I'm drunk and I want to turn gold bars into useless sludge.

Purgatio wrote:

Celritannia wrote:


I mean, he is technically a socialist in the family aspect, as he accept money off his parents they earned.

....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

I think the joke went over your head.

Vassenor wrote:

Deacarsia wrote:Indeed.

So now we're supposed to be blase about hate crimes?

Taking Britain (realistically just England in due time) back from durty furriners.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

When I grow up I shall release rats in a Swiss bank vault genetically engineered to excrete aqua regia. And then I shall laugh. <.>

Okay Goldfinger.

Purgatio wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:When I grow up I shall release rats in a Swiss bank vault genetically engineered to excrete aqua regia. And then I shall laugh. <.>

I have no clue what any of that nonsense has anything to do with what I just said, but I can't help but find it hilarious that the most you can muster up is a rather hapless retelling of your personal bizarre fantasies and daydreams.

Alternatively we could go full posadism and address money hoarding a la Civilisation!Gandhi. <.>

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I have no clue what any of that nonsense has anything to do with what I just said, but I can't help but find it hilarious that the most you can muster up is a rather hapless retelling of your personal bizarre fantasies and daydreams.

Give me a break I'm drunk and I want to turn gold bars into useless sludge.

When you get drunk, you daydream about destroying Swiss bank vaults? Wow....okay. That's pretty strange, but not the weirdest drunk fantasy I've heard tbh.

Celritannia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

I think the joke went over your head.

A good joke requires a valid premise so that the punchline is funny. The very premise of your joke (i.e. that inheritance is socialistic) is wrong. I.e., its a bad joke.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I have no clue what any of that nonsense has anything to do with what I just said, but I can't help but find it hilarious that the most you can muster up is a rather hapless retelling of your personal bizarre fantasies and daydreams.

Alternatively we could go full posadism and address money hoarding a la Civilisation!Gandhi. <.>

"Our finances are backed by nuclear weapons!"

Purgatio wrote:

Celritannia wrote:


I mean, he is technically a socialist in the family aspect, as he accept money off his parents they earned.

....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

you can have localized socialism within a non-socialist system. so all your stuff about the coerced transfer of property and wealth etc. doesn't mean much. now i'm not saying that the description of what has happened in socialism, but there's no reason why someone couldn't accidentally create conditions effectively equivalent to socialism.

Purgatio wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
I think the joke went over your head.

A good joke requires a valid premise so that the punchline is funny. The very premise of your joke (i.e. that inheritance is socialistic) is wrong. I.e., its a bad joke.

I never said it was a good joke either XD

Souseiseki wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
....its not socialist at all. Socialism involves the coerced transfer of property and wealth through the force of the law and the power of the State. I've never heard a capitalist ever argue that gifts and inheritances are bad. If anything, the very concept of private property implies that the owner can do whatever he wants with that property - sell it, lease it, gift it, put it in a trust, put it in a will etc. If someone who works hard for their money wants their loving children to inherit that estate, who are you to say otherwise?

you can have localized socialism within a non-socialist system. so all your stuff about the coerced transfer of property and wealth etc. doesn't mean much. now i'm not saying that the description of what has happened in socialism, but there's no reason why someone couldn't accidentally create conditions effectively equivalent to socialism.

I mean, not really. Even Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia in his last chapter (almost to throw a bone to his philosophical opponents) stated he was not opposed to people, exercising freedom of contract, to create socialistic communes within his ideal society (i.e., people voluntarily sign a contract to relinquish all their property to a socialistic commune in exchange for membership in said commune and all the rights of support that go with that). Nozick and other capitalists/libertarians are just opposed to coerced transfers of wealth and property from an unwilling owner to other people.

Albennia wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Thats fucking stupid.

I'd love to hear how true monogamy is stupid.

Monogamy is not stupid.

The notion that sex before putting on some rings and standing a ceremony is somehow bad or sinful is stupid. Very fucking stupid.

Albennia wrote:Sex education classes need to teach that all premarital (unless in a relationship leading to marriage) and extramarital sex is wrong.

Or the select people that happen to be running the country could stay out of the bedroom.

Purgatio wrote:

Souseiseki wrote:
you can have localized socialism within a non-socialist system. so all your stuff about the coerced transfer of property and wealth etc. doesn't mean much. now i'm not saying that the description of what has happened in socialism, but there's no reason why someone couldn't accidentally create conditions effectively equivalent to socialism.

I mean, not really. Even Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia in his last chapter (almost to throw a bone to his philosophical opponents) stated he was not opposed to people, exercising freedom of contract, to create socialistic communes within his ideal society (i.e., people voluntarily sign a contract to relinquish all their property to a socialistic commune in exchange for membership in said commune and all the rights of support that go with that). Nozick and other capitalists/libertarians are just opposed to coerced transfers of wealth and property from an unwilling owner to other people.

it probably makes more sense when you see self-proclaimed libertarian capitalists accidentally creating workers controlled models on a regular basis while violently denying so much as the slightest hint of socialism

The Huskar Social Union wrote:

Albennia wrote:I'd love to hear how true monogamy is stupid.

Monogamy is not stupid.

The notion that sex before putting on some rings and standing a ceremony is somehow bad or sinful is stupid. Very fucking stupid.

Not a coincidence that in the US states that emphasize puritannical values like that are deficient in sex education and conversely abundant in unwanted teen pregnancies.

Nuroblav wrote:

Albennia wrote:Sex education classes need to teach that all premarital (unless in a relationship leading to marriage) and extramarital sex is wrong.

Or the select people that happen to be running the country could stay out of the bedroom.

Boris preaching monogamy would be especially amusing.

Souseiseki wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
I mean, not really. Even Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia in his last chapter (almost to throw a bone to his philosophical opponents) stated he was not opposed to people, exercising freedom of contract, to create socialistic communes within his ideal society (i.e., people voluntarily sign a contract to relinquish all their property to a socialistic commune in exchange for membership in said commune and all the rights of support that go with that). Nozick and other capitalists/libertarians are just opposed to coerced transfers of wealth and property from an unwilling owner to other people.

it probably makes more sense when you see self-proclaimed libertarian capitalists accidentally creating workers controlled models on a regular basis while violently denying so much as the slightest hint of socialism

Yes, again, because libertarians/capitalists see a big difference between voluntary acts and involuntary property transfers. Because it is a big difference. Do you seriously not think there's a big moral difference between a gift of US$500 and someone forcefully stealing the same amount? There's no contradiction in someone consesually creating a worker-controlled model, whilst objecting to the State or community forcing that model onto every capital owner against their will.