The Netherlands proposes to ban the burka (full veil)

[Ben_]

I can't give a "practical defence" when to me there isn't an example of it being used in practice. How could you ever make any argument for any change if you could only argue what it's like in reality when it's never been tried. I'm not rejecting your practical implications I just either disagree with them happening or I agree with them but don't agree with them being a bad thing. Maybe it couldn't work in practice, but I've not found a better ideology that I agree with based on my ethics. And I don't see what's wrong arguing from a theoretical viewpoint. I'm afraid I don't have a spare country to try it out on.

you could at least attempt to imagine the practical implications, as they are the most important element to any political theory. what you seem to be doing is ignoring them completely and saying you dont need to adress them as they havent been directly acted out, which is a weak defence.

[superscaper]

and to be honest your understanding of communism and liberalism i think demonstrate very elementary and undeveloped ideas. you seem to have grasped the basic and assumed that represents the whole (or even IS the whole), in many ways this is an insult to the real exponents of these ideas who would rather their views were allowed better representation, not blind belief in the most basic and undeveloped principles on which they are based (in part). im not criticising just saying you should learn some more. perhaps read the introduction to the communist manifesto which is very good (think its the penguin edition) or even better read the manifesto if you have the patience (i dont)

There you go making assumptions again. The Communist Manifesto has no bearing here as I was talking about communism which I assumed you were, not Communism. Also I never said anything about liberalism, never even mentioned it, I may have a few what could be considered liberal ideas but I make no claims about what liberalism it and never said that was my standpoint.

[Ben_]

arguing from a theoretical viewpoint is fine, but you must include some consideration of the practical ramifications, thats all

[Ben_]

It does sometimes make me uncomfortable when the US and UK governments basically say "we want you to be democratic, so long as you don't pick a party we don't like". Also the US's history is pretty terrible at specifically removing democracies and installing dictators that will be complicit. Luckily they don't do as much of that recently.

mate take a look at afghanistan and that karzai bloke (president ? ) he is dodgy, another american backed patsy (cant think of a better word)

[Ben_]

There you go making assumptions again. The Communist Manifesto has no bearing here as I was talking about communism which I assumed you were, not Communism. Also I never said anything about liberalism, never even mentioned it, I may have a few what could be considered liberal ideas but I make no claims about what liberalism it and never said that was my standpoint.

im pretty sure your not insane so please correct your mistake so i can comment on what ur trying to say!

[superscaper]

you could at least attempt to imagine the practical implications, as they are the most important element to any political theory. what you seem to be doing is ignoring them completely and saying you dont need to adress them as they havent been directly acted out, which is a weak defence.

Again you assume I haven't. I don't have the intellect to even really predict the outcome of what would happen putting capitalism into practice, I just think that it would create it's own equilibrium without external influence. I don't need to address some of your points because I quite simply by definition don't think they will happen. Can I offer proof? No but then so far you've not actually offered specific proof either.

[superscaper]

im pretty sure your not insane so please correct your mistake so i can comment on what ur trying to say!

What mistake? Unless you mean you don't know the difference between communism and Communism, or the difference between liberalism and libertarianism?

[Ben_]

you made some mention of communism, you said equality to you was basically communism, and im saying that shows a very basic and undeveloped idea of what communism is

[Ben_]

i dont know the difference between Communism and communism no, please enlighten me

also to try and apply libertarian ethics to an economic debate seems a bit stupid/naive to me, as they concern completely different areas

are they not incompatible in this regard (ie in the governing/systems of economics)?

[superscaper]

you made some mention of communism, you said equality to you was basically communism, and im saying that shows a very basic and undeveloped idea of what communism is

I meant equality in terms of wealth and resources.

[Ben_]

Again you assume I haven't. I don't have the intellect to even really predict the outcome of what would happen putting capitalism into practice, I just think that it would create it's own equilibrium without external influence. I don't need to address some of your points because I quite simply by definition don't think they will happen. Can I offer proof? No but then so far you've not actually offered specific proof either.

you dont have the intellect (you said it yourself). that pretty much settles it, if you dont feel you have the intellect to adress the most important consideration of an argument (in this case the practical implications of an economic system), then you shouldnt feel entitled to an opinion on it

you dont think they will happen? you havent thought about it, you just 'dont think' it will be relevant. that is not a way to reach a decision

[Ben_]

and how will this equality in wealth and resources be achieved ?

Communism is the political system that tries to implement this

[superscaper]

i dont know the difference between Communism and communism no, please enlighten me

also to try and apply libertarian ethics to an economic debate seems a bit stupid/naive to me, as they concern completely different areas

are they not incompatible in this regard (ie in the politics of economics)?

Ok so now you're showing your ignorance (if I may be so bold as to pay back the comment), communism is the political ideology and Communism is the ideology of the Communist political party, and no they are NOT the same thing. Which is why I said the Communist Manifesto is not relavant as it concerns the political party and not the political ideology. Maybe a quick google search may help you? As for libertarianism you obviously don't know what it even means as capitalism is one of the cornerstones of that ideology. Indeed anarcho-capitalism is considered the extreme end of the libertarian ideology if you want to have some idea of what libertarianism is. The economics is intricately tied in. I'm sure you'll have some offensive retort simply because I'm now questioning your own knowledge.

[Ben_]

im not asking for proof and i cannot offer proof, im just saying consideration with every angle considered is whats required to support a view intelligently. hence why i dont align myself with any one position/viewpoint/system/whatever

[superscaper]

you dont have the intellect (you said it yourself). that pretty much settles it, if you dont feel you have the intellect to adress the most important consideration of an argument (in this case the practical implications of an economic system), then you shouldnt feel entitled to an opinion on it

Read the post again! I said I didn't have the intellect to predict the outcome, and if you do then that's impressive as noone else could. I could only ever give my best guess opinions and beliefs on trying to imagine what it would be like and I believe in different outcomes to you. I'm not a supercomputer.

[Ben_]

not really i think its quite wonderful that you have exposed my ignorance

i will go and read about libertarianism