You are wrong. About almost everything. Your ideas are dangerous and if they ever become the norm, that society will be hell on Earth. I really wish there were something I could say that would help you and make a difference. Talk to a counselor or something. Unless you really are a sociopath there has to be some way for you to see value in something other than your own selfish interests. Just try.
— Pro Hominem
That's what you keep telling yourself.
The truth is I hit the nail on the head in my original posts, and you know it. You have difficulty swallowing that pill, so your reaction is to get angry, misrepresent my point and demonize me so you can tell yourself you don't have to listen to my ideas.
Here, I'll repeat them for you:
Socialists want to spend other people's money because they think they know best.
— Tzeentch
[Government is] a form of coercion: a means to force individuals to do things by threat of violence.
— Tzeentch
Governments assert power over individuals based on what are essentially territorial claims, [governments are], at their basis, [...] no more legitimate than a despot
— Tzeentch
Finally, and most importantly:
And beware those who see government as a legitimate means to an end.
— Tzeentch
Now, that last sentence obviously didn't make it into a discussion about socialism by accident. That sentence is exactly about you.
Everything you've provided so far shows you have a great deal of trouble accepting the fact that people have different views than you, and that you would happily use coercion to force them to act in accordance to your beliefs. You're little tyrants, masquerading as philanthropists.
I like to think philosophy and psychology go hand in hand, and the gaggle of angry socialists on this forum being shown a mirror never fails to provide some interesting cases.
Now go on and reflect, as will I. I'm done conversing with you three. — Tzeentch
Considering the fact that we do not choose the society we live in, what moral obligationsresponsibilitiestowards it can we truly be said to have, other than the ones we take up voluntarily? — Tzeentch
its easier to whine about "your" money — Pro Hominem
If he can't see it, then perhaps further conversation will reveal it to him. — Banno
"Government = bad". The end. That's all you've got. — Pro Hominem
what I think happened is you mistook my position as anarchist or 'all coercion is unjustifiable'. — Tzeentch
Justice, fairness, human rights, freedom - that's how I think of socialism. — Judaka
By such definitions, against what does socialism support violence? :chin: — Tzeentch
Anarchism is a form of socialism (the original form, actually), so I already answered that for the most part. The difference between anarchism and statist forms of socialism is just the state, which thinks it’s the only one who gets to use violence and that it is justified in using violence to prevent anyone else from doing so, or from otherwise disobeying it. — Pfhorrest
I think you are simply correct here and my use is inappropriate. — Judaka
If we consider capitalism a form of violence, surely governments that take the belongings of their subjects as a means of achieving their goals can be considered violent, no? — Tzeentch
If we consider capitalism a form of violence, surely governments that take the belongings of their subjects as a means of achieving their goals can be considered violent, no? — Tzeentch
↪god must be atheist
Eleanor Roosevelt was never an American president.
What responsibilities does a slave have? — praxis
Let's go. — Tzeentch
If he sees it then the issue becomes one of psychology rather than philosophy. He's nailed his flag, and will stand by it. Further conversation is pointless.
If he can't see it, then perhaps further conversation will reveal it to him. But that is a rare thing. — Banno
...perhaps a fruitful approach would be to ask him what exactly is it that makes his money HIS (or anybody’s anything THEIRS). — Pfhorrest
Boy, was I ever stupid. — god must be atheist
Slaves have responsibilities. ... They need to do what they are told. — god must be atheist
But is it good, legitimate violence (if we accept, which you and I both seem to, that there is such a thing), or is it bad, illegitimate violence? — Pfhorrest
I'm not so sure there is something as legitimate violence. I consider all types of violence to be undesirable and inherently problematic. But it seems sometimes some amount of violence is better than the alternative. I wouldn't go so far as to say that legitimizes it. — Tzeentch
Violence is about forcing one's will upon others (or hurting others; this is why I prefer the term 'coercion'), and there is no just basis for that. — Tzeentch
My will is no better than yours. The will of the group is no better than the will of the individual. A government's will no better than that of their subjects. — Tzeentch
A political system that cannot recognize this, and instead sees violence as instrumental; a tool to be used to achieve it's goals based on it's own conceptions of right and wrong, I can only consider as tyrannical and deeply flawed. — Tzeentch
Like, if someone tries to take something that belongs to you, you don't just have to let them, right? (Is that itself violence/coercion, them taking something from you?) It's okay for you to stop them, right? Is it okay for someone else to help you stop them? Or for there to be an organized force of people who help people stop people from doing things like that, taking things that belong to others? — Pfhorrest
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.