Pages:
Author

Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 12. (Read 30791 times)

legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
"One day I will create something that will help the society, because my life worth more than of a bum" - said billions of unknown folks that are now 6 feet under while alive...

Answer the question.

You mean this:

Quote
Are the contributions to society of all people equal? Yes or No?

No, but you can't measure it. First issue would be "to what society"? Your own country? The World? Then for what end? "Oh, I'm a famous musician" - great but I don't like classical music, so you can shove it, which also means what you do to me worth 0.

You see, the issue about your "solve it all solution" rounds about to be the same about Marx's theories. You just keep ignoring relevant events and take shortcuts to make it sound as if the goal was achieved. But in truth they are but half baked ideas.
Privatize everything, is it? OK... then you would need to stop every 100 yards to pay the toll for pass the next guy's road. And how about the owner of the water asking you 1000 bucks for 1 cubic feet? "I wouldn't pay"; right, but you wouldn't have water and you need it for survive.

Do you even think where your rights come from? Ever wonder that if you have no power to enforce them, a power you now have from the government, you simply have no rights at all? In your dream world of no governments, a deal about bitcoin would go as:

Thug: I want 1 BTC
You: Alright sir, that would be 500 bucks.
Thug: I give you 10 bucks.
You: 490 is the lowest I can go.
Thug: 5 bucks and I let you keep your teeth inside your mouth.
You: You got a deal...

No taxes -> no Government -> no Public infrastructure -> no Rights.

Statist continuation:

You -> police: Help I got robbed!
police -> you: We will se what we can do

police -> thief: I want half of that bitcoin
thief -> police: If you let me go.


Law and order world:

You -> thief : Stop what you are doing
Thief -> you: No! (hitting)
Gun -> thief: You are dead.


legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
And here we are.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
"Capable" != stronger.
Without law and authority you get a wild west like thing, a place not quite known for its capabilities.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
And you intend to defend your property with what exactly? The biggest flaw is that you can't see your system has no application at all, results on nothing but survival of the fittest, might is right or in short "law of the jungle".

" But my property is mine"... Bollocks! Your "property" is just yours for as long as you can defend it.
Survival of the fittest is a much better foundation than survival of everyone regardless of merit.

Ultimately it boils down to this: Capitalism is favored by the capable. Socialism is favored by the average and the useless. There are less capable people than there are average and useless. Capitalism can thus only exist in a world where the useless can not survive, because the moment this changes the people as a whole favor socialism. And here we are.
legendary
Activity: 1199
Merit: 1047
Im a socialist coz im poor, if i was rich i would be a libertarian and viceversa  Cool

Poor people will stay poor as long as they demand government interventionism (or others do).

Getting rich while paying 50% or more in taxes (depending on where you live) takes much more effort than getting rich paying say 5% (enough for an small government).
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
Meanwhile the thug has broken your teeth and even happens he is a sharp shooter while you can't hit an elephant 1 foot away...

Your ideas aren't Marxism, the method is the same: create an imaginary "perfect world", ignore all its flaws (a thing you keep repeadly doing here) and take disfunctional or delusional shortcuts simulating your idea has achived an impossible goal.

And yes, on many parts of the globe you would have just one water supplier in the region.
This is the 37 ninjas with uzi's fallacy. "But what do I do if I am attacked by 37 ninjas with uzi's?".

Or in more common parlance, it's called moving the goalpost.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
And you intend to defend your property with what exactly? The biggest flaw is that you can't see your system has no application at all, results on nothing but survival of the fittest, might is right or in short "law of the jungle".

" But my property is mine"... Bollocks! Your "property" is just yours for as long as you can defend it.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
What can I say to someone who advocate the law of the jungle because he thinks he can beat the whole world?!

1. Define law of the jungle.
2. Quote me, advocating law of the jungle.

But you won't do any of this because 'law of the jungle' is statement that 'might is right' which is clearly contrary to my derivation of property rights so................ guess your just making noise, useless socialist bullshit noise.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
What can I say to someone who advocate the law of the jungle because he thinks he can beat the whole world?!
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
I already told you I'm using a touch, not a kb to write long texts.
You're a lost case, life will teach you along the way, meanwhile your "certains" just put emphasis at one of Bertrand Russel's quote. It doesn't mater how many flaws I can point in your idea of a system, you will resource fallacies to make it look good.


My certains, what is a certain?

Why are you quoting that it doesn't matter how many flaw you point out? WHEN YOU HAVN'T POINTED OUT A SINGLE FLAW It does! It really does!

POINT
OUT
A
FLAW.

legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
I already told you I'm using a touch, not a kb to write long texts.
You're a lost case, life will teach you along the way, meanwhile your "certains" just put emphasis at one of Bertrand Russel's quote. It doesn't mater how many flaws I can point in your idea of a system, you will resource fallacies to make it look good.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Meanwhile the thug has broken your teeth and even happens he is a sharp shooter while you can't hit an elephant 1 foot away...

Your ideas aren't Marxism, the method is the same: create an imaginary "perfect world", ignore all its flaws (a thing you keep repeadly doing here) and take disfunctional or delusional shortcuts simulating your idea has achived an impossible goal.

And yes, on many parts of the globe you would have just one water supplier in the region.

Yeah, physical assault isn't going to be an issue for me, I'm a unit.

imaginary? dysfunction? delusional? impossible? Cool! Except you have not stated a single flaw, or rebutted a single line of any argument I've made.

I gave you an answer on where rights were derived from, your rebuttal?

I used your own example to show how money equates to value of a person, your rebuttal?

Calling my argument smelly isn't invalidating my argument. So again...

IF MY LOGIC IS FLAWED THEN QUOTE IT AND POINT OUT WHERE AND HOW

Regarding water supply monopoly, is this a natural monopoly? (hint, natural monopoly means non government intervention).
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
Meanwhile the thug has broken your teeth and even happens he is a sharp shooter while you can't hit an elephant 1 foot away...

Your ideas aren't Marxism, the method is the same: create an imaginary "perfect world", ignore all its flaws (a thing you keep repeadly doing here) and take disfunctional or delusional shortcuts simulating your idea has achived an impossible goal.

And yes, on many parts of the globe you would have just one water supplier in the region.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
For the fishing stock : Does it need gov regulation ? no.
But the problem can only be solved if sea is privatized.

In a free market, a landlord has the right to impose quota on his territory to prevent over farming that would make his land worth less in the future.
If the price of tuna rises due to scarcity, the landlord have even more incentive to prevent over farming, thus equilibrium is restored.

It is like saying : do we need to protect cows ?
My response is no : On one hand you can just breed them, and on the other hand, it is not in the interest of the landlord to extinguish the treasure of his land.

You want to stop over fishing ? Privatize the sea, and see miracle happens.

There is no problem that can't be solved without relying on the free will of all parties.
It would not prevent "sea owners" to unionize with their free will to coordinate effort and impose uniform fishing quota on bigger scale.
Such union is essential to solve "prisonner's dilemna" (game theory) type of problems.

Privatize the sea?Huh?  LOL.  OK who gets to own the ocean?  First come first serve?  Then I claim I own the Atlantic Ocean.  Haha.  No actually Exxon owns the Atlantic because they have some oil drilling platforms there no fishing says Exxon or you pay us royalty on each fish.   Roll Eyes No, I'm Venezuela and screw Exxon.  I'll just send some warships and blow up their drilling platforms.   Grin Try some critical thinking before you post this nonsense

Too bad for you there is already a govt agency called NOAA that deals with the very issue of overfishing.  You see commercial fisheries don't care about fish stock.  They have no scientific interest to study this kind of stuff.  There job is to catch fish and pay the bills.  That why NOAA exists.  Then NOAA works w commercial fisheries through regulations to replenish fish stock.  There's already been a reduction in overfishing thanks to NOAA.  That's a fact.  Whatever that other guy said about Canada, I don't believe it until he cites a study.  You guys don't even know about the industries you are talking about and you think "privatize everything!" is always the solution.  That is naive

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/05_02_13status_of_stocks_2012.html

Also you don't understand game theory.  Game theory says the individual is mostly like make the choice that benefit himself the most  NOT benefit the whole group



Get back there and pick apart the argument, or stfu, your choice.

Oh Please,  present an argument first.  Adults don't need to argue with children

Just read the reports from NOAA.  There has been improvement of fish stocks since 2000 after NOAA regulations.  If you are gonna make a dubious claim show some evidence or STFU, your choice

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf

I wrote it out line by line you fucking idiot, you called my logic sketchy and then refused to critique it.

Fishing stocks problem was caused by lack of ownership, solved by exercising rights private of ownership?

Fucking wow, just made my whole argument for me.



I did refute it.  I pointed out your fallacy.  You confuse correlation w causation.  

When faced with a losing debate, the loser resorts to ad hominems.  If you want to make a case that regulations causes decline in fish stock then show me some studies.  Otherwise stop talking about this subject.

I already gave you link to report from NOAA that shows the opposite

First you called my logic sketchy without refuting a single postulate. This is sophistry.

Then gave me an argument which was nothing to do with mine, something about fucking rain, claimed this argument you created was my argument, then attacked this argument of your own creation! This is straw manning.

It is line by line, it is too confusing for you to follow?

PICK A SINGLE LINE THAT IS NOT TRUE.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
For the fishing stock : Does it need gov regulation ? no.
But the problem can only be solved if sea is privatized.

In a free market, a landlord has the right to impose quota on his territory to prevent over farming that would make his land worth less in the future.
If the price of tuna rises due to scarcity, the landlord have even more incentive to prevent over farming, thus equilibrium is restored.

It is like saying : do we need to protect cows ?
My response is no : On one hand you can just breed them, and on the other hand, it is not in the interest of the landlord to extinguish the treasure of his land.

You want to stop over fishing ? Privatize the sea, and see miracle happens.

There is no problem that can't be solved without relying on the free will of all parties.
It would not prevent "sea owners" to unionize with their free will to coordinate effort and impose uniform fishing quota on bigger scale.
Such union is essential to solve "prisonner's dilemna" (game theory) type of problems.

Privatize the sea?Huh?  LOL.  OK who gets to own the ocean?  First come first serve?  Then I claim I own the Atlantic Ocean.  Haha.  No actually Exxon owns the Atlantic because they have some oil drilling platforms there no fishing says Exxon or you pay us royalty on each fish.   Roll Eyes No, I'm Venezuela and screw Exxon.  I'll just send some warships and blow up their drilling platforms.   Grin Try some critical thinking before you post this nonsense

Too bad for you there is already a govt agency called NOAA that deals with the very issue of overfishing.  You see commercial fisheries don't care about fish stock.  They have no scientific interest to study this kind of stuff.  There job is to catch fish and pay the bills.  That why NOAA exists.  Then NOAA works w commercial fisheries through regulations to replenish fish stock.  There's already been a reduction in overfishing thanks to NOAA.  That's a fact.  Whatever that other guy said about Canada, I don't believe it until he cites a study.  You guys don't even know about the industries you are talking about and you think "privatize everything!" is always the solution.  That is naive

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/05_02_13status_of_stocks_2012.html

Also you don't understand game theory.  Game theory says the individual is mostly like make the choice that benefit himself the most  NOT benefit the whole group



Get back there and pick apart the argument, or stfu, your choice.

Oh Please,  present an argument first.  Adults don't need to argue with children

Just read the reports from NOAA.  There has been improvement of fish stocks since 2000 after NOAA regulations.  If you are gonna make a dubious claim show some evidence or STFU, your choice

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf

I wrote it out line by line you fucking idiot, you called my logic sketchy and then refused to critique it.

Fishing stocks problem was caused by lack of ownership, solved by exercising rights private of ownership?

Fucking wow, just made my whole argument for me.



I did refute it.  I pointed out your fallacy.  You confuse correlation w causation. 

When faced with a losing debate, the loser resorts to ad hominems.  If you want to make a case that regulations causes decline in fish stock then show me some studies.  Otherwise stop talking about this subject.

I already gave you link to report from NOAA that shows the opposite
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Quote
to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.
I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.


That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

Regulations don't have to come from govt.  industries can self regulate.  But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive.  

Can you cite the study that suggests govt regulations respondible for decline in fish stock?  I like to see this.  

I don't need a study, just logic. Check this out.

Fish stock levels a problem? Yes.

Fish stock levels a function of fishing levels? Yes.

Fishing levels a function of fishing quotas? Yes.

Fishing quotas regulated by government? Yes.

So government is the cause of fish stock problems.

Fish stock levels is a tragedy of the commons problem? Yes.

Government is the cause of fish stock problems? Yes.

Government is a tragedy of the commons problem.

Tragedy of the commons problem needs to be resolved? Yes.

Government is the cause of the tragedy of the commons problems? Yes.

Remove the government.

Socialists complaining that this doesn't solve overfishing? Yes.

Lol. Overfishing a problem because of tragedy of the commons? Yes.

Tragedy of the commons exists because of the common? Yes.

Remove the common, land is now private.

Socialists complaining that people will rape their land for fish? Yes.

Land value will increase as a result of bidding for land by fishermen gauging its worth based on future return on investment? Yes

Future value a function of the amount of fish that may be caught over time? Yes.

Land value most valuable to those able to sustainably manage fish stock levels.

Person selling land sells to highest bidder? Yes.

Sustainable fisherman bids the most as the land is most valuable to him? Yes.

All land for fishing aggregates into the ownership of those most able to sustainably catch fish? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved by free market capitalism.




On a side note about governments having no profit motivating for the creating of regulations.
Regulations are created so the government can then sell licences to breach said regulation. There is you profit motive.


On a side note, this exact same argument applies to any 'tragedy of the commons problem'

Pollution? Deforestation? Endangered Species? Clean Water? Everything! Just change fishing to whatever and it is still valid.



Sorry science doesnt work like that.  Need empirical data to create hypothesis.  And your logic is sketchy.  Land ownership?  Fish live in the ocean

By definition govts dont need profit because they can fund themselves.  Thats the difference between public vs private

He is the argument idiot.

I use quota to mean fishing level decided by the government.

Pull it apart, line by line, or stfu.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
Privatise EVERYTHING!
Left-wing socialists and all other anti-libertarians can say opposite - NATIONALIZE everything! And they will be right about the way to solve problem of the commons.

Examine this statement.

Socialists are right to nationalise everything because it solves the problem of the commons.

The problem of the commons is the problem caused by the private interests over common ownership.

This socialists solve this problem making everything in existence commonly owned.

You see how wrong this is right?

I say PRIVITISE EVERYTHING! And in doing so there are no more commons, and so there are no more tragedy of the commons, that is how it is solved.
full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
For the fishing stock : Does it need gov regulation ? no.
But the problem can only be solved if sea is privatized.

In a free market, a landlord has the right to impose quota on his territory to prevent over farming that would make his land worth less in the future.
If the price of tuna rises due to scarcity, the landlord have even more incentive to prevent over farming, thus equilibrium is restored.

It is like saying : do we need to protect cows ?
My response is no : On one hand you can just breed them, and on the other hand, it is not in the interest of the landlord to extinguish the treasure of his land.

You want to stop over fishing ? Privatize the sea, and see miracle happens.

There is no problem that can't be solved without relying on the free will of all parties.
It would not prevent "sea owners" to unionize with their free will to coordinate effort and impose uniform fishing quota on bigger scale.
Such union is essential to solve "prisonner's dilemna" (game theory) type of problems.

Privatize the sea?Huh?  LOL.  OK who gets to own the ocean?  First come first serve?  Then I claim I own the Atlantic Ocean.  Haha.  No actually Exxon owns the Atlantic because they have some oil drilling platforms there no fishing says Exxon or you pay us royalty on each fish.   Roll Eyes No, I'm Venezuela and screw Exxon.  I'll just send some warships and blow up their drilling platforms.   Grin Try some critical thinking before you post this nonsense

Too bad for you there is already a govt agency called NOAA that deals with the very issue of overfishing.  You see commercial fisheries don't care about fish stock.  They have no scientific interest to study this kind of stuff.  There job is to catch fish and pay the bills.  That why NOAA exists.  Then NOAA works w commercial fisheries through regulations to replenish fish stock.  There's already been a reduction in overfishing thanks to NOAA.  That's a fact.  Whatever that other guy said about Canada, I don't believe it until he cites a study.  You guys don't even know about the industries you are talking about and you think "privatize everything!" is always the solution.  That is naive

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/05_02_13status_of_stocks_2012.html

Also you don't understand game theory.  Game theory says the individual is mostly like make the choice that benefit himself the most  NOT benefit the whole group



Get back there and pick apart the argument, or stfu, your choice.

Oh Please,  present an argument first.  Adults don't need to argue with children

Just read the reports from NOAA.  There has been improvement of fish stocks since 2000 after NOAA regulations.  If you are gonna make a dubious claim show some evidence or STFU, your choice

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf

I wrote it out line by line you fucking idiot, you called my logic sketchy and then refused to critique it.

Fishing stocks problem was caused by lack of ownership, solved by exercising rights private of ownership?

Fucking wow, just made my whole argument for me.

full member
Activity: 210
Merit: 100
"One day I will create something that will help the society, because my life worth more than of a bum" - said billions of unknown folks that are now 6 feet under while alive...

Answer the question.

You mean this:

Quote
Are the contributions to society of all people equal? Yes or No?

No, but you can't measure it. First issue would be "to what society"? Your own country? The World? Then for what end? "Oh, I'm a famous musician" - great but I don't like classical music, so you can shove it, which also means what you do to me worth 0.

You see, the issue about your "solve it all solution" rounds about to be the same about Marx's theories. You just keep ignoring relevant events and take shortcuts to make it sound as if the goal was achieved. But in truth they are but half baked ideas.
Privatize everything, is it? OK... then you would need to stop every 100 yards to pay the toll for pass the next guy's road. And how about the owner of the water asking you 1000 bucks for 1 cubic feet? "I wouldn't pay"; right, but you wouldn't have water and you need it for survive.

Do you even think where your rights come from? Ever wonder that if you have no power to enforce them, a power you now have from the government, you simply have no rights at all? In your dream world of no governments, a deal about bitcoin would go as:

Thug: I want 1 BTC
You: Alright sir, that would be 500 bucks.
Thug: I give you 10 bucks.
You: 490 is the lowest I can go.
Thug: 5 bucks and I let you keep your teeth inside your mouth.
You: You got a deal...

No taxes -> no Government -> no Public infrastructure -> no Rights.

Yes! Excellent observation! If someone's contribution is worth nothing to you then they have a value of zero and you would exchange nothing of yours for their contribution to you!

His music is worth zero to you, so what would you pay for a ticket to a concert or cd? ZERO!

Someone elses music who you liked (Justin Beiber? lol jk Grin) would be worth more than zero! you would pay more than zero for a cd or ticket to a concert!

So at a personal level we can measure the worth to you of 2 different people by what you would pay for their music!

And so the musician that you pay most for is the most valuable! IS WORTH MORE! As evidenced by the money given by you and so the money accumulated by them!

If society is a just a group of people. Apply this decision process to 100 people. You can tell who is worth more to 100 people by how much money has been given by 100 people to each person to each musician!

Apply it to 100000000 people! It holds.

Then define a society as a group of people of any size and universally.............

Your value to the group of people can be measured by what that society has given you in exchange for what you given to that society.

In a FREE MARKET VOLENTRAY society where the medium of exchange is a currency or money, more money from any given society relative to the total amount of money in existence represents what that society has given you in exchange for what you have given society.

Someone earn more than you, have more money than you? Guess what! He's worth more than you, he is more valuable than you.


Your calling me Karl Marx and saying my ideas boil down to Marxism? Sophistry. Sophistry. Sophistry.



IF MY LOGIC IS FLAWED THEN SHOW ME WHERE! (but you can't so you won't)



On rights...

Bro, lets get this out there right now. The question of where rights come from is a question for philosophy and I physics but lets give it a crack.

I'm going to start from a what I consider a first principle.

I own my self. (this is my first principle, this is the only one)

As I own my self, no one else may own me.

I make things, and these things are a product of myself.

As I own my self I own the product of my self, the things I create, thus I own things.

As things I make are a product of myself and I own my self, no one else my own what I own.

So we have private property rights Cheesy

We can continue on but lets apply this derivation to your example.

Thug: I want 1 BTC
Me: Alright mate, that would be 500 bucks.
Thug: I give you 10 bucks.
You: 490 is the lowest I can go.
Thug: 5 bucks and I let you keep your teeth inside your mouth.
You: You got a deal... and here we break.

This man has attempted to deprive me of my property which is to say from my derivation he is expressing ownership of a function of me, thus he is saying he owns me!

fuck no mate, this is a violation of my first principle and given the threat to damage me I defend myself.

Thug: 5 bucks and I let you keep your teeth inside your mouth.
You: lol 'and I whip out my gun'


Regarding the privatisation of everything.
Your examples are absurd. Natural occurring monopolies do not exist (yet you suggest that I only have 1 option for water thus water monopoly)
And some dick charging everyone to use a 100 yard stretch of road? Cool story bro, he is a dick and no one will interact with him economically because he is a dick, no food or water or TV for you road dickhead, you suck too hard.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
For the fishing stock : Does it need gov regulation ? no.
But the problem can only be solved if sea is privatized.

In a free market, a landlord has the right to impose quota on his territory to prevent over farming that would make his land worth less in the future.
If the price of tuna rises due to scarcity, the landlord have even more incentive to prevent over farming, thus equilibrium is restored.

It is like saying : do we need to protect cows ?
My response is no : On one hand you can just breed them, and on the other hand, it is not in the interest of the landlord to extinguish the treasure of his land.

You want to stop over fishing ? Privatize the sea, and see miracle happens.

There is no problem that can't be solved without relying on the free will of all parties.
It would not prevent "sea owners" to unionize with their free will to coordinate effort and impose uniform fishing quota on bigger scale.
Such union is essential to solve "prisonner's dilemna" (game theory) type of problems.

Privatize the sea?Huh?  LOL.  OK who gets to own the ocean?  First come first serve?  Then I claim I own the Atlantic Ocean.  Haha.  No actually Exxon owns the Atlantic because they have some oil drilling platforms there no fishing says Exxon or you pay us royalty on each fish.   Roll Eyes No, I'm Venezuela and screw Exxon.  I'll just send some warships and blow up their drilling platforms.   Grin Try some critical thinking before you post this nonsense

Too bad for you there is already a govt agency called NOAA that deals with the very issue of overfishing.  You see commercial fisheries don't care about fish stock.  They have no scientific interest to study this kind of stuff.  There job is to catch fish and pay the bills.  That why NOAA exists.  Then NOAA works w commercial fisheries through regulations to replenish fish stock.  There's already been a reduction in overfishing thanks to NOAA.  That's a fact.  Whatever that other guy said about Canada, I don't believe it until he cites a study.  You guys don't even know about the industries you are talking about and you think "privatize everything!" is always the solution.  That is naive

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/05_02_13status_of_stocks_2012.html

Also you don't understand game theory.  Game theory says the individual is mostly like make the choice that benefit himself the most  NOT benefit the whole group



Get back there and pick apart the argument, or stfu, your choice.

Oh Please,  present an argument first.  Adults don't need to argue with children

Just read the reports from NOAA.  There has been improvement of fish stocks since 2000 after NOAA regulations.  If you are gonna make a dubious claim show some evidence or STFU, your choice

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/status_of_stocks_2013_web.pdf
Pages:
Jump to: