Pages:
Author

Topic: Capitalism. - page 5. (Read 6891 times)

full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 26, 2013, 03:27:15 PM
Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry? Huh
MODS.
shitposting sucks

Kttn?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 26, 2013, 03:26:35 PM
[...]
 As for crumbs, he lost all manner of respect from me way before this thread even started. Still, sorry for spamming this discussion and feeding an obvious troll.

Yes, Rassah, there's an old saying:  Even a cat can look at a king.  And i don't mind if you do, but know your place, ffs!  You're in no position to judge one. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
June 26, 2013, 11:25:18 AM
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working.
100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing.

So, are you for completely polygamous relationships, or are just temporary monogamous ones ok? And how do you believe that will affect economics?

I'm just explaining the difference (in the real life of the whole history) between anarchy (self-sufficiency of the communities) and patriarchy (paternalised collectivism). Of course they've been monogamous for some weeks or months, but the begetters had no role of a father, because there was no knowledge of the causal relation between sex and reproduction. The father's role belonged to the mother's brother.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
Capitalism is the crisis.
June 26, 2013, 11:24:47 AM
Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry? Huh
MODS.
shitposting sucks
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
Capitalism is the crisis.
June 26, 2013, 11:19:25 AM
Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.

It's an error to dismiss the many negative connotations of transgenderism, sexual ambiguity, and homosexuality, yet...

Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.

It's not really wage "slavery," since if you don't like the wage, just go find another job. You won't have a posse tracking you down, hogtying you, and bringing you back to your old position. There's slavery, and there's the personal choice to work or not.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?
I am often prevented from taking personal posession of public property by capitalists and cops.
New boss, old boss. wage slavery, abject poverty or luck and access to resources. These three options are all capitalism offers.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
Capitalism is the crisis.
June 26, 2013, 11:15:05 AM
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
June 26, 2013, 09:25:09 AM
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working.
100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing.

So, are you for completely polygamous relationships, or are just temporary monogamous ones ok? And how do you believe that will affect economics?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 26, 2013, 06:14:55 AM
Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry? Huh
Not an answer. 
OK, I will be the good sport and go first. 
I'm trusting that way, though you have provided no reason to be so.

With respect to you: Curiosity replaced ennui.
With respect to the primary discussion for this thread: Eagerness, was lost to patience, over your chasing off my interlocutors. 
Though I suspect some may ultimately return if you manage the introspection requested here.

Your turn.  Why do you delight in creating unwelcome emotions?

It's like this, NewLiberty:  I fell short of the glory of God.  I failed at loving you unconditionally, at turning the other cheek each time it was slapped, at being kind and not calling you on your broken logic, at letting you hold on to your false and cherry-picked facts and tales of gun-totin' self-sufficiency.

I erred on the side of kindness -- after getting a catty message ending with "FU" from Rassah, i wrote a detailed & courteous letter explaining my reasoning.  The reply?  "Stopped reading right there" after a two-sentence quote.  Sure, you're not him, but guilt by association happens IRL.

TL;DR: Bad manners alloyed with self-assured, humorlessly pompous stance = a magnet for "unwelcome emotions."
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1131
June 26, 2013, 05:18:55 AM
tldr

I can't believe people see Capitalism as something legit and stable  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
June 26, 2013, 05:03:21 AM
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

Some monogamous relationships work, most of them fail. A system, in which most of the organisations fail, is a system, which is not working.
100 years ago, the monogamous relationships didn't fail, because the organised violence 'prevented' them from failing.
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
June 25, 2013, 09:02:18 PM
Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry? Huh
Not an answer. 
OK, I will be the good sport and go first. 
I'm trusting that way, though you have provided no reason to be so.

With respect to you: Curiosity replaced ennui.
With respect to the primary discussion for this thread: Eagerness, was lost to patience, over your chasing off my interlocutors. 
Though I suspect some may ultimately return if you manage the introspection requested here.

Your turn.  Why do you delight in creating unwelcome emotions?
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 05:27:17 PM
Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?

I feel as if you're not fully open with me, NewLiberty, as if something's ... left unsaid.  If not for your otherwise irreprochable manners, i may have read a hint of anger or even malice into your piqued tone.  Tell me i'm a fool to worry? Huh
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
June 25, 2013, 04:25:36 PM
Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   

I haven't a stance.  Maybe that's why its vague to you?

I don't have the answers to "the way things ought to be" and yet am deeply curious about those who do.  So here I am bemused by your random potshots apropos of nothing, but not at all enlightened by them.  
All you have taught me yet is that "the way things ought to be" would include fewer folks inclined to behave like yourself.  So lets pause to figure that out.

Inexplicably you seem to be enjoying inspiring emotions in other folks that they are not enjoying.  Why is that?
full member
Activity: 199
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 04:17:18 PM
It's obvious you are not interested in debating this, and seem to only want others to tell you you are right, while posting what all the rest of us consider to be very incoherent and messed up jumbles of words, so why do you persist?

One day, a statist will come with logical arguments, clearly expressed opinions, and valid points.  He shall not use irrelevant appeals and ad hominems, straw mans, false dilemmas and circular arguments.  He will challenge the notions of liberty, property, and voluntary association.

That day is not today.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 03:57:32 PM
Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic  Wink

Oh, shnooks...  forgot already, huh?  Stop trying to "consider," that just makes your forehead wrinkle!  As long as you purty, you can ride in the van Smiley

It's obvious you are not interested in debating this, and seem to only want others to tell you you are right, while posting what all the rest of us consider to be very incoherent and messed up jumbles of words, so why do you persist?

Tell you what. You are right. You win. Also, I have a bitcoin. Last one to reply to any of crumb's posts wins it.

I'm not playing for the crowd, sweety.  Those bitter little PMs you sent my way are all the reward i need Grin   Now clean yourself up, here's some change for the bus.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 03:22:13 PM
Let's see what you've rattled off there...  
You want the people to "pay the army directly"?  Just what, exactly would be the mechanics of that?  Let's say i live in your Equestria, where the standing army is paid by individual citizen pone.  Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie decided to chip in & buy themselves some protection from the evil Clompers.  They frightened Applejack, who in turn also decided to go in on the deal.  Twilight Sparkle and Fluttershy, went all "whoa, nelly!" and didn't offer up. Spike said brb, i'm broke, and Rarity... well, you know how Rarity is.
Wat do? (BonusPoint:  Who the best pone?) Smiley

I'm assuming those are some names from the my little pony cartoon? Since I'm not a fan and don't watch the show, I honestly have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Little_Pony:_Friendship_Is_Magic  Wink

I'm sorry, sweetie, but i've missed nothing.

Considering you answered the question of "Who pays for armies" with "The gubment," I'd say you missed a whole hell of a lot.

Oh, shnooks...  forgot already, huh?  Stop trying to "consider," that just makes your forehead wrinkle!  As long as you purty, you can ride in the van Smiley
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 03:17:08 PM
Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred Shocked  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up! Cheesy

You have this backwards if you were referencing the USA.  Government came before financial instrument, and tried to avoid creating it.  Even went so far as to make anything except gold and silver illegal constitutionally for states to issue.

Wut?  Next you'll be telling me that government came befor people.  Cheesy  Or did (US) people also try to avoid creating the government?  Or Huh  Where'd the darn thing come from?  

Quote
The Fed was born only 100 years ago.  During some of the highest growth period of the US, folks used physical gold and silver as money, and bank notes and warehouse receipts for gold and silver.
But you are right in that unbacked paper money usually comes into existence in response to threat of war.
The Fed is the not the first central bank in the US, (the third depending on which you count) the others just didn't last so long.
Through its early years, there were gold and silver notes (payable in specie) in circulation alongside fed notes (payable only in other fed notes).  That they looked so similar was not accidental.  It was a multigenerational bait-and-switch.

Thanks for the lesson, not sure what you were aiming for.  I'm defending neither fiat currencies nor governments.  I'm starting with those two as given, and pointing out that both are with us right now, to the exclusion of everything else.  Is that clear?  As a tangent, i'm also saying that the law system which governs us now has evolved in the same unpleasant but inevitable way.  My stance is coherent & empirically consistent.  It is commonly accepted, and contemporary society is a functional example of it in action.  Your stance is vague, defined from the negative (what it is not, what you do not want, etc.), and no verifiable examples of it functioning currently exist.  you keep lapsing into stories about rainbow trout, bad-luck-buddies & your mad handgun skilz -- debatably entertaining though not cogent.   Smiley
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 02:51:00 PM
#99
So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up! Cheesy

Aside from the fact that government isn't a "financial instrument" by ANY definition, at any time in history, anywhere on the planet (banks ate the closest you can come to claiming that; governments are only administrative instruments)
Here's the part you missed:

Quote
I know your intelligence is so low as to be indistinguishable from trolling, so let me rephrase this question, just for you:
That security, which is made up of people, who wish to be paid, wearing police, army, and security costumes, has to be paid with some sort of value, regardless of whether they are paid through a government or paid directly. Where does that value come from in the first place? And why does there have to be a government to collect and give that value to the army, which then distributes that value to the people in costumes, instead of people just giving that value to the army directly?

The claim that was made was that "armies cost too much, and securing private property is too expensive." I made the naive mistake of thinking people would be smart enough to think through my question of "who is paying for it now?" to come to a conclusion other than "Government." I guess I was wrong, and should have just flat-out said:

Armies are currently being paid for with money collected from businesses, corporations, and wealthy individuals. All of them have a vested interest in protecting their own property, and all of them would be able to pay the exact same amount they are paying now to get AT LEAST the exact same amount of private security to secure their property.

I am sorry I overestimated the lot of you.

I'm sorry, sweetie, but i've missed nothing.  I'm glad you edited your post, my playful kitten!  Mewmix! Cheesy
Let's see what you've rattled off there...  
You want the people to "pay the army directly"?  Just what, exactly would be the mechanics of that?  Let's say i live in your Equestria, where the standing army is paid by individual citizen pone.  Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie decided to chip in & buy themselves some protection from the evil Clompers.  They frightened Applejack, who in turn also decided to go in on the deal.  Twilight Sparkle and Fluttershy, went all "whoa, nelly!" and didn't offer up. Spike said brb, i'm broke, and Rarity... well, you know how Rarity is.
Wat do? (BonusPoint:  Who the best pone?) Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
June 25, 2013, 02:45:36 PM
#98
Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred Shocked  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up! Cheesy

You have this backwards if you were referencing the USA.  Government came before financial instrument, and tried to avoid creating it.  Even went so far as to make anything except gold and silver illegal constitutionally for states to issue.

The Fed was born only 100 years ago.  During some of the highest growth period of the US, folks used physical gold and silver as money, and bank notes and warehouse receipts for gold and silver.
But you are right in that unbacked paper money usually comes into existence in response to threat of war.
The Fed is the not the first central bank in the US, (the third depending on which you count) the others just didn't last so long.
Through its early years, there were gold and silver notes (payable in specie) in circulation alongside fed notes (payable only in other fed notes).  That they looked so similar was not accidental.  It was a multigenerational bait-and-switch.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
June 25, 2013, 02:04:07 PM
#97
Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?

I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys.  Sometimes more than even a hundred Shocked  Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue.  Just how does an individual go about paying for an army?  That's right, a financial instrument is needed.  And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army.  

You know what that oversight committee is called?  Yup.  The government.  
Enjoy.

Edit:  If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government."  Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.

So, "The Government" created a "Financial Instrument," said "This financial instrument has value, so you soldiers better take it and use it, or else we'll make yourselves enforce yourselves to use it by making you hold your own guns to your heads," and that's that? Yeah, makes complete sense.

Ohboy.  You're sharper than a blanket.  No.  The government didn't create anything.  The people needed a financial instrument, and its overseers, thus creating The Government.  When things don't make sense to you, just remember that God still loves you even though your head's filled with lint & mouse droppings.  Chin up! Cheesy
Pages:
Jump to: