- 14 Jun 2019 19:25
#15012091
I don't accept those views of justice. In my world, and I would go as far to say "in real world", the justness of something is determined by those who have power to do so, and act according to it. You have every right to exploit someone else, as they have the right to exploit you. This the the right given to you by God (or Nature, if you guys don't like the word "God"). The right to fight. You don't even have a right to life, only the right to fight for your life.
No. Absolutely not. There is no reason why you would stand on the side of the weak ones. I could go and say "if the strong's rights are not being abrogated without just compensation for the benefit of the weak". In fact, I'm going to say just that.
That's hilarious. No wonder why your dumb commie ideology never works.
When you break the rules, the rules of nature, you pay the price.
It is precisely the responsibility of the weak to take care of themselves, and not a responsibility of anyone else. Especially not of a society as a whole.
This is not subhuman mode of existence, this is uber-human.
And that's why there is no more pathetic thing that a person who expects the government to solve their life problems, especially if that person is a male. Government represents other people, and other people have no duty to help you.
That's a market price, which is determined by a contract between a buyer and a seller. However, the real value (survival power) is the thing upon which those two sides come to a deal in the first place. They calculate the costs and benefits the deal with bring to their power level.
Yes, and the point was they benefited millions of people. Few of them did more good for humanity than all the communists combined, and probably more than a million x factor. If we calculate all the lives and wasted time because of communism.
Also, there is no difference between creating wealth and accumulating wealth.
It's so close you couldn't even put your tiny **** in between it.
But, why don't they have enough of material, while others do? And why would God allow them to suffer like that?
Ummm, because they never had the right for that land in the first place. To steal something is to take something which does not belong to you. But, the land belongs to those who have power to control it, and not to those who just want to use it, or who were first to use it. Land and territory is similar to women. You might think that your girlfriend belongs to you, but she doesn't. She belongs to a best man she can find. If that man is you, than you have the "right" to claim her. If you are not that man, you have no right over her, and she does not belong to you.
They share the exact same essence, which is power.
Now, civilization has developed so that most ownership problems are solved though deals, laws and agreements, and not pure brute force. Because of the obvious reasons. However, we can also see that certain ownership problems (questions) are being solved through brute force. Communists know what I'm talking about
You should be thinking twice as much as you're reading.
Truth To Power wrote:There's a difference between accumulating capital at the expense of others who are your competitors and have the same liberty right to access opportunities as you, which is just, and accumulating it at the expense of others whose rights are being abrogated without just compensation for your benefit, which is unjust.
I don't accept those views of justice. In my world, and I would go as far to say "in real world", the justness of something is determined by those who have power to do so, and act according to it. You have every right to exploit someone else, as they have the right to exploit you. This the the right given to you by God (or Nature, if you guys don't like the word "God"). The right to fight. You don't even have a right to life, only the right to fight for your life.
Truth To Power wrote:Only if the weak's rights are not being abrogated without just compensation for the benefit of the strong.
No. Absolutely not. There is no reason why you would stand on the side of the weak ones. I could go and say "if the strong's rights are not being abrogated without just compensation for the benefit of the weak". In fact, I'm going to say just that.
Truth To Power wrote:No. It's not the responsibility of the weak to defend themselves against the strong. That is the subhuman animal's mode of existence. In human society, we recognize that it is everyone's responsibility to defend everyone else's rights -- though normally we delegate the heavy lifting to government.
That's hilarious. No wonder why your dumb commie ideology never works.
When you break the rules, the rules of nature, you pay the price.
It is precisely the responsibility of the weak to take care of themselves, and not a responsibility of anyone else. Especially not of a society as a whole.
This is not subhuman mode of existence, this is uber-human.
And that's why there is no more pathetic thing that a person who expects the government to solve their life problems, especially if that person is a male. Government represents other people, and other people have no duty to help you.
Truth To Power wrote:No. Value in the economic sense is what something would trade for.
That's a market price, which is determined by a contract between a buyer and a seller. However, the real value (survival power) is the thing upon which those two sides come to a deal in the first place. They calculate the costs and benefits the deal with bring to their power level.
Truth To Power wrote:Carnegie, Ford and Musk all created wealth, though certainly not as much as they accumulated. Buffett was just more astute than others at discerning who would be most successful at placing their pockets in the path of wealth others created, and placing his own pockets there, too.
Yes, and the point was they benefited millions of people. Few of them did more good for humanity than all the communists combined, and probably more than a million x factor. If we calculate all the lives and wasted time because of communism.
Also, there is no difference between creating wealth and accumulating wealth.
Truth To Power wrote:Not even close.
It's so close you couldn't even put your tiny **** in between it.
Truth To Power wrote:Because they have the least material wherewithal to secure what they need to avoid suffering. That's almost tautological.
But, why don't they have enough of material, while others do? And why would God allow them to suffer like that?
Truth To Power wrote:I.e., taken by force, against the will and abrogating the rights of those who would otherwise be at liberty to use it. Which is different from stealing how, exactly...?
Ummm, because they never had the right for that land in the first place. To steal something is to take something which does not belong to you. But, the land belongs to those who have power to control it, and not to those who just want to use it, or who were first to use it. Land and territory is similar to women. You might think that your girlfriend belongs to you, but she doesn't. She belongs to a best man she can find. If that man is you, than you have the "right" to claim her. If you are not that man, you have no right over her, and she does not belong to you.
Truth To Power wrote:You need to learn the difference between ownership and brute, animal possession.
They share the exact same essence, which is power.
Now, civilization has developed so that most ownership problems are solved though deals, laws and agreements, and not pure brute force. Because of the obvious reasons. However, we can also see that certain ownership problems (questions) are being solved through brute force. Communists know what I'm talking about
Truth To Power wrote:No it isn't. Google "ownership definition" and start reading.
You should be thinking twice as much as you're reading.