You should write a book...seriously..."How to be a condescending asshole and make lots of friends." Oh wait you're not here to make friends, only find leg-ups. Scrap that last part from the title then.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Perhaps
this will help.
Ah sorry I don't follow suspicious looking urls, but I do find that one interesting from the outside. Do you go there often?
If you want to get back on topic, tell me how "Weak is by definition of task" means someone who failed at a bad investment (there's no proof this is a ponzi yet, if anything there's a link to laundering) deserves to be outcast by society completely. This is in response to "Liberating society from weak members". Weak in what? Why don't we kill disabled or imperfect babies when they're born? save the parents + society a whole bunch of looking after them?
It can best be summed up by the statement, "A fool and his money are soon parted." And that's a good thing, we shouldn't protect the world's fools from themselves.
They certainly are. Fools are often the butt of many things. Are fools and their lives soon also parted? If people are fools when it comes to investing in 3000%+ pa HYIPs, are they also automatically fools in everything else? This is a nerd forum, so I doubt that...
"Free market not only gives freedom to individuals; Liberating society from the weak members" this broad swathing statement is connecting economics and social weakness. It implies that if you fail at making money, you are weak, and should be separated from society. As if money and productivity are the only important things in human existence. Perhaps this is the case in the US, but not so in the rest of the world.
Why do we send criminals to jail instead of killing them all? So what if we kill a few innocents in the process...the vast majority probably did do the crime, so we're net up. Why do we bother trying to rehabilitate? Everyone can find out the law, if they don't then they're fools and should be permanently removed from society. Forget prisons, why should everyone else have to pay for them to breathe?
You're conflating a great many things here. I am simply speaking of not protecting people from the consequences of their actions, and letting the chips fall where they may. Survival of the fittest. I make no connection to criminals and prisons, or rehabilitation, but I will state this: If you think prisons are a means of rehabilitation, you are sorely mistaken.
I'm not describing prisons as havens of rehabilitation, but as an example of the fools who got caught. Why aren't we destroying criminals since it's far far far better economically and we know they'll likely do it again? Why on earth are we wasting resources on people we're already segregating from society? Something is obviously in control here that surpasses plain, simple economic theory.
The prisons and the disabled were examples of how society interferes with systems which are not in line with prevailing emotions. Economics cannot function as anything but a statistical social science because the people that make up it's data are subject to this irrational whim, with wildly differing fear tolerances. The thought of an "innocent put to death" becomes less trivial if you realize it could be
your life claimed in retribution for something you didn't do.
Society places economics as a component of itself, not the other way around, and as such will always interfere with it in one way or another to try and get a better situation for the "Mass". Even the wonderful free unregulated world of bitcoin will change once it's not a few nerds ripping off other nerds. Already Nefario is putting judgement calls and his own regulations on GLBSE. I back his reasons for doing so, but it's certainly not in the spirit of a "free" market. Just because it's his own rules and not government regulation, doesn't change what's going on. He has started a competing capital source with the NYSE, to service a niche market of nerds, and he has realized no rules are no good for anyone, including himself. If he wants to survive as a business, he must change the way he's doing things.
What you, and pretty much every dog-eat-dog believing person do not seem to see is that most of the dogs have already been eaten. Humans have already evolved to live, play, eat and work in groups because it was, and is more successful for us. Looking out for one's self interests is fundamental to all life, not just humans, so "Survival of the fittest" is not an argument, it's a fact pertaining to all life, and it applies to social constructs such as sovereignty as well.
I'm also not interested in protecting people from learning from their mistakes. Excluding them from society however is not necessary to achieve this.
