Life - How Should It Be Viewed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Midazolam

a medication, sold under the brand name Versed, among others - is a benzodiazepine medication used for anesthesia and procedural sedation, and to treat severe agitation. It induces sleepiness, decreases anxiety, and causes anterograde amnesia.

Wikipedia

"Latricide" - I have searched and cannot find the exact definition of this kind of killing (Term used by Sid Belzberg in another thread re this topic). Can someone help?

Concerned - Video raising alarm: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z3cqo9V2...t_w5V3ez_J9C9P

I also have posted this to my Democratic Marxist news broadcaster, The REAL News (https://www.facebook.com/bob.armstrong.9235), under the heading: "Playing with Death?".

Comments?

Bob A (78 y.o.)

[Pargat Perrer]

.....
1. Low wages (Capitalism) and high inflation (Marxism) are both not desirable. The Libertarian way to correct these is to let entrepreneurs flourish (by getting rid of laws preventing it, which have been created by the evil collusion of monopolies/oligopolies with politicians), which will lead to a myriad more jobs getting created and consequent rise in wages; as these jobs will be productive (unlike the Marxist creation of dysfunctional jobs, the type Javier Milei has gotten rid of en-masse), the society's output will increase, with consequent deflation in prices...

Entrepreneurs ARE flourishing ... by engaging in greedy and evil practices that harm others. This will NEVER change. "Letting" entrepreneurs flourish even more only increases the greed and evil practices.

2. Despite all the AI, there is and will continue to be a huge need for people willing to do so called menial jobs, given our aged and busy society.

Not always "willing" to do .... almost always FORCED to do at subsistence wages by exploitative overlords.

3. The definition of 'Theft' as understood by all is: an act of taking another person's property without that person's willingness, thus depriving the rightful owner of it, for the only reason that the thief wants to take it away. When idiotic and corrupt politicians create laws to enable such theft by progressive taxation, it is rightly labeled as 'legal theft'.
.....

As pointed out by Bob A., it is not without people's willingness. They vote for it.

They do NOT vote for Libertarianism except where fooled into doing so by populists using the word "freedom". Another word for "nothing left to lose".

[Dilip Panjwani]

I have always maintained that one should take care of oneself financially where capable. I listed why this is sometimes not possible for some people (Post # 137 - 24/4/23).

I have no problem with a worker who does menial jobs, and supports himself. The problem in the Libertarian world is that, as now in mildly regulated Capitalism (Liberal/NDP gov't), 40 hrs. at a "menial job" almost never gets the worker far above the poverty line.......the pay is exploitative as all Capitalisms require a desperate pool of workers who will work for any non-living wage.

There is also a lot written about humans being freed up from menial tasks by the advances in AI. These same predictors say that soon there will be fewer jobs for workers than there are capable workers...........this is where Democratic Marxism supports the UBI (Universal Basic Income). Many trials of it around the world have shown its positive results.

Finally, to repeat, taxation is a policy voted on by the electorate majority.....they know a party's position on taxation....the electorate around the world has elected Capitalist parties to government, who espouse progressive taxation, often with some type of wealth tax in addition to income, and goods and services, taxes. Taxation is not "theft"......a crime under the Canadian Criminal Code. It is society deciding how to pay for having an organized, functioning society.

Bob A

You seem to be slowly moving along the right track, Bob; just a few more points you need to understand:
1. Low wages (Capitalism) and high inflation (Marxism) are both not desirable. The Libertarian way to correct these is to let entrepreneurs flourish (by getting rid of laws preventing it, which have been created by the evil collusion of monopolies/oligopolies with politicians), which will lead to a myriad more jobs getting created and consequent rise in wages; as these jobs will be productive (unlike the Marxist creation of dysfunctional jobs, the type Javier Milei has gotten rid of en-masse), the society's output will increase, with consequent deflation in prices...
2. Despite all the AI, there is and will continue to be a huge need for people willing to do so called menial jobs, given our aged and busy society.
3. The definition of 'Theft' as understood by all is: an act of taking another person's property without that person's willingness, thus depriving the rightful owner of it, for the only reason that the thief wants to take it away. When idiotic and corrupt politicians create laws to enable such theft by progressive taxation, it is rightly labeled as 'legal theft'.

You will be close to getting finally emancipated in your 'economics' thinking, once you understand the above facts... Good Luck!

[Bob Armstrong]

For an in depth look at the Libertarianism presented by Dilip, I have moved the conversation to the CT Democratic Marxism thread, since its main purpose is to elaborate DM in the context of comparison with other political systems (Post # 290 - 24/4/24). However, general commentary on how life would look under Libertarianism is still within this thread.

Bob A

[Bob Armstrong]

I have always maintained that one should take care of oneself financially where capable. I listed why this is sometimes not possible for some people (Post # 137 - 24/4/23).

I have no problem with a worker who does menial jobs, and supports himself. The problem in the Libertarian world is that, as now in mildly regulated Capitalism (Liberal/NDP gov't), 40 hrs. at a "menial job" almost never gets the worker far above the poverty line.......the pay is exploitative as all Capitalisms require a desperate pool of workers who will work for any non-living wage.

There is also a lot written about humans being freed up from menial tasks by the advances in AI. These same predictors say that soon there will be fewer jobs for workers than there are capable workers...........this is where Democratic Marxism supports the UBI (Universal Basic Income). Many trials of it around the world have shown its positive results.

Finally, to repeat, taxation is a policy voted on by the electorate majority.....they know a party's position on taxation....the electorate around the world has elected Capitalist parties to government, who espouse progressive taxation, often with some type of wealth tax in addition to income, and goods and services, taxes. Taxation is not "theft"......a crime under the Canadian Criminal Code. It is society deciding how to pay for having an organized, functioning society.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hey Bob,
Did you make an emergency call to your friend, the nasty troll, to post some BS, so that you don't have to admit that doing so called menial jobs which are plentiful in our aged and busy society, is better than demanding that others be robbed to feed oneself?

[Pargat Perrer]

Dilip's Libertarianism in Canada
(In my own perception, based on his Post # 130 (24/4/23) above, and some prior comments; it is not yet clear where he differs from the Libertarianism of the Libertarian Party of Canada)

.....
2. Law

Only one national law, The Natural Law (Though at times Dilip has said that all other laws would not necessarily be repealed; some might remain for societal "guidance"). It is generally phrased:

"One cannot harm anyone else by their actions; but one can suffer legal harm if suffered in the context of "fair competition"."

.....
Bob A

Bob A., you need to pay more attention.

The Libertarian Party of Canada -- unless there has been an update to their web site in the past week or so -- DOES NOT MENTION NATURAL LAW!!!!

And you say "it is not clear where he (Dilip) differs from the Libertarianism of the Libertarian Party of Canada".

Please .... find any mention of Natural Law in the policies of the Libertarian Party of Canada. If you find it, it must have been added recently. It wasn't there about 2 weeks ago when I looked. And I already mentioned this in a previous post. So why aren't you paying attention?

And the second thing is ....

the Natural Law has been PROVEN to be a fallacy.

Dilip defined "fair competition" as not using any means to harm others.

So that means the fair competition clause is MEANINGLESS.

"Do no harm to others, except where you are in competition WHERE YOU USE NO MEANS TO HARM OTHERS."

It is saying NEVER DO HARM TO OTHERS. You can cross out the "fair competition" clause because it forbids doing harm to others! Duh! That is why I now say Dilip must be totally AGAINST use of fossil fuels.

Please Bob A., pay more attention before you post about Natural Law!

DILIP IS A WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING. He is espousing a model where business owners MUST harm others to enhance their businesses ... by burning fossil fuels, for one example. Therefore his mantra about not harming others IS TOTALLY MEANINGLESS AND EMPTY.

[Pargat Perrer]

Oh, IC, now you are going to school me in science, good to know!

You aren't talking science, you are talking speculation. Conjecture. Theory. Unproven and unprovable. Forever.

[Pargat Perrer]

Oh sure, Bob, in that case, let's take care of the problem by paying people with a currency that is worthless. While we are at it we will transfer all production to
corrupt bureaucrats who enslave the entire population. That was tried in Argentina, but it did not work just like it did not work with Chile's Allende or for that matter, Miterrand'sFrance that had to do an "austerity turn" within two years of trying what failed in Argentina.
You have the economic sophistication of a twenty-year-old who just learned about the remarkable concept of communism, but you never evolved with age.

Here is the most likely scenario for Argentina if the right-wing government is not thrown out:

- mass deaths of the poorer classes and even the middle classes who are thrown out of work

- Dilip's "menial jobs" not getting done, especially in agriculture and factories

- flood of immigrants from places like Africa, China, Central America to do the menial jobs

- crime runs rampant as people with no hope for the future turn desperate (happening now)

- police state increases its powers, repression of the vast majority of people.

It is so easy for the Dilips and Sids to sit in their armchairs and proclaim that the people of Argentina were not fending for themselves and have to learn how to do that. They can also proclaim they are against depopulation when what they really want is depopulation of the so-called "useless eaters". Exactly the same as what the WEF wants.

Hypocrites through and through. Wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Pargat Perrer]

.....

Libertarianism presents two options: it provides easy access to capital to start a business (perhaps in collaboration with other similar individuals) which does not require any skills other than hard work...or, they have to do so called 'menial' jobs, for which there is a huge demand in today''s aged and busy society....
Is that too much to ask, to avoid looting someone else to feed these individuals?

Easy access to capital was tried in the dot-com boom of the late 1990s and failed MISERABLY.

Menial jobs will soon be taken over by robots. What will LIbertarianism do with all the people for whom there are NO JOBS in a robot-driven economy?

Also, sentencing someone to only menial jobs and no way out of it results in a caste society such as in India. It also increases crime, since robbing people may be the only way to put food on the table.

Again and again we hash this over. Libertarianism simply CANNOT work. Failure is built right into it.

By the way Dilip .... where in Argentina is the "easy access to capital" ??????

[Dilip Panjwani]

One point for the moment:

It takes some skill, knowledge and experience, as well as some luck, to be a successful business person in Canada.

The last stats I saw on this were that 80% of new small business fail within 5 years. Please update this if I am out of date.

Not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur..........and banks, even under Libertarianism, cannot have a huge business loan default percentage.

My family ran a very small bookstore operation in my hometown for over 25 years.....my Mom spent many hours there; my Dad at night as the business accountant. It is not a free lunch! Not everyone can do it.

Bob A

There are no free lunches for anybody, except in Marxism!
Businesses generally do not fail when your next meal dapends on them, though you may have to change what you do... usually they fail when their failure helps their rich owners... ask Trump for the details!
And it seems you want to avoid talking about the second option Libertarianism has for these individuals...

[Bob Armstrong]

One point for the moment:

It takes some skill, knowledge and experience, as well as some luck, to be a successful business person in Canada.

The last stats I saw on this were that 80% of new small business fail within 5 years. Please update this if I am out of date.

Not everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur..........and banks, even under Libertarianism, cannot have a huge business loan default percentage.

My family ran a very small bookstore operation in my hometown for over 25 years.....my Mom spent many hours there; my Dad at night as the business accountant. It is not a free lunch! Not everyone can do it.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

You are glossing over the problem of citizens being unable to live on their monthly income.

There are in fact five different levels to the problem, and each requires different solutions:

1. Those incapable of making income;

2. Those on fixed income, and generally it is insufficient to meet their normal monthly budget;

3. Those who are only capable of part-time income, insufficient to meet their normal monthly needs;

4. Those who work a full work week, but their income is at "poverty level" only, and so cannot meet a normal monthly budget;

5. Those earning a "living wage" only, and cannot absorb dramatic inflationary costs related to their monthly budget.

Your answer: "it is more likely for 'people of poor means to have food on their tables'."

Evaluation: Woefully inadequate.

As Pargat says: "[Currently in Argentina, under the Libertarian government], people are [being] thrown into poverty in record numbers....They are desperate."

Bob A (A Society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable.)

Bob, I had a cousin who was permanently incapacitated after encephalitis as a child; her extended family took great care of her for the following 50+ years till she passed away.
But the debate is not about such rare cases. It is about families which do not ensure that their children and youth work hard to be able to earn for themselves as adults, forgetting that you reap as you sow. Even for such individuals, Libertarianism presents two options: it provides easy access to capital to start a business (perhaps in collaboration with other similar individuals) which does not require any skills other than hard work...or, they have to do so called 'menial' jobs, for which are plentiful in today's aged and busy society....
Is that too much to ask, to avoid looting someone else to feed these individuals?

[Bob Armstrong]

Democratic Marxism is NOT old-style USSR Communism.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

Hi Dilip:

You are glossing over the problem of citizens being unable to live on their monthly income.

There are in fact five different levels to the problem, and each requires different solutions:

1. Those incapable of making income;

2. Those on fixed income, and generally it is insufficient to meet their normal monthly budget;

3. Those who are only capable of part-time income, insufficient to meet their normal monthly needs;

4. Those who work a full work week, but their income is at "poverty level" only, and so cannot meet a normal monthly budget;

5. Those earning a "living wage" only, and cannot absorb dramatic inflationary costs related to their monthly budget.

Your answer: "it is more likely for 'people of poor means to have food on their tables'."

Evaluation: Woefully inadequate.

As Pargat says: "[Currently in Argentina, under the Libertarian government], people are [being] thrown into poverty in record numbers....They are desperate."

Bob A (A Society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable.)

Oh sure, Bob, in that case, let's take care of the problem by paying people with a currency that is worthless. While we are at it we will transfer all production to
corrupt bureaucrats who enslave the entire population. That was tried in Argentina, but it did not work just like it did not work with Chile's Allende or for that matter, Miterrand'sFrance that had to do an "austerity turn" within two years of trying what failed in Argentina.
You have the economic sophistication of a twenty-year-old who just learned about the remarkable concept of communism, but you never evolved with age.