Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
Not just the state. The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.
I hear that ADT/Brinks war is hotting up, though.
Topic: The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society (Read 6847 times)
Not just the state. The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.
I hear that ADT/Brinks war is hotting up, though.
Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
Not just the state. The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.
I hear that ADT/Brinks war is hotting up, though.
Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
Not just the state. The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.
Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
Not just the state. The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.
Remove the State, nothing to subsidize.
Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
Not just the state. The capitalists who subsidize bombing their competition.
Why are we even arguing this? Impoverishing the world is not a net positive!
It is to some people. It's beneficial to recognize this.
Yes, "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne
Why are we even arguing this? Impoverishing the world is not a net positive!
It is to some people. It's beneficial to recognize this.
Why are we even arguing this? Impoverishing the world is not a net positive!
Because we lost less than they did does not make it a good thing.
No, but...
Quote
Right, my sand-castle lost a tower, but I kicked down your sand-castle completely. That makes my castle worth more, right?
We aren't talking about sand castles. We're talking about the machinery used to create sand castles. And, in that case, yes destroying another machine makes your machine worth more since it still produces the same products, only with less competition.
Capitalism, as practiced in the global economy as is, is not equivalent to one of Milton Freeman's thought experiments.
American capital still got destroyed.
American raw materials got destroyed. But much more capital outside of America was destroyed, causing our capital to rise in value. The value rise in our capital was probably larger than the loss in raw materials value, in the short term.
Right, my sand-castle lost a tower, but I kicked down your sand-castle completely. That makes my castle worth more, right?
Because we lost less than they did does not make it a good thing.
American capital still got destroyed.
American raw materials got destroyed. But much more capital outside of America was destroyed, causing our capital to rise in value. The value rise in our capital was probably larger than the loss in raw materials value, in the short term.
The fighting wasn't in America.
And? American capital still got destroyed.
The fighting wasn't in America.
M8, agree, or disagree. That is all. It's fine to cite the broken window fallacy, but WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the main argument seems to be "The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas." Funny how we managed to CREATE jobs with WWII then, huh?
WWII was a net positive for America.
WWII was a net positive for America.
How can diverting economic resources to blowing things up create economic prosperity. It's absurd on it's face, hence the Broken Window Fallacy. What good are jobs if they're just oiling the war machine; destroying wealth? We don't want jobs just for the sake of jobs, what we want is WEALTH which the jobs produce.
The depression ended after the war finished and government drastically reduced spending and ended most of the New Deal programs which helped to prolong the depression.
My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111
As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.
This happens over and over. Countries in the middle east get "democracy" and vote away their freedom.
There's a reason you put democracy in quotes. That's probably the same reason they "vote away their freedom"
My main point is that if socialism is the best way to make Bulgarians happy, then they should be socialist. It wouldn't make me happy, though. So I live in 'MURICA!!111
As long as it's voluntary, I don't care how they organize their society. Like you said, whatever makes them happy.
This happens over and over. Countries in the middle east get "democracy" and vote away their freedom.
Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):
Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches. Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.
It's trivial to make a robot that can do that. Sentient robots is a problem.Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches. Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.
[/quote]
It's trivial to program a robot to always approach someone with blue sunglasses. Making a robot learn that only a person who can see him will give him a treat is another thing entirely.
Here's an interesting thought experiment.
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)
On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.
How?
Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):
Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches. Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.
Here's an interesting thought experiment.
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)
On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.
How?
Well, obviously, the methods are going to change for each species, but here's the way they do it with chimps (and human kids):
Give the subject two pairs of sunglasses, of differing colors, say, one blue, one yellow. Key is that they are easily distinguishable. One of these pairs of sunglasses is totally blacked out. You cannot see out. Demonstrate this to the subject. Then, give the sunglasses to two people, each of whom has treats for the subject. Observe which treat-giver the subject approaches. Subjects with a theory of mind will always approach the treat-giver with the sunglasses that allow them to see, and subjects without a theory of mind will approach treat-givers at random.
Here's an interesting thought experiment.
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
What if we farm the isolationists? Sentience has a fuzzy definition, and by time we meet alien life they may be more similar to animals than humans. Maybe they use some tools from time to time, communicate with each other, have families, or some other things, but otherwise resembles animals. Would it be "right" to, because they are clearly incapable of resisting, put some in a zoo and farm the others for a valuable resource (say, their bodies produce diamond from carbon)?
Crimes of ignorance can be forgiven, I think. But to avoid this, we should find a solid definition of sentience. (note, this may mean we're not the only sentient species on the planet)
On the topic of sentience, I'd put forth Theory of mind as the key qualification of sentience. It can be tested for, and most animals do not have it, only some great apes (including homo sapiens of course) and interestingly, dolphins exhibit it.
How?
Jump to: