Socialism

'i' - No One in America - even with the fiden administration in 'Power" - legally , morally, ethically, or in any way 'harvests organs or sells babies'.


not an Exception - organ donor programs - those organs are not sold.



China - fiden's financial benefactor and controller - is a very different matter in those regards.

...not some new guy: Originally Posted by Tiny

By new, I’m assuming you mean on this part of the board. Otherwise, I’m not sure your two months additional tenure means much, especially since we both carry ASPD alum cards.

By new, I’m assuming you mean on this part of the board. Otherwise, I’m not sure your two months additional tenure means much, especially since we both carry ASPD alum cards. Originally Posted by intldjgig

Exactly. Your contributions of value to eccie.net far, far exceed mine. Seriously.

'i' - No One in America - even with the fiden administration in 'Power" - legally , morally, ethically, or in any way 'harvests organs or sells babies'.

not an Exception - organ donor programs - those organs are not sold.

China - fiden's financial benefactor and controller - is a very different matter in those regards. Originally Posted by oeb11

My mind is literally being blown (or I’m being massively trolled). Consider this context: “I’d sell my left kidney to spend a night with [insert appropriate idyllic companion].” The actual organ and any hypothetical transaction could not be further from the point; the point is the level of desire the metaphor seeks to convey.

I'd GIVE my left kidney to spend a night of passion with AOC, but only if she were ovulating. And if she promised not to get an abortion. Tiny's seed are mighty, they only need one chance.

(b) those who would sell (their own) organs/children to obtain those benefits (that is, the benefits of low public contribution to society and minimal oversight yadda yadda). Originally Posted by intldjgig

To be fair, I think you have the right to sell your own organs if you want, they're YOUR organs, after all.

You lose me with the "contribution to society" talk though - the way you're phrase it sounds a lot less like something given and a lot more like something owed, which I'm not cool with.

My mind is literally being blown (or I’m being massively trolled). Consider this context: “I’d sell my left kidney to spend a night with [insert appropriate idyllic companion].” The actual organ and any hypothetical transaction could not be further from the point; the point is the level of desire the metaphor seeks to convey. Originally Posted by intldjgig

The point is 'literally ' - your advocacy that those practices exist legally in America is 'Wrong"!


And to GG - it is illegal in America to sell organs for transplant or other uses - even One's own organs
China - is a different matter.

if makes the People's Liberation Army a dollar - they will come and take your organs - and One has no say in teh matter in China!

Which is exactly why I tried to reduce the definition of Socialism to more government compared to less government. You want more, bigger government programs, you are NOW, like it or not, labeled a Socialist.


One can disagree all they want but sometimes, perception is reality. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I will die on that hill. Part of the problem with public discourse is the relativistic treatment of language. I fully understand that the meanings of terms evolve. What I refuse to accept is that volume alone dictates meaning.

Besides, more or less government is not necessarily measured on a continuum. In some ways, I’m definitely a fan of big government: big NARROW government. What I’m not a fan of is big WIDE government, which is why I laugh (to avoid screaming) at the supposed conservatives who trot out legislation restricting civil liberties at every turn while screaming about the evils of a government they refuse to fund adequately enough to actually enforce the same laws and restrictions they championed. So in some ways my views and Tony’s are indeed closer than one might think. Yet our similarities get clouded by terms that serve as moving goalposts when it suits one side’s purpose.

To be fair, I think you have the right to sell your own organs if you want, they're YOUR organs, after all.

You lose me with the "contribution to society" talk though - the way you're phrase it sounds a lot less like something given and a lot more like something owed, which I'm not cool with. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

I agree with you, with respect to kidneys at least. According to the National Kidney Foundation, which admittedly does have an agenda, giving away your kidney is safer than getting liposuction. And if you donate one, you go the top of the list if you ever need a new kidney.

People don't last long on dialysis. The waiting list for kidneys if you can't find a donor is years. If people were able to sell their kidneys it would not only help those who could afford to buy them, but also others who wouldn't need to wait as long, or die waiting.

In some ways, I’m definitely a fan of big government: big NARROW government. What I’m not a fan of is big WIDE government, which is why I laugh (to avoid screaming) at the supposed conservatives who trot out legislation restricting civil liberties at every turn while screaming about the evils of a government they refuse to fund adequately enough to actually enforce the same laws and restrictions they championed. Originally Posted by intldjgig

Members of both of the major parties trot out legislation restricting civil liberties. While Libertarianism does have its faults, protection of civil liberties is at its core. The founding principle of the party is that people have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others to live as they choose.

And that's why people with divergent views on economic policy, like WTF and me, vote for some of the same Libertarian candidates. No other party consistently supports legalization of prostitution and marijuana, or stopping the government from spying on us without a good reason.

To be fair, I think you have the right to sell your own organs if you want, they're YOUR organs, after all.

You lose me with the "contribution to society" talk though - the way you're phrase it sounds a lot less like something given and a lot more like something owed, which I'm not cool with. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

But that’s the way representative democracy works (and please, let’s not chase the “we’re not a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic” rabbit). Everyone should be able to vote for who they want to represent them. Whoever wins must govern either with the voice of the the people or as the voice for the people. So sometimes that government and it’s agenda are controlled by people who feel government isn’t doing enough; other times it’s controlled by those who feel the government is doing too much. If one believes that the social contract that makes us all Americans exists, then we’re all in this together and the strength/weakness of our advocacy and our ability to make our respective cases determines the path we walk for a limited period of time, after which we rinse and repeat. Seems like a lot of folks are unwilling to acknowledge that these days.

Members of both parties trot out legislation restricting civil liberties. While Libertarianism does have its faults, protection of civil liberties is at its core. The founding principle of the party is that people have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not interfere with the rights of others to live as they choose.

And that's why people with wildly divergent views on economic policy, like WTF and me, vote for some of the same Libertarian candidates. No other party consistently supports legalization of prostitution and marijuana, or stopping the government from spying on us without a good reason. Originally Posted by Tiny

I hear you. Nearly voted for Johnson in 2016. Never said I disagreed with all the policy recommendations. Just don’t think much of the philosophy as a guiding principle, but that’s largely a technical and somewhat semantic point.

if not for their Open Borders policy - i too would have voted Libertarian in 2020. As I voted in 2016.

That policy is incompatible with the survival of America as I knew it 2016.

Perhaps - that America is already dead - courtesy of partisanship and hatred that has destroyed any civility between the parties to our government. .

But that’s the way representative democracy works (and please, let’s not chase the “we’re not a democracy, we’re a constitutional republic” rabbit). Everyone should be able to vote for who they want to represent them. Whoever wins must govern either with the voice of the the people or as the voice for the people. So sometimes that government and it’s agenda are controlled by people who feel government isn’t doing enough; other times it’s controlled by those who feel the government is doing too much. If one believes that the social contract that makes us all Americans exists, then we’re all in this together and the strength/weakness of our advocacy and our ability to make our respective cases determines the path we walk for a limited period of time, after which we rinse and repeat. Seems like a lot of folks are unwilling to acknowledge that these days. Originally Posted by intldjgig

Well stated.

Perhaps - that America is already dead - courtesy of partisanship and hatred that has destroyed any civility between the parties to our government. . Originally Posted by oeb11

Yeah, what happened to the good old days. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill. Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. You really need bipartisanship to accomplish something lasting and great. Otherwise when the other party gets into power they'll just overturn whatever it is you did.