Debates
14 Jul 23
30 Jul 23
@no1marauder said'internal arrangements' LOL.
More interested in watching the Spence-Crawford undercard now, but yes we've discussed your preposterous assertion that the internal arrangements of indigenous peoples would have mattered one whit to Euro invaders who wished to seize their land, and natural resources and exploit them for cheap labor.
That you cling to such ridiculous ideas and even think you've somehow "won" a debate on an internet forum by repeating such rubbish ls sad and pathetic.
In the case of the indigenous people of NZ of the time, who had virtually eradicated the previous indigenous people, they didn't even have the wheel, let alone a written language or a piece of paper, they lived in constant fear that their neighbor would, on a whim, engage in a bit of rape, kidnapping and a lovely feast, a carnivorous feast with a few shrunken heads as prizes.
30 Jul 23
@wajoma saidYOu say 'right wing' likes to interfere in peoples' lives, when all we want is to be left alone by people who want to interfere in OUR lives. Presposterous that you would say that.
I'd call it sarcasm but no need to argue over everything, satire it is. But you're right the origins of the word shampoo is more relevant than the origins of the terms 'left wing' and 'right wing' in the way they've departed from their original meaning, either way it's trivia.
In modern times the difference can be stated thus:
Left Wing: liberal on personal issues, ...[text shortened]... me, all that counts is '...you're not welcome here'
In anticipation, the "'etc. etc. etc."
The other stand-out in your post is any and all reference to 'free market'. The process/concept of free market should be a no-brainer. What in the WORLD do you mean by that?
Without free market, the world would wind down.
30 Jul 23
@AverageJoe
Do y'all know that in , say, Sweden, that a physician is allowed to make 'only so much'? So, a physician that I happened to know, now deceased, had to sign on as a ship's doctor on a cruise line to make more money.....Sweden would not let him 'make more money'. I know you libs think that income should be restricted, but does that mean that you think a person should not be able to make as much money as he can? We can do that in the USA. So you would tather govt control and limit income of a doctor?
30 Jul 23
@wajoma saidUnlike the perfectly civilized arrangements in Europe which always did away with any use of force and were exclusively concerned with "robust property rights". I would wager that the cost in lives in New Zealand of any such feuding would pale in comparison with the regular bloodbaths in "civilized" Europe.
'internal arrangements' LOL.
In the case of the indigenous people of NZ of the time, who had virtually eradicated the previous indigenous people, they didn't even have the wheel, let alone a written language or a piece of paper, they lived in constant fear that their neighbor would, on a whim, engage in a bit of rape, kidnapping and a lovely feast, a carnivorous feast with a few shrunken heads as prizes.
As I said, you exhibit ignorant bigotry which is typical of right wing movements esp. when "nationalism" is at issue.
30 Jul 23
@AverageJoe1
All this BS just shows how YOU hate helping ANYONE for fear your 401K will tank.
I hope it does, it would be nice to see YOU in an unemployment line or a church cookout for indigents.
@no1marauder saidNationalism? What nationalism? I believe in free and open immigration and have violated many immigration laws around the world without a dint of conscience, half my working life has been outside NZ, and when in NZ I welcome all foreign nationals provided the do not enlist the services of goobermint thugs to make me pay for their this, that and the other. The model for inter country movement is NZ and Australia. If I feel like working in Australia tomorrow I jump on a plane and go there.
Unlike the perfectly civilized arrangements in Europe which always did away with any use of force and were exclusively concerned with "robust property rights". I would wager that the cost in lives in New Zealand of any such feuding would pale in comparison with the regular bloodbaths in "civilized" Europe.
As I said, you exhibit ignorant bigotry which is typical of right wing movements esp. when "nationalism" is at issue.
You got the wrong end of the stick, again and again.
The bloodbaths? Again you make the argument for strong property rights, because with strong property rights the 'bloodbaths' end. And you'll find no bigotry on the basis of race, but bigotry against those that do not believe in property rights and use this lack of belief as an excuse to maintain and abuse the initiation of force and threats of force, then I am guilty, and proudly so.
In anticipation of all the 'etcetera's.'
30 Jul 23
@sonhouse saidPeople who do not plan may very well end up that way.
@AverageJoe1
All this BS just shows how YOU hate helping ANYONE for fear your 401K will tank.
I hope it does, it would be nice to see YOU in an unemployment line or a church cookout for indigents.
30 Jul 23
3 edits
@wajoma saidIn the case we are talking about, your "strong property rights" come after invaders have stolen the property and murdered those who resisted the theft. It's "strong property rights" for those who commit Crimes against Humanity.
Nationalism? What nationalism? I believe in free and open immigration and have violated many immigration laws around the world without a dint of conscience, half my working life has been outside NZ, and when in NZ I welcome all foreign nationals provided the do not enlist the services of goobermint thugs to make me pay for their this, that and the other. The model for inter ...[text shortened]... and threats of force, then I am guilty, and proudly so.
In anticipation of all the 'etcetera's.'
That is the nature of private property: it is always created and maintained by arbitrary force.
And your simple minded bigotry is shown by your unflattering description of indigenous peoples seemingly to justify the murder, theft and oppression visited on them by Euro invaders. Absent from that "analysis" is the reality that conditions in "civilized" Europe were hardly much different for the average person who were even more likely to become victims of petty wars and squabbles among the nobility (they did have wheels though which you seem to imply gave Europeans the moral right to kill and steal from those who didn't). But the lack of material devices or a writing system does not deprive one of their Natural Rights and murderous invaders seeking to establish "strong property rights" after seizing by force a people's natural resources are not granted the legitimate power to do so because they have "better" stuff.
30 Jul 23
@wajoma saidOf course Wajoma is just following in the footsteps of his idol, Ayn Rand, who enthusiastically defended colonial conquests of "Uncivilized" people:
'internal arrangements' LOL.
In the case of the indigenous people of NZ of the time, who had virtually eradicated the previous indigenous people, they didn't even have the wheel, let alone a written language or a piece of paper, they lived in constant fear that their neighbor would, on a whim, engage in a bit of rape, kidnapping and a lovely feast, a carnivorous feast with a few shrunken heads as prizes.
I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn’t conquer; Americans did not conquer that country.
Whoever is making sounds there, I think is hissing, he is right, but please be consistent: you are a racist if you object to that [laughter and applause]. You are that because you believe that anything can be given to Man by his biological birth or for biological reasons.
If you are born in a magnificent country which you don’t know what to do with, you believe that it is a property right; it is not. And, since the Indians did not have any property rights—they didn’t have the concept of property; they didn’t even have a settled, society, they were predominantly nomadic tribes; they were a primitive tribal culture, if you want to call it that—if so, they didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using.
It would be wrong to attack any country which does respect—or try, for that matter, to respect—individual rights, because if they do, you are an aggressor and you are morally wrong to attack them. But if a country does not protect rights—if a given tribe is the slave of its own tribal chief—why should you respect the rights they do not have?
Or any country which has a dictatorship. Government—the citizens still have individual rights—but the country does not have any rights. Anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in this country and neither you nor a country nor anyone can have your cake and eat it too.
In other words, want respect for the rights of Indians, who, incidentally, for most cases of their tribal history, made agreements with the white man, and then when they had used up whichever they got through agreement of giving, selling certain territory, then came back and broke the agreement, and attacked white settlements.
I will go further. Let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages, which they certainly were not. What was it that they were fighting for, if they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their right to keep part of the earth untouched, unused, and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or maybe a few caves about.
Any white person who brings the elements of civilization had the right to take over this continent and it is great that some people did, and discovered here what they couldn’t do anywhere else in the world and what the Indians, if there are any racist Indians today, do not believe to this day: respect for individual rights.
I am, incidentally, in favor of Israel against the Arabs for the very same reason. There you have the same issue in reverse. Israel is not a good country politically; it’s a mixed economy, leaning strongly to socialism. But why do the Arabs resent it? Because it is a wedge of civilization—an industrial wedge—in part of a continent which is totally primitive and nomadic.
Israel is being attacked for being civilized, and being specifically a technological society. It’s for that very reason that they should be supported—that they are morally right because they represent the progress of Man’s mind, just as the white settlers of America represented the progress of the mind, not centuries of brute stagnation and superstition. They represented the banner of the mind and they were in the right."
https://www.salon.com/2015/10/14/libertarian_superstar_ayn_rand_defended_genocide_of_savage_native_americans/
30 Jul 23
@sonhouse saidUhh, you don't have a 401K? Downer, man
@AverageJoe1
All this BS just shows how YOU hate helping ANYONE for fear your 401K will tank.
I hope it does, it would be nice to see YOU in an unemployment line or a church cookout for indigents.
30 Jul 23
@sonhouse saidIf you do not have one, you seem to mock those who do. Why do that? Why do libs do that? Like it is a plague that we need to shed, to get rid of. You say above I worry about my 401k. Do you happen to know someone with a 401k that is not always concerned about it?
@AverageJoe1
My 40 bucks an hour helps though.
Some glib remarks are uncalled for and lead one to scratch his head, like, what does he mean by that. What do you mean by that?
01 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidYou're going to burst a blood vessel trying to wangle race into this, if the races were reversed my position would have been the same i.e. I will not flatter a culture whose greatest achievements were: Coming up with a technique for shrinking and preserving the heads loped off enemies after eating the rest of them. Hunting to extinction a flightless big bird. You have some romantic 'Dances With Wolves' view of how life was, the truth is you could die of a tooth infection at 30, they didn't have metal, if you wanted to cut a tree down you did it with a piece of stone, you should try that. They didn't have clothes to speak of, do you know how cold it get's in NZ? Regardless of race it was not a culture to be flattered, and it had plateaued. And they didn't know what it was to own something. And how ever bloodily it was achieved the end result was Maori could settle down and farm their land, and where ever possible emulate the 'invaders' and how they lived. The history of initial acquisition is filled with bloody battles with peoples of all races, at time the same piece of land went back and forth, the solution was, is, and will always be sound property rights. The end of the battles.
In the case we are talking about, your "strong property rights" come after invaders have stolen the property and murdered those who resisted the theft. It's "strong property rights" for those who commit Crimes against Humanity.
That is the nature of private property: it is always created and maintained by arbitrary force.
And your simple minded bigotry is shown by ...[text shortened]... 's natural resources are not granted the legitimate power to do so because they have "better" stuff.
I don't condone every aspect of how we got to this point, it's history, a history that shows the importance property rights.
01 Aug 23
@no1marauder saidSomebody said something once, it wasn't what I said, should I attempt to defend that which I did not say?
Of course Wajoma is just following in the footsteps of his idol, Ayn Rand, who enthusiastically defended colonial conquests of "Uncivilized" people:
I do not think that they have any right to live in a country merely because they were born here and acted and lived like savages. Americans didn’t conquer; Americans did not conquer that country.
Whoever is making sound ...[text shortened]... ww.salon.com/2015/10/14/libertarian_superstar_ayn_rand_defended_genocide_of_savage_native_americans/
Nah.
01 Aug 23
@AverageJoe1
And YOUR plan is to make your god king POTUS again. I don't think you will be happy with what happens in that case. Remember 'I WILL BE YOUR RETRIBUTION', like we NEED retribution? Did you actually hear that remark yourself or are you just in denial your god king ever said anything like that? If you actually did hear that, do you seriously think he is talking about OUR retribution? Do you even know what retribution means?
We saw that 'retribution' when Col. Vindman was fired for doing his job, or James Comey, fired within days of Trump DEMANDING loyalty to TRUMP and he replied I am loyal to the constitution. I bet you never even heard just why Comey was fired.
THAT is what your god king Trump means by 'retribution', really the 'retribution' of a MOB BOSS.
So do you think that will be great for the US if Trump is re-elected?