The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pete Cash
Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Cheers mate. I don't mind opinions different to mine, or people getting aggressive, but petulant whinging going on by others, for years mind you, is just too much and it has to end because it is killing 4C imo.
    It shouldn't be that hard to run an Africa nation but that seems to be an impossibility. They have the natural resources to feed their population quite easily. I could do a better job running the country out of an exercise book. There was one African nation that was doing pretty good comparatively and had no debt but we organized a revolution to steal their resources and open them up to the criminal banking cartels. That's the organization promoting your revolution.
    Please, it was a blatant troll question.

    How is Classical Liberalism exploitative?

    I disagree with that assertion. Capitalism degrading into international corporatism is a result of short term greed and individual stupidity. Democracy is preferable to a dictatorship but it's not not really a great system.
    You are probably going to level the same charge at me that I am about to direct at you but so be it. You are an idealist who is out of touch with reality. Progressives love to complain about power structures and the resulting damage but the best solution they can come up with is to change the power structure to something that suits my ideals a bit better and give it more power. It's nothing short of ridiculous, unworkable and so complex it's impossible.
    Freedom is exploitative, great argument moron.

    We don't have a capitalist system we have international corporatism so it would be wise to redirect your discourse.
    The notion of the common good runs opposed to individualism, which is what Classical Liberalism promotes so that is a ridiculous argument. If you want to argue from looking at the position that the third world finds itself in, it is self evident that they have been deprived of their right to benefit from their share of resources then go ahead. It wouldn't be the first time the argument has been used either. Your assertion that the third world should not starve is not contradictory.
    That's really a ridiculous question if I've ever read one. I thought you were an ex Libertarian? Either that was a crock of shit or you used to be a complete pig.

    Since this is a philosophical question let's go back to the state of nature. Of course I can pose the question if the individual does not have ownership of their own labour than how can they be free but we can move past that. Private property is created through the combination of an individuals labour with nature. There is however a restraint in this regard, abundance. You can't take ownership of a resource from nature if it deprives someone else from that resource. Locke even puts an additional restrain on accumulation to prevent spoilage. So if your argument is there is no restraint or consideration in Classical Liberalism it's bullshit.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…