GameBanshee Forums

@mediev: I had seen some of your debating in another thread (on national socialism, I believe), and thought it would be only a matter of time before you and I bumped into one another.

Well - one only need read the first paragraph of your "response" to see that you have willfully and flagrantly mis-interpreted and mis-represented my opinions. Perhaps if you would cease exmanining the world through a socialist filter, you would be more objective in your discussions.

If you wish to actually respond to anything I have said, I welcome you to do so. If you are simply going to accuse me of propagating a capitalistic monstrosity which tramples the rights of the world population then I think my time would be wasted in talking with you.

I would encourage anyone who is interested in medievs ideas to visit his website. I think you will find it an illuminating insight into this person's mentality.

Where did I accuse you of "propagating a capitalistic monstrosity"?

Why have you ignored my post? You "debate" selectively, I assume.

And my website pzoens, although there aren't many ideas presented there; it's mostly just a place to host comics from irc.

Re: Hooray for Ayn Rand.

Originally posted by mediev
So the purpose of every government is to uphold property rights for the rich, and provide a strong state ("big government", just without social services for the poor, minorities, women, children, and the elderly, thus it is "small government") in order to coerce the domestic and international population through violence.

This is the pertinent paragraph, in which you imply that my idea of government is "a strong state ... in order to coerce the domestic and international population through violence."

That is anything but what I believe.

I do not know what "pzoens" means.

That was my interpretation of it. And the rest of my post was sorta important as well...

Your "interpretation" is pretty out there. Where do I ever discuss "violence" against anyone? As I said: if you wish to discuss, then please make a point to respond to what I have said, rather than frighting all sense out of my words by churning them through your socialist dogma.

As for the rest of your post: most of what you raise there has been answered by me. You bring up Madison's initial ideas, and indicate that his intentions were to protect the wealthy - I think he is right to do so (as I have made clear with my discussion of Bill Gates). Your later implication that he changed his mind, and saw the wealthy as tyrants using the system for their own benefit is so broad a point as to be meaningless: how are the wealthy "using the system?" Are they violating individual rights? What "system" are we speaking of?

BTW: By adding those other websites into your profile, none of them are accessible any longer.

Everyone should chip in one flat percent, and the government should give back equally to everybody.

Rich people shouldn't have to pay higher tax rate than poor people. Rich people have bigger bills to pay after all, and poor people are getting welfare anyway, so sometimes it is much like rich people giving to charity to drug abusers and inner city slums.

Though Iwouldn't mind doing this...

...if it were the original purpose of paying taxes

His "initial ideas" were to protect the propertied classes--at the expense of democracy. The main issue is that madison was precapitalist--and more anticapitalist than anything. His idea that the rich would act as "benevolent philosophers" and "enlightened statesmen" who would "dedicate themselves to the welfare of all" is an obviously precapitalist concept; it's what corporate tyrants try to force the population to believe, but only the most dedicated and indoctrinated commissar actually believes the wealthy are the "more capable set of men". If you didn't catch it in my first post, Madison was extremely upset on the turnout of his conception, realizing that business leaders, given power, "overwhelmed government with their powers and combinations" and are "bribed by its largesses". When I say "utilizing for their own self-interest", I mean they used government to further their own economic, political, and social status in society; Madison thought this was deplorable.

And just what "rights" are you speaking of, if not property rights? What does the military, an instrument of ruling class repression, have to do with "protecting" these rights? Pardon my "out there" interpretation, but it's difficult to extract an actual meaning from a mass of doublethink.

Rich people shouldn't have to pay higher tax rate than poor people. Rich people have bigger bills to pay after all, and poor people are getting welfare anyway, so sometimes it is much like rich people giving to charity to drug abusers and inner city slums.

It's the rich who are getting welfare, not the poor.

Repeatedly posted by mediev
Flame flame flame...

Must you... we're discussing our ideas, not flaming them. Please give Lazzy a chance to reply

Originally posted by mediev


It's the rich who are getting welfare, not the poor.

I'm not bragging about my money or anything, but well where is my welfare then. The only people I know that are on welfare also collect food stamps, are disabled, or live in nursing homes...

One last comment...

@Mediev, whats up with your site? Communist gamers? And the jokes in your message board?

Umm... don't mean to sound harsh, guy, but it's not what I'd call 'patriotic'... maybe you should lend an ear to Lazarus' opinion on the US government, since he's not quite as biased against it.

Sorry if I sounded rude, thanks for your time and please don't flame, cuz I'm trying to be nice about it but point out that your site content is somewhat offending to umm... Americans.

Later.

Communist Gamers is an IRC channel on gamesnet, made up mostly of americans and canadians.

What's offensive about it? Ya, we don't like bush--but then again, more than half the country doesn't like bush.

A hilarious site I found: http://www.aynrand.org

If you can, get Ayn Rand's "Anthem" (it is REALLY original) from the library. Poorly written propaganda = win.

I haven't read any of "We the living", but the propganda "theme" looks hilarious.

From aynrand.org: 'Set in Soviet Russia, this is Ayn Rand’s first and most autobiographical novel. Its theme is: “the individual against the state, the supreme value of a human life and the evil of the totalitarian state that claims the right to sacrifice it.”'

Edit: fixed teh nationalities.

Let me go through this step by step, so that there is no room for mis-understanding (or double-think, for that matter).

Originally posted by mediev
His "initial ideas" were to protect the propertied classes--at the expense of democracy.

"At the expense of democracy." Hmmm. I question what your idea of democracy is. In my view, democracy is simply a free and representative government. I am in favor of democracy, and to the extent that Madison may have wished to deny democracy, I would oppose his view. However, I do not view protecting property rights as inherently opposed to democracy.

Originally posted by mediev
The main issue is that madison was precapitalist--and more anticapitalist than anything. His idea that the rich would act as "benevolent philosophers" and "enlightened statesmen" who would "dedicate themselves to the welfare of all" is an obviously precapitalist concept; it's what corporate tyrants try to force the population to believe, but only the most dedicated and indoctrinated commissar actually believes the wealthy are the "more capable set of men".

I have no idea what your terms "precapitalist" and "anticapitalist" mean. Madison's hope for the wealthy being benevolent and dedicating themselves to the general welfare is beside the point. I don't care what the wealthy do with their money, as long as they are allowed to keep it. Whether or not the wealthy are a more "capable set of men" is also a beside the point. I don't care if they are capable or not. Their money is their own.

Originally posted by mediev
If you didn't catch it in my first post, Madison was extremely upset on the turnout of his conception, realizing that business leaders, given power, "overwhelmed government with their powers and combinations" and are "bribed by its largesses". When I say "utilizing for their own self-interest", I mean they used government to further their own economic, political, and social status in society; Madison thought this was deplorable."..

Again, to simply say that the rich "use" the government is an unanswerable assertion. Maybe they do. I would point out that my view of government would not allow for any such "use." If the government is limited to the extent I believe it should be, there can be no gain through such tactics. The government would simply not be a part of the economy.

Further, I would point out that you have implicitly indicated that the rich are swindlers, bribers, and crooks. If this is your view of human nature, then no amount of alteration to government will change the situation, and we will always be swindled, bribed, and stolen from by either the rich, or the poor, or the government, or whomever. I believe that people are capable of ethical action, when this is not the case, the law must step in and prosecute those would would flout it.

Originally posted by mediev
And just what "rights" are you speaking of, if not property rights? Why does the military, an instrument of ruling class repression, have to do with "protecting" these rights? Pardon my "out there" interpretation, but it's difficult to extract an actual meaning from a mass of doublethink.

Property rights are a primary of any civilized state. I have no idea where you get this military as "an instrument of the ruling class." I brought up the military only marginally in a post some time ago, and simply stated that it is a requirement of any nation in today's world. The military should be used for national defense, and protection of national borders. Do you disagree?

@Shadow Sandrock: Hi! Thanks for the back-up.

Originally posted by mediev
Communist Gamers is an IRC channel on gamesnet, made up mostly of americans.

What's offensive about it? Ya, we don't like bush--but then again, more than half the country doesn't like bush.

Little stickmen swearing up a storm about the evil of the united states - wow, what a laugh.

Don't you people have any idea what a joke it is that you are decrying the capitalist state, when you are all sitting around on computers and using websites to express your views? Those computers and websites are the product of capitalism! You should be thanking Bill Gates, not trying to hang him up in the town square.

See ya, Comrade. I'm gonna go enjoy some other benefits of a capitalistic economy: a night out on the town. I'll even drink a toast to dear departed Comrade Lenin.

I think that our friend Lazarus has some valid points, and is obviously very passionate about them, yet I disagree with him on one key factor: I do not believe that unrestricted capitalism will look out for anyone other than itself.

Before the Cold War, there were no interstates. Businesses moved their wares by other means, primarily railroads (which were federally subsidised) and water transportation. For most people, such as you and I, travelling across the country via automobile was a long and tedius process. In the 1950s, under the guise of a national security concern, the Eisenhower Interstate System (modeled on the autobahn)made it possible for citizens to travel long distances in a markedly shorter times. Without federal funding, the interstates would not have been built.

Also, your point about the coal miners is well-taken except for one thing: the mine operators held their workers in virtual slavery, which the workers could not get out of except for the help of the federal government (led by then-COL Billy Mitchell in West Virginia).

Left to their own devices, the mine operators would let their workers die because replacing them was easy; immigrants were arriving by the thousands and a large labour supply makes for low wages. Sure, the technically could quit, but the company system placed the workers in a state of indenture that was nearly impossible to get out of. So maybe they shouldn't have been involved with the coal companies, right? Sure, but that's a hard thing to do when you've got a wife and kids to feed.

I also don't believe for a second that business would look out for the environment, the average citizen or anyone other than their own bottom line without regulatory agencies looking over their shoulders.

I think it is fair to say that most government programs start out well-intentioned. Sure some are pet projects of legislators and presidents to sate constiutents, but the heart of things like the Clean Air Act, the Civil Rights Act, etc. is in the right place. I also believe that without federal legislation and enforcement, corporations would not look out for people, only themselves. We see this even with the various regulatory agencies; how many times have we heard about companies pumping "stuff" into the air, rivers, and ground that they know is harmful, yet they'd rather make a buck now and worry about being sued later?

What somebody wants to post on their own personal website, or a website shared with others, is their own business. It shouldn't figure here in a discussion about issues, much less act as an opportunity for personal flaming.

Let's stick to the subject at hand.

taxes

I must say that our friend Shadow Sandrock hit the nail on the head with the flat tax.

Do I like paying taxes? No, of course not. But I don't mind because I like a lot of the services that the government provides. However, I hate that the tax code is voluminous and uncomprehensible. Furthermore, I believe it was deliberately constructed that way for two reasons: First, to hide all of the ways the government can get your money, and second, to give big campaign donors a way to get out of paying a lot of taxes.

I hate that at certain income levels, you can get a raise from your employer and end up with a net loss of income because you moved into a different tax bracket.

I believe that relative to one's income, everyone should share an equal burden in supporting the federal government. What convinces me that the flat tax is a good idea is that the fiscally ultra-liberal (former California governor Jerry Brown) and fiscally ultra-conservative (entrepreneur Steve Forbes) both advocate it. If my memory serves me correctly, Brown wants a tax rate of 21% and Forbes was advocating something like 14%. So split the difference at 17.5%, do not allow any deducations or loopholes and the system is suddenly made a whole lot easier.

Who won't like this? The IRS certainly won't because suddenly now they can't find a little-known regulation that bumps you up a bracket. Rich people and corporation won't like it because suddenly they may have to pay an amount they aren't used to.

I don't believe that rich people should pay more than poor people, as the current tax bracket system works. I have a neighbour who makes a lot of money and she believes that the rich should pay less than others. Her argument is that even though she is proportionately paying less, her gross tax amount is higher and that she is more apt to use the remainder to "re-invest that money and stimulate the economy" (a euphamism for "I'm going to buy more stuff"). I believe this to be equally wrong; eveyone benefits from the things government provides, so everyone should share equally in supporting it.

Again, I look to the original documents of the United States for a basis of what a government should be.

I am in favor of democracy, and to the extent that Madison may have wished to deny democracy, I would oppose his view.

I was wondering how long it would take you to say something hypocritical.

As I have said many times before, Madison knew that if the masses were given democratic control of society, they would immediatley implement agrarian reform and attack property rights, thus putting the "role of government" in danger; the basis of Madisonian thought (which was shared unanimously with the rest of the framers, Jefferson excluded) is that democracy is an enemy to property rights, and thus must be smashed. But now you've rejected the "original documents of the United States for what government should be"? Or have you simply renounced democracy in favor of a (pre-capitalist, funnily enough) tyranny?

I do not view protecting property rights as inherently opposed to democracy.

Ah, so now you're repudiating Madison's ideas?

I have no idea what your terms "precapitalist" and "anticapitalist" mean. Madison's hope for the wealthy being benevolent and dedicating themselves to the general welfare is beside the point. I don't care what the wealthy do with their money, as long as they are allowed to keep it. Whether or not the wealthy are a more "capable set of men" is also a beside the point. I don't care if they are capable or not. Their money is their own.

I'm annoyed I have to define terms for you; precapitalist, meaning no real model of industrial capitalism around yet; anticapitalist, opposed to the system and effects of industrial capitalism. And "Madison's hope for the wealthy being benevolent" is beside the point? It's the basis of the "original documents of the United States", those that would hold power in Madison's system, that you've already espoused support for.

Property rights are a primary of any civilized state.

Property rights are a primary of class society, not a "civilized state".

Don't you people have any idea what a joke it is that you are decrying the capitalist state, when you are all sitting around on computers and using websites to express your views? Those computers and websites are the product of capitalism! You should be thanking Bill Gates, not trying to hang him up in the town square.

ya, you have free speech, how dare you use it to speak out against the government that gave it to you

Little stickmen swearing up a storm about the evil of the united states - wow, what a laugh

Not surprisingly, you've resorted to insults. I'm terribly sorry I don't spend my time acting as an apologist for the world's greatest terrorist state.

Originally posted by fable
What somebody wants to post on their own personal website, or a website shared with others, is their own business. It shouldn't figure here in a discussion about issues, much less act as an opportunity for personal flaming.

Let's stick to the subject at hand.

Sure will. Sorry bout that.

Oh yeah, guys that are posting here, stop flaming each other... it's not technically flaming but it seems to be heading in that direction so please listen to the Fabes. I hate getting involved in these things.

@Mediev, I've already written a post a little ways up asking people to refrain from flaming you because of your board. This doesn't give you the right to flame somebody else's comments by calling them "hypocritical." That implies a knowledge on the original poster's part that they are deliberately misleading, saying one thing and believing another. You don't know that.

This kind of language has to stop now, or this thread will be closed. If you have any questions about the Forum Rules, check them out at http://www.gamebanshee.com/sitefeatures/forumrules.php