I responded to everything in your post. The rest was just garbage attempting to back up your affirmative statement which was objectively false.So you are saying my assertion is wrong and right my reasoning off as garbage without even attempting to refute it. You do not seem to understand how intellectual discourse works. You wrote my statements off without refuting it first. It's just simple facts. Laissez-faire calls for a government to protect private property, you said it doesn't. You were objectively wrong and showed you don't even know what laissez-faire calls for. Another simple fact: Laissez-faire has never actually been done. So are you going to cry about me proving you wrong or are you going to admit I'm right?[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]If you would read my entire post rather than cutting out everything past the first sentence you would realize that none of the things you are saying in this post are valid.Laihendi
Communism killed 94 million people in the 20th century
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]The rightful owner are those Native Americans your ancestors robbed smhPlease tell me how people with no conception of property ownership can own property. I really would like to know. And warlock you are failing to distinguish rights from legal privilege. If you think rights are about what is in any given situation rather than how things SHOULD be, then you are completely missing the point of rights. You have no conception of ethics.[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes you can. Legitimate property ownership is a natural right. Land has a rightful owner, regardless of whether a government is upholding the rights of said owner. Public "ownership" is an aberration of nature and can only exist by artificial laws from an illegitimate governing body.Laihendi
"Rights" are simply another word for legal privilege. It's unfortunate that you cannot understand this, but it's to be expected. When I was your age I too held many ideas that I did not understand. Most of us do at that age.
Please tell me how people with no conception of property ownership can own property. I really would like to know. And warlock you are failing to distinguish rights from legal privilege. If you think rights are about what is in any given situation rather than how things SHOULD be, then you are completely missing the point of rights. You have no conception of ethics.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]The rightful owner are those Native Americans your ancestors robbed smh
worlock77
"Rights" are simply another word for legal privilege. It's unfortunate that you cannot understand this, but it's to be expected. When I was your age I too held many ideas that I did not understand. Most of us do at that age.
No, natural rights have nothing to do with the law. You can make ludicrous appeals to age/authority if you want, but that does not change anything. If you cannot distinguish how the law should be from how the law is, then you must find nothing about the murder of countless millions by communist and fascist regimes over the past century. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. Instead of assuming you are wise, knowledgeable, and infallible because you are old (I am guessing you are not even 30 anyways) you should try studying philosophy.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]So you are saying my assertion is wrong and right my reasoning off as garbage without even attempting to refute it. You do not seem to understand how intellectual discourse works. You wrote my statements off without refuting it first. It's just simple facts. Laissez-faire calls for a government to protect private property, you said it doesn't. You were objectively wrong and showed you don't even know what laissez-faire calls for. Another simple fact: Laissez-faire has never actually been done. So are you going to cry about me proving you wrong or are you going to admit I'm right? That is not at all what I sad. I said that property rights exist regardless of whether a government enforces them. I did not even mention the term "laissez-faire" in that post, nor was it mentioned in any of the quotes within that post. You would know that if you read posts before responding to them.[QUOTE="Ace6301"] I responded to everything in your post. The rest was just garbage attempting to back up your affirmative statement which was objectively false.Ace6301
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]I remember there being a lot of dictatorships masquerading as communism in the 20th century, but I don't remember much actual communism.worlock77
True communism is impossible with human beings. We're too greedy.
There's been plenty of examples of truely communist societies. Quite a lot of native american societies were communist, for instance.
Lmfao, did Howard Zinn tell you this?While Communism has killed far more people than laissez-faire capitalism, the latter has not caused 0 deaths.
That is not at all what I sad. I said that property rights exist regardless of whether a government enforces them. I did not even mention the term "laissez-faire" in that post, nor was it mentioned in any of the quotes within that post. You would know that if you read posts before responding to them.LaihendiDrawing conclusions seems to be something you struggle with often so let me help you a little: What you said opposes Laissez-faire beliefs. Such an arrogant and naive belief that humanity is entitled to anything naturally but death. Without someone to govern there are no rights, just an individuals morals which differ wildly for most things and no one holds the common ground to the same extent. Those who attempt to pass their beliefs off as absolute are those who hold the weakest beliefs I find and I gotta say you seem to think you're pretty infallible.
No, he's right. Something that has never existed can't be said to have killed.While Communism has killed far more people than laissez-faire capitalism, the latter has not caused 0 deaths.
kingkong0124
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Please tell me how people with no conception of property ownership can own property. I really would like to know. And warlock you are failing to distinguish rights from legal privilege. If you think rights are about what is in any given situation rather than how things SHOULD be, then you are completely missing the point of rights. You have no conception of ethics.Laihendi
"Rights" are simply another word for legal privilege. It's unfortunate that you cannot understand this, but it's to be expected. When I was your age I too held many ideas that I did not understand. Most of us do at that age.
No, natural rights have nothing to do with the law. You can make ludicrous appeals to age/authority if you want, but that does not change anything. If you cannot distinguish how the law should be from how the law is, then you must find nothing about the murder of countless millions by communist and fascist regimes over the past century. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. Instead of assuming you are wise, knowledgeable, and infallible because you are old (I am guessing you are not even 30 anyways) you should try studying philosophy.What's funny is that you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. You talk about how man has natural rights, then you deny rights to certain groups of people.
And for the record I turn 36 this year (hint: the 77 in my screen name isn't a random number). That age doesn't make me all wise or infallable, but it does make me wise enough to understand my own failings and to realize that there's a lot I don't understand. Unlike you who seem to be entirely incapable of self-reflection (which is pretty typical of a teenager actually).
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]
True communism is impossible with human beings. We're too greedy.
kingkong0124
There's been plenty of examples of truely communist societies. Quite a lot of native american societies were communist, for instance.
Lmfao, did Howard Zinn tell you this? They really were communists. Those who advocate communism today tell us that we should choose between living in a tipi and living in a police state. Of course a rational person would not accept either. Also laissez-faire capitalism has not killed anyone because free markets cannot kill people. Deaths from natural causes cannot be attributed to laissez-faire capitalism, because they are not prerequisites for it to exist the way man-made disasters such as the Red Terror or the Great Purge are for a large-scale communist state to exist.
which is pretty typical of a teenager actually).
worlock77
don't generalize all teenagers, old man...
No, natural rights have nothing to do with the law. You can make ludicrous appeals to age/authority if you want, but that does not change anything. If you cannot distinguish how the law should be from how the law is, then you must find nothing about the murder of countless millions by communist and fascist regimes over the past century. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. Instead of assuming you are wise, knowledgeable, and infallible because you are old (I am guessing you are not even 30 anyways) you should try studying philosophy.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
"Rights" are simply another word for legal privilege. It's unfortunate that you cannot understand this, but it's to be expected. When I was your age I too held many ideas that I did not understand. Most of us do at that age.
worlock77
What's funny is that you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. You talk about how man has natural rights, then you deny rights to certain groups of people.
And for the record I turn 36 this year (hint: the 77 in my screen name isn't a random number). That age doesn't make me all wise or infallable, but it does make me wise enough to understand my own failings and to realize that there's a lot I don't understand. Unlike you who seem to be entirely incapable of self-reflection (which is pretty typical of a teenager actually).
It is not within the power of man to deny rights, which are inherent to the nature of a person's existence. That is what distinguishes objective ethical judgement from the subjective.[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is not at all what I sad. I said that property rights exist regardless of whether a government enforces them. I did not even mention the term "laissez-faire" in that post, nor was it mentioned in any of the quotes within that post. You would know that if you read posts before responding to them.Ace6301Drawing conclusions seems to be something you struggle with often so let me help you a little: What you said opposes Laissez-faire beliefs. Such an arrogant and naive belief that humanity is entitled to anything naturally but death. Without someone to govern there are no rights, just an individuals morals which differ wildly for most things and no one holds the common ground to the same extent. Those who attempt to pass their beliefs off as absolute are those who hold the weakest beliefs I find and I gotta say you seem to think you're pretty infallible.
No, he's right. Something that has never existed can't be said to have killed. So you believe that those with the strongest beliefs are those who assert that their beliefs are probably wrong? Do you really not see the contradiction? Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?While Communism has killed far more people than laissez-faire capitalism, the latter has not caused 0 deaths.
kingkong0124
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] No, natural rights have nothing to do with the law. You can make ludicrous appeals to age/authority if you want, but that does not change anything. If you cannot distinguish how the law should be from how the law is, then you must find nothing about the murder of countless millions by communist and fascist regimes over the past century. A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a mans freedom of action in a social context. Instead of assuming you are wise, knowledgeable, and infallible because you are old (I am guessing you are not even 30 anyways) you should try studying philosophy.Laihendi
What's funny is that you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. You talk about how man has natural rights, then you deny rights to certain groups of people.
And for the record I turn 36 this year (hint: the 77 in my screen name isn't a random number). That age doesn't make me all wise or infallable, but it does make me wise enough to understand my own failings and to realize that there's a lot I don't understand. Unlike you who seem to be entirely incapable of self-reflection (which is pretty typical of a teenager actually).
It is not within the power of man to deny rights, which are inherent to the nature of a person's existence. That is what distinguishes objective ethical judgement from the subjective.That's funny. On the previous page you just denied that Native Americans had the same rights as you (and not the first time you've stated such ether). You frequently give excuses as to why this group or that group doesn't have rights.
Have you even read Atlas Shrugged?LaihendiYes. Though I wish I hadn't. The strongest beliefs are those that invite criticism and hold that they could be wrong but are not obviously wrong. Those that try to pretend to be infallible are often just claiming that because they can't actually withstand criticism, much like your own beliefs.
Also laissez-faire capitalism has not killed anyone because free markets cannot kill people. Deaths from natural causes cannot be attributed to laissez-faire capitalism, because they are not prerequisites for it to exist the way man-made disasters such as the Red Terror or the Great Purge are for a large-scale communist state to exist.Laihendi
So someone takes a job in unsafe conditions because they have no choice. In the society they are living in, they can either die of starvation or work under dangerous conditions. Such a person dies 6 months after taking the job, and you say they die because of choice not because of the structure of capitalist society? How can there be a choice when both roads lead to premature death? In what way are unsafe working conditions, brought about as a direct result of capitalist industrial development "natural"? Capitalism can't wash its hands of all responsibility by claiming it grants absolute freedom. Capitalism sets up a clear social system with certain rules that force a certain society to take shape. It forces certain decisions like the one above. This society causes deaths that a different kind of society would avoid. You speak of capitalism as though it is some natural, God-given state of man that is without flaw, that any deaths that result are necessary and unavoidable. Can't you see why such a stance makes no sense?
ITT: People still confusing stalinism with communism.. On a more random note: I laughed for nearly 5 minutes at your sig, worlock77 (the quote specifically).
No, they weren't. They were dictators, they wanted to preserve their power structures.RushKing
The "no true scotsman" fallacy? C'mon RushKing, are you really going to tell me that Stalin, Lenin, or Mao don't really count because they're just "dictators"? It's frankly unbelievable that you can claim to know that they weren't sincere communists when we have their own writings. Their writings are still enormously influential among communists and marxists today. They were trying to preserve power, sure. But the goal of a communist society was absolutely in their agenda. And don't tell me that it doesn't count because its anarchistic. Marx and Engels advocated literal class warfare. They said that communism would come *after* socialism.
Ownership requres two seperate objects. You cannot be seperated from yourself.
While the latter is indisputable, it is the first statement that ownership requires two objects. You have not demonstrated that, and I have given a clear example of a thing having relations to itself.
Propertarians are violating MY freedom. Do you believe me asking for equal acces to natural resources is unreasonable? Or is it the guy with the gun in the room who is unreasonable?
First and foremost, natural resources are not the most important factor of production. As a matter of fact, now that we live in an industrial world, capital is the most important. But that aside, the notion that we should allow "equal access" to resources is ridiculous. There are economies of scale, there are other inputs to production necessary to harvest those resources. You need firms that have the capital to harvest those resources in order to use them efficiently. The marginal utility of a ton of Iron Ore is significantly larger for United States Steel than it is for, say, you individually. The price system makes it so that, for example, iron ore is used by those who stand to gain the most from it.
On the other hand, if we were simply talking about equal access to the RENTS from those natural resources (ie, allowing firms to harvest those natural resources, but taxing their profits highly), then I'd be a bit more sympathetic. But that's not what we're at all talking about.
Money is creating artificial scarcity.
No, it's not. At any given time, there are a finite amount of machines, a finite amount of man-hours of labor, a finite amount of natural resources, only so much technology, only so much managerial skill, etc. Those inputs to production can be used to produce only so many goods. Money is a universal medium of exchange and unit of account that helps the economy decide which units to produce.
We already produce enough to end world hunger but we can't becuase market won't let us.
There's enough food to feed the world *if we could get food to those who need it.* That's a big "if." The problem with areas that have chronic hunger is that they're also LANDLOCKED. When you have a landlocked country surrounded by hostile neighbors, there aren't going to be many, if any, working roads to physically deliver food to those who need it.
No way can I call it effiecint resource allocation. In capitalism your freedom gets determined by the amount of cash in your pocket.
It may be inequitable and we might prefer that other people receive goods, but there are far simpler and more time-tested methods of ensuring that. We already have an agency set up to do precisely that, it's called the "Internal Revenue Service"
Capitalist price systems fail miserably at optimally allocating a country's resources. Mostly because optimal is viewed in terms of gross numbers produced.
No, no and no. Most optimal, for moral philosophers, is the allocation that maximizes well being. For economists, optimality is equivalent to "Pareto Optimality" which is a situation where you can't make one person better off without making the other worse off. Competitive markets with utility maximizing consumers and profit maximizing firms ensure that this takes place.
Supply and demand don't take into account the product being produced or its overall effects on society (eg A purely capitalist society would produce heroin if the demand was there, regardless of the fact that we're better off without it).
So many things I can say. Most economists would immediately quip something like "You probably enjoy alcohol, so who the f**k are you to say that someone can't use heroin!?" I'd probably say the same thing (which is why I support the legalization of *all* drugs).
The other thing I would say is that you're basically right in some special cases. Those special cases are markets where there are negative externalities. In such a situation, it would make sense in theory for the government to tax the production of that good which has negative externalities. That said, it only makes sense in theory. The decision to tax is not a categorical one, it's a quantitative one, ie the government has to decide *how much* to tax the given good, and it's damn near impossible to figure that out. Governments can easily tax a good too much so that the reduced negative externalities are more than offset by the loss in overall welfare.
Capitalist optimization fails to properly prioritze production or recognize the overwhelming importance of certain resources such as basic food, medicine, and shelter.
The only places that don't have such amenities are not developed countries, they're very, very poor nations. And it's not as if the United States doesn't produce enough of these goods (actually, you can easily make the argument that we produce way too much of those goods!). These goods, like most goods, have diminishing marginal utility. So it's definitely a good thing that we are not producing more food than we are. Similarly, it's not as if developing nations are producing too many luxuries and too few basic items.
Demand disproportionately encourages resources and labor to go towards consumer goods. We end with the ridiculous situation we're in now, where we churn out flat screen TV's and luxury cars by the millions, while people are homeless and starving.
Homelessness is a whole 'nother issue unto itself that has to do with mental illness, alcoholism, etc. It really makes little sense to try to analyze homelessness economically. I mean, it's not as if people are homeless because shelter lies beyond their budget constraint. But again, 3rd world nations, specifically nations where starvation is a problem, aren't really part of the market for American goods and services. The producers are American firms, and the consumers are *American* households, by and large, and it is the preferences of American households that, together with the resource constraints faced by firms, are setting the prices of goods.
Further, capitalist optimization fails to take into account the strain caused by production. In the long run, production can be completely unnecessary and deplete our natural resources or destroy the environment, but this is ignored by free market forces.
Not so. When resources are owned by households, those households will optimize production across many years. This is the same with firms. Firms and households are rational actors, they understand that they face a constraint that implies that, if they consume everything today, they'll starve tomorrow. So they smooth consumption across many years.
Instead, the capitalist mantra is more production is always good as long as there is demand, disregarding the actual utility of the product being produced (after all, demand is equivalent to utility in a capitalist mindset),
You don't have to possess a "capitalist mindset" to equate demand with utility. The demand curve for a good is a result of consumers optimizing their choices to maximize their own utility.
disregarding the environmental damage caused by production.
When rational persons own resources, they won't disregard environmental damage.
"Optimal allocation" is short-sighted.
Robert Barro would definitely like a word with you
We end up producing in reckless ways that could have terrible reprocussions 30, 50, 100 years down the road because supply and demand is immediate.
What reason is there to assume that? Supply is determined by marginal cost, Demand is determined by marginal utility. Households optimize and put off consumption until the future. This is called "saving"
There is no consideration of long-term effects in an economy driven by consumer decision-making. Consumers are short-sighted, thus the decisions they make are often reasonable in the short run, destructive in the long run.
Robert Barro would like a word with you.
The free market does not lead to optimal allocation of resources. It leads to short-sighted, unsustainable modes of production that are only efficient insofar as we are producing as much useless crap as possible. I simply can't believe capitalism is efficient, when countries such as the US, with so many resources and so much labor, fail to feed millions under a capitalist system. This is not efficiency. This is a gross, irresponsible allocation of resources, where money is power and society is forced along by the invisible choke-chain of the almighty dollar.
If economics calls this efficiency, you can keep your 300-level courses.
Your objection has nothing to do with efficiency, it's one of equity. We can argue all day about what the most equitable distribution of resources is (and I suspect that we may even largely agree), but markets are efficient.[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]On a more random note: I laughed for nearly 5 minutes at your sig, worlock77 (the quote specifically).
worlock77
Yeah, you can count on Laihendi to deliver the lulz.
What.
The book has no point with its comparison between fascism and communism. "Communism" killing 94 million in China, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe over the course of a century is probably a lot less atrocious than Fascism killing 28 million people in Western and Central Europe (a vastly smaller population base) over a dozen years.
Not to mention how the figures were arrived at - the language says "perished under communist regimes" means fvck all since for all we know it could be referring to the 10-20 million Soviets killed in World War 2 under Stalin and the huge amounts of Chinese people who you would expect to die after a Japanese invasion wrecks the entire national infrastructure and you still have 500 million of them to feed, house and police.
Of course, this is Laihendi so you can't really expect any better from him than random appeals to numbers like this. Even when he is right (communism fvcking sucks for a huge number of reasons, starting with the planned economy's lack of any form of economic efficiency) he only gets there because of extremely fallacious reasoning.
Lassez-faire capitalism may not necessarily result in the deaths of dozens of millions of people; but I wouldn't be surprised considering what happened in industrial nations during the 19th century (horrific worker abuse, murdering of workers for attempting to collude, .etc) and in any case Lassez-faire economics are horrendously flawed from the beginning without even considering the potential for social ills.
First and foremost, natural resources are not the most important factor of production. As a matter of fact, now that we live in an industrial world, capital is the most important. But that aside, the notion that we should allow "equal access" to resources is ridiculous. There are economies of scale, there are other inputs to production necessary to harvest those resources. You need firms that have the capital to harvest those resources in order to use them efficiently. The marginal utility of a ton of Iron Ore is significantly larger for United States Steel than it is for, say, you individually. The price system makes it so that, for example, iron ore is used by those who stand to gain the most from it.
On the other hand, if we were simply talking about equal access to the RENTS from those natural resources (ie, allowing firms to harvest those natural resources, but taxing their profits highly), then I'd be a bit more sympathetic. But that's not what we're at all talking about.radicalcentrist
So your an advocate of landlordism, you believe that because someone has a right granted by a monopoly of violence, they undoubtedly out be more entitled then people who are less are fortunate and that right is undeniably legitimate? Do you think land owners are better than other people or something? You believe their their rights to subordinate are morally legitimate? What if I was a landlord and you lived on my land, had no where else to go, I should be able to tax you of all your personal property? If you refuse to pay me you are a moocher who deserves to get slaughtered or locked by the state? And said if you don't want to starve you will have to work for me and obey all my rules? I advocate free land and production. Both are very important to me. I think I know what the problem is. We need to take the system and pull it out by its roots and replace it with somthing better. Otherwise we will never be free. We don't need capitalist firms. All we need is cooperation.
So your an advocate of landlordism,RushKing
I'm an advocate of the uses of land being coordinated by the price system. If allowing individual persons to own land is the best way, so be it. If it's better for the government to own land and rent it out, so be it.
you believe that because someone has a right granted by a monopoly of violence, they undoubtedly out be more entitled then people who are less are fortunate and that right is undeniably legitimate?
I care not a wink about whatever notion of "rights" you ascribe to.
Do you think land owners are better than other people or something?
allow me to quote myself. "I'm an advocate of the uses of land being coordinated by the price system."
You believe their their rights to subordinate are morally legitimate?
It's a better system than whatever fantasy you're advocating.
What if I was a landlord and you lived on my land, had no where else to go, I should be able to tax you of all your personal property? If you refuse to pay me you are a moocher who deserves to get slaughtered or locked by the state? And said if you don't want to starve you will have to work for me and obey all my rules?
This way of story-telling is what leads to a lot of fallacies by marxists such as yourself. You begin the story of production with workers, land, and capital already in their station somehow. It's as if God created the universe last thursday with you the landlord and I the serf. That's not how it works. There is a price system for inputs to production including labor, land, and capital. Those inputs migrate to where they are paid the highest. The quality of those inputs depends on certain optimizing decisions made by their owners.
And again, nothing is "free", resources are always scarce and have a myriad of alternative uses. HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHAT TO PRODUCE!? Where are these angels to take care of us?I advocate free land and production. Both are very important to me. I think I know what the problem is. We need to take the system and pull it out by its roots and replace it with somthing better. Otherwise we will never be free. We don't need capitalist firms. All we need is cooperation.
Why did you accuse me of being a marxist? I believe marxism to be major reformist BS. I believe communism can never come from the top, I believe it has to come from the bottom within ourselves. You said we can't end world hunger because of the lack of roads in areas, but I do believe we would have no problems building roads abroad in areas with low crime rates, if we weren't restrained by the price system. How do we decide what to produce? How about everyone decides what they want to produce. If we find out a commune is producing to much of a good, we could take collective action alarming these people to produce less, so we can have less waste. There would be no incentive to overproduce in a society where labor is completely voluntary.
lai, what is your opinion of slavery?
Obviously slavery of men is despicable, but such an assertion raises the question of what man is: a rational animal. One who possesses a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, and to apprehend reality by a process of reason. There are men, and there are those who call themselves men.lai, what is your opinion of slavery?
MakeMeaSammitch
@ Dave - I am not afraid to take on my intellectual enemies, because I know that I am supported by reason and objective reality. I am showing the world that a rational mind must fight its enemies, and that a rational mind will. Altruism as an intellectual movement is the root of every social disaster in history. It must be countered by an intellectual movement based on rational self-interest.
It is not within the power of man to deny rights, which are inherent to the nature of a person's existence. That is what distinguishes objective ethical judgement from the subjective.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
What's funny is that you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. You talk about how man has natural rights, then you deny rights to certain groups of people.
And for the record I turn 36 this year (hint: the 77 in my screen name isn't a random number). That age doesn't make me all wise or infallable, but it does make me wise enough to understand my own failings and to realize that there's a lot I don't understand. Unlike you who seem to be entirely incapable of self-reflection (which is pretty typical of a teenager actually).
worlock77
That's funny. On the previous page you just denied that Native Americans had the same rights as you (and not the first time you've stated such ether). You frequently give excuses as to why this group or that group doesn't have rights.
They are not excuses, they are reasons. I do not need to excuse facts. I do not need to excuse anything. It is impossible to possess a right that you are incapable of conceptualizing. A right is an abstract immaterial intellectual conception. It exists within the mind, and if it does not and cannot exist within one's mind then that mind does not and cannot possess it. This is a very simple concept and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it shows that you are stubborn and have a personal vendetta against me. You are more interested in disagreeing with me on anything you can and creating the illusion of me being wrong than you are in simply understanding the world around you.Damn my K/D is a beast. Get on my level son.
Obviously slavery of men is despicable, but such an assertion raises the question of what man is: a rational animal. One who possesses a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, and to apprehend reality by a process of reason. There are men, and there are those who call themselves men.[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
lai, what is your opinion of slavery?
Laihendi
@ Dave - I am not afraid to take on my intellectual enemies, because I know that I am supported by reason and objective reality. I am showing the world that a rational mind must fight its enemies, and that a rational mind will. Altruism as an intellectual movement is the root of every social disaster in history. It must be countered by an intellectual movement based on rational self-interest.
So you're fine with slavery so long as the person disagrees with you.Obviously slavery of men is despicable, but such an assertion raises the question of what man is: a rational animal. One who possesses a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, and to apprehend reality by a process of reason. There are men, and there are those who call themselves men.[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
lai, what is your opinion of slavery?
Laihendi
@ Dave - I am not afraid to take on my intellectual enemies, because I know that I am supported by reason and objective reality. I am showing the world that a rational mind must fight its enemies, and that a rational mind will. Altruism as an intellectual movement is the root of every social disaster in history. It must be countered by an intellectual movement based on rational self-interest.
I can say with a confident degree of certainty that this guy is trolling.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] It is not within the power of man to deny rights, which are inherent to the nature of a person's existence. That is what distinguishes objective ethical judgement from the subjective.Laihendi
That's funny. On the previous page you just denied that Native Americans had the same rights as you (and not the first time you've stated such ether). You frequently give excuses as to why this group or that group doesn't have rights.
They are not excuses, they are reasons. I do not need to excuse facts. I do not need to excuse anything. It is impossible to possess a right that you are incapable of conceptualizing. A right is an abstract immaterial intellectual conception. It exists within the mind, and if it does not and cannot exist within one's mind then that mind does not and cannot possess it. This is a very simple concept and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it shows that you are stubborn and have a personal vendetta against me. You are more interested in disagreeing with me on anything you can and creating the illusion of me being wrong than you are in simply understanding the world around you. So many words and yet you fail to address an extremely simple point.Why did you accuse me of being a marxist? I believe marxism to be major reformist BS. I believe communism can never come from the top, I believe it has to come from the bottom within ourselves. RushKing
Fine, you're not a "marxist", you're still committing the same error that he and every other socialist writer committed, namely ignoring the decisions that lie behind the supply of inputs to production.
You said we can't end world hunger because of the lack of roads in areas, but I do believe we would have no problems building roads abroad in areas with low crime rates, if we weren't restrained by the price system.
We don't build roads because other governments control the territory surrounding those landlocked countries, governments which are hostile to those landlocked countries, I should add. If you want to abolish those African nation states, then what can I say but "best of luck!"
How do we decide what to produce?
With prices and profit maximization. When the prices of goods are allowed to adjust, a competitive economy will produce the most value. Here's a link to a short powerpoint presentation on this concept
http://www.slideshare.net/opaprb/ch11-6757448
We can see the equilibrium in a competitive market by looking at what will happen if too much of one good (we'll call it "abundant") is being produced. This means that too little of another good is produced (we'll call this the "scarce" good). When the market is in this state, firms will realize that they can make a profit if they produce more of the scarce good and produce less of the abundant good. Equivalently, if the price does not adjust, firms will see that their is a surplus of the abundant good and a shortage of the scarce good. Either way, firms stand to make a profit by choosing to produce more of the scarce good and less of the abundant good.
How about everyone decides what they want to produce.
We do, effectively speaking. Households own the labor and the capital that make up the stock of inputs that our nation has. Those households supply labor to those most willing to pay, and they indirectly own the capital in the form of accumulated savings and assets, and they lend that capital to parties which are most able to pay, ie those with the most productive investment opportunities.
If we find out a commune is producing to much of a good, we could take collective action alarming these people to produce less, so we can have less waste.
Or you could just do what we do now AND LET THE PRICES ADJUST. Let's change our terms. Instead of households, we'll call our individual economic agents "communes." Instead of going door-to-door asking people to sign a petition and "take collective action" and using the political system to decide what to produce, let's use the spontaneous order created by the marketplace to decide what to produce. If our commune is producing too much, there will be a surplus of that good that they're overproducing and, hence, quantity demanded will not equal quantity supplied and they will have unsold goods. This is a signal to them to produce less of that good and more of other goods.
And there's no incentive to overproduce in a marketThere would be no incentive to overproduce in a society where labor is completely voluntary.
Obviously slavery of men is despicable, but such an assertion raises the question of what man is: a rational animal. One who possesses a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, and to apprehend reality by a process of reason. There are men, and there are those who call themselves men.[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
lai, what is your opinion of slavery?
Laihendi
@ Dave - I am not afraid to take on my intellectual enemies, because I know that I am supported by reason and objective reality. I am showing the world that a rational mind must fight its enemies, and that a rational mind will. Altruism as an intellectual movement is the root of every social disaster in history. It must be countered by an intellectual movement based on rational self-interest.
but then you would be opposing free market principles and giving ther government power.
Didn't you wage wars because of capitalism?
[QUOTE="leviathan91"]These are not just economic philosophies. They are social philosophies. You cannot separate capital from man. One gives meaning to the other. Communism explicitly rejects individual rights, and that is why the communist nations do not have them. Communism is an inherently evil and destructive ideology.And? :|
Capitalism is a superior economic philosophy but economics itself doesn't kill people. The communist nations of the past failed (or were crud) due to lack of equal rights, individual rights, and freedoms that not just America but most of the Western world benefited from.
Laihendi
Then how do you explain tribes in Africa that are still essentially communist, and perfectly happy? Communism clearly works at a smaller scale. Like in a household where only the man or woman works, but the bank account is shared and both use it as needed, and the house and all items in it belongs to both. That's communism at a tiny scale, but the essence is there.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] It is not within the power of man to deny rights, which are inherent to the nature of a person's existence. That is what distinguishes objective ethical judgement from the subjective.Laihendi
That's funny. On the previous page you just denied that Native Americans had the same rights as you (and not the first time you've stated such ether). You frequently give excuses as to why this group or that group doesn't have rights.
They are not excuses, they are reasons. I do not need to excuse facts. I do not need to excuse anything. It is impossible to possess a right that you are incapable of conceptualizing. A right is an abstract immaterial intellectual conception. It exists within the mind, and if it does not and cannot exist within one's mind then that mind does not and cannot possess it. This is a very simple concept and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it shows that you are stubborn and have a personal vendetta against me. You are more interested in disagreeing with me on anything you can and creating the illusion of me being wrong than you are in simply understanding the world around you.Again you don't even realize how you contradict yourself. If rights are inherent to a person's existence, as you claimed in the previous quote, then a person has them whether they conceptualize them or not. If rights only exist fort those who conceptionalize them then they are not inherent to a person's existence.
This is why I think you're a troll and can't have decent discussions; you think you're right about everything and have complex questions about society and politics figured out by claiming you're supported by "reason" and "objective reality". It's like trying to have a rational discussion with evangelical Christian. You're just as dogmatic.@ Dave - I am not afraid to take on my intellectual enemies, because I know that I am supported by reason and objective reality. I am showing the world that a rational mind must fight its enemies, and that a rational mind will.
Laihendi
*sigh*
Seriously people, Lai is just a troll.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment