Democratic Marxism

[Pargat Perrer]

No. The pollution tax (aka the carbon tax) should solve that problem, by sufficiently compensating those who are harmed more than they harm others, according to Justin...

So a Libertarian government is going to continue to implement the Carbon Tax? So much for 'small government'.

And it looks like you're admitting that the government will have to do things to overcome shortcomings in the Natural Law. Fossil fuel usage harms others, but will be allowed as an exception to Natural Law as long as it can be taxed. LOL

[Dilip Panjwani]

Since burning fossil fuels is a means that harms others, Natural Law forbids it.

No. The pollution tax (aka the carbon tax) should solve that problem, by sufficiently compensating those who are harmed more than they harm others, according to Justin...

[Pargat Perrer]

In the post above, the nasty troll deliberately mixes up the word 'means' (the medium, method, or instrument used to obtain a result or achieve an end) with 'mean to'! And the brainless idiot thinks just be saying 'I did not mean to', one can escape culpability...
And for a society which ensures lawfulness, the nasty troll uses the pejorative term 'police state'... and thinks it is 'ingenious' to try to deceive the justice system and that judges are so foolish as to be deceived by such rogues...
And for 'Natural Law', which supreme court judges are on record stating it as their 'guiding principle', he says it is 'show about nothing', quoting a comic entertainer...

LOL the radical cultist thought he could piggyback on Libertarianism to create a cult where there is only this law:

"Do no harm to others, except in fair competition."

Now he is forced to introduce a new clause into this law about the means being used in fair competition. Fair competition is only fair if none of the parties are using "means to harm others". But this creates an infinite paradox.

The law says you can harm others in fair competition. So you do that using means that harm others. Since the law left "fair" undefined, you are ok. Except no, you are not, Dilip has now added that the "means" must not harm others. But the means is being applied to fair competition. Fair is UNDEFINED in the law. Therefore the means has no effect on the law, and any means can be used.

So here's how the law would now have to be rewritten:

"Do no harm to others, except in competition where no means is used to harm others." ("fair" has now been defined)

LOL the law might just as well say "Do no harm to others." Period.

Because to claim the exception (that it was competition AND no means was used to harm others), you have to prove that no harm was done to others! LOL the radical cultist insults the intelligence of everyone!

I would agree with a law that says "Do no harm to others" and left it at that. That would mean no business could EVER harm others. So for starters, all industry burning fossil fuels must end immediately. The emissions harm others.

Thank you for FINALLY defining fair, and your Natural Law is no longer a path to LIbertarianism. Since burning fossil fuels is a means that harms others, Natural Law forbids it.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism believes that the courts must be strong. They are the decider of what Parliament is talking about in its laws, and are the Protector of the little workers' Constitutional and human rights. At the prosecutor level, there must also be robustness, since we rely on the crown attorneys to properly organize and present to the court, "the evidence/case".

Police enforcement on the street is always a bit problematic.........to those who are given great authority, much is expected.....DM, in particular because of being smeared with the "Communist" label, must never allow a "police-state". Yet we absolutely require well-functioning police. DM is not different from any other system in having to wrestle with this aspect of society living.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Agree.
Do you finally acknowledge what is mentioned in post # 251?

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism believes that the courts must be strong. They are the decider of what Parliament is talking about in its laws, and are the Protector of the little workers' Constitutional and human rights. At the prosecutor level, there must also be robustness, since we rely on the crown attorneys to properly organize and present to the court, "the evidence/case".

Police enforcement on the street is always a bit problematic.........to those who are given great authority, much is expected.....DM, in particular because of being smeared with the "Communist" label, must never allow a "police-state". Yet we absolutely require well-functioning police. DM is not different from any other system in having to wrestle with this aspect of society living.

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Dilip Panjwani]

In the post above, the nasty troll deliberately mixes up the word 'means' (the medium, method, or instrument used to obtain a result or achieve an end) with 'mean to'! And the brainless idiot thinks just be saying 'I did not mean to', one can escape culpability...
And for a society which ensures lawfulness, the nasty troll uses the pejorative term 'police state'... and thinks it is 'ingenious' to try to deceive the justice system and that judges are so foolish as to be deceived by such rogues...
And for 'Natural Law', which supreme court judges are on record stating it as their 'guiding principle', he says it is 'show about nothing', quoting a comic entertainer...

[Pargat Perrer]

Hi Peter,
Had been tied up with something very time-consuming at work... well, now that the weekend is here, let me spell out for you an important element of Libertarianism:
We cannot totally avoid the outcome of competition harming the loser to a certain extent, but what we need to ensure is that everyone competing agrees that the means used to compete should not include harming the other competitors. Only then, like a game in a chess tournament, would it be 'fair competition'...

Now you open up a Libertarian society to having just as many judges and lawyers as we have now. Unless you're going to have a police state. So.... are you?

Because defendants will say that although the "outcome" was harm to the competitor, they didn't use direct "means" to cause harm to the competitor. Competitors will find (as they always do) ingenious ways to cause harm to their competitiors without APPEARING to use direct means of harming the competitor. And judges and lawyers will have to decide, just as they do in our current non-Libertarian society.

To use your chess competitor example ... a player could do all kinds of things to "distract" his or her opponent during a game, and then if accused of anything, say s/he didn't "mean" to distract the opponent, and if the opponent was bothered, that is their problem.

So basically your whole Natural Law is a "show about nothing", to use a Seinfeld term.

And it is NOT in any official Libertarian Party statement in either Canada or USA.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Democratic Marxism



Dilip: "the pile of evidence against DM"

DM: DM has only been implemented once in history, IMHO - Allende's Chile (1970-3). And I have said a number of times that it is only "effectively DM". It was a Unity Government of Democratic Socialists and the old-style USSR Chilean Communist Party. Neither of these IS Democratic Marxism.

Dilip persists in using evidence showing the problems of old-style USSR Communism, and dumping it at the feet of DM, as if there were no difference between DM and old-style USSR Communism (And Sid persistently does the same thing). The whole point of this thread is to educate interested CT'ers that they are DEFINITELY NOT the same. DM considers Old-style USSR Communism as a "Bastardization" of the fundamental thinking of Marx. It jettisoned human rights and democracy, and the elite Communist Establishment turned the revolutionary gun against the worker. Do I have to be clearer??

Now it is true that Sid and Dilip have done some good criticism posts of the Chile & its economy that I am highlighting.

But they also admit that Allende had formidable enemies, determined to make his government fail.

The Chilean Business Community and other Chilean Capitalists, kept ties to the military very close (Allende, democratically, did not change the leadership in the Chilean military, because it (One of the few in Latin America) had maintained in the past political neutrality - a fatal mistake). The CIA of USA was into Chile like a dirty shirt, organizing as much resistance to Allende as they could.

But Allende and his government remained popular, even after the election. The right wing conspiracy (It was covert at the time; to overthrow a sovereign government of a country) could not get the majority of Chileans to revolt in public protest. The Unity Government continued, as best it could, under great opposition, to implement a "Workers' Agenda".

So the Right went to "force" ........a military coup (NOT a peoples' revolution) under General Augusto Pinochet! Allende was surrounded by troops in the Presidential Palace; he knew he was about to be captured and tortured mercilessly; he gave his last presidential address, and committed suicide before being captured.

Now let's hear Dilip and Sid explain how all this was totally in line with the "Natural Law" they hold in such high esteem - unbridled world capitalism!

Was this in any way, shape or form justified under International Law? Is this what you guys mean by "doing no harm.......except..........by fair competition"?

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

Hi Bob,
Please do not ignore the fact that after a very transient euphoria in the public from receiving the 'stolen wealth' of the poorly compensated 'nationalization' of the big income generating companies, the DM policies soon ended up mismanaging those same companies, which, along with the distribution of 'undeserved free benefits', soon led to economic decline and the citizens suffering from 150% or so inflation, and Allende realizing that he had no viable options to continue fighting for his failed DM... it would help you to acknowledge this fact...

[Dilip Panjwani]

I also want to know the definition of 'fair competition'.

Hi Peter,
Had been tied up with something very time-consuming at work... well, now that the weekend is here, let me spell out for you an important element of Libertarianism:
We cannot totally avoid the outcome of competition harming the loser to a certain extent, but what we need to ensure is that everyone competing agrees that the means used to compete should not include harming the other competitors. Only then, like a game in a chess tournament, would it be 'fair competition'...

[Pargat Perrer]

I said a few days ago I don't are about the Libertarian Party of Canada.

I think I"m going to change my mind. I am sick of Dilip's games and his refusal to define "fair competition".

I am going to contact the Libertarian Party of Canada, give them a link to this thread, ask them "WTF is this Dilip moron talking about? Is this simplistic and unworkable Natural Law, with an undefined "fair competition" clause, really what you guys believe in?"

I might even pull a few levers to get this into the mainstream media .... on a slow news day, of course, since nobody gives a damn about Libertarianism anyway.

Let's put some fire to the feet of Dilip and Sid!

So I visited the web sites for both the Canadian and U.S. Libertarian parties. Nowhere can I find any references to either "Natural Law" or to "fair competition".

In order to contact the Libertarian Party of Canada, I practically have to give all my personal information. So much for freedom and liberty. So I refuse to do that, of course.

I think now I can conclude that Dilip Panjwani is NOT REPRESENTIVE of (and is likely unknown to) the mainstream Libertarian thinking, and is rather some sort of cultist outsider wanting to use Libertarianism to launch some kind of cult based on his idea of Natural Law.

It looks like I have stumped him on his concept of law being based on exemptions to doing harm if such harm is done in "fair competition". That pretty much amounts to anyone can harm anyone at any time, as long as they are competing for some resource. And the police would enforce this ruthlessly -- ruthless not for the ones doing the harm, but for the ones RECEIVING the harm.

Done with Dilip.

[Bob Armstrong]

Americas - Argentina

Libertarian Government - Javier Milei

"After 100 brutal days, Javier Milei has markets believing.

Argentines have not given up on him either."

https://www.economist.com/the-americ...utm_id=1862034

Bob A (Dem. Marxist)

[Pargat Perrer]

I also want to know the definition of 'fair competition'.

Peter, you risk Dilip labeling you "nasty troll" and petitioning for you to be removed from CT. But I am glad you also want to know this definition.

Rest assured, whatever technobabble answer Dilip gives (if he can come up with one) will require FURTHER definitions. More vague terms will be introduced.

[Peter McKillop]

.... I think I"m going to change my mind. I am sick of Dilip's games and his refusal to define "fair competition".
....

I also want to know the definition of 'fair competition'.

[Pargat Perrer]

Argentina seems to be on the Libertarian path to a police state....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world...ns/vi-BB1k7Xl3

All these people want is food at affordable prices, and they get water-cannoned by police.

I wonder why Sid isn't saying anything about THESE protests????? LOL


And also, here's a note about my pet peeve, smartphones, the bringer of evil:

Study: most teens report being more happy, peaceful going without their smartphones:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/scien...ds/ar-BB1jHQ8g

"Last fall, dozens of states, including California and New York, sued Instagram and Facebook owner Meta Platforms Inc. for harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by knowingly and deliberately designing features that addict children."

[Pargat Perrer]

[
.....

2nd Question: Does the Libertarian Party of Canada hold the Consequentialist Libertarian position?

Guys?

Bob A (Not a Libertarian)

I said a few days ago I don't are about the Libertarian Party of Canada.

I think I"m going to change my mind. I am sick of Dilip's games and his refusal to define "fair competition".

I am going to contact the Libertarian Party of Canada, give them a link to this thread, ask them "WTF is this Dilip moron talking about? Is this simplistic and unworkable Natural Law, with an undefined "fair competition" clause, really what you guys believe in?"

I might even pull a few levers to get this into the mainstream media .... on a slow news day, of course, since nobody gives a damn about Libertarianism anyway.

Let's put some fire to the feet of Dilip and Sid!