Socialists Question Time AKA 'Ask a Socialist' Watch

This discussion is closed.
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6781
Report 2 years ago
#6781
(Original post by cBay)
It's only a bad thing if it's a conservative state
Oh wow you're a utilitarian, that's cute...
ImageUploadedByStudent Room1481722337.455998.jpg


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6782
Report 2 years ago
#6782
(Original post by cBay)
It's only a bad thing if it's a conservative state
Tosh, its only a bad thing if its a half arsed state.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6783
Report 2 years ago
#6783
(Original post by Lime-man)
Tosh, its only a bad thing if its a half arsed state.

Posted from TSR Mobile
so yea, you're basically just agreeing with what I said? A conservative state is a half arsed one - that's literally their ideology.

(Original post by Connor27)
Oh wow you're a utilitarian, that's cute...
ImageUploadedByStudent Room1481722337.455998.jpg


Posted from TSR Mobile
anybody got any idea what this guy is talking about and willing to fill me in?
0
Lime-man
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6784
Report 2 years ago
#6784
(Original post by cBay)
so yea, you're basically just agreeing with what I said? A conservative state is a half arsed one - that's literally their ideology.
I disagree, its more changing the states purpose than having it half arsed.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6785
Report 2 years ago
#6785
(Original post by cBay)
so yea, you're basically just agreeing with what I said? A conservative state is a half arsed one - that's literally their ideology.



anybody got any idea what this guy is talking about and willing to fill me in?
Utilitarianism is where you believe that the ends always justify the means; so for example you believe statism is ok if it leads to socialism.

Which is frankly ridiculous, all forms of statism are cancer, most leftists are utilitarians because they can't identify logical fallacies when they see them.
0
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6786
Report 2 years ago
#6786
(Original post by Connor27)
Utilitarianism is where you believe that the ends always justify the means; so for example you believe statism is ok if it leads to socialism.

Which is frankly ridiculous, all forms of statism are cancer, most leftists are utilitarians because they can't identify logical fallacies when they see them.
I understand the general idea of utilitarianism, what I didn't understand was the leap you were making.. I think conservatives run a pretty **** state, so I'm a utilitarian? For the record I'm not - I think it's alright as a general rule of thumb but not applicable to many situations. I.e. replace the word always with often.

I'm also very far from a statist. I believe in gradually placing the ownership of production in the hands of workers rather than the state. Part of the reason I think that is precisely because of what I had just previously stated; it's only a matter of time til a conservative government gets elected and goes n ****s everything up, by selling off the countries industry, labour and assets to their mates for cheap. It's therefore better to place it in the hands of the people rather than the state where possible, because that limits how much economic destruction a conservative government can do.

Bit of advice, don't put words in peoples mouths. You clearly don't have a clue what I think.
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6787
Report 2 years ago
#6787
(Original post by cBay)
so yea, you're basically just agreeing with what I said? A conservative state is a half arsed one - that's literally their ideology.



anybody got any idea what this guy is talking about and willing to fill me in?
The state shouldn't have to do anything and consequently do nothing . Instead you want a state that makes sure it needs to do something so I can do something when it shouldn't.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
cBay
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6788
Report 2 years ago
#6788
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The state shouldn't have to do anything and consequently do nothing . Instead you want a state that makes sure it needs to do something so I can do something when it shouldn't.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I've never been good at riddles
0
Matrix123
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6789
Report 2 years ago
#6789
Aph congratulations and good luck! (Not that I think you'll need it )
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6790
Report 2 years ago
#6790
Inevitably, putting control of the means of production in the hands of "the people" would lead to the capitalist system we have today over time, would it not? Perhaps you're even more free-market than me...

Irrespective of that though, I'm curious to know why you think the proletariat should be trusted to make economic decisions of that scale.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6791
Report 2 years ago
#6791
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
Inevitably, putting control of the means of production in the hands of "the people" would lead to the capitalist system we have today over time, would it not? Perhaps you're even more free-market than me...

Irrespective of that though, I'm curious to know why you think the proletariat should be trusted to make economic decisions of that scale.
No because it would essentially make workers their own bosses and the state one massive business where every decision is made by referendum which works to just supply the nation with what it needs. Or at least that's how I undstand it.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6792
Report 2 years ago
#6792
(Original post by Connor27)
Utilitarianism is where you believe that the ends always justify the means; so for example you believe statism is ok if it leads to socialism.

Which is frankly ridiculous, all forms of statism are cancer, most leftists are utilitarians because they can't identify logical fallacies when they see them.
You neither know what utilitarianism nor fallacies are.
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6793
Report 2 years ago
#6793
(Original post by Gladstone1885)
Inevitably, putting control of the means of production in the hands of "the people" would lead to the capitalist system we have today over time, would it not? Perhaps you're even more free-market than me...

Irrespective of that though, I'm curious to know why you think the proletariat should be trusted to make economic decisions of that scale.
I believe the idea is that instead of the current share ownership structure, all workers would have an equal say in decision making (we'll ignore the potential for group think or the fact that the messenger is as important as the message, hence some opinions will sway more than others). The argument goes that by having a stake in the future of the firm they will make decisions that are in the long term interests of the firm rather than themselves.

The difference between us and the socialists here though is that us capitalists are quite happy for a variety of firms with different ownership and managerial structures to compete. Many socialists however seem to think that it would be a good idea to enforce this model on firms or positively discriminate via the tax system.

Certainly in terms of the success of such firms there's little evidence to suggest they are better performing however with regards to wages and innovation, i'd need to see further evidence.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6794
Report 2 years ago
#6794
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
You neither know what utilitarianism nor fallacies are.
Sure thing; care to give me your definitions of the two then?

Burden of proof lies with the claimant and all that.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6795
Report 2 years ago
#6795
(Original post by Connor27)
Sure thing; care to give me your definitions of the two then?

Burden of proof lies with the claimant and all that.
I'm not going to write things you could just google.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6796
Report 2 years ago
#6796
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I'm not going to write things you could just google.
"Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement."

It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P (socialist), then Q (state is good). Therefore, if not P (not socialist/conservative), then not Q (state not good).

So for example, CBay thinks that conservative states are bad because state and conservative are both bad, in his opinion. But Socialist States are ok because socialism is good.

As for utilitarianism:

"The modern definition is effectively this: An action (the existence of the state) is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected (socialism) by it than any alternative action (libertarian socialism in this case), and wrong if it does not (a conservative state in this case)."
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6797
Report 2 years ago
#6797
(Original post by Connor27)
"Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement."

It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P (socialist), then Q (state is good). Therefore, if not P (not socialist/conservative), then not Q (state not good).

So for example, CBay thinks that conservative states are bad because state and conservative are both bad, in his opinion. But Socialist States are ok because socialism is good.

As for utilitarianism:

"The modern definition is effectively this: An action (the existence of the state) is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected (socialism) by it than any alternative action (libertarian socialism in this case), and wrong if it does not (a conservative state in this case)."
The main thing is your association of utilitarianism with the left when not only was it originally associated with libertarianism, it's the only remotely reasonable justification for libertarian ideology.
0
Gladstone1885
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6798
Report 2 years ago
#6798
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The main thing is your association of utilitarianism with the left when not only was it originally associated with libertarianism, it's the only remotely reasonable justification for libertarian ideology.
I don't know that it was ever associated with libertarianism beyond that it's creator JSM was associated with libertarianism. The way we were taught it in school was: that action is best which produces the most quantitative good. Nowhere were we told who was making the decision, nor on whose behalf.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6799
Report 2 years ago
#6799
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The main thing is your association of utilitarianism with the left when not only was it originally associated with libertarianism, it's the only remotely reasonable justification for libertarian ideology.
You are backtracking now; you said I was ignorant of the definitions of both terms and now I've showed you were wrong you're trying to shift the goalposts.

Classic Leftist.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6800
Report 2 years ago
#6800
(Original post by Connor27)
You are backtracking now; you said I was ignorant of the definitions of both terms and now I've showed you were wrong you're trying to shift the goalposts.

Classic Leftist.
Well, the original post did completely misuse both terms.

(Original post by Gladstone1885)
I don't know that it was ever associated with libertarianism beyond that it's creator JSM was associated with libertarianism. The way we were taught it in school was: that action is best which produces the most quantitative good. Nowhere were we told who was making the decision, nor on whose behalf.
The argument is that individuals have unique awareness of their own utility calculus.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (532)
80.24%
Leave (131)
19.76%

Watched Threads

View All