Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[idleidolidyll]

Even more bloody opinions....why is THIS one getting any credence over others????:spudwhat:

because it was voted on by an esteemed group of international intellectuals rather than the opinion of a bunch of nobodies and know nothings in NZ

[idleidolidyll]

Typical lefty response. In the face of loss, plead ignorance. The majority of NZ have had a guts full of you and your lot Idle. National will win the next election so you better start looking for a job so you can feed all your welfare dependent offspring.

I didn't plead ignorance, I laughed and AGAIN stated that MY favoured party (not Labour), GAINED seats in local body elections even though the electoral process is a joke.

On the other hand, you showed ignorance in your silly response; ignorance of my repeated statements.

As for "NZ has had a guts full...." ROTFLMFAO! National MAY indeed win the next election and that may be a good thing. There are obviously a lot of young people here who were not adults and cognisant of politics the last time they held power. These people will be unaware of just how odious National is and the damage their housing, health, economic policies were PLUS the unbelievably vile fascist Employment Contracts Act.

I welcome the opportunity for National to fuck it all up again and last one term after which the left may hold power for ANOTHER 3 terms.

A job? I have a great job, you're probably just a jealous loser and my offspring has a job and two fine kids. Your asinine attack on my family exposes you as the loser I knew you to be but keep it up: I give back as good or better than I receive. Pissants don't bother me at all.

[idleidolidyll]

III, you seem to have a problem with what people mean by 'socialism' and 'capitalism'. A major part of your arguments seems to be over whether a particular action is capitalist or socialist in nature, or whether policies reflect those two economic systems. And you also seem to delight in responding to arguments by stating someone's assertion that something's capitalist or socialist in nature is down the their misunderstanding of the term.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines 'socialism' as "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy". The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".

Likewise 'capitalism' is defined by the AHD as "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market" and the OED as "An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state".

Both definitions are fairly similar. And they're widely accepted by the majority of people as being accurate. Your definitions of socialism and capitalism, however, seem to change on a daily basis depending on what argument you're attempting to formulate an answer to. Assuming that others are ignorant of the 'true' meaning does no justice to whatever argument you had, nor does it show respect for anyone else.

Your statement that fascism can be aplied to governments on the left or the right is also incorrect. Extreme left governments display many of the traits of extreme right-wing governments, but as fascism was a term coined to describe Mussolini and his style of government (Fascism, from the Italian fascismo, from fascio 'bundle, political group, ' from Latin fascis 'bundle.'), it's a term inextricably linked with extreme right-wing politics. I have no proof of this, but I'd imagine that the majority of people if asked "Is Fascism right-wing or left-wing?" would respond "Right wing".

The development of language can itself be decribed as showing traits of communism. The evolution of language is defined by the will of those who speak it. Words, and the meanings of them, change over time. The 'correct' meaning of a word is the one that's accepted by the majority as being correct. Therefore, should you disagree with what everyone else means by a particular word; you're wrong - not them.

The problem is theirs sanx. As your link shows, the difference between the two is where the control lies and that is exactly what i told Mr Reid. Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy). It's not a 'small' difference, it's a fundamental difference.

The former in extremis is a dictatorship and the latter in extremis is a kind of anarchy.

As for your contention that YOUR explanations are 'accepted as widely accurate': sorry, wrong. If that were true, the definitions would be exactly the same in every dictionary; they're not and an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

The fact is that various interest groups OWN the organisations doing the defining and the definitions are often slanted toward THEIR opinions. The fact remains and in the simplest terms possible: capitalism is about control in the hands of the wealthy elite few while socialism is about control by the will of the people.

[idleidolidyll]

Who voted him the 'greatest thinker' of the 20th century? And should any credence be given to whoever voted him the greatest thinker of the 20th century, considering he died 17 years before the end of the 19th century?

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.

Here's the top ten:

	Your Top 10 Thinkers:
		1. Karl Marx 2. Albert Einstein 3. Sir Isaac Newton 4. Charles Darwin 5. Thomas Aquinas 6. Stephen Hawking 7. Immanuel Kant 8. Rene Descartes 9. James Clerk Maxwell 10. Friedrich Nietzche

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...sep/winner.stm

that's the penalty for quick off the cuff remarks I guess, sometimes your memory is not as sharp as might be desired.

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

[idleidolidyll]

In your view of the world you doubtless find it impossible to concede that people can be both intellectual and conservative. Enoch Powell was a prime example of an extremely intelligent man with conservative views. ( Gosh I can hear the uproar already )
As I have intimated before the most infuriating thing about hardcore socialists is they have a ''holier than thou'' attitude that their way is the only right way.

There ya go trying to put words in my mouth. No, you're wrong. Of course conservatives CAN be intellectual; it's just that the run of the mill conservative seems positively petrified of intellectuals. Just cruise political forums on the internet for a while and see for yourself.

As for the old holier than thou bullshit: your side is just as guilty and I scoff at yet another dumb propaganda fallacy from your pen.

[idleidolidyll]

Should we pick on a socialist hero then? How about Nye Bevan? Made to repeat a year at school, also a drunk, also changed parties to suit his own career...

pick on whoever you like, i don't really give a rats arse

it's a free world

winston was offered as some kind of paragon. Mr Merde rightly pointed out he was extremely flawed and I noted by inference that men of war may be heroes in war time but scoundrels and villains in peace time.

Wasn't he Minister of War in WW!? That was when the Brits plotted the Lusitania thing wasn't it?

[Robert Taylor]

There ya go trying to put words in my mouth. No, you're wrong. Of course conservatives CAN be intellectual; it's just that the run of the mill conservative seems positively petrified of intellectuals. Just cruise political forums on the internet for a while and see for yourself.

As for the old holier than thou bullshit: your side is just as guilty and I scoff at yet another dumb propaganda fallacy from your pen.

Good evening Mr Idlelefty! I see you are on form again. Note that not everyone has as much free idle time to google as you might have. So your conclusions are too often pre judgemental.

Certainly Enoch Powells famous ''rivers of blood'' speech is ringing true, dont you think? I admired this man for his intellect and conservatism, he also had an impeccable military record. Some of our finest politicians were ex military men i.e Marshall, Duncan Macintyre, Walker, Gordon, Thompson, etc. Pity we dont have more men of such fine mettle here in 2007.

When John Marshall lost the 72 election to that idiot Kirk NZ took a step backwards in a blink.

[idleidolidyll]

Good evening Mr Idlelefty! I see you are on form again. Note that not everyone has as much free idle time to google as you might have.

I worked a full day today and I'm at home STILL working. Please don't bore me with your stupid leaps of 'un'tuition

[Delerium]

Are you trying to convice us or state your opinion? I get the idea that he who yells loudest is right. Well, I dont think that way, and reading all the posts a lot of people dont agree with you either, they just seem calmer when getting their point across. I cant put my finger on it but the way you are expressing yourself really rubs me up the wrong way (please no inuendo commentary)

[Grahameeboy]

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.

Here's the top ten:

	Your Top 10 Thinkers:
		1. Karl Marx 2. Albert Einstein 3. Sir Isaac Newton 4. Charles Darwin 5. Thomas Aquinas 6. Stephen Hawking 7. Immanuel Kant 8. Rene Descartes 9. James Clerk Maxwell 10. Friedrich Nietzche

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...sep/winner.stm

that's the penalty for quick off the cuff remarks I guess, sometimes your memory is not as sharp as might be desired.

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

Which one are you?

[Winston001]

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

I knew you were wrong about the 20th century. I just couldn't be bothered telling you.

[davereid]

The problem is theirs sanx. As your link shows, the difference between the two is where the control lies and that is exactly what i told Mr Reid. Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy). It's not a 'small' difference, it's a fundamental difference. The fact remains and in the simplest terms possible: capitalism is about control in the hands of the wealthy elite few while socialism is about control by the will of the people.

Actually the difference is less about who controls resources and more about how they are controlled.

The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all go down to the publicans for a bit of capitalist trading. By the end of the night, three of them are drunk, and all four have a pork pie, with a great pasty crust, and a light to get home with.

How do the two systems have to deal with this ?

Well, the capitalist system need do nothing about this transaction. Its just normal human interaction, it needs no government involvement.

It may need over time to develop some simple systems that ensure a new candlemaker opening in town can visit the butcher to get tallow. But thats it. All government need ensure is that there is no price fixing, and that fair competition is not shut down.

And actually, even if these systems never existed, it would self correct - candles would get too expensive, and a cunning candlemaker would invent the oil powered lamp.

How would a socialist system deal with it ?

Well, it wouldn't. It would firstly have to add officials. And some people don't like officials, so it would need to add soldiers or police to make sure the officials get their way.

Officials like to be well paid, after all, they are wise men who make important decisions that affect many.

So we need tax, officials to count it, and jails to lock up anyone who might oppose it.

One of the officials is a planner. He has noticed that there are too many publicans. So now we outlaw publicans, but if you pay a fee, and kiss the arse of the official, you can apply for a licence, that may allow you to stay in business.

The insurance companies fire department has gone, as it was unfair that uninsured people didn't get their fires put out. And worse, if their fire burnt down someone elses house, they got billed ! simply not fair ! So now, the government runs the fire department.

And look at that. So many fires started by candles. Yep, better ban them. Fuck its dark though. Let 'em make candles. But they better have a licence. We will hire an official to make sure they don't sell em to anyone who might start a fire.

Hmm.

So to recap - Capitalists willingly trade among themselves as free men. They haven't read Marx, and don't know they are oppressed.

Socialists are the greatest thinkers, and intellectuals. They recognise the oppression, and selflessly organise an army, to take money off the oppressed butcher, baker and candlestick maker, so it can be used more wisely, for the benefit of all.

[Sanx]

My apologies, that was off the cuff and from memory: the actual title was "Greatest Thinker of the Last Millenium"

I gave him LESS credit than seems to have been deserved.

The choice was actually through an opinion poll and yes, socialists AND capitalists all had the opportunity to vote.

Here's the top ten:
--snip--

that's the penalty for quick off the cuff remarks I guess, sometimes your memory is not as sharp as might be desired.

However, any one of you could have googled the comment and within seconds you'd have known all about it. That you hadn't speaks to me in a loud voice.

So, rather than being voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century by a group of intellectuals (as your grandiose claim stated), it turns out he was voted the top thinker of the millenium by a public opinion poll. And this from the same country that buys Murdoch's newspapers by the millions each day. In fact, the intellectuals picked someone completely different. One opinion poll does not make a fact.

The problem is theirs sanx. As your link shows, the difference between the two is where the control lies and that is exactly what i told Mr Reid. Capitalism is about control (of resources) by capitalists: a small number of wealthy individuals, whilst socialism is about control being in the hands of the people or representatives of the people (democracy). It's not a 'small' difference, it's a fundamental difference.

The former in extremis is a dictatorship and the latter in extremis is a kind of anarchy.

As for your contention that YOUR explanations are 'accepted as widely accurate': sorry, wrong. If that were true, the definitions would be exactly the same in every dictionary; they're not and an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

They're not exactly the same, otherwise there'd be a little bit of trouble over copyright. However, they use diferent words to describe the same thing. In principle and meaning, they all agree. Therefore I stand by my comment that the dictionaries' definitions of the two terms are widely accepted as being correct (a dictionary's main purpose is to record the popular meanings of words, not to dictate them) - and that those definitions differ quite markedly from the ones you have used.

The fact is that various interest groups OWN the organisations doing the defining and the definitions are often slanted toward THEIR opinions. The fact remains and in the simplest terms possible: capitalism is about control in the hands of the wealthy elite few while socialism is about control by the will of the people.

Now you've descended into the realm of unfounded conspiracy theory. And, for someone that siezes upon ignorance with childish glee, you're demonstrating a remarkable tendency towards it yourself.The Oxford English Dictionary is a product of the Oxford University Press. This is a company wholly owned by Oxford University, itself a collection of 39 independently run colleges. The colleges are governed on a college levels by the Master and Fellows of each college, and together they make up the Oxford University Council that agrees on policy and decisions for the University as a whole. The system is about as near to a communist governance model as exists in the modern world; replace the word 'University' with 'collective' and 'council' by 'proletariat' and you have Marx's ideal government.

Where's the special interest group there? Are you so paranoid (not to mention deluded) that you believe that all dictionary owners worldwide would collectively get together and alter the meanings of certain words to further cement their capitalist powers? Do you honestly believe that?

And why, then, are you willing to accept the results of an opinion poll carried out by big organisation - the BBC - as gospel, yet dismis a dictionary published by a big organisation? The logic simply falls down at every turn.

[Robert Taylor]

So, rather than being voted the greatest thinker of the 20th century by a group of intellectuals (as your grandiose claim stated), it turns out he was voted the top thinker of the millenium by a public opinion poll. And this from the same country that buys Murdoch's newspapers by the millions each day. In fact, the intellectuals picked someone completely different. One opinion poll does not make a fact.



They're not exactly the same, otherwise there'd be a little bit of trouble over copyright. However, they use diferent words to describe the same thing. In principle and meaning, they all agree. Therefore I stand by my comment that the dictionaries' definitions of the two terms are widely accepted as being correct (a dictionary's main purpose is to record the popular meanings of words, not to dictate them) - and that those definitions differ quite markedly from the ones you have used.



Now you've descended into the realm of unfounded conspiracy theory. And, for someone that siezes upon ignorance with childish glee, you're demonstrating a remarkable tendency towards it yourself.The Oxford English Dictionary is a product of the Oxford University Press. This is a company wholly owned by Oxford University, itself a collection of 39 independently run colleges. The colleges are governed on a college levels by the Master and Fellows of each college, and together they make up the Oxford University Council that agrees on policy and decisions for the University as a whole. The system is about as near to a communist governance model as exists in the modern world; replace the word 'University' with 'collective' and 'council' by 'proletariat' and you have Marx's ideal government.

Where's the special interest group there? Are you so paranoid (not to mention deluded) that you believe that all dictionary owners worldwide would collectively get together and alter the meanings of certain words to further cement their capitalist powers? Do you honestly believe that?

And why, then, are you willing to accept the results of an opinion poll carried out by big organisation - the BBC - as gospel, yet dismis a dictionary published by a big organisation? The logic simply falls down at every turn.

The BBC stands for ''Bull..t By Communists, they have pretty much been hijacked by the left as has happened here.

[Delerium]

Please dont take my previous post as a personal attack or a dig at you, I was more referring to your argument than trying to say something about you personally. I just re read my post and realised that it could easily be taken in a different manner to that I was trying to construe.