@brontoraptor

Thank you for clarifying here

Movement: Capitalism

Now, this I find to be far to broad to get a sense of your real position. That is, "Capitalism" as it is generally used, is consistent with both a "Free Market" system and various forms of "Constrained/Regulated Market" systems. I am arguing for a form of "Constrained Market" system (in the short term) as I think they still have usefulness and are feasible to implement in the current climate/Zeitgeist. However, it is important to note that the type of "Constrained Market" system I am proposing is very different than typically conceived of by people such as Sanders, Green Party, ect. ect. (I can elaborate on this if you like, I began to address it in my previous posts)

@brontoraptor

I was raised poor, am a minority

This seems to destroy Nomenclature's assumptions about you and the claim that you are a "white supremacist"/fascist neo-Nazi. Well, I guess it is hit and miss in the pointing fingers and name calling game Nom likes to play.. (LOL)

made good money in a poor state. It's all based on excuse centered culture on the left. Just get it done, or it won't get done. It's simple. If you want success, go get it. It won't hunt you down and find you, but rather, the opposite.

This I agree with (based on the America system--as well as the UK and some other places as well for that matter). Even though America certainly does not have any strict "Equality of Opportunity" it has enough opportunity to allow any person (regardless of starting position) to climb the ladder if they are willing and able to "play the game" wisely, persistently, ect. (Good for you btw)

Note, this is not what I was taking issue with in my post however. My criticism is more large-scale about what is being incentivized, valued, and the sort of society one can expect to be produced from that structure (which I think is deeply fundamentally flawed and unstable)

@brontoraptor

I asked this question because I am attempting to get a better "feel" for you economic philosophy (due to the topic we are discussing here). Is there a person, party, movement, ect. that you tend to align with on economic issues?

@brontoraptor

Yes, it is. Is there some theoretically "better way"? Sure, but magic doesn't seem to be an option.

Yes, many actually (no magic required).

Do you consider yourself an American Libertarian (a.k.a. Right-Wing Libertarian)? Do you generally agree with Reason magazines economic positions?

@brontoraptor

Merril Streep was the formal spokesperson against Trumpism.

George Clooney was the formal spokesperson on taking in mass migrants.

SNL is antiTrumpism.

They are essentially doing what priests used to do

Point taken. Furthermore, I agree. They are fundamentally hypocritical particularly in regards to the Class system that they claim to object to meanwhile they are the ones most benefiting off of it (and don't give up their wealth as their ideology would suggest is the proper course of action (i.e. it is a "do as I say, not as I do" culture)--e.g. Michael Moore, ect. ect.)

@Brontoraptor

You stated in your OP;

"People are rich for many reasons, one being hard work. Taking away their wealth wouldn't change your life in any way for the good."

Now, there are a number of problems with this based on my argument. One, a huge portion of the nations wealth is being put into sectors of society that serve no real productive purpose/lack in value while areas of high value such as intellectual pursuits are dramatically underfunded and discouraged (in many respects). This is due to society at large sharing the same collective delusions and valuing trivial bullsh't over serious, productive endeavors. This will always incentivize and produce a non-rational society unless structures are fundamentally challenged/altered

@Brontoraptor

In my experience, these "types" are the superheroes of the left, and the dictators and authorities on their "cultural version of ethics".

Could you explain what you mean by that please

Also, that still does not address my fundamental point which I would be interested to hear your thoughts on

@Brontoraptor

Follow the "Show Replies" under Antrim posts with FM (toward the top of the page/wall in this thread)

Note, I can copy-paste here if you are unable to find it

@Brontoraptor

Did you read my post on this topic? I would like someone who holds your position to engage with it

@Antrim

Antrim (to FactMachine): Your post is no more than a meaningless rant of an aggrieved, small minded malcontent.

In the main those who have accomplished success have done so by working hard and taking risks to attain their full potential.

It seems to me that you are operating on a fundamental assumption that the "free market" is inherently wise and just (and this is what FactMachine appears to be objecting to).

Now, you stated in your previous post:

"In most free western countries, but particularly America, everyone has the opportunity to 'make good' and achieve their full potential, if they have the necessary drive, ability and stamina"

This I agree with (and from what I gather, FM tends to agree with this as well--this is not what I think FM was taking issue with, at least it is not what I am taking issue with) because everyone has enough opportunity to find a way to attend a College for an Engineering, Statistics, Computer Science, Business, ect. degree that would potentially set them up for at least decent to good paying jobs and could continue their education, working up the ladder and ultimately earn a very comfortable living (if they are able to "play the game" well). Even a completely poor person has an opportunity for this since there are Government Stafford Loans that everyone qualifies for, regardless of credit history, no co-signer needed, and is enough to first attend a Community College plus apartment (if you work part-time also) and later to a State School program or even to a University of Florida type school (depending on the tuition of the big state school program in one's respective state). From there, PhD programs are free, in fact, they pay you a stipend to attend. This is enough to set someone up for life (if used wisely--and they can ultimately get into nearly any major Uni. by Grad School regardless of what they are confined to/able to attend for Undergraduate degree). This is just a long example to state that I agree with that statement you made.

Now, FM (and I) are pointing to an entirely separate issue. Namely, society does not necessarily always value rational things, and others are able to profit tremendously off of the stupidity/ignorance/ect. of the masses that support it. Examples of this are Musicians, actors, athletes, ect. ect. that in a rational society, are definitely not necessarily more deserving than an Engineer for instance (as our modern world is based on Science and Tech, not Rap/Justin Beiber-type Pop music, Kim Kardashian's ass, ect. ect).

Do you see any problems with this, or do you believe that the Market is the best determining agent in matters such as this?

IGNORE!..................................................................................................

Why? Do my arguments just make too much sense in opposition to your stance, therefore you don't even want to allow yourself to think about it?

But having a peer as an adult spank in response to a (made up transgression) is not a productive response. The dynamic between father and son is not one of equals.

I am discussing offenses that are either equally as bad or worse than what children commit. Would you support the application of the same principle of force "corrective mechanism" that adults/parents apply on children?

The fact that they are peers (adult-adult) demonstrates that the kids are even more vulnerable.

It is a relationship ranging from a responsibility to keep me alive

I am not arguing that if a car is approaching and I child is aimlessly walking into the street that the parents shouldn't be able to pull them back to the sidewalk. That is an example of a legitimate use of force. Forcing a child (or person generally) to turn around, bend over, and strike them repeatedly on the ass with hand/belt to the point that they cry is not a legitimate use of force and your parents/adults would very quickly realize how "out of line" that type of behavior is if you (the child) did it to them when you grew up and they committed a punishable offense. They are being bullies/hypocrites and the fact that you are still standing up for them and their gratuitous behavior is evidence of how damaging this is to children throughout their lives (reasoning, Mommy/Daddy wouldn't abuse me, they love me and want what is best for me?).

Stupid story short, Mike was respecting my home by not clocking him out. I put my foot behind his and gave a tiny shove. Well, drew landed kinda hard and then started crying. Hole was patched the next day and he apologized

If it was you in reverse, would your friend have been allowed to use similar force on you? I'm going to venture a guess and say "yes". Now, is that case with the parent/child relationship? No.

My dad did punish me at 14 for smoking in the house.

Has your Dad committed any gratuitous, punishable offenses (I already know the answer is "yes" just based off of our interaction). Did you punish him in an analogous way?

Listen, what am suggesting is a simple concept, that the parents are held responsible to their own operative moral principles. If they yell at you, spank, belt, make threats, ect. at you/child when they commit an offense (or otherwise), then this would be legitimate behavior in return based on their own principles universally applied. Now, I do not think it is legitimate either way, however if that is the framework that bullies are going to put in place, then you should demand that they are logically consistent with it.

As for your larger story about the use of force, I think are conflating my position with pacifism, which I am not a pacifist. I am against the unwarranted, wicked application of force on vulnerable and helpless sectors of the population with impunity (in fact, it is done with a great deal of pride).

Are you playing games?

A game? If I saw you "misbehaving" and I walked up to you, forced you to turn around, bend over, and strike you repeatedly on your as* (against your will) to the point that you cry, what kind of psychological effect do you think this would have on you if you knew you were subject to this anytime you did something I or someone else viewed as "misbehaving"/"out-of-line"? Do you think it would be a positive and enriching experience as you are claiming it is for children? Or rather damaging?

Is this the intellect of Liberals?

I'm not Liberal. This is your minds attempt to "pigeon-hole" me based on your limited range of knowledge.

FW, I agree with your position and found the arguments disputing it were abusive and inflammatory. These debaters were more than likely a victim of child abuse and unable to discern blatant abuse to responsible parents disciplining a child with love and respect.

The entire intent of spanking is to use physical abuse in order to get the child to capitulate and obey the demands of the parent/adult. Why don't you apply the same principle to other people (and have others apply it to you) if it is a sound ethical principle and effective "corrective measure"?

I rarely got the "belt", was never cursed or yelled, never embaressed or ridiculed. Respect and obedience were unconditional rules while enjoying an independant and responsible life. The last time I got the belt was at age 12. Before that was 10years. I was sure I had outgrown the belt, but throwing snowballs at cars was disrespectful and dangerous. My friend by chance landed one inside of a car and almost lost control. My Dad calmly stated that thiis warranted the belt. First time I didn't cry and it didn't hurt hardly but I distintly remember feeling regret for a new feeling...making my Dad punish me. My long winded point is how a measured balanced approach to discipline is in no way abuse.

Well, you just bolstered my argument that children who are abused by their parents as children go on to live a life suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome unless they recognize the fowl play for what it is..

The last time I got the belt was at age 12. Before that was 10years

Hmmm... I wonder why he stopped right when you hit puberty? It seems highly likely that you misbehaved as a teenager just as when you were a child? Would it not have been beneficial to apply the same "corrective measure"? Perhaps because you are becoming more physically/mentally mature and were not as entirely helpless as you were before and could potentially "fight back" in various ways? I know that since I was 13 years old, if my parents tried to continue that type of discipline they would have been unable to because physically I had grown enough that I was already physically superior to my father and mentally I would be much more cognizant of the malpractice that was taking place and could tell on them (i.e. it is not you that they care about, they care about saving their own as*).

My long winded point is how a measured balanced approach to discipline is in no way abuse.

Again, if you misbehaved as an adult, would you think it was justified for another adult to "belt" you in response? Why or why not?

The real psychological abuse of a lack of consequences, lack of respect, lack of responsibility will likely result in a broken person. Sense of entitlement. Handouts instead of hard work. Or even worse, a lack of self control leads to a prescription of adhd or SSRI meds.

This is all asserted as though it were self-evidently true as a corollary to not being spanked/belted as a child, while it is not at all. In fact, there is an array of studies that bear out how damaging spanking/corporal punishment is for children (and more broadly toward people, but particularly children).

@FromWithin. You are avoiding my questions.

So you would think it was ethically justified (even necessary) for your child spank you when you "misbehave"? Or another grown adult? Or you would spank another grown adult?

@TheSnake. Why are you calling him a fool when you are the one who likes hurting kids?

You're sick. If we ever cross paths in the street I'll be sure to give you a good slap in the mouth. Then you can tell me how it isn't abuse.

Thank you TheSnake.

For the record, I was a Security Guard for several years and on one instance while working at a Grocery Store I witnessed a Mother (probably in her thirties) telling her son who was >5 year old to "shut up" in a highly annoyed voice, and then smacked him hard in the face. I confronted her on it because people like this (and FromWithin) need to be confronted on such a wild abuse of power. Likewise, if I saw a teenage-early twenties male tell their Mom to "shut up" and then smack their Mother as hard as they could in the face (in order to get their mother to shut up, particularly if they were clearly much larger, stronger than their mother), then I would be essentially equally outraged and take the same position as with the child based on the same principle of the balance of power and dominating the more vulnerable (i.e. this is a logically consistent framework, or if anything, the child is still much more vulnerable than the mother in this example).

The salient difference in this example is that children tend to be abused by their parents/adults with impunity in our society while if a child did this to their parent/adult there would be outrage, moral condemnation, backlash, consequences, ect.

"Wow, what an absolute joke you are. You spewed the most ludicrous lies about what spanking is and compared it to abuse"

Wtf are you talking about. You know that it is abusive because you would not let your children do it to you (nor other people)..

@FromWithin.

"Spanking has been proven for thousands of years to be the greatest tool this world has ever known for raising up children with respect for others, for hard work and responsible lifestyles."

I figured, you are an absolute hypocrite. You constantly champion "protect the vulnerable children" while you support abusing them.

Respect for others? It is the ultimate lack of respect to physically dominate vulnerable, defenseless people (this is why bullies are the bad guys).

It brings peace to a household whereby the children respect their parent's authority. They also grow up to respect the authority of Teachers, of their employers, police force, etc.

(Application of Force on the Vulnerable) /= Peace.................

Rather, it builds fear, resentment, anxiety, ect. inside of a household and teaches children that the rule of force is an acceptable/respectable principle.

They "respect" authority because they have been traumatized, and cowed into obedience from social conditioning (much like animals in a circus).

A spanking followed by love is a strong message to a person's insecurities. It sends a message that we can screw up in life, pay the consequences, but that we are still loved and someone worth loving.

No. It gives children a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

I believe in spanking, was spanked as a child, etc. but guess what? I spanked my one child but one time. He learned very quickly and with that one spanking, the tantrums stopped.

Do you think that children should be able to spank their parents/guardians/teachers when they "misbehave"? Let me guess, No? How about when the child grows up and the power dynamic shifts and the parents (in many cases) are no longer far physically larger/stronger than the child (and in quite a number of cases the kids become physically superior to the parents adults)? Let me guess, No? Bullies only like to target the vulnerable and defenseless.

I believe in spanking, was spanked as a child, etc. but guess what? I spanked my one child but one time. He learned very quickly and with that one spanking, the tantrums stopped.

I was spanked as a child also (and smacked across the face, ect.). But of course they only did this when I was not even 4 ft. and less than 100lbs. I wonder why they never tried it when I grew up to be very athletic 6'3 225+ lbs? Funny how that works..

If parents/adults rule by the principle of force, than the children/offspring have every right to "play by their rules" (although I don't think anyone should be playing by these rules).

If parents think they can treat their kids in any way they want, and apply yelling, spanking, hitting, ect. authoritarian tactics and expect that the kids are always going to be around when they grow up for Family get-to-togethers over the holidays and what not, then they are expecting their children to live a life suffering from a form of Stockholm Syndrome. The children when they grow up should not put up with this dynamic and adults/parents should not be at all surprised if the kids want nothing to do with the parents.

Please don't insult intelligent people by comparing spanking to beating or abuse.

Most adults are happily oblivious to how unrespectable people they are

@FromWithin. Out of curiosity, what is your position on spanking, corporal punishment, ect. to children from parents/adults for "misbehaving"?

It would depend on what you mean by 'sexual harassment' and when 'your day' was. There is truth to this in some range of minor circumstances. I also think there tends to be a double standard for men and women on this topic.