France objects to "Waterloo" coin?

[Dystopia]

Is there some law that mandates no liberal value the private sector? I always like to ask my fellow liberals how they would go about ridding the world of the private sector on a planet of 7 billion? And you make stupid statements on a website that relies on the private sector to provide them server space and are doing so as well I am sure on a computer manufactured by the private sector.

Tu quoque and strawman - Nowhere did I argue private property itself should be outright abolished. Is there a law? No, but being a liberal is actually incompatible with abolishing private sector. The problem with liberals like you is that you fail to see no one has a choice other than to buy and use the private sector. The fact I think it's poorly used is irrelevant - Yes I am using a PC from the private sector and posting on a forum ran by the private sector, but (1) There's no reason to think other sectors can't provide services with competence (2) Abolishing private property does not stop the freedom people have to associate.

Let me clue you in, YOU WILL NOT rid the planet of the private sector. Only a moron thinks that utopia can happen. People who either support Che who lead to Cuba, and the opposite, morons who think Ayn Rand's "fuck you I got mine" , do not understand that "capitalism" is not a form of government. There is not one government in the world, friend or foe, that does not invest in the global market.

LOOOL... THe problem of people like you is that you don't understand that without private property you would continue to own your stuff because it would be  replaced by personal property - A less absolute right. The problem with private property is that it is absolute and inheritable, so if you have 1% of the world's population owning 99% of the world's resources and property, there is NOTHING You can do to stop it if you support private property. You want to help the poor (I read your posts) And think too much wealth in few people is bad, but you forget that supporting the system that upholds it means you will never ever fulfil your life goals, not without finding more appropriate measures.

The Saudi Royal Family owns oil companies and has stock in banks and weapons. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE. China capitalizes off off the sale of cheap goods and sweat shop labor and also allows private businesses to exist.

You are not going to solve the abuse of the 1% of workers with your attitude. Shifting power from one segment of a society only means you have shifted that monopoly. Yes business can be abusive, but so can religion and a political party, but all of them require income to grow and or gain power.

I don't understand the relevance of this. China does what needs to be done in a capitalist world, but the purpose of overthrowing capitalism is to do it worldwide otherwise it will find a seed to grow. It is a massive contradiction to support the free market and want the poor to get better. I'm not a fan of middle grounds or neutrality. Thinking redistributing wealth will solve the issue is a massive problem with social democrats and liberals because they are treating symptoms not the cause.

I use the private sector and our capitalist society because it's the only one I have, my survival depends on it, but there's nothing telling me that with the workers controlling the means of production collectively we would magically become unable to produce good products, services and goods. My smartphone was produced by the private sector, but more importantly than that shareholders are making billions while scientists who have brilliant ideas for technology are paid much less compared to the formers. I use the system because I need to survive, and even something like entertainment is a basic necessity nowadays. If you think abolishing private property would mean not owning anything, think again. Private property is a new concept because before capitalism we did live with different ideas of property and feudalism. I don't see how saying "instead of allowing 1% of the world to own most of the wealth/economy we should search for a better system to maximize our potential" is an utopia. An utopia is something impossible to achieve, and it is much closer to libertarianism than socialism.

[Brian37]

May I just note that it's quite asinine to introduce god and Hitchens into this discussion. Even more so since it rather makes the case for Napoleon, who was less religious than the ones fighting him. Also the liberating Europe from a dictator is bullshit. These were absolute rulers, who were worried about their own hides, not liberators. And in the case of England, which was a bit more liberal than the others, it was about trade routes and global interests.

Since when does the word "atheist" constitute a loyalty oath? I could give one shit less if Napoleon was not religious. You create an office that has no challenge to it by the consent of the governed, that makes you a dictator. 

I find it absurd to revolt against kings who are unmovable only to replace that with something else unmovable, it is simply shifting one monopoly for another. A dictatorship is a monopoly of power, no different than a king is a dictator.

Hitchens made his living and did quite well because of our private sector as an author. He railed against both religious fascist states and the likes of Un. I think he is quite relevant to this discussion because he is an example of the ability to criticize religion and even state power. Fascism, which is what dictators value, will only at best, allow you to speak until you challenge their power. 

I am under no obligation to value the likes of Napoleon. You are barking up the wrong tree to expect this atheist to value someone who does not need my consent to rule over me. Dictators do not need consent to rule. 

[Dystopia]

Fascism only applies to a certain doctrine some dictators follow - A dictator may not be fascist - He may be a theocrat, authoritarian, oligarch, communist/stalinist, pretty much everything compatible with a minimum of monopolised power. I think you should really inform and educate yourself on this since it's very clear you don't know anything about political systems and most of your opinions are about what you want to be true regardless of what it factually is. You complain about monopolies, yet you support the system that allows the most oppressive economic monopolies (either you buy from us or you starve, no pick!). See the contradiction?

Funny - Hitchens's lasts words were "capitalism, downfall" and he considered himself a marxist in some instances (mostly trotskist) - A system that, depending on your approach, can be compatible with some kind of dictatorship

Oh and some dictators do need consent to rule - That's why they are elected in the first place

[Brian37]

Fascism only applies to a certain doctrine some dictators follow - A dictator may not be fascist - He may be a theocrat, authoritarian, oligarch, communist/stalinist, pretty much everything compatible with a minimum of monopolised power. I think you should really inform and educate yourself on this since it's very clear you don't know anything about political systems and most of your opinions are about what you want to be true regardless of what it factually is.

Funny - Hitchens's lasts words were "capitalism, downfall" and he considered himself a marxist in some instances (mostly trotskist) - A system that, depending on your approach, can be compatible with some kind of dictatorship

Oh and some dictators do need consent to rule - That's why they are elected in the first place

Wow, your apology for a dictator is on par with the crap theology.

What do you want me to say to this bullshit? No I will NEVER value a dictator. I don't give one fuck how "kind" you try to paint that position. It still amounts to those under that position not having the ability to remove that person. Seriously go fuck yourself if you think that is moral.

And claiming a dictator is elected still does not mean shit. Mob rule by vote does not constitute morality. Our secular government concepts in the west do not give absolute power to one person, voting by itself does not equate to morality, it is simply one part of governing . Iran has elections too, but unless you are a Shiite favored by that government, it is  damned near impossible if not deadly to live openly expressing anything else besides the social norms.

[Anomalocaris]

Fascism only applies to a certain doctrine some dictators follow - A dictator may not be fascist - He may be a theocrat, authoritarian, oligarch, communist/stalinist, pretty much everything compatible with a minimum of monopolised power. I think you should really inform and educate yourself on this since it's very clear you don't know anything about political systems and most of your opinions are about what you want to be true regardless of what it factually is. You complain about monopolies, yet you support the system that allows the most oppressive economic monopolies (either you buy from us or you starve, no pick!). See the contradiction?

Funny - Hitchens's lasts words were "capitalism, downfall" and he considered himself a marxist in some instances (mostly trotskist) - A system that, depending on your approach, can be compatible with some kind of dictatorship

Oh and some dictators do need consent to rule - That's why they are elected in the first place

Judging from his previous posts, you are arguing against someone who, whatever he says about dictatorship, is at heart a rigid would be intellectual petty dictator who has little capacity to digest points of view not consistent his own, and who would neither change his mind nor change the subject, and who, if given a chance and the ability,  would mercilessly stamp out any thinking not thought by him to be in line with his own.

I think for him, freedom essentially means dictatorship by the right people and right view point, however he would choose to represent it. 

[abaris]

Judging from his previous posts, you are arguing against someone who, whatever he says about dictatorship, is at heart a rigid would be intellectual petty dictator who has little capacity to digest points of view not consistent his own, and who, if given a chance and the ability,  would mercilessly stamp out any thinking not thought by him to be in line with his own.

I think for him, freedom essentially means dictatorship by the right people and right view point, however he would choose to represent it. 

And it's a pitty that an otherwise interesting historical discussion turns into a petty pissing contest.

[Brian37]

Fascism only applies to a certain doctrine some dictators follow - A dictator may not be fascist - He may be a theocrat, authoritarian, oligarch, communist/stalinist, pretty much everything compatible with a minimum of monopolised power. I think you should really inform and educate yourself on this since it's very clear you don't know anything about political systems and most of your opinions are about what you want to be true regardless of what it factually is. You complain about monopolies, yet you support the system that allows the most oppressive economic monopolies (either you buy from us or you starve, no pick!). See the contradiction?

Funny - Hitchens's lasts words were "capitalism, downfall" and he considered himself a marxist in some instances (mostly trotskist) - A system that, depending on your approach, can be compatible with some kind of dictatorship

Oh and some dictators do need consent to rule - That's why they are elected in the first place

Out of context. I wish people would would stop painting Hitchens into things he was not. He was not poor, he made his living and got quite wealthy using the private sector to sell his books. I don't think he meant ""capitalism downfall" as advocating getting rid of the private sector. But more in the lines of billionaire Nick Hanaure warning rich people that if you kill that feedback loop by creating slave wages the people will always rebel.

Only an idiot would think Hitchins was anti private sector. He was certainly against abuse of power and like all power you need income to create that power. But he was not anti private sector. Only a idiot would think that. He was quoted many times over the years when asked what his favorite whiskey was "Johny Walker Black". Humn funny that, a private company product. 

[Dystopia]

Wow, your apology for a dictator is on par with the crap theology.

What do you want me to say to this bullshit? No I will NEVER value a dictator. I don't give one fuck how "kind" you try to paint that position. It still amounts to those under that position not having the ability to remove that person. Seriously go fuck yourself if you think that is moral.

And claiming a dictator is elected still does not mean shit. Mob rule by vote does not constitute morality. Our secular government concepts in the west do not give absolute power to one person, voting by itself does not equate to morality, it is simply one part of governing . Iran has elections too, but unless you are a Shiite favored by that government, it is  damned near impossible if not deadly to live openly expressing anything else besides the social norms.

I never said I supported a dictatorship - Churchill's opinion seems compatible with mine. If it is so serious to you, then I'm guessing you would hate ABBA if one of its members supported dictatorships? Are you incapable of evaluating historical figures without a western, modern, intellectual concept of morality? Do you not know that, if we use your definitions, all great historical figures pre-liberalism are dictators?

This isn't kindness, I'm merely correcting you. Fascism is one doctrine of dictatorship and there's others. You can't label any dictatorship as fascism because that's incorrect. We live in an oligarchy. Stop pretending you are free. You despise dictators but are ruled by oligarchs - If you ask me, there isn't a big difference, except that there's an illusion of freedom provided to the people. Our system does not give absolute power to anyone on paper, but in practise I don't need to name lobbies with higher power (namely oligarchs). I am incapable and prohibited from overthrowing those in power if I'm not satisfied with them - It is illegal and a revolution can get me arrested. How is that freedom? Yeah, freedom as long as you accept you can only vote for those who show up. The market is equally immovable and oligarchs are untouchable. It's way worse than a single dictator.


EDIT - "Capitalism downfall" and marxist sympathies along with anti-religion stance seems clear to me - You can't be anti-capitalist without being anti-private property because one depends on the other - Without private property there is no market, not at least like the one we have now. The fact he made money and was wealthy is not relevant. That's a tu quoque. Karl Marx was burgueoise and lived well. He wasn't what he described as working class. That's irrelevant to being wrong or right. If I suddenly became rich I wouldn't change my mind. That's basically promoting a mentality of individualism where people only care about what benefits them and shit on the rest of society.


Brian, you seem to believe buying products from the private sector means you can't be marxist. You realize all marxists in modern society must use the private sector to survive right? Why don't you go fuck yourself and your bullshit tu quoques? Using your definition, no one can be a "true" marxist. Hitchens loved the whisky because it's a good product, regardless of it being made by the private sector - More than that, it's made by people and invented by someone talented, the private sector just happens to be used to sell the product and that's the lesser concern here. People invent something and the private sector takes hold of it. That's how it works in liberalism. It doesn't mean you can't be anti-private sector and still use it - You can, because it's a sector you must use for survival.

[Brian37]

Judging from his previous posts, you are arguing against someone who, whatever he says about dictatorship, is at heart a rigid would be intellectual petty dictator who has little capacity to digest points of view not consistent his own, and who, if given a chance and the ability,  would mercilessly stamp out any thinking not thought by him to be in line with his own.

I think for him, freedom essentially means dictatorship by the right people and right view point, however he would choose to represent it. 

And it's a pitty that an otherwise interesting historical discussion turns into a petty pissing contest.

No pissing contest at all.

There is no moral way to define a position that denotes the attitude of absolute power which is what a dictator is. Not calling Napoleon a king did not change that he was a dictator. I find nothing moral about a figure that is not subject to oversight and review. It is the same type of cherry picking believers pine about the kind NT Jesus losing fact that the totality of the entire bible is still run by an unmovable figure that does not need the consent of the governed.

All Napoleon did was replace  centralized power with his own. It is like quoting the NT, sure you can find some corn in poo, but that doesn't make poo good.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There is no moral way to define a position that denotes the attitude of absolute power which is what a dictator is.

So, in your view, absolute power can never, EVER be exercised morally?

 

Not calling Napoleon a king did not change that he was a dictator.

But no one here is claiming that Napoleon was not a dictator.  Of course he was (he was also a king, but you seem to have forgotten that).  This issue is whether all dictators are inherently bad simply by virtue of exercising dictatorial powers.  The surest test as to whether a leader (dictator or not) was an effective, good leader is 'Did he leave his society in better condition than he found it?'  For Napoleon, the answer is a resounding 'yes.'  

I find nothing moral about a figure that is not subject to oversight and review.

Then you are sadly limited in your thinking - one has nothing to do with the other.

It is the same type of cherry picking believers pine about the kind NT Jesus losing fact that the totality of the entire bible is still run by an unmovable figure that does not need the consent of the governed.

No, it isn't cherry-picking on our part, it is a blind spot on yours.


 

All Napoleon did was replace  centralized power with his own.

If that's really what you think, you may want to read up on Napoleon.

It is like quoting the NT, sure you can find some corn in poo, but that doesn't make poo good.

Again, pointless conflation.
Boru