HUMANS ARE NOT TRASH

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Information War
Anarchy
GNOSTIC

Posts

Total: 204
Topic's author
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
do you think that perhaps there are unqualified legacy idiot executives and politicians ?
Washington DC Politicians, absolutely. Most voters pay no federal taxes.

Business Executives? 

Unlikely since the voters an executive is accountable to actually have their personal money invested in them.
RICH = SMART
RICH = GOOD

Topic's author
#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
farmers generally only work from sunrise to sunset
Thanks for displaying your ignorance on agriculture. 

So you have never watched Nat Geo nor set foot on a farm confirmed. 
THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING YOUR INABILITY TO ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION.

#93
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
do you think that perhaps there are unqualified legacy idiot executives and politicians ?

Not really sure what you do about that, though. It's not really an indictment of capitalism, either. It's surplus, in a way. 
Topic's author
#94
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I have worked with some subsistence farmers in Kenya and Tanzania, most of them raising crops rather than livestock.

Basically, there's typically a good chunk of the year (it can be anywhere 2-3 months to 8-10 months depending on the local climate and the amount of water available that year) where there might be only a couple hours of farm work per week, so they try to pick up another job or work odd jobs as a day laborer (or they may just hang around the community drinking locally made alcohol and playing checkers).

During the intensive times (at the start of the season for preparing the soil and planting seeds, and then at the end of the season for the harvest), 12 hour work days are fairly typical for men (most of my experience is around the equator, so they generally work from sunrise to sunset). Women typically can't work on the farm for a full 12 hour day even during the busiest part of the season as they normally have at least a few hours of domestic work (most cleaning can be done at night, but some of the cooking will be done during the day time). Still, many women farmers will try to get as much time in the fields as they can so that they don't lose any of their harvest.

In between, when farmers are weeding, applying fertilizer, bringing water and other tasks, they will probably work for 4-6 hours. It depends on the size of their plot (though if they have a massive farm, they're generally not subsistence farmers) and some will work shorter or longer, depending on the needs of the crop in question. [**]
Topic's author
#95
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@badger
do you think that perhaps there are unqualified legacy idiot executives and politicians ?
Not really sure what you do about that, though. It's not really an indictment of capitalism, either. It's surplus, in a way. 
please explain what you mean by "dead weight" ?
#96
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I got lots of friends and neighbours in Ireland who've never heard a cuckoo bird. He's got a really distinct call, well he says "cuckoo," not much more to it than that. But he prefers deep countryside and bog always. I've known him my entire life and there's people living 5 miles down the road that have never heard him. Always wondered a bit at that. 
#97
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Bad ideas, failed businesses, sunk cost. Any sort of central planning can't deal with any of this like capitalism can, capitalism ruthlessly reinvents itself, that's its power. 
#98
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,258
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Do you guys have the cuckoo bird where you're from?
What a fascinating bird indeed. Yes we have em.

I know I'm coming off kind of abrasive in this thread, but it's so tropey the number of anti-capitalists that never set foot on a farm and never set foot in a communist country nor ever talked to a person who fled a communist country. And then they loudly complain that capitalism hasn't provided more than their already objectively provable cushy lifestyle.

I actually had a Venezuelan roommate for 3 years. Now that was a learning experience.
#99
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
With the added benefit that it doesn't mobilise the masses for a possible disaster. The atrocities carried out under the the banners of Apple or Facebook are always gonna be fairly tame.
Topic's author
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@badger
Bad ideas, failed businesses, sunk cost. Any sort of central planning can't deal with any of this like capitalism can, capitalism ruthlessly reinvents itself, that's its power. 
Topic's author
#101
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I know I'm coming off kind of abrasive in this thread, but it's so tropey the number of anti-capitalists that never set foot on a farm and never set foot in a communist country nor ever talked to a person who fled a communist country. And then they loudly complain that capitalism hasn't provided more than their already objectively provable cushy lifestyle.

I actually had a Venezuelan roommate for 3 years. Now that was a learning experience.
phenomenal rush-to-disqualify.

why bother formulating an argument

when you can simply ad-hominem-attack everyone who seems to disagree
#102
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,258
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol, that article was written by someone who knew a farmer, not someone who actually worked a farm. You tell any Farmer in America that they only have to work when the sun is out and they will tell you they shit bigger than you.


Go ahead and double down on your armchair gated community experiences of the world. You are quite the comedian for sure.
#103
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I've lived and worked on a farm my whole life and it's not so bad. We recently sold to solar power too, so now I'm just rich. 
#104
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,258
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
When I lived with my Uncle, he made me take care of his chickens. I used to get attacked by the rooster so many times getting eggs lol.
#105
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
We've been just big dairy and beef for years. With this new change though, we can still keep small animals. I'm kinda excited to become a sheep and chicken farmer. 
#106
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,258
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
Ahh the sweet smell of sheep pellets in the summer sun. What a memory!
#107
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
There's a clean smell in dung, oddly enough. 
Topic's author
#108
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
i guess all farmers are exactly like you
#109
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,258
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
That's definitely something a farmer would say.
Topic's author
#110
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
and wasn't your point that working in a sweatshop was somehow preferable to farming ?
#111
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
think of it like a game of "monopoly"

would you participate in a game where your competitors already owned hotels on half the board and had vastly outsized cash reserves before you even rolled your first move?

forget the metaphor for a minute

would you play this board game ?
This presumes that any utility I derive from my skills and labor and the fruits thereof is necessarily a competition with that of others. One needs not be "the best" in order to do one's best.

As for whether I'd play the game, in a competitive context, no I would not.

pLEASE eXPLAIN
Your previous statements in some manner inform my contention. That is, the idea that everyone should have the same shot at the same outcome (equal opportunity) as opposed to the notion that everyone should go as far as their abilities can take them. In order to set things equal, even just to start, one would have to eliminate private decisions especially those which inform advantages.

So let's use nepotism as an example:

Say I'm in the market for a babysitter. I meet a candidate who has a Ph.D in both child psychology and child education. She has years of experience and she had numerous reviews which raved about her. She is sure to be a lock. Just before I finalize my decision, my 16 year-old daughter expresses interest in being a babysitter. Ultimately, I decide to hire my daughter because she's my daughter. So if we were to maintain ANARCHY = EQUALITY = NO NEPOTISM, then that would undermine individual interests particularly the ones which concern said individual.

Now let's change this up a bit: let's say my friend is in the market for a babysitter. He delegates the task of finding a babysitter to me. I meet the same Ph.D candidate and my daughter expresses the same interest. In the end, I recommend my daughter because she's my daughter. My friend agrees to hire my daughter as a favor to me. Once again, to undermine this would be to undermine individual interests.

What about a pretty woman? Do we tag her up a bit, so that the uggos have a "fair shot" at a modeling job?

ANARCHY =/= EQUALITY; ANARCHY =/= NO NEPOTISM; ANARCHY =/= NO ADVANTAGES. Anarchy is poitical/social individualism, which would delineate that in spite/favor of nepotism, inheritance, and social/economic advantages, as an individual, your life is a function of service to your own best interests; that your talents, skills, abilities, labor, time, etc. are yours to do with in whichever manner you see fit, so long as it does not infract on another individual's capacity to exhibit the aforementioned. Nepotism and inheritance are not infractions.
Topic's author
#112
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
HERE'S YOUR PRECIOUS EFFICIENT "FREE-MARKET" IN ACTION,
Topic's author
#113
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
think of it like a game of "monopoly"

would you participate in a game where your competitors already owned hotels on half the board and had vastly outsized cash reserves before you even rolled your first move?

forget the metaphor for a minute

would you play this board game ?
As for whether I'd play the game, in a competitive context, no I would not.
now imagine someone told you that if you don't play the game, you will be deprived of food and shelter
Topic's author
#114
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Say I'm in the market for a babysitter. I meet a candidate who has a Ph.D in both child psychology and child education. She has years of experience and she had numerous reviews which raved about her. She is sure to be a lock. Just before I finalize my decision, my 16 year-old daughter expresses interest in being a babysitter. Ultimately, I decide to hire my daughter because she's my daughter. So if we were to maintain ANARCHY = EQUALITY = NO NEPOTISM, then that would undermine individual interests particularly the ones which concern said individual.
your home is your castle

do what you wish in your own home

do what you think is best with your own family in your own home

nepotism only applies to businesses, and more specifically to management positions and executives

i'm pretty certain nobody's going to care if you hire your brother-in-law to mop the floors, unless he's getting paid more than your other floor moppers or gets away with being late or missing work more than your other floor moppers

you seem to be recoiling at the prospect of MERITOCRACY
Topic's author
#115
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What about a pretty woman? Do we tag her up a bit, so that the uggos have a "fair shot" at a modeling job?
please explain how you managed to leap to this ridiculous conclusion
Topic's author
#116
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
ANARCHY =/= EQUALITY; ANARCHY =/= NO NEPOTISM; ANARCHY =/= NO ADVANTAGES
i never once suggested "no advantages", whatever gave you that idea ?



EQUALITY = PROVABLY FAIR

EQUALITY = NO "HEAD-STARTS"

NO GIFTS

NO INHERITANCE

NO NEPOTISM

NO CHEATING
Topic's author
#117
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
Anarchy is poitical/social individualism, which would delineate that in spite/favor of nepotism, inheritance, and social/economic advantages, as an individual, your life is a function of service to your own best interests; that your talents, skills, abilities, labor, time, etc. are yours to do with in whichever manner you see fit, so long as it does not infract on another individual's capacity to exhibit the aforementioned. Nepotism and inheritance are not infractions.
OLIGARCHY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF ANARCHY

OLIGARCHY IS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE
#118
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
now imagine someone told you that if you don't play the game, you will be deprived of food and shelter
Let's analyze what goes into the acquisition of food and shelter. In hunter-gatherer societies, one is/was responsible for acquiring one's food and building one's shelter. As nations developed, their societies economies were primarily defined by subsistence farming, and exchange was typically defined by bartering. As development continued, the medium by which one exchanges became standardized--i.e. money. One then figured out rather than performing labor oneself, one could outsource it in exchange for money--even the acquisition of food, and the building of shelters. That is, one traded money for another person's labor.

Now, why am I stating all of this? I take it that your metaphor is intended to exemplify Capitalism, and not participating in that system results in starvation and homelessness. Furthermore, the implication is that Capitalism facilitates "unfair" advantages (i.e. nepotism, inheritance) which disallows other individuals from competing fairly against those for whom the system is allegedly rigged. My contention against this metaphor is that not only is an individual's utility in such a system not defined by it's competition with that of others', but also there is no set standard for "winning" at Capitalism  as there is in a board game, or any type of game. Case in point: an NBA superstar talent makes more money than a doctor. Because commerce is dictated by abstract value. And that's what Capitalism is: a constellation and composite of abstract values derived from private decisions. So you will get billionaires who sport orange helmets thriving financially, and others who can barely make ends meat.

So in a scenario, where one is faced with the prospect of homelessness and starvation, first let's attribute responsibility for lack of shelter and starvation. I would assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, that your stance is predicated on the necessity of money. Money in Capitalism you allege is distributed unfairly (e.g. nepotism, inheritance, absence of merit, etc.) and therefore said system is responsible for the sufficient amount of money one would otherwise earn to purchase food and shelter. My counterpoint to this would be that a job is nothing more than a trade--i.e. compensation for labor. An employer is entitled to that which he intends to use as compensation just as an employee is entitled to his labor. Neither is entitled to that of the other until a mutually agreed arrangement is formed and maintained. The circumstances which lead one party into the arrangement is not the responsibility of the other. (Because independent of the employer's particular participation, the employee's circumstances are still his circumstances.) So what is to blame? Is a person's prospective homelessness and starvation a fault of the system? Or is it because no one is either conscripted or willing to participate in an arrangement where he gets what he wants or needs?

your home is your castle

do what you wish in your own home

do what you think is best with your own family in your own home

nepotism only applies to businesses, and more specifically to management positions and executives
How is the logic any different?

i'm pretty certain nobody's going to care if you hire your brother-in-law to mop the floors, unless he's getting paid more than your other floor moppers or gets away with being late or missing work more than your other floor moppers

you seem to be recoiling at the prospect of MERITOCRACY
I'm not against merit-based compensation and employment. That however ought to be a private decision.

#119
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
i never once suggested "no advantages", whatever gave you that idea ?



EQUALITY = PROVABLY FAIR

EQUALITY = NO "HEAD-STARTS"

NO GIFTS

NO INHERITANCE

NO NEPOTISM

NO CHEATING
Out of curiosity, what are some advantages for which you'd be on board?

OLIGARCHY IS THE ANTITHESIS OF ANARCHY

OLIGARCHY IS THE INEVITABLE CONSEQUENCE OF NEPOTISM + INHERITANCE
Assuming of course that we're focused on the concentration of wealth. And there will always be concentration where the most commerce is generated, nepotism + inheritance notwithstanding. (Yes even trust-fund babies learn how to maintain their wealth given that wealth too is finite.)
Topic's author
#120
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,772
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
once again, i'm very impressed by your eloquence

(1) i don't believe "money" (and or "capitalism") is teh "evil"

let's see if we can square this circle

do you believe there should be some rules to govern commerce ?

if you do believe there should be some rules to govern commerce, what moral theory, and or what primary goal should those rules be aimed at ?