Let Wall Street crack

No, you are expressing an association fallacy by stating that because I do not hold traditional property values, I must subscribe the doctrines of communism.

And, let us put your claims in the correct context if we may, you are making this claim so that you can dodge the fundamental point of contention, whether or not you would be required to care about another's health in a system of voluntary mutual healthcare.

Because you know, and I know, that your original claim is absurd, you are trying to claim I am a communist, and let's follow your logic to it's conclusion:

You are claiming I am a communist, because you do not trust communists, and claim that this means my claim to support voluntary healthcare support, must in fact be a lie, and what I really support is a system of centralised compulsory universal healthcare. A system, my country not only already has, but only came up in the discussion, because I was criticising it.

Your argument is completely absurd.
I could just as easily say "I don't trust capitalists, therefore your claim to support a free-market is false, and you're actually a fascist..." and go on to list all of the things wrong with fascism in order to refute you.
I could. But I wouldn't, because it would not be logically consistent.

In Marxism, all property is abolished, and wealth belongs to all society, the distribution of that wealth is to be decided by centralised authorities. Free-markets do not exist, an individuals are not allowed to decide what they do with the things they produce.

In Mutualism, Absentee-ownership and usury are opposed, and a person must have possession of an object to make a claim upon it, however, they are within their rights to make such claims on objects they use.
Markets are supported and people are allowed to trade the wealth that they produce freely, and to receive the fruits of their labour directly, to dispose of as they wish.
Where it differs from traditional capitalism is that it rejects parasitic employer-labourer relationships, where a "owner" takes more than he produces from a venture because of his title as owner. We do not see it as being logically possible to claim ownership over the produce of a factory, if you yourself are not able to operate that factory single-handedly. If however you can, you may.
On the whole, Mutualists think societies are stronger when made up of entrepeneurs and skilled craftsman, working directly for themselves.

There is nothing inconsistent in my ideology.
The problem here is that you are assigning "ownership" of certain ideas one of only two world-ideologies, pure capitalism, or statist communism.
Your naive, black-and-white (or should I say black-and-red?) view of the world, means you are unable to comprehend that someone may believe in markets, private possession, reject capitalism and yet not be a marxist.

Yes, you believe that value is subjective, thank you for affirming my point.

Now, why don't you practice some of that "internal consistency" you keep raving about, and explain to me the logic in the following of your propositions...

1 ) I must be a communist, because both I and communists reject Natural Rights, specifically, traditional interpretations of property

Not only an association fallacy, but also circular logic, or begging the question
You're saying that I must be a communist because of one perceived similarity with leftwing ideologies, and that any claim I make refuting my affiliation to communism, must be false, because I'm a communist.

2 ) I am claiming to oppose centralised compulsory healthcare, in a country where it already exists, as a plot to establish centralised compulsory healthcare, in a country where it already exists

Surely, a logical person would apply Occam's Razor here, and say "isn't it more likely that he is advocating voluntary healthcare systems, because he believes in them?"

3 ) The implication that my "secret motives" actually have any bearing on the matter being discussed, namely, whether or not, in a place where people practiced voluntarily pooling their resources to look after one another's healthcare, it logically follows that you would be forced to participate

Your claim is a contradiction, plain and simple, as consistent as saying "If I flew to manchester, I would have to catch the train to manchester"

 

I am not expressing an association fallacy. You are a communist.

"In Mutualism, Absentee-ownership and usury are opposed, and a person must have possession of an object to make a claim upon it"

In other words I cannot own a large industrial complex and the product of said complex by virtue of financing its construction.

"Markets are supported and people are allowed to trade the wealth that they produce freely"

Except that the free market is based on usary in that people make money by remotely investing in industry that they themselves do not work in. I cant trade wealth freely because you would prevent me from spending it as I wish. I cannot issue lines of credit secured on property either.

An owner takes more from a 'parasitic' employer, laborer relationship because he invests capital. Its called start up costs and fixed assets.

So I reject the idea that you can deny basic property rights while claiming to support the free market.

In practice marxists did not eliminate all property and control all wealth but they did appropriate fixed assets, assume government control of many large credit institutions and dictate the manner in which private wealth could be used. You propose these things.

Your mutualism is communism. Marx wrote extensively on the subject of eliminating the traditional perspective on property. The upshot was economic collapse and the deaths of millions from disease and starvation.

 

Why is it bad being a communist, if the only alternative is being a lonely consumer, that has no alternatives than consuming cheap products made by slaves?

Can it seem so unnatural actually to believe that the basic condition for Humanity is its social abilities, rather than our competitive abilities.?

love,
-wolf-

 

I repeat...

The upshot was economic collapse and the deaths of millions from disease and starvation.

 

lol if you ARE a communist, it's one thing, but I'm not, and Catz, seems to lack the basic logical skills necessary to make this distinction.

 

Yes Catz you are, because firstly, despite having non-traditional conceptions of property, the marxist and mutualist conceptions are different from one another, as I plainly explained.
Secondly, just because we both hold non-traditional conceptions of property ideas, does not mean that we have all of our other ideas in common.

What you express is a text-book association fallacy.

I notice also, that for the umpteenth time, you have directly ignored my request for you to address the actual subject matter, whether or not a person would be forced to care for another's health in a voluntary healthcare system.

Directly ignored perhaps, because you cannot answer it?

Yes, but I didn't say that mutualism was Neoliberal Economics, I said it wasn't Marxism.
You are presenting a false-dichtomy.

No, usury is currently used within our systems, but it is not the "basis" of a free-market. a Free-market is people being allowed to voluntarily associate for mutual profit without coercion or state-intervention.
Exploiting supply-demand relationships is normal practice in a free-market, and so Unions using strikes to control supply, and alter demand, is perfectly reasonable behaviour within a free market.

That's fine, that is something we can work with, if you want to debate the definition of a free-market, let's start a thread somewhere else and do it.
But it isn't relevent whether or not you think my conception of a free-market is valid, the point is that my conception is not marxism, which rejects markets outright, and that the alternatives I suggest to state welfare, would not force participation.

I agree

Show me, please, the post where I said "I support state-control of the market and confiscation of private property"

Was it the one where I criticised the government for intervening in the market by bailing out the banks?
Or perhaps the one where I said people should be allowed to trade freely?
Or maybe you are referring to the one where I said people are entitled to dispose of the fruits of their labour as they wish?
Or maybe, and I'm just throwing this out there as a hypothesis, maybe you're talking bollocks?

Ayn Rand wrote extensively on free-markets, does this mean that all Republicans are Objectivists?

Labour and the Tories both believe in democracy, does this mean they support the same economic philosophies?

ducks and lillies both float on water, does this mean that ducks are plants?

no, because those claims are all association fallacies, just as your absurd claim is an association fallacy.
And (because it seems you need reminding) you are only trying to make this absurd link, to back up an abstruse (and equally illogical) Ad Hominem, whereby you claim that my claims can't be trusted therefore the (contradictory) statement "In a voluntary system of healthcare I would be forced to contribute" must be true.

Please tell me that you're actually just a marginally intelligent troll, and not really this exceptionally silly.

 

lol because in state-communism you still have to consume cheap products made by slaves, but you don't get to choose which products you slave over, or which ones you get to consume.

And pure consumerism isn't the only alternative

 

Show me, please, the post where I said "I support state-control of the market and confiscation of private property"

people make money by remotely investing in industry that they themselves do not work in. I cant trade wealth freely because you would prevent me from spending it as I wish. I cannot issue lines of credit secured on property either.

I cannot own a large industrial complex and the product of said complex by virtue of financing its construction.

"I support state-control of the market and confiscation of private property"

 

If necessary im sure i can find the precise pieces of marx's writings that you are parroting.

as an interesting aside neither tories or labour believe in democracy and they are almost identical from an economic standpoint.

 

I do not advocate the state preventing you from trading how you wish, I advocate workers, refusing to accept such unfavourable terms of employment.

So you're saying that in order to promote freedom, workers should be forced to accept low wages, and banned from collective bargaining?
In a free-market, a worker has the right to set the value of his own labour.
If you do not believe this, you do not believe in a free-market.

Which, by your own definition, would apparently make you a communist.

I have clearly stated my opinions, and they are quite clearly different from Marxism.

I notice you have ignored the majority of my previous post... again... choosing to simply disregard logical argument, rather than confront it.

If you can find anywhere in this thread, or even on this forum, a quote by me, where I say I support the tenets of Marxism, by all means do so.

If not, how about you stop dodging the my criticisms of you, and answer the one question on which this discussion rests.

You stated that you do not like the concept of a voluntary system of mutual healthcare, because you would be forced to participate.

I pointed out that this is a contradiction.
The reason you have ignored this simple thing, is because you can plainly see that it is a contradiction, that your statement was idiotic.
So instead you are trying to take wild flights of fancy and massive logical inconsistency, in a desperate attempt to simply jump clear of your original vapid statement.

So if you can prove I am communist, using my own words, and not association fallacies, and can prove that my being a communist somehow validates your original argument, without using Ad Hominem.
Then do so, show me the proof, show me where, in this thread where I have been attacking state-intervention in the economy, I have said these things, and how they back up your absurd arguments, and I'll happily admit you are correct.

Otherwise, let's stop playing pointless games, and actually discuss the issue of contention.
Whether or not a voluntary system is compulsory.

With any other thinking person, that would be a very short discussion indeed. Blessedly so.

 

In fact, no I'm sorry.
I'm being silly. I've tried logic and reason, clearly you're immune.

Let me explain in terms slightly nearer your level of capabilities...

 

So you want to appropriate my assets in the name of the great socialist workers council but you're not a communist... honest gov.

I probably would have payed for my private health care with my evil capitalist profits made through wage slavery but nevermind. Since paying doctors would put them out of the proletariats reach its probably a good thing that they are payed in vouchers issued by the workers council. Thank god I can now enter into a communal insurance programme with my fellow workers which will probably be a condition of my entry into the guildlike structure controlling the local means of production I used to own. Social pressure isn't oppression anyway right? Its not like people need to be members of society in order to survive right? I mean we wouldnt force people into the non choice of working with us or starving, we leave stuff like that to those evil capitalists.

Just so you know faux intellectualism got communism off the ground the first time but eventually caused it to crash and burn. Im confident that any reasonably intelligent person could see through your deliberately obtuse arguements.

 

lol words fail.
If you're not a troll (though I reckon you must be) then I am genuinely surprised that somebody as irrevocably stupid as you could actually exist in real life, and manage to survive beyond infancy.

I'm not even angry, it's utterly amazing. You're like a circus attraction. I would pay money to come and watch you argue with people you think are communists.

It really is beyond imagination, I had much higher expectations for other members of my species.

 

Hands off my wallet!

Communists are a bit like children, always grabbing things, you just have to tell them firmly "No" and ignore the high pitched 'intellectual' tantrums.

Say yes to realism!

 

I think I'm going to collect quotes from you and then build a computer program that says them at random when I press a button.

 

I am a lonely consumer who enjoys consuming cheap products made by slaves. That's capitalism and free trade. And if I'm white, and most of the so-called slaves are non-white, it's also a fact that most of the big bourgeousie these days are non-white, so it's not a racial issue.

I long ago gave up on the class struggle, since in my part of the world (Western Canada), there is no class consciousness, no trade unionism, no class struggle, no nothing but every worker for himself, thinking of himself as being a little mini-capitalist. So all I can do is show up, suit up, punch the time clock and keep my big mouth shut if I want another paycheque.