Are You a Classist?

[Panache]

Smarter?

There is more to a capitalist caste system than the "Smart" or the "Stupid"

First of all, there is no such thing as a capitalist caste system that I am aware of. The whole point of capitalism is that whoever can produce the best product at the lowest price gets the business. There are no "castes."

Secondly, I am well aware that there are more factors than just "smart" and "stupid" in a capitalist society. If you have read the context and following posts of mine within this thread, you are similarly aware that I was aware of that.

In fact, I did not posit that "Smart" and "Stupid" were the only factors involved in a captialist society, but simply that "smart" and "stupid" were in fact facotrs that made the playing field "unlevel."

Are you denying that smart people have an advantage over stupid people in the realm of business?

Unlike YOU probably I never had real parents never had no one buy me a car or pay for college. I never even had anyone threaten to ground me if I didnt get off my butt and get going. I had to do all that myself.

I hope you can appreciate the irony of your speaking out of ignorance regarding advantages I may or may not have had after chastising me for my own alleged ignorance.

I am not the "had everything handed to him on a silver platter" person that you would like to think I am, though I do not resent those that were. Nor do I think that such people are somehow less deserving of their advantages than I am of mine.

I know I have said before that I was one of those minimum wage workers that everyone feels so sorry for for a good while before I decided to take more control of my situation.

Check Yourself. Your ignorance is severely annoying.:doh

Glass houses and stones.

 

[Iriemon]

Similarly, the Bank of Iriemon can, on its own authority, give authority to its CEO to empower the developers of the New Laws department to elect members of a Constipational Comitee to draft laws which allow them to legally take money from whomever they wish.

So long as they can enforce those laws that they draft, they have just as much authority to do so as the US Legistlative, Executive and Judicial branches.

I do not see the similarity at all. How does the bank of Iriemon have the "consent of the governed" to give authority to take another's property. It does not.

The government of a society's authority derives ultimately from the consent of the governed, if that was the revelation this was all supposed to get to.

That in no way is similar to asserting that an individual or individual entity somehow has authority to make up its own rules.

This appeal to force is consistent with your "might is right" stance.

1) How did I appeal to force?

2) How is it "might" unless the might is the consensus of the governed or the majority.

3) More fundamentally, nothing I have ever said equates to "might is right". I have never said that the majority is "right" in the sense of being correct or moral, but that it has the "right" in terms of power to determine minority rights (as in legal ability to do something or be protected from something.)

I have said this before in this thread, which is apparently getting redundant.

Essentially you are saying that poor people can legally take whatever they want from rich people because the poor people, on their own authority, have decided to make laws that make it legal for them to take what they want from rich people.

Essentially I am not saying that at all.

"Poor people" have no authority to make laws, unless poor people represent the majority.

Essentially, however, I am saying that the government can pass laws that require rich people to pay big taxes and pay big benefits to poor people. That is a fact.

The idea of "organizing for the common good" that you so passionately espouse has broken down when this happens.

You know, I don't think I have ever used that phrase, much less passionatley espouse it. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Suppose that three of my freinds say to me "Hey Panache! How about we all chip in and get a couple of pizzas, so we have something to munch on while we watch Season 9 of Stargate SG-1?"

So I say, "Sure, I like pepperoni."

And they say, "All in favor of the Veggie Combo, raise your hand." And then proceed to all raise their hands.

So I say, "Ok, I suppose I can handle Veggie Combo."

And they proceed to say, "Ok, the pizzas are going to come to $28 altogether. All in favor of Panache paying $25 while we each pay $1 apiece, raise your hand." Naturally they all raise their hands.

Now it seems to me that at this point the "organizing for the common good" isn't working so great, and I am perfectly justified in backing out of the deal and just spending $14 on buying myself a pepporoni pizza.

By your reasoning though, since I am outnumbered three to one, my "friends" are justified in taking my money by force.

I'd find new friends.

Now I would say this is "theft" even though I had initially been amicable to the idea of "organizing for the common good."

As your friends had no authority to force you to pay more for the pizza (unless you consented to give them that authority), if they used force or the threat of force I agree it is theft.

On the other hand, if you did consent to agree with your friends that payment would be by majority vote, then it is not theft.

You'd probably decide you need new friends, and your old friends, knowing this would be the result, would probably not vote to make you pay in the first place.

Pizza theory of econ 101. : )

 

[ARealConservative]

As your friends had no authority to force you to pay more for the pizza (unless you consented to give them that authority), if they used force or the threat of force I agree it is theft.

I never consented to your extreme views on progressive taxation. You claim to have this authority because of sheer numbers, not from consent of the governed.

your entire idealogy centers around might.

 

[Panache]

You know, I don't think I have ever used that phrase, much less passionatley espouse it. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Oops, yes I was, my bad.:3oops:

I do not see the similarity at all. How does the bank of Iriemon have the "consent of the governed" to give authority to take another's property. It does not.

You are ignoring the last vital step of our socratic excersize. The bank doesn't need the "consent of the governed." It can give authority to take another's property on its own authority.

Unless you want to change your answer regarding upon who's authority the governed were entitled to give authority to take another's property.

This was the answer which you gave.

Their own.

So a Bank can give themselves authority the same way that the governed can give themselves authority.

The very concept that one can "give themselves authority" over other people is a subtle appeal to force.

The government of a society's authority derives ultimately from the consent of the governed, if that was the revelation this was all supposed to get to.

No, it wasn't. If it was, I would have stopped at "consent of the governed," instead of asking where the governed had gotten such authority.

That in no way is similar to asserting that an individual or individual entity somehow has authority to make up its own rules.

"The Governed" are as much an individual entity as a bank is.

1) How did I appeal to force?

...And when they take your property by force, you can run down to the prosecutor's office with your little definition of "theft" clipped out and your argument that "or" means the conjunctive and not disjunctive...

As I understand from your example here, the taking of your property isn't theft because you are powerless to prevent the taking of your property.

Even if he is right regarding "or" meaning the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive, the fact that his argument will fall on deaf ears means that it isn't theft.

The implication is that taking your property isn't theft as long as the people in control say it isn't theft.

This is an appeal to force.

2) How is it "might" unless the might is the consensus of the governed or the majority.

Because "theft" is a matter of whatever the people with the might say "theft" is.

3) More fundamentally, nothing I have ever said equates to "might is right". I have never said that the majority is "right" in the sense of being correct or moral, but that it has the "right" in terms of power to determine minority rights (as in legal ability to do something or be protected from something.)

Perhaps we are speaking of different things then. I am referring to "theft" as an injustice, rather than "an action that is outlawed by the people currently in power."

"Poor people" have no authority to make laws, unless poor people represent the majority.

"Poor people" is a relative term will always be the majority in relation to the wealthiest 10%. And apparently, on their own authority, they have the right (in the sense of being correct or moral) to dictate how much the wealthiest 10% should give to them.

Essentially, however, I am saying that the government can pass laws that require rich people to pay big taxes and pay big benefits to poor people. That is a fact.

The governed, on their own authority, vested in them by their ability to defend that authority through the use of force, does indeed have such power, and I agree that this is fact.

My question is, do they have the right (in the sense of being correct or moral) to require rich people to pay big benefits to the governed (i.e. themselves)?

As your friends had no authority to force you to pay more for the pizza (unless you consented to give them that authority), if they used force or the threat of force I agree it is theft.

Did saying "Sure, I like pepporoni." qualify as such consent? I know that I have never signed an official consent form that would allow all the other voters in the US to determine how much I should pay in taxes.

This consent is an assumed social contract that was established by the location of my birth which I had no control over.

I never gave explicit "consent" to allow myself to be robbed of my wealth by popular vote.

On the other hand, if you did consent to agree with your friends that payment would be by majority vote, then it is not theft.

I did not consent to have money taken from me by majority vote. My tax money is extorted from me through the threat of armed men hauling me off to jail.

You'd probably decide you need new friends, and your old friends, knowing this would be the result, would probably not vote to make you pay in the first place.

Pizza theory of econ 101. : )

An excellent reason for my friends to not support a progressive tax.

 

[RightinNYC]

I waited 50 posts for this?

Similarly, the Bank of Iriemon can, on its own authority, give authority to its CEO to empower the developers of the New Laws department to elect members of a Constipational Comitee to draft laws which allow them to legally take money from whomever they wish.

Sure, so long as the people they're taking money from grant consent by being part of their society and there are no superior authorities that would supersede the bank of Iremon.

So long as they can enforce those laws that they draft, they have just as much authority to do so as the US Legistlative, Executive and Judicial branches.

Within their own group, sure, with the same caveats as above.

This appeal to force is consistent with your "might is right" stance.

No, the argument is "majority of support in accordance with all proper constitutional restrictions is right"

Essentially you are saying that poor people can legally take whatever they want from rich people because the poor people, on their own authority, have decided to make laws that make it legal for them to take what they want from rich people.

If the rich people consent to be governed by that entity, then yes, they have to abide by its decisions. If they do not, they are free to leave the entity.

Suppose that three of my freinds say to me "Hey Panache! How about we all chip in and get a couple of pizzas, so we have something to munch on while we watch Season 9 of Stargate SG-1?"

So I say, "Sure, I like pepperoni."

And they say, "All in favor of the Veggie Combo, raise your hand." And then proceed to all raise their hands.

So I say, "Ok, I suppose I can handle Veggie Combo."

And they proceed to say, "Ok, the pizzas are going to come to $28 altogether. All in favor of Panache paying $25 while we each pay $1 apiece, raise your hand." Naturally they all raise their hands.

Now it seems to me that at this point the "organizing for the common good" isn't working so great, and I am perfectly justified in backing out of the deal and just spending $14 on buying myself a pepporoni pizza.

If you consented to live in a house where the rule was that everyone got to vote on everything and the results were binding, then no, you wouldn't be justified. You'd be in breach of contract.

By your reasoning though, since I am outnumbered three to one, my "friends" are justified in taking my money by force.

Since you freely remain in that contract, yea, they would be justified in enforcing its regulations.

Now I would say this is "theft" even though I had initially been amicable to the idea of "organizing for the common good."

I would say that its called "law," and that if you do not like the terms of the contract to find a different group of "friends" to contract with.

 

[Panache]

Sure, so long as the people they're taking money from grant consent by being part of their society and there are no superior authorities that would supersede the bank of Iremon.

Well, the very fact that they exist within a geographical location within which the Bank of Iriemon chooses to take things from people implies their consent apparently.

Within their own group, sure, with the same caveats as above.

Anyone within the geographical area in which they choose to enforce these laws is "within their own group."

If the rich people consent to be governed by that entity, then yes, they have to abide by its decisions. If they do not, they are free to leave the entity.

Just like people who live in the geographical area in which the Bank of Iriemon operates are free to go somewhere else if they don't like having the Bank of Iriemon take their stuff?

Also, it is clear that when it comes down to it, the entity will meet attempts to leave with military force, as it did in the civil war.

And what exactly do you mean by leave? Lets keep in mind that we are talking about the wealthiest 10% of Americans. When we say that they are free to "leave" the entity, does that mean that they are free to evict that entity from the lands that they own? I might point out that the wealthiest 10% of Americans own a whole lot of land, and the less weathy 90% is going to be awful crowded.

If you consented to live in a house where the rule was that everyone got to vote on everything and the results were binding, then no, you wouldn't be justified. You'd be in breach of contract.

By consent, you mean that you were born into a house where you were told that everyone got to vote on everything?

Since you freely remain in that contract, yea, they would be justified in enforcing its regulations.

So when I decide that I do not wish to be in that contract any more and attempt to kick them out of the house, what happens then?

I would say that its called "law," and that if you do not like the terms of the contract to find a different group of "friends" to contract with.

And the authority of this law comes from where?

 

[RightinNYC]

Well, the very fact that they exist within a geographical location within which the Bank of Iriemon chooses to take things from people implies their consent apparently.

If someone is a citizen of the bank of iremon and lives within its borders, then yes, that's considered de facto consent.

Just like people who live in the geographical area in which the Bank of Iriemon operates are free to go somewhere else if they don't like having the Bank of Iriemon take their stuff?

Yea. They're free to decide against being a citizen and leave.

Also, it is clear that when it comes down to it, the entity will meet attempts to leave with military force, as it did in the civil war.

No, you can emigrate quite freely.

And what exactly do you mean by leave? Lets keep in mind that we are talking about the wealthiest 10% of Americans. When we say that they are free to "leave" the entity, does that mean that they are free to evict that entity from the lands that they own? I might point out that the wealthiest 10% of Americans own a whole lot of land, and the less weathy 90% is going to be awful crowded.

While you might own your land, it's still part of the US. So you're completely within your rights to sell it, but not to remove it from the US.

By consent, you mean that you were born into a house where you were told that everyone got to vote on everything?

No, by consent I mean that I was a citizen of an entity and living within its borders.

So when I decide that I do not wish to be in that contract any more and attempt to kick them out of the house, what happens then?

You can leave the house, but you can't kick them out. You can own land in the US, but you can't secede from the nation because the US sovereignty supersedes your ownership.

And the authority of this law comes from where?

The Constitution. =)

 

[Panache]

If someone is a citizen of the bank of iremon and lives within its borders, then yes, that's considered de facto consent.

Fair enough, but I might point out that you are a citizen of the Panachian Empire, and that you live within its borders.

Yea. They're free to decide against being a citizen and leave.

You are also free to decide against being a citizen and leave the Panachian Empire, but you can't take it with you.

While you might own your land, it's still part of the US. So you're completely within your rights to sell it, but not to remove it from the US.

By whose authority are you not within your rights to remove it from the US?

No, by consent I mean that I was a citizen of an entity and living within its borders.

And you can only become a citizen by conscious choice? I never made any conscious choice to become a citizen of any nation other than the Panachian Empire.

You can leave the house, but you can't kick them out.

Why not? If I don't want to share the house with them anymore, why should I let them stay?

You can own land in the US, but you can't secede from the nation because the US sovereignty supersedes your ownership.

And on whose authority does the "governed" presume to have sovereignty over land that I own?

The Constitution. =)

I have been suddenly stuck by a feeling of deja vu.

On whose authority was this Constitution you speak of drafted?

 

[RightinNYC]

Fair enough, but I might point out that you are a citizen of the Panachian Empire, and that you live within its borders.

I do not accept the citizenship of that empire, and you have no claim to the land I live upon, so no, not really.

By whose authority are you not within your rights to remove it from the US?

Constitution. It states that all the territory within our borders is part of the US.

And you can only become a citizen by conscious choice? I never made any conscious choice to become a citizen of any nation other than the Panachian Empire.

No, citizenship is granted by birth or by naturalization. If you wish, you can renounce it.

Why not? If I don't want to share the house with them anymore, why should I let them stay?

Because there is a contract that states that the house is the property of a superior power. You have by virtue of remaining a citizen, consented to that contract. If you withdraw, it doesn't change the fact that that contract remains enforceable for everyone else.

And on whose authority does the "governed" presume to have sovereignty over land that I own?

I have been suddenly stuck by a feeling of deja vu.

On whose authority was this Constitution you speak of drafted?

The several states which ratified the constitution. We've been around and around with this, and I've pointed out the problems with your assertion. If you have new reasons to argue why I'm wrong, then let's hear it, but I'm not particularly eager for another drawn out attempt at a socratic exercise.

 

[Panache]

I do not accept the citizenship of that empire, and you have no claim to the land I live upon, so no, not really.

Your consent is implied by the fact that you continue to live within its borders.

If I declare on this forum that I don't accept the citizenship of the US and that it has no claim to the land that I own, does that revoke its alleged authority over me?

Constitution. It states that all the territory within our borders is part of the US.

Interesting, because in Article II section 2.456.98.785a of the Constituation of the Panachian Empire, it states that all the territory within our borders is part of the Panachian Empire, and that any part of the Panachian Empire can be
removed from the US by order of the Panachian Supreme Commander.

No, citizenship is granted by birth or by naturalization. If you wish, you can renounce it.

Your Panachian Citizenship was granted by birth, and you have thus far not renounced it, so by your own consent, you are bound to the decisions of the Panachian Empire.

Because there is a contract that states that the house is the property of a superior power. You have by virtue of remaining a citizen, consented to that contract. If you withdraw, it doesn't change the fact that that contract remains enforceable for everyone else.

You have by virtue of remaining a citizen of the Panachian Empire consented to the contract which states that your property falls under the soverignty of the Panachian Empire. If you withdraw, it doesn't change the fact that that contract remains enforcable for everyone else.

The several states which ratified the constitution. We've been around and around with this, and I've pointed out the problems with your assertion.

No you haven't. Iriemon was the one who answered my questions. What are the problems with my assertion?

I'm not particularly eager for another drawn out attempt at a socratic exercise.

Because you will end up with the same "the governed have authority because the governed say that they have authority" argument?

On whose authority did the states ratify the constitution?

 

[Iriemon]

I waited 50 posts for this?

Ha - that was my reaction too. Pretty much as you predicted.

 

[Panache]

Ha - that was my reaction too. Pretty much as you predicted.

You were the one who said that people have the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people.

I thought it was worth the wait.:mrgreen:

 

[ARealConservative]

I do not accept the citizenship of that empire, and you have no claim to the land I live upon, so no, not really.

So it's that easy? :doh

Be warned. My minions with guns are coming to make you understand why you are wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

You were the one who said that people have the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people.

I thought it was worth the wait.:mrgreen:

I deny ever saying any such thing and challenge you to cite the post of such a statement by me.

 

[ARealConservative]

I deny ever saying any such thing and challenge you to cite the post of such a statement by me.

Following the Q&A, it is the logical conclusion to what you believe.

 

[Panache]

I deny ever saying any such thing and challenge you to cite the post of such a statement by me.

Post #221

Originally Posted by Panache
Got to be pretty close now...

On whose authority do the governed give power to the King, founding settlers, and elected representatives, respectively to give governments and charters authority to elect memeber of a consitituational comitee to set forth laws?

Their own.

:mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

Following the Q&A, it is the logical conclusion to what you believe.

False, and it demostrates the logically fallasy of your position.

My statement is that the authority of government ultimately comes from the consent of the government.

Your statement:

You were the one who said that people have the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people.

implies that any person (or group of persons) has the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people. That is not what I said, nor does it logically follow. This logical fallasy is also demonstrated by your contention that my position meant that a bank, for example, as the authority to decide to take someone's money by force:

"So a Bank can give themselves authority the same way that the governed can give themselves authority."

"People," or a bank, cannot give themselves authority. Rather, "the people" give the government authority.

 

[ARealConservative]

False, and it demostrates the logically fallasy of your position.

My statement is that the authority of government ultimately comes from the consent of the government.

Your statement:

You were the one who said that people have the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people.

implies that any person (or group of persons) has the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people. That is not what I said, nor does it logically follow. This logical fallasy is also demonstrated by your contention that my position meant that a bank, for example, as the authority to decide to take someone's money by force:

That wasn't my statement, but I did agree with the pwnage he slapped on you.

 

[Iriemon]

Post #221

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panache
Got to be pretty close now...

On whose authority do the governed give power to the King, founding settlers, and elected representatives, respectively to give governments and charters authority to elect memeber of a consitituational comitee to set forth laws?

Their own.

Right -- "the people" give the government authority. Individuals or individual groups do not give themselves authority.

Big difference.

:mrgreen:

 

[Iriemon]

That wasn't my statement, but I did agree with the pwnage he slapped on you.

Sorry, I was basing it on the response.

But based on your statement, you may explain how my "Q&A" would logically lead to the conclusion that I believe that "people have the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people," if you can.

 

[Panache]

Right -- "the people" give the government authority. Individuals or individual groups do not give themselves authority.

Big difference.

Ok, lets try this again. On whose authroity did "the people" have the authority to give the government authority?

Let me remind you of your previous answer.

Their own.

Would you like to amend this, or do you maintain that "the people" can give themselves such authority by the simple fact that they have the power to do so?

How are "the people" not an individual group? They are a collection of individuals, just like a bank is.

Furthermore, to take the socratic excersize a step further, who gave each individual the authority to contribute to the authority of "the people" to give themselves authority?

 

[ARealConservative]

Sorry, I was basing it on the response.

But based on your statement, you may explain how my "Q&A" would logically lead to the conclusion that I believe that "people have the inate authority to give themselves authority over other people," if you can.

Obviously you are hung up on the "themselves" aspect. And he did weaken his poition by typing such a thing. All he attempted to demonstrate (quite successfully) was that your core beliefs are based on "might is right"

 

[Iriemon]

Ok, lets try this again. On whose authroity did "the people" have the authority to give the government authority?

Let me remind you of your previous answer.

Iriemon: Their own.

Would you like to amend this,

Nope.

or do you maintain that "the people" can give themselves such authority by the simple fact that they have the power to do so?

No, I do not maintain "the people" give themselves authority, they give the government authority.

How are "the people" not an individual group? They are a collection of individuals, just like a bank is.

"The people" are the people of the nation, whom give the government of that nation authority.

A collection or group of people like a bank does not have authority; they are not a government.

Furthermore, to take the socratic excersize a step further, who gave each individual the authority to contribute to the authority of "the people" to give themselves authority?

You mean in a democracy like the US? The people.

 

[Iriemon]

Obviously you are hung up on the "themselves" aspect. And he did weaken his poition by typing such a thing. All he attempted to demonstrate (quite successfully) was that your core beliefs are based on "might is right"

Addressed in #227

 

[ARealConservative]

Addressed in #227

That post reads more like an apology to me. :mrgreen: