Democratic Marxism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

    Dilip and Sid will NEVER define "fair competition". To do do would be to remove their sheep's clothing, exposing them as the wolves they are.

    The only example we have so far is Dilip saying Trump's crimes in his business case for which he has been convicted and fined would NOT be crimes under Libertarianism. This means fraud to avoid taxes and high insurance premiums are fair competition.

    We can only imagine many more business frauds would go unpunished.
    I have already issued one challenge to Dilip and Sid: show us one case where Libertarianism complete with Natural Law has been implemented and was / is successful. Sid proposed Hong Kong, but that failed the litmus test, HK has never implemented Natural Law. So... there is no such case and I can continue to take the stand that Libertarianism with Natural Law cannot ever succeed.

    Now I have an even better challenge, in an attempt to get a clearer picture of the one hidden key behind Libertarianism with Natural Law: the notion of "fair competition".

    Challenge:

    Somewhere in the developed world, a Libertarian government has won power with the policy of complete Natural Law. Stated simply: "Do no harm to others, EXCEPT under fair competition." All courts except the main Supreme Court have been shut down, all judges and lawyers fired.Of course there are still police, in fact A LOT MORE police.

    Now, somewhere in this land, a man assaults a woman. The police arrive on the scene and take the man to the nearest police station and charge him with assault.

    The man in his defense before the station Sergeant says: "I hereby contest this charge under the Fair Competition clause. I am competing with other men for this woman. I grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to my house in order to win the competition for her."

    The sergeant spends no time at all thinking about this. "Indeed, it is fair competition. Under Natural Law, you are deemed to have acted in fair competition. You are free to go."

    CHALLENGE TO DILIP AND SID: Please explain to us how this could NOT happen under Libertarianism With Natural Law. The man's argument makes perfect logical sense. He was indeed competing for this woman, the same way that a business competes with other businesses for customers. The Natural Law allows harm to others to be done in the name of "fair competition".

    Comment


    • Here is the case being referred to in Posts # 233 & # 240 above:

      Trump's Legal Problems - Civil

      Click image for larger version

Name:	DollarSign1.jpg
Views:	64
Size:	5.9 KB
ID:	232542

      Prosecutor: New York attorney general, Letitia James

      Convicted: Judge Arthur F. Engoron - convicted Trump personally of civil fraud recently: Trump had fraudulently inflated his net worth to obtain favourable loans and other benefits.

      Judgment: judge levied a financial penalty and other punishments totalling $ 454 million on Mr. Trump. Interest on the penalty is running.

      Trump Appealed: Pause the enforcement of payment of the penalty. Appeal Court ruled that Trump must show financial viability by posting about a $ 500 million bond to confirm the penalty can be paid, if necessary. It must be posted within the week that is left.

      Trump's Motion to Appeal Court (Today, Monday, March 18) - that the Bond be reduced to $ 100 million.

      Grounds: Trump has been unable to secure the full $ 500 million bond, despite “diligent efforts.” Those efforts included approaching about 30 companies, and yet, they said, he has encountered “insurmountable difficulties.”

      https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/18/n...d396a4debfd6ce

      Bob A (Legal Beagle)


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

        I have already issued one challenge to Dilip and Sid: show us one case where Libertarianism complete with Natural Law has been implemented and was / is successful. Sid proposed Hong Kong, but that failed the litmus test, HK has never implemented Natural Law. So... there is no such case and I can continue to take the stand that Libertarianism with Natural Law cannot ever succeed.

        Now I have an even better challenge, in an attempt to get a clearer picture of the one hidden key behind Libertarianism with Natural Law: the notion of "fair competition".

        Challenge:

        Somewhere in the developed world, a Libertarian government has won power with the policy of complete Natural Law. Stated simply: "Do no harm to others, EXCEPT under fair competition." All courts except the main Supreme Court have been shut down, all judges and lawyers fired.Of course there are still police, in fact A LOT MORE police.

        Now, somewhere in this land, a man assaults a woman. The police arrive on the scene and take the man to the nearest police station and charge him with assault.

        The man in his defense before the station Sergeant says: "I hereby contest this charge under the Fair Competition clause. I am competing with other men for this woman. I grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to my house in order to win the competition for her."

        The sergeant spends no time at all thinking about this. "Indeed, it is fair competition. Under Natural Law, you are deemed to have acted in fair competition. You are free to go."

        CHALLENGE TO DILIP AND SID: Please explain to us how this could NOT happen under Libertarianism With Natural Law. The man's argument makes perfect logical sense. He was indeed competing for this woman, the same way that a business competes with other businesses for customers. The Natural Law allows harm to others to be done in the name of "fair competition".
        The silence is deafening.

        There really is no answer for this. Dilip fantasized that there can be this one simple Natural Law that can fairly adjudicate all legal problems, and no one will get hurt. So he invented this phrase of "fair competition". He didn't realize that all of life is competition, and so if you allow people to get hurt under fair competition, you allow countless scenarios like the one above.

        Even in business ... if you say harm can be done to others in fair competition without DEFINING fair competition ... you allow operations like the Mafia who do hits (murder for anyone not familiar) on anyone who stands in their way ... and under Libertarianism, it would all be legal.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
          [
          .....

          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!

          Comment


          • 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."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
              .... 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'.

              "We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
              "Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
              "If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

                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.

                Comment


                • 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)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Peter McKillop View Post

                      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'...
                      Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Friday, 22nd March, 2024, 09:36 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                        Democratic Marxism

                        Click image for larger version Name:	Democratic Marxism.jpg Views:	0 Size:	13.7 KB ID:	232529

                        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...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dilip Panjwani View Post

                          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.
                          Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Saturday, 23rd March, 2024, 04:23 AM.

                          Comment


                          • 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...
                            Last edited by Dilip Panjwani; Saturday, 23rd March, 2024, 05:56 AM.

                            Comment


                            • 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)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Bob Armstrong View Post
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X