I find this a stereotypical, anti-lower class film. I must, though; mention that I think bashing charity, just because some circumstances can be bad isn’t fair. By the way, wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist libertarian society allow this kind of stuff to go on (without government laws)?
"This kind of stuff?" What, you mean other persons who have a sense of humour? We can't have that!
If you're talking about selling drugs, it seems the society is allowing it right now just fine. Thanks to government laws, there are thousands of crack addicts in pissy alleys. But in a market anarchy, there would be no reason to sell drugs in dark alleys, unless you have some kind of romantic notion about rats and piss.
Do you always need satire explained to you? This is bashing christianity, not "charity." I guess you didn't catch it when the kid said "Poor people smoke it, so it must be great!" That's a christian value, poverty.
Of course, since I'm a market anarchist, I find it fair to bash charity because some circumstances can be bad. Because somehow in Happy Land, charity means "nobody cares about the poor except aspergian humanist, so they have to be forced to pay for really super good government programs that are so great, there are no poor drug addicts."
“If you're talking about selling drugs, it seems the society is allowing it right now just fine. Thanks to government laws, there are thousands of crack addicts in pissy alleys. But in a market anarchy, there would be no reason to sell drugs in dark alleys, unless you have some kind of romantic notion about rats and piss.”
If certain drugs were legalized, that wouldn’t be too bad. But if there wasn’t a regulation by the government on them, things would be screwed. Since there’d be no law, young boys (such as the one in this satirical clay-cartoon) would be able to purchase such harmful substances. There’d be no safeguards, government education on the negative effects of it. Boys could get severely harmed in a capitalizt country from this.
”Do you always need satire explained to you?”
Yes.
“ This is bashing christianity, not "charity."
Good.
“ I guess you didn't catch it when the kid said "Poor people smoke it, so it must be great!" That's a christian value, poverty. “
Yes, I caught that instance.
”Of course, since I'm a market anarchist, I find it fair to bash charity because some circumstances can be bad. Because somehow in Happy Land, charity means "nobody cares about the poor except aspergian humanist, so they have to be forced to pay for really super good government programs that are so great, there are no poor drug addicts."
Canadian and Scandinavian social welfare programs have been effective a reducing crime. And, quite frankly, I find Minarchism absurd, not to mention Anarcho-capitalism.
A.H. Glad to hear that you don't consider yourself to be an elitist. Got two nickels for a paradigm? Your thinking appears to be affected by the status quo.
Consider:
Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for as long as there are more fish than people trying to pull them out of the water. Give a man a fish, and he will be back tomorrow looking for another, and you will have established a pattern of dependency and condescention.
If drugs were legal, criminals would not make a fortune selling them and the market would pretty much collapse. If people weren't made to feel inadequate, dependent (beholden), and a prisoner in their own lives, the market for drugs would pretty much collapse. If the market for illegal drugs collapsed, then the people with high-paying drug enforcement jobs would have to work elsewhere, so in fact, they have no incentive to stop the flow above the street level.
Do you begin to imagine the inherent problems of a Welfare State? An analogue of Newton's law operates in the Sociological realm, where charity and management have unexpected negative results. I do not believe that there is an either/or answer to this, but a caregiver government necessarily takes power away from the individual. When you were a child, did you ever sit at a board game where someone else threw the dice for you and made all the moves? How would that make you feel?
Your NDP appears to have all the non-controversial (politically safe) and constant (undying) issues of the usual bunch of rabble-rousers. It is easy to point out problems that others have not solved, quite another thing to try to juggle the resources and solve them yourself.
"But if there wasn’t a regulation by the government on them, things would be screwed. Since there’d be no law, young boys (such as the one in this satirical clay-cartoon) would be able to purchase such harmful substances. There’d be no safeguards, government education on the negative effects of it. Boys could get severely harmed in a capitalizt country from this."
You obviously understand nothing about market anarchy - in this instance - or anything else that I've ever seen you write about. If you actually had two brain cells to rub together I might "debate" you, but there is nothing to "debate" with you. You are an idiot.
And breakerslion, please don't paint us all elitists with the brush of this imbecile. It's not his fault if he's a bigot, it's because he's an idiot (as previously mentioned).
By the way, before you get the fuck out of here, I should tell you that there is no correlation between "class" and drug use. But don't let that change your crazy humanist beliefs.
And yes, pompous holy man of market anarchy, I do know what it is. It is where you rid society of a government and let a totally unregulated “free” market do all the work. And good fellows like Mike Huben (Critiques of Libertarianism) have debunked it. You see, Tremblay, you can’t stand when someone who disagrees with you engages in debate. So, in a pompous manner, you call them an idiot. To be a non-idiot they must agree with the preposition of libertarianism.
Sorry A.G. I prove you wrong. I am not a Libertarian, nor am I an anarchist, yet I do not seem to raise the ire in the way that you think I should. I have debated with Franc without being called an idiot, or at least I don't remember being called a total idiot. He has taken strong exception to some of my positions/ideas/beliefs, but I expect no less. Nor am I too easily offended.
Franc, I've been gnawing on something since this afternoon. I would call you an individualist, and an anarchist, but you do not, I think, fit my definition of an elitist. Why do you think of yourself in this way?
You are very mean-spirited people, you know that? Alleee, you and Francois are made for each other, you are both anally annoying and hateful individuals.
By the way, love you. I don't know why you are such a hateful and mean-spirited individual, for having the same name as our friend and shitting all over me like that, while in ignorance. Do you usually come into strangers' blogs and insult them without knowing anything else but that they disagree with you?
OK, kiddo. You're a laugh-riot and everything, but does your mom know you go on random strangers' blogs like this? Would she mind if I emailed her and asked?
This blog is meant for grown-ups. If you can act like a grown-up, even though you are not one, you can stay, just like all the other pre-teens who've managed to fool me. But if you don't, I'm afraid it's going to have to be You must be This Tall to Ride.
I wouldn't worry about anyone else seeing this but me, btw, squirt. This entry is so old that it's dropped off the front page. Nobody reads it anymore, genius.
And nobody reads your blog, either. Praise Jesus and everything. Tell your youth pastor I said "hi," and that he should stop diddling you.
I’ve read his blog. And I’ve criticized it. Usually, he makes some presumption lacking premises and I tear into it. Or, he uses weak evidence, such as the claim the EU is evil. And he once claimed Science is evil. A relatively absurd statement, I must conclude. I’m going to rebut an article on his website.
"Franc, I've been gnawing on something since this afternoon. I would call you an individualist, and an anarchist, but you do not, I think, fit my definition of an elitist. Why do you think of yourself in this way?"
Gnawed that one to the bone, but thanks for responding. To me, an elitist is someone who believes that there is, and should be, a ruling class. Usually this someone believes that they are in the ruling class, and belong there through some weird ideas of heredity, or social standing or wealth. The problem, in my opinion, is the confusion between specilization and superiority. How do you measure a man to say that some well-paid lawyer is the social "better" or even the intellectual superior to the stonemason? This hypothetical mason has an understanding of materials, loads, and balances that produces a successful arch. Do you measure him as somehow a less desireable acquaintance because he gets his hands dirty and does not make as much money as a lawyer? These are the kinds of things I think about when I hear the word "elitist". It is to me a segregationist term, not a cooperative one. My ancestors came from Britian, and Germany, two of the most class-conscious and race conscious countries that there are. Perhaps this has "coloured" my judgment.
"To me, an elitist is someone who believes that there is, and should be, a ruling class."
No, that's just a statist. I see elitism as being the position that some values and virtues are better than others, and that certain people are better than others, and that a natural aristocracy would form in a free society which would try to carry these moral principles into the greater society.
24 comments:
I find this a stereotypical, anti-lower class film. I must, though; mention that I think bashing charity, just because some circumstances can be bad isn’t fair. By the way, wouldn't an anarcho-capitalist libertarian society allow this kind of stuff to go on (without government laws)?
"This kind of stuff?" What, you mean other persons who have a sense of humour? We can't have that!
If you're talking about selling drugs, it seems the society is allowing it right now just fine. Thanks to government laws, there are thousands of crack addicts in pissy alleys. But in a market anarchy, there would be no reason to sell drugs in dark alleys, unless you have some kind of romantic notion about rats and piss.
Do you always need satire explained to you? This is bashing christianity, not "charity." I guess you didn't catch it when the kid said "Poor people smoke it, so it must be great!" That's a christian value, poverty.
Of course, since I'm a market anarchist, I find it fair to bash charity because some circumstances can be bad. Because somehow in Happy Land, charity means "nobody cares about the poor except aspergian humanist, so they have to be forced to pay for really super good government programs that are so great, there are no poor drug addicts."
And so humour flourishes.
Hmmm. "lower class?" I think we have an elitist bigot in our midst.
Hellbound,
“If you're talking about selling drugs, it seems the society is allowing it right now just fine. Thanks to government laws, there are thousands of crack addicts in pissy alleys. But in a market anarchy, there would be no reason to sell drugs in dark alleys, unless you have some kind of romantic notion about rats and piss.”
If certain drugs were legalized, that wouldn’t be too bad. But if there wasn’t a regulation by the government on them, things would be screwed. Since there’d be no law, young boys (such as the one in this satirical clay-cartoon) would be able to purchase such harmful substances. There’d be no safeguards, government education on the negative effects of it. Boys could get severely harmed in a capitalizt country from this.
”Do you always need satire explained to you?”
Yes.
“ This is bashing christianity, not "charity."
Good.
“ I guess you didn't catch it when the kid said "Poor people smoke it, so it must be great!" That's a christian value, poverty. “
Yes, I caught that instance.
”Of course, since I'm a market anarchist, I find it fair to bash charity because some circumstances can be bad. Because somehow in Happy Land, charity means "nobody cares about the poor except aspergian humanist, so they have to be forced to pay for really super good government programs that are so great, there are no poor drug addicts."
Canadian and Scandinavian social welfare programs have been effective a reducing crime. And, quite frankly, I find Minarchism absurd, not to mention Anarcho-capitalism.
breakerslion,
No, I’m not an elitist. I support the NDP.
A.H. Glad to hear that you don't consider yourself to be an elitist. Got two nickels for a paradigm? Your thinking appears to be affected by the status quo.
Consider:
Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for as long as there are more fish than people trying to pull them out of the water. Give a man a fish, and he will be back tomorrow looking for another, and you will have established a pattern of dependency and condescention.
If drugs were legal, criminals would not make a fortune selling them and the market would pretty much collapse. If people weren't made to feel inadequate, dependent (beholden), and a prisoner in their own lives, the market for drugs would pretty much collapse. If the market for illegal drugs collapsed, then the people with high-paying drug enforcement jobs would have to work elsewhere, so in fact, they have no incentive to stop the flow above the street level.
Do you begin to imagine the inherent problems of a Welfare State? An analogue of Newton's law operates in the Sociological realm, where charity and management have unexpected negative results. I do not believe that there is an either/or answer to this, but a caregiver government necessarily takes power away from the individual. When you were a child, did you ever sit at a board game where someone else threw the dice for you and made all the moves? How would that make you feel?
Your NDP appears to have all the non-controversial (politically safe) and constant (undying) issues of the usual bunch of rabble-rousers. It is easy to point out problems that others have not solved, quite another thing to try to juggle the resources and solve them yourself.
"But if there wasn’t a regulation by the government on them, things would be screwed. Since there’d be no law, young boys (such as the one in this satirical clay-cartoon) would be able to purchase such harmful substances. There’d be no safeguards, government education on the negative effects of it. Boys could get severely harmed in a capitalizt country from this."
You = idiot.
Tremblay, can't you debate without personal attacks?
You obviously understand nothing about market anarchy - in this instance - or anything else that I've ever seen you write about. If you actually had two brain cells to rub together I might "debate" you, but there is nothing to "debate" with you. You are an idiot.
And breakerslion, please don't paint us all elitists with the brush of this imbecile. It's not his fault if he's a bigot, it's because he's an idiot (as previously mentioned).
By the way, before you get the fuck out of here, I should tell you that there is no correlation between "class" and drug use. But don't let that change your crazy humanist beliefs.
"By the way, before you get the fuck out of here, I should tell you that there is no correlation between "class" and drug use."
I didn't claim there was, it was implied by the film.
"And breakerslion, please don't paint us all elitists with the brush of this imbecile."
Wouldn't dream of it Franc. I called him an elitist bigot.
And yes, pompous holy man of market anarchy, I do know what it is. It is where you rid society of a government and let a totally unregulated “free” market do all the work. And good fellows like Mike Huben (Critiques of Libertarianism) have debunked it. You see, Tremblay, you can’t stand when someone who disagrees with you engages in debate. So, in a pompous manner, you call them an idiot. To be a non-idiot they must agree with the preposition of libertarianism.
Sorry A.G. I prove you wrong. I am not a Libertarian, nor am I an anarchist, yet I do not seem to raise the ire in the way that you think I should. I have debated with Franc without being called an idiot, or at least I don't remember being called a total idiot. He has taken strong exception to some of my positions/ideas/beliefs, but I expect no less. Nor am I too easily offended.
Franc, I've been gnawing on something since this afternoon. I would call you an individualist, and an anarchist, but you do not, I think, fit my definition of an elitist. Why do you think of yourself in this way?
One more thing: who would have imagined that "Moral Orel" would have generated this kind of buzz?
You are very mean-spirited people, you know that? Alleee, you and Francois are made for each other, you are both anally annoying and hateful individuals.
What a trickster you are! My sides are splitting.
By the way, love you. I don't know why you are such a hateful and mean-spirited individual, for having the same name as our friend and shitting all over me like that, while in ignorance. Do you usually come into strangers' blogs and insult them without knowing anything else but that they disagree with you?
That's amazing, breakerslion, considering everyone "Franc" exchanges a few words with get labeled idiots if they disagree with him!
If he ever published anything, it would be composed of "idiot" and "moron" in its entirety.
OK, kiddo. You're a laugh-riot and everything, but does your mom know you go on random strangers' blogs like this? Would she mind if I emailed her and asked?
This blog is meant for grown-ups. If you can act like a grown-up, even though you are not one, you can stay, just like all the other pre-teens who've managed to fool me. But if you don't, I'm afraid it's going to have to be You must be This Tall to Ride.
I wouldn't worry about anyone else seeing this but me, btw, squirt. This entry is so old that it's dropped off the front page. Nobody reads it anymore, genius.
And nobody reads your blog, either. Praise Jesus and everything. Tell your youth pastor I said "hi," and that he should stop diddling you.
I’ve read his blog. And I’ve criticized it. Usually, he makes some presumption lacking premises and I tear into it. Or, he uses weak evidence, such as the claim the EU is evil. And he once claimed Science is evil. A relatively absurd statement, I must conclude. I’m going to rebut an article on his website.
"Franc, I've been gnawing on something since this afternoon. I would call you an individualist, and an anarchist, but you do not, I think, fit my definition of an elitist. Why do you think of yourself in this way?"
Well, what do you think an elitist is?
Gnawed that one to the bone, but thanks for responding. To me, an elitist is someone who believes that there is, and should be, a ruling class. Usually this someone believes that they are in the ruling class, and belong there through some weird ideas of heredity, or social standing or wealth. The problem, in my opinion, is the confusion between specilization and superiority. How do you measure a man to say that some well-paid lawyer is the social "better" or even the intellectual superior to the stonemason? This hypothetical mason has an understanding of materials, loads, and balances that produces a successful arch. Do you measure him as somehow a less desireable acquaintance because he gets his hands dirty and does not make as much money as a lawyer? These are the kinds of things I think about when I hear the word "elitist". It is to me a segregationist term, not a cooperative one. My ancestors came from Britian, and Germany, two of the most class-conscious and race conscious countries that there are. Perhaps this has "coloured" my judgment.
I'd say be has a point on trying to say someone is "better" than another person.
"To me, an elitist is someone who believes that there is, and should be, a ruling class."
No, that's just a statist. I see elitism as being the position that some values and virtues are better than others, and that certain people are better than others, and that a natural aristocracy would form in a free society which would try to carry these moral principles into the greater society.
Post a Comment