On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:16:56 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:52057bb3@news.povray.org...
>> Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>>> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>>> >
>>> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
>>
>>> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian
>>> regime.
>>
>> No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
>> somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
>> nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
>> if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
>> we are talking about saving people's lives.
>>
>>
> You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ...
> Bottle ... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

Bingo.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:37:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> A totalitarian regime is a regime
> 
> And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.
> 
> Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
> government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
> even if that something were a negative thing.
> 
>> If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are
>> talking down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't
>> do that to each other.
> 
> Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
> world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
> 
> Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> political correctness?
> 
> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a
> hypocrite.
> 
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack 
rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:37:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> A totalitarian regime is a regime
> 
> And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.
> 
> Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
> government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
> even if that something were a negative thing.

While you may find totalitarianism defined as a form of government, 
totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism, which elevates 
the power of authority over individual freedoms.

Totalitarianism is the extremist point that you're advocating (whether 
there is a government involved or not) in that your authority trumps the 
individual freedoms of those you would subject to your rules and enforce 
your "moral superiority" on.

Now, if you want to debate this in a rational manner that doesn't involve 
telling the people who disagree with you that they're horrible people or 
monsters, I'm happy to do that.

If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks 
against those you disagree with, then we're done here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 8:37 AM, Shay wrote:
>> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:520332b1@news.povray.org...
>
> Just a general reply. Every anti-anti-authoritarian (make sure you read
> that one right) argument you give comes down to "It'll work if it's done
> right." The anti-authoritarian (Libertarian) view can be expressed
> semi-succinctly as "It's not being done right, or conscientiously. The
> government, military, and megacorps are three heads of the same beast.
> Feeding any of its thee mouth strengthens the entire animal. The beast
> cannot be controlled and has to die. I'm taking back what power I still
> have--while I still can."
>
> Also, read about Mercantilism on Wikipedia. We aren't talking about the
> same thing.

And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to 
their "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding a 
new one. At the core, you will always get the same result, if you don't 
have someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the smaller 
ones band together, to control the government too, etc. The beast can 
get smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone deregulating 
everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of a military, and 
replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one, etc. You can, 
sometimes, keep it chained, but only if "people" are making the 
decisions, not amorphus entities (like legal entities, political 
parties, chains of command that can hide what they are doing from the 
public, etc.) Libertarians are not going to "fix" any of this, they are 
themselves a "political party", and, worse, some of their ideas about 
how reality works, tend to be naive as hell. (A big one is how they deny 
that inequities are inevitable, and that, short of some sort of a pure, 
and equality delusional, socialist redistribution, any such inequity 
**will** just breed a new beast, with new heads, like someone that 
thinks they have killed the hydra, but hasn't noticed that the heads are 
growing back.)

They don't see that, "taking back the power", they way they seem to want 
to do it, is strengthening some heads, even if it weakens others, and 
that, if anything, its making the things "less" controllable. I 
completely understand what they think they are doing, what they want to 
do, etc. I even, in principle, agree with much of it, but, they don't 
have the slightest damn clue how to get there, and what ideas they do 
have, often, have been tried before, even if, like a communist, arguing 
that no one has ever really "tried it", they can't see why it never has 
actually, ever, been truly tried. The reason being - the world can't 
work they way they want it to, there are too many things that get in the 
way, in the process, which will hurt real people, to do so, and then, 
there is no certainty, at all, that the result isn't going to, almost 
immediately, degenerate into the same thing, all over again. And, its 
the "how many people will get hurt" things that is the biggest problem, 
for anyone with the slightest scrap of compassion, and the key reason 
why their views are so often describes as, "I have mine, fuck you."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 12:20 AM, scott wrote:
>> Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes,
>> put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you
>> mention.
>
> Indeed it's sad that we haven't reduced the number of people in that
> situation to 0%, but it's *a lot* better than the situation 100 years ago.
>
Even if true, this doesn't change the fact that, recently, things have 
been getting "worse" not better, and the percentage of people who can't 
afford to heat/cool their homes is "growing" not shrinking, pretty much, 
in fact, since Reagan, trickle down economics, and the rasulting 
escalation of a pay gap, along with, BTW, his, and numerous other 
Republican presidents/congresses, "deregulation" of certain industries, 
including laws like fair pay, and the like.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>
> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of 
the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite 
a few of which are libertarians).

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>>
>> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of
> the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite
> a few of which are libertarians).

That's the sign of a good poe, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/08/2013 01:40, Warp nous fit lire :
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".
> 
> The millions of saved lives justified the means. Yes.
> 
>> So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
>> means" is always a good argument?
> 
> Always? Of course not.
> 
> When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> certainty that the program will save millions of lives, then it is
> perfectly justified.

But what if... 30 or 40 years later it is discovered that the program
had a delayed side-effect which was not expected.

Look at penicillin: wonderful products in the forty's, yet its usage has
now contributed to the fact that some dangerous bacteria becomes
resistant to it (and the competing bacteria which kept the other as
exception were also reduced, changing the balance)

> 
> Sacrificing millions of innocent lives just to not offend some people
> is sickening.
>

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 1:40, Warp wrote:

> When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> certainty

There is no such thing at all, at all. If you were a scientist you would 
know that.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:5205a3f5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to their 
> "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding a new one. 
> At the core, you will always get the same result, if you don't have 
> someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the smaller ones 
> band together, to control the government too, etc. The beast can get 
> smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone deregulating 
> everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of a military, and 
> replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one, etc.

And I thing you are being naïve, like most people who subscribe to the 
centralized-power "vision" that you can control a larger share of the 
government than you do the economy. And worse, you *!*want*!* price-fixing, 
selective taxation, and a massive military. Doesn't work. Hasn't worked. 
Won't work.

Post a reply to this message