Is not about what kind of government, but what kind of people are in charge: till they are selfish, greedy and dishonest, no government can succeed.
This is precisely what kind of government, libertarian does not believe that it is possible to have a governement not selfish, greedy, and dishonest, this is why we believe minimal power into their hands is better. 
Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 6. (Read 30791 times)
Is not about what kind of government, but what kind of people are in charge: till they are selfish, greedy and dishonest, no government can succeed.
Quote
Yeah, but feel free to skip the thirty page speech at the end. Otherwise a good read. I would also suggest reading 1984.
Glad to know I was not the only one bored by the monologue 
Does the movie 1984 match the book ? If not, I'll buy the book.
Quote
Yeah, but feel free to skip the thirty page speech at the end. Otherwise a good read. I would also suggest reading 1984.
Glad to know I was not the only one bored by the monologue Does the movie 1984 match the book ? If not, I'll buy the book.
But what IS money?
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
The best definition ever is from Atlas Shrugged : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkivn_3zn5I
Deep. I need to read Ayn Rand. Thx.
Money defined as a representation of the effort and work of man. A restatement of the energy of man.
You won't regret it, the libertarian bible as I call it, a long read, but definitively change the behavior of whoever read it to the end
But what IS money?
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
The best definition ever is from Atlas Shrugged : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkivn_3zn5I
Deep. I need to read Ayn Rand. Thx.
Money defined as a representation of the effort and work of man. A restatement of the energy of man.
You won't regret it, the libertarian bible as I call it, a long read, but definitively change the behavior of whoever read it to the end
1. You get money by goods and services. But this has a very wide definition. Ie services can be provided by both, acting or restrain to act. Security forces are mainly paid to not act.
2. There's no good money, it depends on what you want not on money itself. Being a tool, money is like a hammer, it depends on the nail and material you want to nail it to.
For a regular employee it may be good for it to hold value and be stable, for the economic cycle to work it better don't or hoarders will become a problem, for speculators better being volatile, and so on and so on.
2. There's no good money, it depends on what you want not on money itself. Being a tool, money is like a hammer, it depends on the nail and material you want to nail it to.
For a regular employee it may be good for it to hold value and be stable, for the economic cycle to work it better don't or hoarders will become a problem, for speculators better being volatile, and so on and so on.
I asked for how you get money and how you define good money, you still havn't answered the question.
But what IS money?
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
The best definition ever is from Atlas Shrugged : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkivn_3zn5I
Deep. I need to read Ayn Rand. Thx.
Money defined as a representation of the effort and work of man. A restatement of the energy of man.
1. You get money by goods and services. But this has a very wide definition. Ie services can be provided by both, acting or restrain to act. Security forces are mainly paid to not act.
2. There's no good money, it depends on what you want not on money itself. Being a tool, money is like a hammer, it depends on the nail and material you want to nail it to.
For a regular employee it may be good for it to hold value and be stable, for the economic cycle to work it better don't or hoarders will become a problem, for speculators better being volatile, and so on and so on.
2. There's no good money, it depends on what you want not on money itself. Being a tool, money is like a hammer, it depends on the nail and material you want to nail it to.
For a regular employee it may be good for it to hold value and be stable, for the economic cycle to work it better don't or hoarders will become a problem, for speculators better being volatile, and so on and so on.
But what IS money?
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
The best definition ever is from Atlas Shrugged : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkivn_3zn5I
But what IS money?
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
I answered the question what is money. Money is the representation of economic energy. As a representation of energy it may then be described with natural laws and natural laws will in fact answer questions such as how to solve poverty, poverty being described as wealth (as represented by monetary value) inequality in a society (closed system).
You have not answered my questions.
1. How do you or someone you know acquire money?
2. What do you consider to be required characteristics of good money?
But what IS money?
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You seam to think money is more than what it actually is. Money is a mere tool to facilitate trade, absolutely nothing else. It even had many shapes along history, gold, salt, copper, silver, paper... and now is mostly a number in a database.
You shouldn't want money, you should want to trade and money is currently the best tool to it.
You're reversing the view.
If I need energy and have coal, providing I have all needed equipment, I can generate energy. If I have money, unless I have 10 usd worth in 1 zimbabwean dollars bills for the furnace, I will have to look for someone selling coal. And this is thw role of money, provide a somewhat accountable value for the exchange. But money itself powers nothing, if the coal seller just accepts bitcoin or gold or potatoes, my money will render 0 watts of energy.
About welfare, we have issues with its distribution and its value, on too many situations it's better to sit flat and wait for SS check than to work. That's subversive and dangerous! Unoccupied people is always dangerous... Reason why you now get riots of "poor" waving their pimped with bling-blings iPhones...
If I need energy and have coal, providing I have all needed equipment, I can generate energy. If I have money, unless I have 10 usd worth in 1 zimbabwean dollars bills for the furnace, I will have to look for someone selling coal. And this is thw role of money, provide a somewhat accountable value for the exchange. But money itself powers nothing, if the coal seller just accepts bitcoin or gold or potatoes, my money will render 0 watts of energy.
About welfare, we have issues with its distribution and its value, on too many situations it's better to sit flat and wait for SS check than to work. That's subversive and dangerous! Unoccupied people is always dangerous... Reason why you now get riots of "poor" waving their pimped with bling-blings iPhones...
I ain't reversing nothing. You haven't answered how you or someone you know acquires money, do you perhaps have a job?
Not complicated at all. Cutting welfare is not seizing assets. It's refusing to gift fuher assets to the unemployed.
You better have money for cops and private security then...
You are misguided about money; it isn't any sort of energy at all, it's just a value to bargain with.
And that's what life is about; negociating with others, for good or for bad. Just try to place yourself in an economic cycle, ie the people needed to design and build the computer/phone/tablet you are using to read this.
Very astute of you bro! If a government is about to cut off free lunches to the welfare class they should have alot of money put aside for protection from the rioting masses....
http://rt.com/news/186352-spain-riot-gear-protests/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/10/boris-johnson-london-mayor-water-cannon-metropolitan-police
Remember history, e.g. Russian revolution of 1917.
37 pages of information and you still can't correctly differentiate free market capitalism from fascism?
oh and the Russian revolution of 1917 was state sponsored so.........
and with Ibian on this, police are not people. police have the right to initiate force, people do not.
Cops are not humans. They are cops. They literally give up their individuality when donning the uniform. That's what that word means - uniform means "the same". As in every cop is the same as any other cop. They don't just wear it so we can easily identify them, it's also a way to control them.
Not complicated at all. Cutting welfare is not seizing assets. It's refusing to gift fuher assets to the unemployed.
You better have money for cops and private security then...
You are misguided about money; it isn't any sort of energy at all, it's just a value to bargain with.
And that's what life is about; negociating with others, for good or for bad. Just try to place yourself in an economic cycle, ie the people needed to design and build the computer/phone/tablet you are using to read this.
Very astute of you bro! If a government is about to cut off free lunches to the welfare class they should have alot of money put aside for protection from the rioting masses....
http://rt.com/news/186352-spain-riot-gear-protests/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/10/boris-johnson-london-mayor-water-cannon-metropolitan-police
Remember history, e.g. Russian revolution of 1917.
You're reversing the view.
If I need energy and have coal, providing I have all needed equipment, I can generate energy. If I have money, unless I have 10 usd worth in 1 zimbabwean dollars bills for the furnace, I will have to look for someone selling coal. And this is thw role of money, provide a somewhat accountable value for the exchange. But money itself powers nothing, if the coal seller just accepts bitcoin or gold or potatoes, my money will render 0 watts of energy.
About welfare, we have issues with its distribution and its value, on too many situations it's better to sit flat and wait for SS check than to work. That's subversive and dangerous! Unoccupied people is always dangerous... Reason why you now get riots of "poor" waving their pimped with bling-blings iPhones...
If I need energy and have coal, providing I have all needed equipment, I can generate energy. If I have money, unless I have 10 usd worth in 1 zimbabwean dollars bills for the furnace, I will have to look for someone selling coal. And this is thw role of money, provide a somewhat accountable value for the exchange. But money itself powers nothing, if the coal seller just accepts bitcoin or gold or potatoes, my money will render 0 watts of energy.
About welfare, we have issues with its distribution and its value, on too many situations it's better to sit flat and wait for SS check than to work. That's subversive and dangerous! Unoccupied people is always dangerous... Reason why you now get riots of "poor" waving their pimped with bling-blings iPhones...
I like Ron Paul definition of political division.
Instead of dividing "Socialism versus Capitalism" he divides by "Statism versus Free market".
In france for example, the left wing and the right wing are just beating each other for pushing the balance on the corporate welfare or social welfare side, with the help of more and more regulations.
But under Ron Paul definition, both wings are the same party : Statism.
The right wing will call itself Capitalist, but at the same time, they preach for state intervention to funnel funds to the private sector, which is a socialist idea (seize and redistribute).
So to prevent any amalgam, I think a better separation is "Statism versus Free Market" and not "Socialism versus Capitalism".
The meaning of Capitalism have been manipulated too much by politicians, so I fear that when two persons employ this word, they are not always speaking of the same thing.
Capitalism and socialism are not really opposed concepts, "State Capitalism" is an example.
The real debate between socialist and libertarians in this thread is more "free market vs statism" than "capitalism versus socialism".
Instead of dividing "Socialism versus Capitalism" he divides by "Statism versus Free market".
In france for example, the left wing and the right wing are just beating each other for pushing the balance on the corporate welfare or social welfare side, with the help of more and more regulations.
But under Ron Paul definition, both wings are the same party : Statism.
The right wing will call itself Capitalist, but at the same time, they preach for state intervention to funnel funds to the private sector, which is a socialist idea (seize and redistribute).
So to prevent any amalgam, I think a better separation is "Statism versus Free Market" and not "Socialism versus Capitalism".
The meaning of Capitalism have been manipulated too much by politicians, so I fear that when two persons employ this word, they are not always speaking of the same thing.
Capitalism and socialism are not really opposed concepts, "State Capitalism" is an example.
The real debate between socialist and libertarians in this thread is more "free market vs statism" than "capitalism versus socialism".
I really like this, do you have any good ron paul videos you could recommend?
But I advice you also to read the articles of Ron Paul on Mises http://mises.org/daily/author/392/Ron-Paul
Aside from his video, I advice you to see the good evidences of the statists -ie democrats and republicans alike (calling themselves capitalists) - hacking the media to protect themselves against libertarians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWX55SpYmU
That's why it is preferable not to speak of capitalism but of free market.
Thanks Nicolas, gunna check it out now!
I would be very appreciative if you could explain how money is not a representation of energy, perhaps you could begin by explaining how you personally or someone you know acquires money?
I would also be interested in what properties you think is required of a good money?
Perhaps then you could talk about the monetary price of potential energy (gas, coal, oil)?
Potential energy doesn't cost money, it costs acceptance of nothing for something. I would also be interested in what properties you think is required of a good money?
Perhaps then you could talk about the monetary price of potential energy (gas, coal, oil)?
I like Ron Paul definition of political division.
Instead of dividing "Socialism versus Capitalism" he divides by "Statism versus Free market".
In france for example, the left wing and the right wing are just beating each other for pushing the balance on the corporate welfare or social welfare side, with the help of more and more regulations.
But under Ron Paul definition, both wings are the same party : Statism.
The right wing will call itself Capitalist, but at the same time, they preach for state intervention to funnel funds to the private sector, which is a socialist idea (seize and redistribute).
So to prevent any amalgam, I think a better separation is "Statism versus Free Market" and not "Socialism versus Capitalism".
The meaning of Capitalism have been manipulated too much by politicians, so I fear that when two persons employ this word, they are not always speaking of the same thing.
Capitalism and socialism are not really opposed concepts, "State Capitalism" is an example.
The real debate between socialist and libertarians in this thread is more "free market vs statism" than "capitalism versus socialism".
Instead of dividing "Socialism versus Capitalism" he divides by "Statism versus Free market".
In france for example, the left wing and the right wing are just beating each other for pushing the balance on the corporate welfare or social welfare side, with the help of more and more regulations.
But under Ron Paul definition, both wings are the same party : Statism.
The right wing will call itself Capitalist, but at the same time, they preach for state intervention to funnel funds to the private sector, which is a socialist idea (seize and redistribute).
So to prevent any amalgam, I think a better separation is "Statism versus Free Market" and not "Socialism versus Capitalism".
The meaning of Capitalism have been manipulated too much by politicians, so I fear that when two persons employ this word, they are not always speaking of the same thing.
Capitalism and socialism are not really opposed concepts, "State Capitalism" is an example.
The real debate between socialist and libertarians in this thread is more "free market vs statism" than "capitalism versus socialism".
I really like this, do you have any good ron paul videos you could recommend?
But I advice you also to read the articles of Ron Paul on Mises http://mises.org/daily/author/392/Ron-Paul
Aside from his video, I advice you to see the good evidences of the statists -ie democrats and republicans alike (calling themselves capitalists) - hacking the media to protect themselves against libertarians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keWX55SpYmU
That's why it is preferable not to speak of capitalism but of free market.
Jump to: