Comment Re:I bet Infosys and Tata are dancing in the stree (Score 1) 186
Why would Obama be fund raising? Once you retire from public office any money you have left over becomes yours.
Of course there is. Come on. Showing your interest starts with things such as eye contact, smiling at somebody, stuff like that. And if there's no response, move on. If there is, talk to her. It's not easy for us geeks, I know, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Eye Contact, don't you me Stare Rape
If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible. Not the parks office, not the city, not the state, and not in the case of this incident, the school.
When the child is at the park they are the responsibility of of the person taking care of them, the parents. When the child is at school they are the responsibility of the school. The school gave the kid access to Facebook, the school did not monitor the child's activity. How would a parent be able to monitor their kids online activity at school?
The idea that a corporate person should have freedom of speech is, I think, a problem. For example, it allows them to spend vast amounts of money on political campaigns. This is undemocratic. Corporations don't get to vote or stand for election, but are allowed to have huge influence over politics through money. Since they are not real people they often act without morals or any sense of human decency, and try to get politicians with a similar disposition elected and the law change to reflect their myopic obsession with profit above all else.
The problem with this is that when you boil it down a corporation is just a group of people. That group of people pools their money together and buys adds or donates to politicians in ways that benefit the goals of their group. The rights of a person do not decrease when they are in a group. I would much rather corrupt politicians get removed from office then start limiting speech.
This quote is often used by people that don't know the whole quote or do and intentionally omit the end. Here is the rest of it. "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God." No where does Jesus proclaim that a man is entitled to another man's property.
It seems that the goalposts just moved again. I offered this verse as a response to your statement "I must have missed where in the quote is said that if you don't give up all your possessions and give the money to the poor you will end up in eternal damnation". I did not offer it in support of an argument that a man is entitled to another man's property. This should have been apparent from the context, as I immediately preceeded this verse by the relevant quote from your own post.
How about this where does Jesus say it is required that you have to give up your possessions in order to go to heaven? Your quote is missing the context of the second half of his statement. Jesus does not say that the only way to make it to heaven is to sell all your possessions and give them to the poor.
You moved the goalposts by changing the subject of conversation from "no private property" to "means of production owned by workers", which are two very different things. Socialism does require the means of production being owned by workers. It does not require the absence of private property. If you look through the last few posts, you'll notice that you went from talking about "no private property" to suddenly talking about "means of production owned by the workers". You'll not that my objection was to your "no private property" definition of socialism (which is incorrect), and not your "means of production owned by workers" definition. My latest objection was that you "moved the goalposts" by abandoning your previous definition (which was incorrect) while pretending that your new "means of production owned by workers" definition was what you were saying all along. Also, it's unclear why I have to spell this out for you when it should all be apparent from context.
You going to have to understand the context of what I was saying. It's a big boy concept which means that you can't just look at one sentence you have to look at everything. If we are discussing workers being entitled to more of the profits, a person of average intelligence would be able to grasp that when someone says private property ownership in that context they are talking about workers having a share in the means of production. None of that changes the fact that your comment was about workers that did not invest in capital equipment getting more of the profits that were gained by that equipment. Which is a socialists concept.
Using violence because you think you are entitled to someone else's property is socialism and is how socialism has taken hold.
So when the Mona Lisa was stolen from the Louvre in 1911 by Vincenzo Peruggia, this was socialism? I grow tired of your absurd attempts at redefining socialism. I figured after a few attempts, you'd give up and agree to the standard definition. Clearly I was wrong.
Again I am talking about means of production when I say property, I know it's tough for you to understand context.
It is possible. However, that's orthogonal to the discussion we're having. You stated that workers don't see the full benefit of their labor because they lack an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency. The necessary implication of that claim is that an ownership stake in the technology that affords these advances in productive efficiency is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid.
Your logic has failed you again, it's not necessary that the ownership stake is the deciding factor when it comes to getting paid. The ability to use it is a factor as well, two people one that is qualified to use machinery and one that is not, the one that is qualified will be paid more then the one that can only do manual labor. You are trying to define a grey world in black and white terms it simply won't work.
While I appreciate your condescending attitude, I don't see the problem with the hypothetical situation you set forth. The numbers line up, and everything is working fine. Are you offering this as an example of just how easy it would be for society to transition away from the compulsory-labor model we have now? If so, well done.
This was your quote.
that rewarding lazy behavior and creating more lazy people doesn't negatively impact those who "work hard" nor does it necessarily have any adverse effect on society as a whole.
If you go by my model they people working now have 6.5% less then before the lazy revolution, I would count that as negatively impacting those who work hard. I know you really wish you could do nothing get something in return and not impact anybody else but it's not true.
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.
