Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: JT
Yep. That's what leftists really want in their heart-of-hearts. They might not realize that that is what their desires must necessarily produce, but the cold hard truth is that economic equality can only be achieved by a totalitarian regime and a complete surrender of individual liberty and responsibility.
Friedrich August von Hayek wrote extensively about this phenomenon.
And everything he has written is proved true in this thread alone.
Sadly, not a single leftist here has likely read even a single book on economic theory, so they have no clue about F.A. Hayek, or his debates with Johan Maynard Keynes.
I am debating an audience completely ignorant of the philosophoical underpinnings of the issues in debate.
I might as well be debating a fence post!
DOES NO ONE HERE READ BOOKS???
Your beginning statements are either fallacious or unjustified. As in, you say "leftits really want" ...."but...[the] truth is that economic equality..."
Economic equality is of course, communism. And to say that all leftists are communists, as I think you just said, is to but up against the Fallacy of False Dichotomy. It is not necessarily true that to be on the left is to be a communist, however much some people want to stereotype groups by their most extreme members. Just like to be on the right wing like yourself does not make you a fascist. Or like to be a Muslim does not necessarily make you a terrorist.
But feel free to correct me if you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
I would submit, given the latest turns in this thread, that we are there.
No. One of the primary reasons you reacted so poorly to my last post was because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
No. My response to your last post was entirely appropriate to the content of that post. You single out corporations as being the root of corruption in politics while ignoring the most obvious source of corruption in America today - crony capitalist politicians and the tax code that makes them so powerful - a tax our founders PURPOSELY made unconstitutional because of the naked power it would have put into the hands of govenment.
The article you posted at the start of this thread speaks volumes about your agenda. Written by a self-confessed socialist, it singled out only TWO individuals, allegedly conservative (but actually Libertarian), as PLANNING (with no proof naturally) to their vast financial wealth to forward conservative causes.
You didn't post an article decrying the hundreds of millions being spent to elect leftist politicians and to influence the government to forward a leftist agenda by the likes of Soros, Gates, Jobs, Buffet, Turner, Sperling, Lewis, the Sandler's, Doer, Robertson, Berggruen, Sussman, Hunter and the many leftist foundations (Tides, etc.) and union bosses so involved.
No... you selected an article by a socialist decrying alleged conservatives "planning" to allegedly do what all these leftist billionaires have actually been doing for years!
It is all too clear that you could give a flying squirrel's nut stash (to borrow a phrase) about corporate influence in elections when it is aimed at promoting leftist causes and politicians. It is only when corporations seek to forward a conservative agenda or conservative politicians that we find you speaking out in opposition to corporate influence.
Your agenda is quite clear. You could not be any more transparent. It is why you refuse to engage me in any meaningful way on the substantive issues I've raised in this thread and others.
Those "conceptions" I have of the "writer" are entirely accurate as I see it. Your posts are proof of that.
Yep. That's what leftists really want in their heart-of-hearts. They might not realize that that is what their desires must necessarily produce, but the cold hard truth is that economic equality can only be achieved by a totalitarian regime and a complete surrender of individual liberty and responsibility.
Friedrich August von Hayek wrote extensively about this phenomenon.
And everything he has written is proved true in this thread alone.
Sadly, not a single leftist here has likely read even a single book on economic theory, so they have no clue about F.A. Hayek, or his debates with Johan Maynard Keynes.
I am debating an audience completely ignorant of the philosophoical underpinnings of the issues in debate.
I might as well be debating a fence post!
DOES NO ONE HERE READ BOOKS?
Your beginning statements are either fallacious or unjustified. As in, you say "leftits really want" ...."but...[the] truth is that economic equality..."
Economic equality is of course, communism. And to say that all leftists are communists, as I think you just said, is to but up against the Fallacy of False Dichotomy. It is not necessarily true that to be on the left is to be a communist, however much some people want to stereotype groups by their most extreme members. Just like to be on the right wing like yourself does not make you a fascist. Or like to be a Muslim does not necessarily make you a terrorist.
But feel free to correct me if you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase.
I meant what I said.
Read a book or two and you might understand it.
I'd start with "The Road to Serfdom" given the turn this thread has taken.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
This is just more of the same from you... non-responsive nitpicking and misdirection, while real issues remain unaddressed.
Attempting to debate you is like boxing with a shadow; you can land all the punches you like, but as there's nothing really there it's all just wasted effort.
No. One of the primary reasons you reacted so poorly to my last post was because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
My points that I made were in rebuttal to the corporate donations being given. Not a peep about the massive amounts of money by unions given to political candidates (mostly to Democrats).
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
I meant what I said.
Read a book or two and you might understand it.
I'd start with "The Road to Serfdom" given the turn this thread has taken.
No doubt you did mean what you said. But I hope you don't labor under the delusion that because a person means something very much, or proposes a claim with enough force of will, that this will have an effect on the truth value of his claim.
And, am I to interpret your not correcting me as a sign that you are actually saying that all leftists are communists?
And am I also to interpret your mentioning this document as a sign that Hayek too claims that all leftists are communists, and attempts to provide some sort of justification or, dare I say, proof of this in the book you mentioned?
Because if that's the case, I might just read that book. I'd be interested to see an attempt to demonstrate that all leftists are communists.
Or is that not what you meant? Are you actually claiming that all leftists are communists?
Entirely possible that you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase, or by what you said in your post that is quoted above. Feel free to correct me if I have you wrong there.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
I'd start with "The Road to Serfdom" given the turn this thread has taken.
No doubt you did mean what you said. But I hope you don't labor under the delusion that because a person means something very much, or proposes a claim with enough force of will, that this will have an effect on the truth value of his claim.
And, am I to interpret your not correcting me as a sign that you are actually saying that all leftists are communists
And am I also to interpret your mentioning this document as a sign that Hayek too claims that all leftists are communists, and attempts to provide some sort of justification or, dare I say, proof of this in the book you mentioned
Because if that's the case, I might just read that book. I'd be interested to see an attempt to demonstrate that all leftists are communists.
Or is that not what you meant Are you actually claiming that all leftists are communists
Entirely possible that you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase, or by what you said in your post that is quoted above. Feel free to correct me if I have you wrong there.
No. One of the primary reasons you reacted so poorly to my last post was because you were thinking not of it, but of the thread's previous turns, and various other conceptions you had of the writer.
My points that I made were in rebuttal to the corporate donations being given. Not a peep about the massive amounts of money by unions given to political candidates (mostly to Democrats).
No worries Tex. You can't call what lu61f3r is doing "debate."
And good luck at getting him to respond to any point of substance. He'd much rather tie you up in meaningless semantic shadow boxing - as this thread clearly illustrates.
Registered: 06/04/07
Posts: 987
Loc: MW, Local Group, Universe
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
Originally Posted By: lu61f3r
Originally Posted By: dblboggie
I meant what I said.
Read a book or two and you might understand it.
I'd start with "The Road to Serfdom" given the turn this thread has taken.
No doubt you did mean what you said. But I hope you don't labor under the delusion that because a person means something very much, or proposes a claim with enough force of will, that this will have an effect on the truth value of his claim.
And, am I to interpret your not correcting me as a sign that you are actually saying that all leftists are communists
And am I also to interpret your mentioning this document as a sign that Hayek too claims that all leftists are communists, and attempts to provide some sort of justification or, dare I say, proof of this in the book you mentioned
Because if that's the case, I might just read that book. I'd be interested to see an attempt to demonstrate that all leftists are communists.
Or is that not what you meant Are you actually claiming that all leftists are communists
Entirely possible that you meant something else by "economic equality," or some other phrase, or by what you said in your post that is quoted above. Feel free to correct me if I have you wrong there.
Non-responsive and off topic.
I was responding to a post of yours.
_________________________
An Eagle was soaring through the air when suddenly it heard the whizz of an Arrow, and felt itself wounded to death. Slowly it fluttered down to the earth, with its life-blood pouring out of it. Looking down upon the Arrow with which it had been pierced, it found that the shaft of the Arrow had been feathered with one of its own plumes. "Alas!" it cried, as it died,
"We often give our enemies the means for our own destruction."
Previous Topic
Index
