The fascist regime that made you a moron: Thanks dJonkey

**mashman** · 22nd May 2013, 12:32

Originally Posted by gwigs

Doesnt really surprise me, Monsanto are a prime example of a souless Corporation who,s only goal is profit by any means..

And the worst that can happen is that their (faceless corporate entity) reputation is tarnished eh

Originally Posted by avgas

Everyone does.
Name one economic model that doesn't force people to die?
Mao and Stalin/Lenin toll put most to shame. More people died under Mao than in WWII

I don't and I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone in that.

**Banditbandit** · 22nd May 2013, 16:48

Originally Posted by avgas

Everyone does.
Name one economic model that doesn't force people to die?
Mao and Stalin/Lenin toll put most to shame. More people died under Mao than in WWII

The economic model proposed by Che Guevara ... it is based on the concept "Love your Brother" ...

**Banditbandit** · 22nd May 2013, 16:49

Originally Posted by avgas

Especially that Greenpeace lot. Would be scary if they had any power - they wouldn't hesitate to kill people off to save the planet.

Where the fuck did that come from ??? Show me any shred of proof at all ... just a small shred that backs up that statement.

(I might kill off peopel to save the planet - fuck there are too many of the fuckwits around - but I'm not a Greenpeace member - too liberal for my tastes .. Give me the Eco-terroist any day ... )

**gwigs** · 22nd May 2013, 19:05

Originally Posted by avgas

Especially that Greenpeace lot. Would be scary if they had any power - they wouldn't hesitate to kill people off to save the planet.
As for Monsanto hiring Blackwater. Doesn't surprise me. If I had bomb threats etc I too would be getting a bit proactive to find out who's out to get me.
Monsanto were scumbags for all the other stuff like pushing laws in their favour etc. But then again so is facebook.

You must have your head up your arse ....do you live on another fucking planet....?
Greenpeace care about the planet ....not so Big Corporations..?
Monsanto want to control the worlds crops ..did you know that .?
They produce seeds that produce plants that give no seed..you have to get seed from them...
They want to control basic foods ,you wont be able to grow anything without paying..

**pete376403** · 22nd May 2013, 19:24

And if your Monsanto sourced plants do produce seeds the US supreme court (the same court that decided corporations have the same rights as people) has decided that Monsanto, not you , own those seeds and you are guilty of theft if you plant that seed.

**Ocean1** · 22nd May 2013, 19:25

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

That depends on what you are going to measure ... do you mean in terms of Financial gain? Or in terms of an overall improved standard of living? Or maybe in terms of a better developed social morality?

Since you asked nice.

What you call financial gain I call creating wealth, and it's disingenuous to infer that the pursuit of that goal is always at the expense of anyone else’s standard of living, or that anyone’s morality is suspect because of any perceived financial success.

One at a time, eh?

1/ My actual income isn’t hugely higher than average, nonetheless my contribution to the public purse is disturbingly large.

2/ I guess that qualifies me as someone who contributes more than his share to the national standard of living.

3/ My morality isn’t rationally quantifiable by whatever some dickhead reads in my posts on some obscure bulletin board. But I don’t expect most of them to stop trying.

And I don’t believe that “society” has or maintains morals, they’re a uniquely individual human attribute. And even if I did I’m not so benightedly self-centred that I’d think that it’s shape should mirror my own.

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

See I think that ANY improvement in social morality is a better gain than ANY financial improvement .. so I would like your perspecticve on this .. because right now your use of the terminology "higher net positive" suggests a purely economic gain .. which I would rate at the bottom of the scale

I tend to say pretty much what I mean: Society is materially better off because of my activities. That’s not a “bottom of the scale” factor, it’s simply the only measurable performance indicator.

I’d suggest your fuzzy take on morals means, for example that you’d rather see someone help another for an hour than that same person earn an hour’s wages. Fair enough, I try to help those I believe have it coming, but I do that using resources I earned. See the need for balance, there? Because your comment suggests that you don’t. See, given my beliefs about social morality it’ll come as no surprise that I don’t believe in collective charity either.

**MisterD** · 23rd May 2013, 11:02

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

The economic model proposed by Che Guevara ... it is based on the concept "Love your Brother" ...

...and what, murder them if they don't agree with you?

**Banditbandit** · 23rd May 2013, 11:12

Originally Posted by MisterD

...and what, murder them if they don't agree with you?

Huh . where did that come from? Are you implying that Guevara murdered people ??? He certainly killed people in armed uprising designed to improve the lot of the working class ... but I would nevefr call that murder ...

But if you choose to see it as murder then so is the killing of people in the various Gulf Wars ... in Panama, Grenoble .. etc etc .. Oh and our SAS are murdering people in Afghanistan ...

**Banditbandit** · 23rd May 2013, 11:32

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Since you asked nice.

Thank you - I will respnd in kind (group hugs all round)

What you call financial gain I call creating wealth, and it's disingenuous to infer that the pursuit of that goal is always at the expense of anyone else’s standard of living, or that anyone’s morality is suspect because of any perceived financial success.

Yes. I am happy with "creating wealth". And I agree that it is not always at the expense of someone else's stadard of living .. and is not always through immoral means.

One at a time, eh?

1/ My actual income isn’t hugely higher than average, nonetheless my contribution to the public purse is disturbingly large.

2/ I guess that qualifies me as someone who contributes more than his share to the national standard of living.

I do earn above the averager wage - by a reasonable amount, about 35% more - and possibly therefore contribute even more than you do to the public purse. However, I do not see it as paying more than my fair share - I believe I pay my fair share. It's not an amount I need (would be nice, a year's tax back would buy me a flash new boat - which I don't need) - so I am happy to pay what I do

3/ My morality isn’t rationally quantifiable by whatever some dickhead reads in my posts on some obscure bulletin board. But I don’t expect most of them to stop trying.

Bwhahaha .. yes.

And I don’t believe that “society” has or maintains morals, they’re a uniquely individual human attribute. And even if I did I’m not so benightedly self-centred that I’d think that it’s shape should mirror my own.

Hmm .. I don't agree - I believe that morals are about the ways we behave in the world - towards each other and towards the environment around us .. interpersonal and environmental ethics - Groups of people livign together have to maintain a certain level of reasonable behaviour towards each other - (so we don't kill each other, steal stuff rape women adn men .. etc etc ) These are the agreed behaviours that we all follow - or get excluded from the group for breaching (jail, exile, death ) ...

If we don't have these then society does not really exist (that;s a good libertarian position already - there is no society on individuals.)

I tend to say pretty much what I mean: Society is materially better off because of my activities. That’s not a “bottom of the scale” factor, it’s simply the only measurable performance indicator.

I'm terribly sorry - that is too fuzzy to be a performance indicator - it's not measuable. I am sure that your activities do contribute to society and are measureable - your statement, however, is not. Saying by how much it is material better off would be. And I'm, still not sure whether you are talking simply financial or some other form of materially better off ... say in terms of more or better medicines, more or better machinery ... You may be earning a pittance, but are desiging better equipment for surgical labs ... or maybe building better homes (environment, price, etc etc )... I would certainly count those types of things as materially better off ..

I’d suggest your fuzzy take on morals

My fuzzy take on morals ??? That's only from a libertarian point of view (see above).

means, for example that you’d rather see someone help another for an hour than that same person earn an hour’s wages.

No, I am not sure that it does. And I am not sure that I would rather see someone help another human being than do (I presume you mean paid) work. There are way to many vaiables to make such a generalized statement.

Fair enough, I try to help those I believe have it coming, but I do that using resources I earned. See the need for balance, there? Because your comment suggests that you don’t. See, given my beliefs about social morality it’ll come as no surprise that I don’t believe in collective charity either.

Of course I see the need for balance. And I do not see work as not helping people - clearly I work in education because it does give me the opportunity to earn the money I need to feed cloth and house my family (such as it is) and to help people at the same time.

I do believe in collective charity (it does not surprise me that a libertarian thinker such as you does not) - and I am happy to contribute to collective charity through taxes - but equally I believe that charity has to make long-term gains. Simple hand outs never work. The issue we have now is that the collective charity has become a pure handout ... to anyone and everyone who thinks they need it - from South Canterbury Finance to the 16-year-old pregnant solo teenager about to become a mother ...

We can't withdraw the collective charity which feeds houses and clothes people without causing immense harm in our society - but currently we are doing bugger all about the long term gains .. except trying to bully people into work with threats of benefit withdrawal ... work that doesn't actually exist .. (Yeah - I know tat is debatable ... but even the Goverment accepts there is not enough jobs ...)

I accept all the criticisms of our collective charity system (Jeez I see the results every day in my classrooms and in my extended family) ... but I do not accept the rightwing and bully solutions .. they will never work either.