Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Do you think oil prices are justified?
Yes 39%  39%  [ 12 ]
No 61%  61%  [ 19 ]
Total votes : 31

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 8:26 pm

Back on topic: Right now, the poll results are evenly divided. To those who say the price of oil is unjustified, what is your reasoning? What price is a "just price" for oil, and why? What do you think should determine prices, if not the market?


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 9:11 pm

oscuria wrote:
Fascism are in the eyes of the oppressed, You tyrant.

Fascism is also a historical program that is particularly noted for its totalitarian element. Between the 2 of us, who really seems to sympathize more with totalitarianism? Me, a libertarian, who belongs to an ideology that is known for its opposition and hatred of fascism, or you, who have expressed multiple times your desire for greater government intervention such as censorship and other things. Calling me a tyrant is like a pot calling the kettle black, or even more like a pot calling the sugar black.

Quote:
I find such ideas as freedom and liberty to just be that, ideas.

Ok. All things we speak of are just that, ideas. Even the positions you put forward, so if nothing we speak of has an immediate objective foundation but is rather a few steps away from that, this does not mean that the concepts are meaningless.

Quote:
People are ignorant. They cry about things they do not have, and what they do have they cry about.

People are people. We are not meant to necessarily be happy or change in our levels of happiness.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

06 Jun 2008, 9:28 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
...


You call me a tyrant because I prefer to follow an ideology which in my opinion would serve best society, you instead follow an ideology which you believe gives the people the most "rights" or rather "liberties". However, your idea would leave thousands, even millions homeless because "It's libertarian, as long as you don't revoke their rights, it's fine. They should have worked harder with what has been given to them."

The ideas of freedom and liberty espoused by libertarians are just that, like communism which tries to build up a society based on impracticalities.


Refusing to allow certain publications is hardly tyrannical. After all, we have laws against slander and libel. Such an intolerant society we live in. We can't even speed or not wear seat belts while driving.


Sargon wrote:
I sense sarcasm maybe?


How dare you insult me!! :x


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 10:05 pm

oscuria wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
...


You call me a tyrant because I prefer to follow an ideology which in my opinion would serve best society, you instead follow an ideology which you believe gives the people the most "rights" or rather "liberties". However, your idea would leave thousands, even millions homeless because "It's libertarian, as long as you don't revoke their rights, it's fine. They should have worked harder with what has been given to them."

The ideas of freedom and liberty espoused by libertarians are just that, like communism which tries to build up a society based on impracticalities.


Refusing to allow certain publications is hardly tyrannical. After all, we have laws against slander and libel. Such an intolerant society we live in. We can't even speed or not wear seat belts while driving.

AG never called you a tyrant... overall, I think Freud was a moron, but I am seeing some projection from you, so maybe he was on to something...

Anyways, you may be promoting the "best" society, but we can't all agree on what that is, so your ideal would be necessarily totalitarian since some would not desire to live in it. BTW, are you socialist? If you're criticizing libertarianism for leaving some people homeless or with other needs unmet, I presume you are advocating government provision of these things, which would be some form of socialism. Not only that, but you are also advocating very strict government control over media outlets, which is a hallmark of totalitarianism... why don't you go to Cuba or China, you might like it there.

Really, whatever system you put in place, somebody gets screwed. I say, as long as its impossible to actually create a society free of all social ills, you may as well advance more freedom.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 10:17 pm

oscuria wrote:
You call me a tyrant because I prefer to follow an ideology which in my opinion would serve best society, you instead follow an ideology which you believe gives the people the most "rights" or rather "liberties". However, your idea would leave thousands, even millions homeless because "It's libertarian, as long as you don't revoke their rights, it's fine. They should have worked harder with what has been given to them."

I call you a tyrant because you seek a system that would impose larger governmental controls on society. Umm.... yeah.... sure.... because of course, libertarians really are just dumb. I mean, rent controls and stuff like that are brilliant ideas for helping people have housing despite the fact that some economists have described the idea as worse for a city than bombing. Not only that, but, honestly, I would have to say that your ideas for the economy would be worse. Do you really think that libertarianism is a non-existent idea in economics? No, in fact, compared to the average population, economists believe even more strongly in markets than the rest of the populace. So, if I side with economists and believe their utilitarian arguments for a market economy, then how am I so terrible for such an intellectual alignment? Especially when I consider myself reasonably familiar with the arguments and ideas of the position, and also the opposition to a good extent as well.

Quote:
The ideas of freedom and liberty espoused by libertarians are just that, like communism which tries to build up a society based on impracticalities.

Umm... sure.... You have not even addressed me with an argument. You have just said "well, you are like X and X is bad". What IS "impractical" other than a label. Actually analyze something rather than trying to bypass it with rhetoric and labeling as frankly, libertarian scholars would argue the opposite that libertarianism IS the most practical solution. Milton Friedman made his case for minarchism on utilitarian grounds, David Friedman argued for anarcho-capitalism based upon utilitarian grounds, other scholars have analyzed the failures of governmental actions and their reasons to address the invalidity of the opposition and the validity of their perspective. James Buchanan analyzed government corruption, Bryan Caplan examined voter foolishness, George Stigler brought on the idea of regulatory capture.

Quote:
Refusing to allow certain publications is hardly tyrannical. After all, we have laws against slander and libel. Such an intolerant society we live in. We can't even speed or not wear seat belts while driving.

Well, I don't see these things as being "allowed". We should probably be allowed to go fast on our roads though. There are roads in Europe without speed limits. Not only that, but why enforce seat belts anyway? Seat belts are a personal choice.



oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

06 Jun 2008, 10:18 pm

Orwell wrote:
AG never called you a tyrant... overall, I think Freud was a moron, but I am seeing some projection from you, so maybe he was on to something...

Anyways, you may be promoting the "best" society, but we can't all agree on what that is, so your ideal would be necessarily totalitarian since some would not desire to live in it. BTW, are you socialist? If you're criticizing libertarianism for leaving some people homeless or with other needs unmet, I presume you are advocating government provision of these things, which would be some form of socialism. Not only that, but you are also advocating very strict government control over media outlets, which is a hallmark of totalitarianism... why don't you go to Cuba or China, you might like it there.

Really, whatever system you put in place, somebody gets screwed. I say, as long as its impossible to actually create a society free of all social ills, you may as well advance more freedom.


Ah, how can you speak if you haven't read all the threads? You never know the complete story.


I am semi-socialist. It is mostly due to religious reasons, but I wouldn't advocate a fully socialist regime.

I laugh at your belief that I should move to Cuba or China. In fact I would consider it stupid thing to say. The difference between corruption and complete government control, compared to the control that I would like to see is pretty wide. Unless you like to have all the pornography, all the ignorant and mind wasteful television shows and stupid, critical broadcasts which does nothing but foment hate for one's own neighbors. In fact, this is how it is. People like to say "I'm free, I have all the liberty" while their neighbor is involved in a drunk-driving accident, their child kills himself due to a loaded gun being found in his friends house, and sleeping on the same bed with an adulterous wife because people shouldn't say anything against their lifestyle.


I'm quite the fascist and tyrant.


Oh well, don't trample on my rights. :wtg:


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 10:22 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Refusing to allow certain publications is hardly tyrannical. After all, we have laws against slander and libel. Such an intolerant society we live in. We can't even speed or not wear seat belts while driving.

Well, I don't see these things as being "allowed". We should probably be allowed to go fast on our roads though. There are roads in Europe without speed limits. Not only that, but why enforce seat belts anyway? Seat belts are a personal choice.

That's a concept you're not going to get across to a statist like oscuria. They view everything not as rights but as privileges granted from the state, because ultimately they view the state as truly owning everything and you have only the privileges it chooses to grant you.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

06 Jun 2008, 10:24 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
...



What's wrong with government intervention when it is needed? People will find a way to destroy itself with or without government. This whole "Well, it's the markets" yeah, keep saying that when it becomes $200+ a barrel. Free market, absolutely great. This whole argument is just intellectual crap.

Why shouldn't the government intervene to ease the need of its public? What is wrong with that? I cannot see how a people be so turned on into a philosophy that isn't built on looking after others, instead on itself. It is crap.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

06 Jun 2008, 10:26 pm

Orwell wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Quote:
Refusing to allow certain publications is hardly tyrannical. After all, we have laws against slander and libel. Such an intolerant society we live in. We can't even speed or not wear seat belts while driving.

Well, I don't see these things as being "allowed". We should probably be allowed to go fast on our roads though. There are roads in Europe without speed limits. Not only that, but why enforce seat belts anyway? Seat belts are a personal choice.

That's a concept you're not going to get across to a statist like oscuria. They view everything not as rights but as privileges granted from the state, because ultimately they view the state as truly owning everything and you have only the privileges it chooses to grant you.



It is better than believing you have the right to do anything. Rather, you actually have the right to convince yourself of it.


_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.


Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

06 Jun 2008, 10:26 pm

Well, one thing everyone seems to be forgetting is that it is harder to drill for oil in some places then it is in others. While it can be argued that more oil deposits are being discovered, they're often being discovered in areas that are really hard to get, and so cost more money to drill. The oil sands of Alberta are a good example; people have known for years that there was oil there, but it's only been in the last few years that people have started drilling there in earnest. Why? Because it's harder to get at the oil there, and before prices went up you'd lose more money getting it out then you'd get for selling it.

So, even if you believe that peak oil is a boogyman, is it so hard to believe that we may be starting to use up all of the oil that is easy to get to hence cheaper to produce? Combine that with the increase in demand from emerging economies, and the gas prices start to make sense.

As a side note, I'm a bit annoyed by the false dichotomy of libertarianism or fascism being advanced in this thread. It isn't only one or the other, and presenting the issue like that is a strawman. There are an infinate number of positions between those two extremes.
I agree with oscuria that an attempt at a pure libertarian society would be just as flawed as attempts at pure communism. Ideologies don't make for good governments.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 10:32 pm

oscuria wrote:
I am semi-socialist. It is mostly due to religious reasons, but I wouldn't advocate a fully socialist regime.

"Creeping socialism" gets the same end result.

oscuria wrote:
I laugh at your belief that I should move to Cuba or China. In fact I would consider it stupid thing to say.

And I would consider most of your comments on this thread to be stupid things to say. You have been advocating for more government control and less personal freedom, such systems of government are currently dominant in the places I mentioned. I was merely suggesting that you exercise the FREEDOM that this country gives you to find someplace more to your liking. The Soviet Union may have been better, but they collapsed. Why? Because socialism and totalitarianism are sh***y ways of organizing society.
oscuria wrote:
The difference between corruption and complete government control, compared to the control that I would like to see is pretty wide. Unless you like to have all the pornography, all the ignorant and mind wasteful television shows and stupid, critical broadcasts which does nothing but foment hate for one's own neighbors. In fact, this is how it is. People like to say "I'm free, I have all the liberty" while their neighbor is involved in a drunk-driving accident, their child kills himself due to a loaded gun being found in his friends house, and sleeping on the same bed with an adulterous wife because people shouldn't say anything against their lifestyle.

Little thing called "personal responsibility." I know you liberals/commies/whatever you want to call yourself don't believe in it, but at a certain point people need to stop being children and look after themselves.


oscuria wrote:
I'm quite the fascist and tyrant.


Oh well, don't trample on my rights. :wtg:

You are fascist, by definition. You want government regulation of personal behavior, and an elevation of society's needs over the individual's liberty.

I don't intend to trample on your rights, though you would on mine if you had the power to do so, as you even indicated with your sarcasm in that comment. You acknowledge that you are currently taking advantage of the freedom to voice dissenting (and stupid) opinions when you would not afford that freedom to others if you were in charge. This is where I get to smugly claim moral superiority. 8)


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2008, 10:34 pm

oscuria wrote:
It is better than believing you have the right to do anything. Rather, you actually have the right to convince yourself of it.

No, I never said that. Stop using straw men. You have the right to do anything that doesn't harm anyone else. If there is no victim, there is no crime.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 10:35 pm

Orwell wrote:
AG never called you a tyrant... overall, I think Freud was a moron, but I am seeing some projection from you, so maybe he was on to something...

Actually, I have done that on multiple times. Also, I think Freud was sort of smart, but the idea of unconscious conflict is better than mommy issues.

oscuria wrote:
Unless you like to have all the pornography, all the ignorant and mind wasteful television shows and stupid, critical broadcasts which does nothing but foment hate for one's own neighbors. In fact, this is how it is. People like to say "I'm free, I have all the liberty" while their neighbor is involved in a drunk-driving accident, their child kills himself due to a loaded gun being found in his friends house, and sleeping on the same bed with an adulterous wife because people shouldn't say anything against their lifestyle.

I don't care for it, and I do not choose to watch it. Ok.... um..... one, I don't see why those things would really be *that* common. And if they were that common, you'd probably end up being fine with it anyway as you would just accept it as the way things are. Frankly though, you choose your wife, you choose your association with your neighbor, and you have some right over your son, so what is the problem? You choose a lot of your problems.

Quote:
Oh well, don't trample on my rights.

I am not, just insulting you at any chance I get in pursuit of my rights.



Speckles
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 280

06 Jun 2008, 10:36 pm

Orwell wrote:
Anyways, you may be promoting the "best" society, but we can't all agree on what that is, so your ideal would be necessarily totalitarian since some would not desire to live in it. .


By that logic, even libertarianism is a totalitarian regime, since some would not desire to live in a society like that. Shouldn't people have the freedom to sacrafice some of their theortical liberty in order to create a more supportive society? Why should people be forced to accepted total theortical liberty when they don't want to?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2008, 10:38 pm

Speckles wrote:
By that logic, even libertarianism is a totalitarian regime, since some would not desire to live in a society like that. Shouldn't people have the freedom to sacrafice some of their theortical liberty in order to create a more supportive society? Why should people be forced to accepted total theortical liberty when they don't want to?

Except it isn't. Free association means an ability to create the society you want within society. Libertarians are not so much against socialism as they are against imposed socialism. Libertarians are not against theocracy so much as imposed theocracy. A church or a commune would provide precisely what you'd want. In order for a regime to be totalitarian, we would have to have something with total control over society.



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 Jun 2008, 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The_Chosen_One
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,357
Location: Looking down on humanity

06 Jun 2008, 10:39 pm

Maybe not. I also can't see why we should be paying so much for oil when the big companies are making massive and obscene profits on it. Given that they are, it looks as if we need to search for viable alternative fuels pronto.


_________________
Pagans are people too, not just victims of a religious cleansing program. Universal harmony for all!!

Karma decides what must happen, and that includes everyone.