So, I think I will let you know that the only time, I will accept someone's judgement about me, including calling me an idiot, is when they are a) not raged b) not disagreeing.

You were the first to start with the personal attacks the last time and you are again this time.

if you had ever actually worked and met your average worker, you would soon realize that that is the dumbest shit ever

So, in effect it is you who insults them for claiming you somehow speak for them. That is not so.

But honestly, everyone who works and looks around with open eyes will tell you the same.

I mean you don't even seem to realize that an economic system is very complex so it not only can but must be examined from very different angles.

You simply declared that was fallacious, without any reasoning to back you subjective judgement.

ergo: discussions of complex topics with you are pointless.

given the enourmous amounts of literature about the facettes of economic systems, I think it's highly doubtful that calling the topic complex is subjective.

I also doubt that anyone whose articles oyu have read would cliam the subject is trivial.

Yeah, talking about persons getting money from welfare has nothing to with people and capital...

about the fallcies you wanted to see, it seems very much like you read an article (wiki maybe?) about arguments and simply thought you could use some of the definitions.

However, you completely missed the part where you have to give reasons for your opinion and resulting classification.

If I go ahead and declare you have the knowledge of a schoolkid and add a definition of schoolkid, you would demand that I give reasons for that, wouldn't you?

Again, you try to be competitor and judge in one person. That is never possible.

That behavious actually becomes most obvious (as I said several times now), where you question my qualification, which I responded to with listing my eduction and questioning whether you had the qualification to judge mine.

You then concluded that my response was a personal attack, while your preceding judgement of me wasn't.

You even admitted that your ethics were subjective, but still insist that you are capable to judge objectively.

My motiviation was to show that giving welfare to people who have the chance to get work but don't is stupid, yes.

I also had the motivation to show that the economic system you propose is too idealistic und unrealistic and also that I think your view is too one-sided (which I do think you'd agree would be stupid), yes.

I also gave examples of benefits of capitalism to show that calling it all bad is stupid, yes.

I never called you personally stupid, that is something you would do.

Ironically, I think in this thread you did a way better job at making you look stupid than I could have ever done.

just to pick one:

I also gave examples of benefits of capitalism to show that calling it all bad is stupid, yes.
yeah, the whole "efficiency" argument which is more than debunked.

that is a good example of your understanding of debate. You don't bother to think about what someone is actually saying, you just assume what you think or have read somewhere is correct.
Whenever I do something even remotely similar (complexity of economic systems) you complain.

You are measuring with two measures.

Any comparison to a theoretical system is flawed from the beginning.

But discussing that would be an actual discussing, therefore a pointless endeavor.

a stable economic system, that lasted for at least one generation, so long-term effects are known.

The system in the German Democratic Republic worked well enough in the first years, too. And went to shit later. How sure can you be the same would not have happened in Spain?

Also I believe listing Kibbutz is not correct, because I don't think they adhere to all your principles. Imagine asking a Palestinean to move in with them.

Also I believe listing Kibbutz is not correct, because I don't think they adhere to all your principles. Imagine asking a Palestinean to move in with them.

all the group you named are too small, imo.

I believe it's commen sense that a community works the best as long as everyone knows each other. But at some point the group is too big for that and that is when you will get more and more problems.

yeh awesome, that makes everyone get to know each other.
not.

There will still be resentiments between the communities.
Especially if there are problems, e.g. shortage of food or just a certain medicine.

There will also be many problem with envy, if one community works better than the other.

First you get the impression I am trying to make you personally look stupid.
Then you decide that I suck at that, which is kinda weird, since I never did it in the first place.
Then you decide to make a fool out of yourself.
And then you complain about me being worse at making you look stupid than you?

Also, I can't seem to find the old thread so no quote atm. Will provide if you find it.

here are some quotes from there:

it's like you got your debating "skills" from the white house. you assert the opposite and accuse others of your crimes.

here you are comparing me to a criminal.

but it's idiotic to equate legally receiving welfare, which is a DEMOCRATIC reform policy in germany, with thievery.

one ov several occasions where you use idiotic and similar words in reply to my satements.

It is also a prime example of you meassuring with two measures.

You call taxes, which are obviously legal "thievery", however you declare that I may not call getting welfare thievery because it is legal. (feel free to apply any of your pro-discussion terms)

questioning of my qualification combined with insults.
is that is not ad hominen, I have must confess I have no idea what is...

did I put that in your mouth???

comes from a German idiom. In this case it means that you look at your own statements in a different way that at mine.

how about you stop accusing me of that?

You called taxes stealing.

I called taking welfare without need stealing.

You said I may not call accepting welfare thievery because it is legal.

correct me if am wrong, but isn't saying someone doesn't know what he is talking about synomynous with saying they aren't qualified?

And even if it isn't, isn't saying "You don't know what the fuck you are talking about" a personal attack?

seems like you are wasting your time anyway.

Both with commenting here, calling me neames, etc and also with all your reasearch.

No, the end of the line for me is that you never accepted or understood(?) all the examples and arguments I stated about benefits of capitalism and tried to see them as my opinion or simply irrelevant. Note: You cannot claim a fallacy, on the grounds that you diagree.

No, if you want to see someone who is so obsessed with his own opinion the he cannot even look at arguments in an unbiased way, you just need to look into a mirror.

Because ultimately the thing you do not see is, that is is always so much easier to bitch about the flaws of an exisiting system then about an theoretical system that mostly consists of general approaches and lack solutions for problems on the lowest level.

Because there is one premise in all those idealistic systems, which sound awesome in theory.

That humans are altruistic or at the very least rational beings, with the ability to make perfect long-term decisions for the greater good of all.

Which is something that research has proven wrong countless times, see "The experiment" for example.

Another indication is the fact that if you look at it, capitalism does give everyone the opportunity to be altruistic and to make decisions that help everyone. It's just that people don't use them, but rather look for their own benefit.

They do not aid the society in any way and do not contribute to the greater good.

And as long as there are people who think it is ok to benefit from the others they will destroy any system based on cooperation and mutual aid.

And since we now reached the same point where our two, divided, discussions started (although you have failed to contribute long ago), I will end my participation here (and just put a ":D" whenver yo write a funny again.)

p.s.: I will refrain from putting a childish insult, at the end, because I think everyone who reads your posts will form a personal opinion.

I see, out of actual arguments again.

And if you had a job I gueess you would have said so by now...

But of course you are right, the working class has always been very fond and supportive of self-proclaimed intelectuals sitting at home roaming the internet and telling them what they should think.

Really, you should go to a factory and hold a speech there.

well, have you ever worked a real job?

If not, then that is no insult.

But honestly, everyone who works and looks around with open eyes will tell you the same.

Kinda egocentric to think you speak for all the workers and the labor movement, don't you agree?

But honestly, everyone who works and looks around with open eyes will tell you the same.

Especially, since labor movement was always about improving the life of workers within the existing system.

Since yo are so keen on wiki and internet articles..

..here's a quote for you: "An active and free labour movement is considered by many to be an important element in maintaining democracy and for economic development."

So, in effect it is you who insults them for claiming you somehow speak for them.

oh please, not again with this feeble attempt to turn things around.
You were the first to start with the personal attacks the last time and you are again this time.

And of course you deny that and try to blame it on me.

So in fact you are just playing your own game again.

I am also very intrigued how constant name-calling fits in with your worker cooperation and mutual aid concept.

I suppose it would turn into something like this:
"I say, we are all in this together and work together as a team of eqauls. And if you don't agree with my opinion how to run things, I'll fuck you up."

in that case my attacks we also just objective conclusions.

seriously, though.

Why would you ask such a question out of the blue?

No, if you don't see what the statement implies you are less smart that I think you are.

It's basically like someone who comes into your home every evening and demands that you let him eat your icecream. And when you tell him to gtfo he declares that buying his own icecream is such a hassle.

Why would you want to make a classfight out of this?

I am not anti lower class at all.

But I don't consider the people who do that part of the lower class. The stereotype of a lower class is for me someone who works badly paid jobs or at least wants to work.

Just like you probably won't consider a rich person who gives everything he owns away to safe the company and with is the work place a prototype of the "rich class" do you?

but yeah I should have expected this, after all most of your arguments seem to come from your vivid imagination rather than actual knowledge.

I guess only with you high standards of ehtics and debating is calling someone an idiot a critique.

Most normal people see it as a sign of desperation.

aww, you are cute when raging. Just like a little kid.

Come to think of that kids also have very simplistic and "interesting" views of the world.

But if you behave from now on I promise you a nice warm cocoa before bed time <3

Seriously though, I've been called an idiot here countless times, surprisingly always by raged people who disagree with me. see [http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1751680]here[\url]

Can't remeber if that ever happened to me in real life, though. Usually the opposite.

So, I think I will let you know that the only time, I will accept someone's judgement about me, including calling me an idiot, is when they are a) not raged b) not disagreeing.

rest of the post: :D

there is none, as in our previous discussion, which I did implied with the "again".

You didn't deliver back then..

..added insults and questioned my qualification..

..thus trying to invalidate my actual arguments.

When I called you out on the qualification, you got all defensive..

..blamed me for going "ad hominem"..

..and accused me of bad ethics and lack of debate skills.

Additionally, you where attempting to impossibilty of being a competitor and the referee in one, by simply trying to brush away the arguments you didn't like, by claiming objective standards.

While silmutaneously admitting you had very subjective ethics.

Yeah, that pretty much sums you up.

Have a nice day (and please don't forget to keep posting those funnies once in a while :) )

nothing to do with stupid.

But of course you always jump to a conclusion and add an insult.

Man, I really have to learn that debate and ethics stuff from you...

Come on now, claim once more that I am going straight for the ad hominem again, while you just deliver solid arguments.

and if you had ever actually worked and met your average worker, you would soon realize that that is the dumbest shit ever :D

But go on, believe in your dream, not like it's ever gonna happen.

and how does that contradict capitalism?

I am very much of the opinion that unions are a result of capitalism!

The workers can form them to get a better price (wage, work conditions) for their product (work force).

no, I think you are missing the whole picture.

In a capitalistic system, every single person is a capitalist.

Therefore the conclusion you have above should be:

bad for factory owners. (Even though the long term effect is that if the broad mass has money to spend that is actually also good for factory. Sadly, many managers are unable to look far enough for that).

The workers are not poerless in capitalism, on the one hand because they have the ability to form Unions.

On the other hand, people can leave on company and work for another where the conditions are better.

If has happened many times that a competitor had to leave a market because one company bought of all their skilled employees.

Additionally, capitalism offers something else. The boss, as "the guy up there" offers a good figure the lower workers can unite against, forming more solidarity. But it also gives one person the ability to fire bad personel.

And there simply are people who are unable to do their jobs and sometimes even pose a danger to their colleagues.

However, colleagues would never want to be the asshole to fire one of their own.

So they are actually glad the boss will take the blame.

Note, I am not defending all layoff everywhere. But many are actually needed, see the enourmous waste of ressources in car production.

In the cases where those coworkers plain suck, fuck everything up so you have to correct their work or where they make mistakes that threaten the health of their colleagues.

e.g. I had a colleague once who had two car accidents at work in half a year because he was drunk during the day.
WE didn't want him to be fired as such, becuase he was good at his actual job. When he wasn't drunk.
Luckily for us the boss stepped and told him to get rid of his problem or consider himself fired.

That worked.
I doubt it would have worked if we as his colleagues had told him.

The rest of your statements are just your opinions and propaganda, so here:
:D

Anarcho-Capitalism seems to me to be a very good "direction" that should be explored, but that's the problem: social and political philosophy can't get "tried out"..

Yes because a whole political philosophy can be defined by one domestic issue.