Political Test

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
Most of them do. You're sounding more and more like a Tory with each post... Hardly anybody chooses to be Unemployed, you know - It's not a happy life... (*wonders if Matt is getting the same deja vu he's getting...*)

Danny, I wish to end this discussion if (< important word) you keep assuming I am including everyone in my statements or attack groups of people I have excluded in my post. As far as I recall, I clearly stated that it is NOT all I am referring to. And yes, a lot of people in germany choose not to work. It's so disrespectful it hurts. Again: "a lot" doesn't even mean "the majority". It's more like "too many". And "too many" also doesn't mean "the majority", but too many as that it's still remotely healthy - considering even a single person like that is infuriating. Do you understand that bit now?

As for the mindless drones thing: I don't see where I said anything about commies being mindless drones. Please tell me where exactly you interpreted that from.

Oh, as for the currency thing: suggestion you look up the way banks in germany (still not sure if it's just a local phenomenom) work. Sure, the value of money drops, but not as much as you seem to be expecting it. The money within germany alone would ("only slightly" if you so wish to add it) increase without draining anyone else on the world.

Last question: Who's Tory? ^_^;;


- TyA

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
Danny, I wish to end this discussion if (< important word) you keep assuming I am including everyone in my statements or attack groups of people I have excluded in my post. As far as I recall, I clearly stated that it is NOT all I am referring to.

If you weren't talking about the Unemployed, then what did you mean by:

I don't know how many of the people that the state pays a share of money for actively bother trying to get a job, but ... I don't think I want to know.

?

And yes, a lot of people in germany choose not to work. It's so disrespectful it hurts. Again: "a lot" doesn't even mean "the majority". It's more like "too many". And "too many" also doesn't mean "the majority", but too many as that it's still remotely healthy - considering even a single person like that is infuriating. Do you understand that bit now?

I understand, I just don't feel that the number of people who choose not to work (which is small, no matter what you are led to believe) has any real effect on the economy, and it is more than worth it to help the vast majority who do seek work...

As for the mindless drones thing: I don't see where I said anything about commies being mindless drones. Please tell me where exactly you interpreted that from.

Here:

you don't have this great an urge to get better as it is with Capitalism.

Solution: Brainwash humanity so they lose their ability to imagine and reason! Then let them live like they would in nature.

I know the first part of this was what your mother said, but it seemed like the second part was how you interpreted her argument. If it wasn't, then I apologise.

Oh, as for the currency thing: suggestion you look up the way banks in germany (still not sure if it's just a local phenomenom) work. Sure, the value of money drops, but not as much as you seem to be expecting it. The money within germany alone would ("only slightly" if you so wish to add it) increase without draining anyone else on the world.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you are wrong. There is no other way to put it. As I said, everyone in Germany (and the rest of Europe and north America) may be getting richer, but it will and does have a dramatic effect on the poorer nations of the world. You seem to be under the impression that it is possible for a country's economy to function separately from those of other countries, but this is not so. Under Capitalism, every gain has to be made up for from somewhere.

Last question: Who's Tory?

The Tories are the Conservative Party, the most right-wing of the three main political parties.

We've got the Conservatives, which are quite far right, and getting further right all the time.

We've got Labour, who are (now) slightly right-of-centre, and getting further right all the time.

And we've got the Liberal Democrats, who were originally meant to be the Centre Party, but have moved further left to counteract the right-shift of the Labour Party, which was originally a Radical Left-Wing Party...

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
If you weren't talking about the Unemployed, then what did you mean by:?

I was talking about the unemployed. Yet I was dissing those that are unemployed because they are too lazy to work, not those that were booted out of their job and try to find a new one and can't.

I understand, I just don't feel that the number of people who choose not to work (which is small, no matter what you are led to believe) has any real effect on the economy, and it is more than worth it to help the vast majority who do seek work...

They get paid with the money rich and poor people have to pay as taxes, y'know. Let me put it bluntly: They steal money they have not the slightest right to have. That, if you ask me, is even in moderate levels, far worse than capitalism in itself.

Here: I know the first part of this was what your mother said, but it seemed like the second part was how you interpreted her argument. If it wasn't, then I apologise.

lol, no, not at all! I was saying "brainwash all" not as something to do with Communism, but as something outside communism and capitalism that would solve the problem! ;) No need to apologize, I guess everyone could have interpreted that the wrong way. Pardon me for not making it clearer (like I constantly am with the "unemployed" bit *g*).

I don't mean to sound arrogant, but you are wrong. There is no other way to put it. As I said, everyone in Germany (and the rest of Europe and north America) may be getting richer, but it will and does have a dramatic effect on the poorer nations of the world. You seem to be under the impression that it is possible for a country's economy to function separately from those of other countries, but this is not so. Under Capitalism, every gain has to be made up for from somewhere.

I'm sure it wouldn't last long, because germany is currently integrated in the world economy, of course, so shutting it off from the outside would result in tragedy, of course. But in theory, it is quite possible. (aww, I'm sorry, evil me to say "in theory", like you always do *slight mock, here, don't break my neck*)

The Tories are the Conservative Party, the most right-wing of the three main political parties. We've got the Conservatives, which are quite far right, and getting further right all the time. We've got Labour, who are (now) slightly right-of-centre, and getting further right all the time. And we've got the Liberal Democrats, who were originally meant to be the Centre Party, but have moved further left to counteract the right-shift of the Labour Party, which was originally a Radical Left-Wing Party...

Hmm, I see.

Well, Danny, this may sound like a laugh for you:
I don't care about Capitalism. I don't care about Communism. I favor neither. I favor non. I guess the system I'd like hasn't been invented yet, not even by me.

Y'see, my life philosophy is kind of "responsiblity to the responsible" and a lot of other things. I tend to believe 'society' is a myth. Society is a big heap of people, where each thinks everyone else is dumb, or whatever it is that's more current in the area you live. It's a big pile of individuals. And we're all egoists at the core. *grin* Egoists not as in the negative sense of the word, but egoists as in people who wish themselves no harm and try to get the best out of life - and because they want the best for themselves, you try not to gnaw on other people, afterall: they might gnaw back.
Has nothing to do with society, but as I said: the system that is my "ideal" probably has yet to be invented.

I'll just keep backing up Capitalism in this thread, since no one else does. *lol*


- Neike / TyA

[Teal]

Me= (-2, -4)

How very succinct.

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
I was talking about the unemployed. Yet I was dissing those that are unemployed because they are too lazy to work, not those that were booted out of their job and try to find a new one and can't.

I knew that was what you meant, and that was what I was responding to. You have to realise that those people you describe make up a tiny (and by tiny I mean extremely tiny) minority of the Unemployed...

They get paid with the money rich and poor people have to pay as taxes, y'know.

Another fault of Capitalism: Under a fairer system, the Rich would be taxed far more heavily than the Poor.

Let me put it bluntly: They steal money they have not the slightest right to have. That, if you ask me, is even in moderate levels, far worse than capitalism in itself.

The "Lazy Unemployed" do not, in a practical sense, exist. Those seeking work have just as much right to that money as the Rich who gained it through their class privileges.

I'm sure it wouldn't last long, because germany is currently integrated in the world economy, of course, so shutting it off from the outside would result in tragedy, of course. But in theory, it is quite possible. (aww, I'm sorry, evil me to say "in theory", like you always do *slight mock, here, don't break my neck*)

1. It is possible, but my point is that it is not currently the case. Therefore, your belief that people getting richer in Germany does not affect those in other countries is fundamentally flawed. Over the last decade, for example, 10 countries' economies have fallen by over 5%, while only 6 countries have seen their economies improving by the same degree.

2. I don't think I've said "in theory" yet in this topic...

Well, Danny, this may sound like a laugh for you:
I don't care about Capitalism. I don't care about Communism. I favor neither. I favor non. I guess the system I'd like hasn't been invented yet, not even by me.

The system I'd like hasn't been invented yet, either. It's called Communism.

Y'see, my life philosophy is kind of "responsiblity to the responsible" and a lot of other things. I tend to believe 'society' is a myth. Society is a big heap of people, where each thinks everyone else is dumb, or whatever it is that's more current in the area you live. It's a big pile of individuals. And we're all egoists at the core. *grin* Egoists not as in the negative sense of the word, but egoists as in people who wish themselves no harm and try to get the best out of life - and because they want the best for themselves, you try not to gnaw on other people, afterall: they might gnaw back.

I fail to see the relevance of this. That is Human Nature, and has little to do with anything we've been debating...

I'll just keep backing up Capitalism in this thread, since no one else does. *lol*

So you haven't met Leon or Matt yet, then?

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
I knew that was what you meant, and that was what I was responding to. You have to realise that those people you describe make up a tiny (and by tiny I mean extremely tiny) minority of the Unemployed...

Their power does not matter. They exist, and they're cancer.

Another fault of Capitalism: Under a fairer system, the Rich would be taxed far more heavily than the Poor.

To my knowledge, the rich are taxed far more heavily than the poor.

The "Lazy Unemployed" do not, in a practical sense, exist. Those seeking work have just as much right to that money as the Rich who gained it through their class privileges.

Yes, those seeking work. It's hard to monitor who's actually bothering to look for work and who is not, I'll hand you that, but I doubt it is impossible. Why not accept there are simple details of existing governments that need to be eradicated? You (seem to) put it as if it were no problem at all.

1. It is possible, but my point is that it is not currently the case.

And my point is that it is possible. See below.

2. I don't think I've said "in theory" yet in this topic...

See below.

The system I'd like hasn't been invented yet, either. It's called Communism.

Yea, so you are defending something you can only discuss in theory, and there we have it again. That's why I said I was quoting you. Of course you didn't say those words, but it's basically what you're on about. Unless a communistic state popped up over night, of course, in which case I beg for pardon.

I fail to see the relevance of this. That is Human Nature, and has little to do with anything we've been debating...

My point exactly. The enire paragraph had nothing to do with the debate. I just wished to make it clear what my beliefs are, as opposed to myself defending Capitalism (though, no, I don't judge it as a bad system, I just severly doubt it to be perfect. And no *g* I'm not going to point out where I see flaws, just to make this more interesting).

And, by the way. "Responsibility to the responsible" is not human nature. En contraire, as the french would say. (No offence to religious people out there, read over the next sentances and ignore them) Religions were created simply as a lot of people wanted to flee from responsibility. First, responsibility to give their own individual life a meaning. Then later, responsibility to act. Perhaps the religion in itself may not be bad, but a lot of people practising religions seem to turn it into such a light. How often have you heard the phrase "in the name of god"? And I'm not just talking about the eleventh sep'. In general. Or "he/she is god's hands now". Reassuring, yea, but it sure relieves people of having to think... *winks*

So you haven't met Leon or Matt yet, then? :D

Hmm. I don't think so? You'd have to utter their screennames, or I won't recognize 'em. Afterall, you seem to be the only on the board that knows nearly everyone's real names. *grin* So enlighten me, please.


- TyA / Neike
I used that posticon again...

[Doug]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
you seem to be the only on the board that knows nearly everyone's real names.

That's because Danny is the duly elected King of the Forums. Sydney is just one of Danny's alter egos to make it seem like the people running the place are actually somewhat reasonable. Abe Babe's not real either . . . yep, Danny again.

Leon is Surfacing.

I'm not sure who Matt is but I'm guessing he's Statikk, the resident right-winger.

*No Danny, no! Please don't make me go back in my cage! I can't stand it in there! The aliens will get me! Please, no more probes!*

[Gluk Schmuck]

Originally posted by Doug
I'm not sure who Matt is but I'm guessing he's Statikk, the resident right-winger.

Matt is Sal the Mudokon.

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
Their power does not matter. They exist, and they're cancer.

I disagree. For practical purposes, they don't exist.

To my knowledge, the rich are taxed far more heavily than the poor.

No, they're not.

Yes, those seeking work. It's hard to monitor who's actually bothering to look for work and who is not, I'll hand you that, but I doubt it is impossible. Why not accept there are simple details of existing governments that need to be eradicated? You (seem to) put it as if it were no problem at all.

That's because the vast majority are seeking work. The fact that one or two aren't is a small price to pay.

And my point is that it is possible.

Yes, but it does not, and will not, happen in real life. You are using the fact that the system could be changed to make it fairer to justify its current state.

Yea, so you are defending something you can only discuss in theory, and there we have it again. That's why I said I was quoting you. Of course you didn't say those words, but it's basically what you're on about. Unless a communistic state popped up over night, of course, in which case I beg for pardon.

Yes, I am defending a system that does not currently exist. What's your point?

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
I disagree. For practical purposes, they don't exist. [...] That's because the vast majority are seeking work. The fact that one or two aren't is a small price to pay.

So you're basically saying "ignore them because they cannot possibly be causing harm"? Er, sorry Danny, but this is the point I think we're going to have problems settling on, if it isn't impossible. You're against stealing, you're against the poor getting money drawn from them, but you refuse to acknowledge these problems exist? Er, I'm just lost. *makes a note to try and find some statistical figures, if that is even possible*

Yes, but it does not, and will not, happen in real life. You are using the fact that the system could be changed to make it fairer to justify its current state.[...] Yes, I am defending a system that does not currently exist. What's your point?

Um. Danny? I think you're contradicting yourself a little... er... o_o

As for the rich only being taxed as much as the poor - you lost me again. To my knowledge (and once more, I know at least this to be true in germany), money is taxed. The amount of money is taxed - the more money you have, the less you can keep. It goes so far that some people on the rich end of the spectrum decide not to get any richer. (Someone once made a joke that one is taxed 101% of one's money once one hits a certain limit)


- TyA

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
So you're basically saying "ignore them because they cannot possibly be causing harm"? Er, sorry Danny, but this is the point I think we're going to have problems settling on, if it isn't impossible. You're against stealing, you're against the poor getting money drawn from them, but you refuse to acknowledge these problems exist? Er, I'm just lost. *makes a note to try and find some statistical figures, if that is even possible*

Let me try and explain... Social Services benefit many people. A very very very tiny minority of them are not seeking work. However, the fact that so many of them are seeking work justifies giving money to the few scroungers out there, as efforts to police the system would cost more than that which is lost to scroungers anyway. Clear now? If not, I'll try again, but I'm running out of ways to rephrase things...

Um. Danny? I think you're contradicting yourself a little... er... o_o

No, I'm not.

I am defending Communism because it would be the ideal system by which to run the world. The fact that it has not been tried does not detract from that.

You, on the other hand, are saying that the existing system is fair because everyone in Germany could get richer without anyone getting poorer if the system were changed. I don't see how you can make this sort of justification.

As for the rich only being taxed as much as the poor - you lost me again. To my knowledge (and once more, I know at least this to be true in germany), money is taxed. The amount of money is taxed - the more money you have, the less you can keep. It goes so far that some people on the rich end of the spectrum decide not to get any richer. (Someone once made a joke that one is taxed 101% of one's money once one hits a certain limit).

No, you're thinking of Income Tax, which is a tax on a person's income, rather than on the amount of money they actually have. Therefore, it hinders the efforts of the Poor to gain money as much as it hinders the rich. If, on the other hand, people above a certain wealth were to be taxed substantially more, they would barely notice the difference.

An example: Bill Gates (last year) was the proud owner of the equivalent of £34 billion. To live the rest of his life with the same luxury he enjoys now would cost him £10 million, at the least. Therefore, at least £33 billion could be taken from him, and he would never even notice an difference in lifestyle. And yet he still has all of this cash, and is still earning more. Why? He is never, ever going to need it. That is my point here. People should be taxed what they can afford to lose...

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
Let me try and explain... Social Services benefit many people. A very very very tiny minority of them are not seeking work. However, the fact that so many of them are seeking work justifies giving money to the few scroungers out there, as efforts to police the system would cost more than that which is lost to scroungers anyway. Clear now? If not, I'll try again, but I'm running out of ways to rephrase things...

This "small minorty of people" will never look for work. I'm sure so much has struck through. Thus, they will be sapping the state they live in for the rest of their lives, much unlike those people who look for jobs (they tend to find some, most of the time). Thus they are robbing much greater amounts of money from the state than a normal person would, and the bad thing about is they don't care. It's a crime, Danny, why don't you see that?

I am defending Communism because it would be the ideal system by which to run the world. The fact that it has not been tried does not detract from that.
You, on the other hand, are saying that the existing system is fair because everyone in Germany could get richer without anyone getting poorer if the system were changed. I don't see how you can make this sort of justification.

Let me explain. You defend communism, which has never been tried out before. A state has never tried to live in a communistic way. We don't know what flaws would arise, you just assume none would, right? Fine, assume this.
Yet, if you do, realise that Capitalism can also be discussed in theory. Capitalism in itself is not a bad thing, I repeat. The way it is being practised is slightly flawed because of details in laws that are hard to change. So why am I not allowed to discuss in theory, when you keep defending Communism on the same basis? I don't think that's quite fair (pun intended).

No, you're thinking of Income Tax, which is a tax on a person's income, rather than on the amount of money they actually have.

Go figure, it still means the people who are richer and get more money get taxed more heavily, unless you have a normal income person who is a let's-save-money genius, which would be the famous exception to the rule.

An example: Bill Gates (last year) was the proud owner of the equivalent of £34 billion. To live the rest of his life with the same luxury he enjoys now would cost him £10 million, at the least. Therefore, at least £33 billion could be taken from him, and he would never even notice an difference in lifestyle. And yet he still has all of this cash, and is still earning more. Why? He is never, ever going to need it. That is my point here. People should be taxed what they can afford to lose...

Sure, why not? But how do you want to know what they can afford to lose, if you go by your argument of "to live the rest of his life with the same luxury" thing. Wouldn't that be just as hard to find out as the people who don't look for work?


- TyA

[Danny]

Originally posted by pinkgoth2
This "small minorty of people" will never look for work. I'm sure so much has struck through. Thus, they will be sapping the state they live in for the rest of their lives, much unlike those people who look for jobs (they tend to find some, most of the time). Thus they are robbing much greater amounts of money from the state than a normal person would, and the bad thing about is they don't care. It's a crime, Danny, why don't you see that?

It may be a crime, but my point is that it is a Victimless Crime, and costs the state so little money that it is far more economical to let them go on doing it than to waste money on stopping them.

Let me explain. You defend communism, which has never been tried out before. A state has never tried to live in a communistic way. We don't know what flaws would arise, you just assume none would, right? Fine, assume this.
Yet, if you do, realise that Capitalism can also be discussed in theory. Capitalism in itself is not a bad thing, I repeat. The way it is being practised is slightly flawed because of details in laws that are hard to change. So why am I not allowed to discuss in theory, when you keep defending Communism on the same basis? I don't think that's quite fair (pun intended).

I think we've already discussed this. I have already outlined what I see as the fundamental flaws in the concept of Capitalism, haven't I? If I haven't, then I will...

My point in this case is that you said that people in Germany were getting Richer without anyone else getting Poorer. Then I pointed out that that was wrong, because all economies are linked. You then claimed that it would be possible for Germany's economy to be severed from the world's. Leaving aside the fact that I am becoming increasingly doubtful that such a thing would be possible, that still means that you are claiming that the people of Germany are getting richer without affecting anyone else, even though you have accepted that, in order for this to happen, the system would have to be changed.

Meh, my language skills have gone to pot today... If you don't understand what I'm saying, that's not your fault, I'm just unable to construct a logical sequence of sentences today...

Go figure, it still means the people who are richer and get more money get taxed more heavily, unless you have a normal income person who is a let's-save-money genius, which would be the famous exception to the rule.

You're ignoring those who have very little income, and yet absurdly large amounts of money. Lords, for instance. To provide another example, say if Bill Gates sold off Microsoft, so that he no longer had any income. He would suffer no Income Tax, even though he would still be one of the richest men in the country.

Sure, why not? But how do you want to know what they can afford to lose, if you go by your argument of "to live the rest of his life with the same luxury" thing. Wouldn't that be just as hard to find out as the people who don't look for work?

Forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you're saying here...

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
It may be a crime, but my point is that it is a Victimless Crime, and costs the state so little money that it is far more economical to let them go on doing it than to waste money on stopping them.

I think we've already discussed this. I have already outlined what I see as the fundamental flaws in the concept of Capitalism, haven't I? If I haven't, then I will...

My point in this case is that you said that people in Germany were getting Richer without anyone else getting Poorer. Then I pointed out that that was wrong, because all economies are linked. You then claimed that it would be possible for Germany's economy to be severed from the world's. Leaving aside the fact that I am becoming increasingly doubtful that such a thing would be possible, that still means that you are claiming that the people of Germany are getting richer without affecting anyone else, even though you have accepted that, in order for this to happen, the system would have to be changed.

Meh, my language skills have gone to pot today... If you don't understand what I'm saying, that's not your fault, I'm just unable to construct a logical sequence of sentences today... :(

You're ignoring those who have very little income, and yet absurdly large amounts of money. Lords, for instance. To provide another example, say if Bill Gates sold off Microsoft, so that he no longer had any income. He would suffer no Income Tax, even though he would still be one of the richest men in the country.

Forgive me, but I don't quite understand what you're saying here...

Danny, I don't care if you wish to laugh into your fist and feel like you triumphed now, but I wish to resign. We are both speaking in circles, and it seems there is no way we can make the other realise something. Capitalism and Communism seem to be too different in my opinion to find any common ground of argumentation.

So I am not going to reply to the details, because I would just repeat myself too.

As for not making sense due to sentance structure - I think your sentance structure makes sense, but I don't kapish you anyway! So I've given up.

I can't understand you, you can't understand me, let's keep our individual beliefs and try not to see another thread coming towards us about economics, or at least not meet in one, for all I care.

I.
Resign.

I'm tired of abusing my mother's keyboard like this.

*chuckles*

Though it was amusing whilst it lasted.


- TyA
*directed at no one in paticular, maybe someone off-screen* Okay, I bet 10€ that Danny will visciously interpret this as being out of ideas. Do I win this bet? Hmm? Do I, do I?
(There's something to think about, not only for yourself, but people in general. Isn't "i resign" always seen as "i have no more ideas" by most people? [mind you, maybe not you, I don't know, I'm assuming again])

[Danny]

Coward...

I won't pretend that I'm not disappointed - a debate dropped is one lost by both sides... I had hoped that we'd eventually be able to come to some consensus, but you're right, we don't seem to be getting through to each other... I accept your resignation...

[pinkgoth2]

Originally posted by Danny
Coward... :p ;) I won't pretend that I'm not disappointed - a debate dropped is one lost by both sides... :( ;)

Hey! I'm not a coward, Danny (yea, you were kidding, but I feel the urge to defend myself anyway), I actually was busy replying to the points when I realised it wasn't getting anywhere.

And I don't think it was lost by both sides. It would have been lost if we'd continued forever and ever (which is where it was headed as far as I can tell). We'd have had no more life because of the debate! Horrible! Er... okayokay, so I'm over-doing it. *laughs*


- TyA

[Surfacing]

To be honest i'm not really sure if i'm left or right winged here are my stats again:


Economic Left/Right: -0.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.33



So does that mean i'm left or right? I'm happy to be either but can someone please tell me?

[SeaRex]

You're a lefty, Leon... ever so slightly.

And to get Danny going the subject on communism again:
1. If certain people don't pull their weight in a communist society, than wouldn't they eventually become poor and be dropped into a lower class?
2. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism? We haven't got around to socialism in schools.

I was just curious. Sorry if question 1 doesn't make sense...

[Surfacing]

Originally posted by SeaRex
You're a lefty, Leon... ever so slightly.

I'm a lefty?? Ha.. I don't know what to say speechless at this point.