Total posts: 3,192
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@ludofl3x
@PressF4Respect
@3RU7AL
Theists love to debate using DEISTIC arguments.
Which theists "love" to use deistic arguments?
The "intelligent-design" case is the most prominent example of this.
Intelligent design is not a deistic argument. It was a concept purported by religious authorities for millennia, even polytheistic ones. Deism didn't emerge until after the "enlightenment."
The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.
That's not deistic at all. It would be "logically necessary" initial mover without the sustenance.
**But theists are unable to draw a straight line from DEISM to their specific god(s).**
Using deistic premises, sure. But then, Deism doesn't make any sense.
Atheists often fight tooth-and-claw against these DEISTIC tactics, but I would suggest they should stop fighting and embrace DEISM.Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).
That's the reason it makes no sense.
DEISM is functionally identical to ATHEISM.
Insofar as they're both riddled with contradiction, yes.
Let's say, for example, that we found indisputable scientific evidence that life on planet Earth was created by Promethean gods. Intelligently designed.Clip of creation scene from "Prometheus" (2012), [LINK]This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our daily lives.This "fact" does absolutely nothing to inform our system of government, our laws, or our sense of morality.
In other words, have perspective. Good words by which to live.
@PressF4Respect:
The reason theists use deist arguments is because there is no evidence (outside of holy texts) of the existence of their particular god.
You know there's no evidence? How? Please elaborate.
@ludofl3x:
I don't have any argument against a deistic argument, because it just presumes "something."
No, they presume God/Supreme Being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
Social Democracies Top Global Happiness Index Again; U.S. Falls Again money can buy happiness but a healthy family will Social Democracies Top Global Happiness Index Again; U.S. Falls Againhttps://www.truthdig.com/articles/social-democracies-top-global-happiness-index-again-u-s-falls-again/
Do you read these reports you cite? They do not speak to the effect which you argue; like many articles on the subject, it's socialist propaganda.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
In other words, is value relative? And the answer is simply yes. How you polarize it is subjective. Think of a number scale, where happiness is all positives integers (you can include rational numbers for nuance) and sadness is all negative integers. The point of reference is 0, which can be analogized to apathy or indifference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Do you think value can be changed easily and how much do you think people value knowledge? A percentage would be fine.
I honestly wouldn't know. What do they say: "knowledge is power," but "ignorance is bliss"? As for values, of that too I'm also ignorant. Some people's values change easily, while others don't--it seems redundant, I know. Can't really put a percentage on it unless I have some sense of the entire sample, which comprises of billions of people. Even if we were to do it by country, we're still talking millions.
Routine I think is different then doing the same thing over and over again. A routine can be talking to new people. That is a routine but would lead to different results not the same.
One can broaden a routine, but that doesn't make it any less a routine. For example, one sets a routine to wake up in the morning at 6 a.m., jog, eat breakfast, shower, leave for work at 8 a.m., work, talk to someone new, and return home. While talking to someone new would shake things up a bit, one sort of gives up forming intimate relationships because one's routine is to repeat a sense of novelty. That would be novelty for only novelty's sake.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
what a joke, the UN is for making sure no world war happens
The purpose of the United Nations is global governance; the act and threat of world war were merely part of a dialectic, which brought about the U.N.'s creation. The same figures who sponsor the U.N. are the very figures who sponsor/sponsored the very wars the organization "intended" to prevent. But feel free to do your own research; I presume the resources are available to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That wasn't the reason for the War. The War itself was a pretext for a consolidated international governing body which they had tried and failed before, known as the League of Nations--now known as the United Nations--and the establishment of the International Monetary Fund, which is nothing more than a global hedge fund.Sponsors wanted Nazi's in, Henry Ford had a picture of Hitler on his desk,they saw war against Hitler has bad, and working with The Economic Powerhouse in Germany was good. Entering WW2 because of Pear Harbor is fine, ALso it's not staging
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Its not semantics, we arent debating, They never wanted it to happen, they knew they would strike, not just where and "sponsors" like what
Yes, they did want it. Because they wanted to enter World War II; they just needed the pretext. And their sponsors were willing to finance it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So? Thats not staging
Semantics. They knew it was going to happen; they wanted it to happen; and they let it happen. Not to mention their "sponsors" were the same people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew in advance that the Japanese were going to attack because he had received information on as much just two days before. FDR also knew that it would be Pear Harbor because of its location, not to mention the large Japanese settlement in Hawaii.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Snoopy
Please explain the significant difference that occurred in the early 20th century.Does "quasi-communist" mean a centrally coordinated economy?
Yes.
A Centrally planned economy occurred under FDR with his handpicked SCOTUS'S decision changing the original meaning of the Constitutional Commerce Clause.Specifically, Wickard Vs. Filburn is the exact moment when America became a partially socialist nation backed by the Constitution.
I'd go back even further and say that when the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was passed, that's when the United States became quasi-communist. The death knell was in 1933 with the removal of the gold standard after that orchestrated event known as the Great Depression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Semantics.Pearl harbor wasn't exactly staged. The military left it open and lightly defended as bait for the Japanese.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
Our own analysis in Table 2.1 provides one example of the effects of government via its estimate of the links between corruption and life satisfaction, holding constant some other key variables, including income, health, social support, a sense of freedom and generosity, all of which themselves are likely to be affected by the quality of government. Unpacking these channels convincingly is not possible using the aggregate data available, since there is too much in play to establish strong evidence of causality, and many of the system features held to be of primary importance, for example the rule of law, tend to take long to establish, thereby reducing the amount of evidence available.Hence any conclusions reached are likely to be suggestive at best, and have also been found to be more evident in some countries and times than in others. For example, a number of studies have divided the World Bank’s[36] six main indicators of governmental quality into two groups, with the four indicators for effectiveness, rule of law, quality of regulation, and control of corruption combined to form an index of the quality of delivery, and the two indicators for voice and accountability and for political stability and absence of violence combined to form an index of the democratic quality of government.
This was found in chapter two of the report. How do you reconcile this snippet with your assertion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Dr.Franklin
Pearl Harbor staged, Really??
Yes.
Except WMD was the fake reason to go to war, not 9-11
Weapons of mass destruction was the pretext of the Iraqi War, which was an extension of the Afghanistan War--the pretext being 9/11.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Pinkfreud08
Yeah, it's not. If you're looking for anime on Crunchyroll worth watching, then I'd recommend:I thought that Cowboy Bebop wasn't on crunchy roll?
Attack on Titan
Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood (though, in my opinion, it's not as good as its 2003 incarnation.)
Mobile Suit Gundam: (Wing/0096/Iron Blooded Orphans) - all good selections.
Created:
Posted in:
Athias is a family name.
My profile picture is of the notorious character, Huey Freeman, of the acclaimed animated television show, The Boondocks.
Created:
Posted in:
@TheRealNihilist
Do you think knowledge equals happiness if so can you demonstrate it?(Please be short and simple)
Happiness is a gauge of value. The more value you place on knowledge, the happier it will make you.
Do you think happiness can be attained doing something over and over again or does it require the person to vary things up in order to maintain happiness?(Explain as well)
Using the premise above, it depends on that which you value: novelty or routine? In my opinion, they both have value--though I believe routine may edge out as it provides comfort and safety.
Created:
Posted in:
I think it's possible that Trump will be selected again. Though, I'm convinced that he's part of some dialectic. While liberals foam at the mouth at how terrible a president he is, they're running further and further into the socialist trap of Warren or Sanders. And to an unwitting populace who'd rather war over inconsequential bullshit like identity, equality, or entitlements, they become more unaware of the money and how it's being spent, transformed, and used against them.
Regardless of your political affiliation, one thing is clear: politicians couldn't give a flying fuck about you. They care only for your money and how you can generate it for them--you're either an asset or a liability. And they'll use whichever convenient platitude--feminism, racialism, transgenderism, nationalism, etc.--if it means garnering your sympathies and having you trust them with your resources. Why force you onto a plantation and risk armed rebellion, when they can hoodwink you into indentured servitude and convince you that it was your idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's my firm belief that "9/11" was staged much in the same manner as Pearl Harbor and the sinking of Lusitania. If History has taught us anything, it's that man does not go to war "out of good will," but over resources. Man just needs the proper pretext.you find that interesting? what or who could prevent another 9-11? you do know planes from other countries have been hijacked right? How about the one where the pilot flew it right into the mountain? Get some help for you TDS
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
Studies show that people that life in welfare states like Denmark or Germany are happier and live bette lives
Pray tell, how do these studies gauge happiness and living better lives?
and many people equate welfare spending with socialism though most welfare states were designed by liberals
Because welfare spending is socialist; it's origin is in 17th century European feudalism, stemming to the communist revolutions of late 19th century to 20th century. Even the Nazis had welfare programs, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt was "inspired by" and decided to implement in the United States.
but the welfare state version of capitalism works
There's no "welfare state version of capitalism." The countries of which you speak, including the United States, have been quasi-communist states since the early 20th century. They allow certain sectors to be private.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Think about it, both sides has access to the same evidence,facts, and statistics. If the evidence in the world from Biology,Astronomy, Geology,Envioremtal Science the SAME. Then it ultimately comes up to belief.
And you, sir--as the kids say--have won the internet. Creation is a means to rationalize the origin of man; Evolution is a means to rationalize the origin of man. It's not that one set of information is more "reasonable" than the other; It's about which information, rationalization, interpretation holds more value to the observer. And it can as simple as maintaining a belief. (#epistemologicalsolipsism.) Those who pervert logic, being oblivious to its form, misuse reason as a means to trivialize the other ideology. But it's only a trite attempt to elevate one's own belief to some objective evaluation while diminishing the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
I saw program where the show where chinese comanoies placed nets outside under windows to prevent these young workers from committing sucide after working 7 days a week 16 hours a day to assumblin Apple products.That is just one example. You really are underinformed aka ignorant.
18 of 450,000 workers attempted suicide, and 14 were successful. That's .004%. The late Steve Jobbs correctly pointed out that this reflected the national statistic. Inform me, why did the other 449, 982 workers not attempt suicide? Where in this program you saw did they control for other factors which may have influenced the suicides (personal issues, family environment, medical issues, etc.?) Since when is it a violation of human rights to be publicly berated by one's boss or to work 16 hour days? Are they coerced into working?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes Social structure and order relies on disparity.
I wouldn't say "rely." All social structures and orders are inevitably disparate.
All ideological systems are inevitably the same.
Not at all.
Though poverty is simply oppression and some systems are more oppressive than others.
Please explain.
And I'm not sure where you get your definition of society from.
It's not a definition. I'm not arguing over semantics.
And we elect representatives and spend the next four years trying to knock them down. Bizarre!
Not at all. Most of the electorate idealize, sometimes idolize, these politicians until the delusion ends and it's realized that to beholden these politicians to the promises, which either can't or won't be fulfilled, is a fool's errand. Watching the political environment is like watching WWE; it can provide some entertaining pageantry, but ultimately, it's of little substance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
It was a tongue-in-cheek statement in reference to the association of divinity to the universe, particularly the stars and planets. Saturnians, for example, worship the planet Saturn for the roman god, Saturn. Saturn was known as the "hidden one" or the Black Sun/Son (Lucifer.) In his Greek manifestation, Saturn was also known as "Cronus," which literally means "the horned one." In one of these other threads, I made mention of how the papacy is a pagan rite and that Vatican City was known as "Saturnia" in veneration of the roman god, Saturn. (Christmas is actually a pagan ritual known as "Saturnalia" practiced in celebration of the winter solstice.) In his Egyptian manifestation, Saturn was known as Osiris. In his Semitic manifestation, he was known as Ba'al. Lucifer, like God, is believed to be a trinity: the father (Saturn,) the mother (Juno,) and the son or hermaphrodite (Jupiter.)I believe everything is god, including the universe... so in part he's right, he just hasn't thought beyond that... which, whatever... but, how is that Luciferian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So what is society?
My answer from another thread:
A society is a circuit of specialized individuals who trade resources (whether it be property, skills, or even company) in order to bring about a desired condition in which they believe they ought to live.
And how is it supposed to function?
It is to operate on individualist principles, where sovereign individual rights are paramount. Everything is privatized including arbitration and mediation over tort and other disputes as well as security. "Public" entities would consist of only volunteers.
What would the fat cats do if there was no one to wipe their arses for them?
Wipe it themselves. Then again, I don't know how one would replace the lucrative and fulfilling career of "wiping a fat cat's arse."
And who would buy all the crap, that no one really needs?
Well... they would. Isn't there a talking point against the rich claiming that they have more money than they "need?" Would it not stand to reason that a bulk of their expenditures are "unnecessary"?
You have to protect those at the bottom, otherwise fuck all, would get done.
Or politicians can stop exploiting poverty for votes? Perhaps those with the most to lose aren't the crony corporatists but the snake oil salesman (crony politicians) whose careers are built on making empty promises? Maybe they even rely on poverty?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
What about Christianity?
No, only religions with Pagan origins (and yes I know that Catholicism is a sect of Christianity; hence my mention of "disguise.")
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Well, you ought to, since it's the predominant ideology in the Western world. It's usually disguised through catholicism, hinduism, and greco-roman mythology.Of course, doesn’t everybody?
Created:
Posted in:
You've already tacitly admitted that you believe USA labor laws are too protective of workers.
Most workers can join unions, but this right is restricted by the Trade Unions Act (TUA) and the Industrial Relations Act (IRA), as well as by other laws limiting the freedom of association. The right to strike is so severely limited that stringent that striking is effectively all but possible. Private-sector workers are allowed to engage in collective bargaining. Malaysia’s minimum wages policy is decided under the National Wages Consultative Council Act 2011 (Act 732). Forced labour is illegal, but occurs, with many women and children essentially being forced to work in households, and many of them suffering abuse. Children under 14 are not allowed to work but some exceptions are permitted. The Employment Act limits working hours and imposes other restrictions, but they are not enforced strictly. The US Department of Labor's List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor indicates that instances of child labour and forced labour have been observed in the electronics and the textile industries as well as in the production of palm oil. Many foreign employees work under unfair and abusive conditions, with employers withholding pay and confiscating passports. There is an Occupational Safety and Health Act, but workers who walk out of dangerous workplaces are subject to dismissal.[12]
Please point out where in this reference does it state that the microchip industry (not simply electronics) is responsible for violations of human rights.
And I would never suggest that labor laws "protect" because they don't. They stifle employment. There are lot of risks associated with many employments, yet with those professions the employee is allowed discretion in whether he takes those risks rather than having the gravity of said risks be arbitrarily evaluated by an outside governing body.
"the rich making money on the backs of the rich" sounds good if you're myopic.
Irrelevant. It's not about how it sounds or looks. It's about "what is?" And you have yet to demonstrate anything which informs the effects you speak of other than Marxist dogma.
Who mines the jewels and ore that make the jewelry you wear and the computer you use and the car you drive?
I'd simply ask: who signs their checks? Is the laborer entitled to anything more than what was agreed upon in terms of his or her labor contract? Second, are you asserting that labor is of primary significance in producing profit? It's not. Generating commerce is. And this could be done with labor, capital, advertising, or just the state of being. The problem with the labor theory of value is that it ignores that value is subjective. If I'm in the market for a computer, what use is it if you hand me a chunk of jewels and ore? What about the man who designs the computer? The man who builds the computer? The man who create the machines that build computers? The men who advertise the brands making the information readily available? The web designer who creates the website where the information is hosted? None of this has anything to do with generating commerce (and profit?) Only the initial labor in the supply chain?
And try out this thought experiment: how much do you owe to the person who taught you that 1+1=2? Was your career built on their back?
I'm pretty sure it's not NBA all-stars.
Yet the NBA is a billion dollar industry. Is it built on the backs of those who work the concession stands?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Do you not know what Luciferianism is?If by Luciferian ideology you mean reality then you must have something that trumps reality!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I'm not inclined to engage duplicity. Either own your statements or don't; it's of no consequence either way.I do not recall citing youtube videos nor making a serious counterargument against anything you have said. In fact I don't recall even reading or responding to anything you have said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree. And being versed in economics as I am, I'm quite confident in my presumption that neither you nor 3RU7AL know much about it, instead citing insubstantial youtube videos as counterarguments.Talking about economics with people that just don't understand the concept...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The violation of human rights is at fault.
Do you have a reference for these microchip companies violating human rights.
Unbridled greed is at fault.
Insignificant statement.
People who habitually BLAME THE VICTIM are at fault.
Who are these victims and how have they been victimized?
Some people get paid well. Nobody is arguing the opposite.
No, you argued that the rich make their fortunes off the backs of the poor, and I have given you at least three examples where that is not the case. You assert that this mechanism is fundamental to the free-market, but you have yet to substantiate this assertion especially in the advent of my counterexamples.
BUT THERE ARE ALWAYS POOR PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHAIN.
Which chain is that? Are you assuming that there's only one sector of the economy or industry?
A sophistic argument. Do you mind submitting the costs of living in both India and Malaysia?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Look, your "skilled labor" examples are outliers.
Actually, it's not an outlier. As our economy moves from its tertiary sector, to its quaternary sector, skilled labor is becoming the norm.
Yes, some jobs pay well, nobody is arguing the opposite.
No, you only argued that the rich made their fortunes off the back of the poor, and that cheap-labor is the "life-blood" of the free market. And that isn't true.
HoweVER, as just an example, microchip factory-laboratories moved to Malaysia (from the USA), built super-modern facilities in the middle of nowhere and trained (converting unskilled-labor and creating skilled-labor) the barely literate natives to run the place. BECAUSE IT SAVED THEM MONEY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER TO TRAIN PEOPLE FROM SCRATCH THAN TO HIRE COLLEGE GRADUATES (and because the local government let them write their own labor and health and safety laws/regulations).
So what's truly at fault here? The labor laws of the United States or the hiring practices of the microchip companies? And if you google the average salary of those who are in the microchip industry, it's about $82,000, or do they not count in the collection of backs off which the rich make their fortune?
Another example would be college basketball players a la NCAA players. Superstar players make north of $0 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the poor-vulnerable-suckers.
Let's forget their scholarships and that these schools offer a public platform for them to showcase their skills which may gain them entry into an industry where they can cultivate a lucrative career. It's not like there's ever been prospects who have foregone pay (e.g. apprenticeships and internships) to acquire experience in their field of endeavor. And if the pay is unsatisfactory for these college students, why not forego their obligations including their scholarships, and join the G-League or the JBA?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Your true creator is the universe.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to Luciferian ideology.
I say true because god has not been confirmed, the universe has.
God has been "confirmed." Materialists just reject the rubric of this confirmation.
Our universe is where we come from. We are made of the same atoms that it is made out of.
And according to KJV Bible, we are made in the image of God. I don't see how your statement is anymore substantial than that.
We grew from the ground here on this planet in this universe and became what we are now.
Well Adam was made from the dust of Earth so your statement neither contradicts nor refutes that.
There is no matter imported from another universe inside you. If you can't find it on the periodic table of elements you don't have it in you. The universe created you in the same way that a flowing river creates a valley. It has no more intent or plan than a river does.
How do you know? Is the absence of "evidence" the evidence of absence?
All of this will not affect god because he can be forever moved to just beyond what we know. God is where we will mark our ignorance as if to say, beyond here there lies dragons.
But we do know God. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to perceive God. If God is rendered as an entity "beyond what we know," then your assessment is entirely insubstantial because it is "beyond what you know."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Economics 101. The rich make their money on the backs of the poor. Without poor people, there would be no rich people. CHEAP LABOR is the life-blood of the Free-Market.
That's not "Economics 101." If you took economics 101 you may have learned the concept of profit maximization which doesn't always mean paying cheap labor. A glaring example of this are private hospitals and law firms. They pay their employees a lot of money because of the commerce they generate. Another example would be professional basketball players a la NBA players. Superstar players make north of 200 million dollars. Their team owners are billionaires. That's an example of the rich making money of the backs of the rich. Your statement, for lack of better terms, is just Marxist nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Because our parents had baby making sex. If you're however inquiring into the origin of man, as well as its reasons, then that is a mystery rooted in pursuits to discover the origin and logic of our consciousness, which truly sets us apart from every other animal. And when we discover this origin, we'll only seek to replicate it, as zedvictor suggested, through notions like A.I. for example. The pursuit of this origin is the pursuit to Godhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I get it. You can't control what kind of family you're born into.You can however, control what decisions you make after you're born into that family. If you can slowly work your way out of poverty, you can then end your cycle of generations of poor children.
I agree. When all is said and done, one's life is one's own responsibility. And those who pedal these initiatives to address poverty, usually take no actions themselves to help the poor, but instead endorse or sponsor policy which coerces others to do it.
If only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken, and if the poor people stopped continuing to have kids, the cycle wouldn't continue, and you wouldn't keep having more and more kids born into the same kind of poor family that you were born into.
Surely there are ways to ending the cycle other than putting an end to reproduction. Poverty isn't hereditary. While I don't disagree with you entirely, as I do believe that family planning should include the option of not having children, your stance that "if only the wealthy had kids, the cycle would be broken," isn't particularly substantiated. One can instruct one's child and leave said child the right impression. And no amount of money can purchase that. There can be functional poor families and dysfunctional wealthy families; and I've been a witness to both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm impressed.However, I'm pretty sure a good 80 to 90% of internet denizens would die on your "mad max" prairie.
Your certainty is based on what?
With no contract law and no enforcement mechanism, con-artists and mafiosos win every single time.
And how did you come to this conclusion? That is, there's no contract and/or law enforcement?
Based on what? General good-will?
Yes.
Are you advocating a barter system?
We already barter. Would I advocate a prevailing "trade my goat for your chickens" exchange system? No.
Corpus Juris Civilis is an evolution of mob rule. The difference is like the difference between a wild bull and an ox.
What does that have to do with my criticism of democracy? Are you suggesting that Corpus Juris Civilis and democracy are one and the same?
When you say "private security" do you really mean "mafiosos"? I'm not sure I can tell the difference.
No, I mean private security. Are you unaware of the functions of private security? Here.
I guess I'll have to trust you to teach me.
Better me than a politician. I actually uphold and live by a moral code.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wittingly.
Sure.
Ok, sure, but do you have the ability to grow your own food, weave your own clothes, and build your own house?
Yes, yes, and yes. Whether I do this efficiently requires skill, which can be gained through an apprenticeship or through trial and error.
People may start out as homesteaders on the open prairie, but after a couple of generations of "specialization" the ability to fulfill our basic needs evaporates.
Nothing which can't be learned again; like riding a bicycle.
Great, so where does "law and order" come from?
From the very mechanism I just described. It's simple game theory: each participant engages interaction with a set a preconditioned stipulations to which each party agrees. Each player participates to the extent he or she is willing. Each player is allowed to exit with no less than they came in. This forum is a great example: I agree to terms before joining this forum. There are rules and regulations imposed by the sites owner, and overseen by his/her moderators. If at any point I don't agree with terms, I can simply exit the arrangement. Since the owner of the site as per the descriptions "owns" the site, I don't have any claims, so my exiting the arrangement would amount to no longer participating on the site.
Can we rely on mob rule?
How is that different from democracy?
How do we defend against vigilantes?
Private security.
People may start out as homesteaders on the open prairie, but after a couple of generations of "specialization" the ability to fulfill our basic needs evaporates.
Nothing which can't be learned again; like riding a bicycle.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no greater good. There's only good. And that starts with the individual because he (or she) is the fundamental part of any social interaction.
My responses to your questions will be quite simple:
1. No one should be coerced into taking vaccinations; by that very same token, a school shouldn't be obligated into admitting a child who hasn't taken vaccinations unless it's funded publicly.
2. Climate change is a misnomer. Everything changes. As it concerns this "global-warming" scare, further research into the topic would reveal that the effects on the ozone are not as exaggerated as state-sponsored environmental scientists would have you believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
With the exception of "becoming more like Sweden," I agree.The first step to becoming more like Sweden would be breaking the teachers union monopoly blocking the privatization of education. Current laws mandate compulsory membership into the teacher's union upon employment at government schools with no right-to-work relief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've seen this one before, I believe it's called, "the perfect is the enemy of the good".
Yes.
You're basically saying, you know for an ever-loving fact that "crime can never be solved", therefore you reason that anyone who even attempts such a feat is full of stuffing.
Yes.
Have you considered what a "society" of self-sufficient-individuals would look like?It's not a society, it's a bunch of hermits.A society is a co-operative group of inter-dependent members. Not a bunch of self-sufficient-individuals.A self-sufficient-individual is, by definition, anti-social.
Not at all. Consider David Riccardo's Law of Comparative Advantage in a microeconomic context. Whatever I decide to do with my time will produce an opportunity cost. Now I may not be reliant on anyone to provide my basic needs, but that doesn't mean that it would be in interests to attempt to do some of these tasks somewhat inefficiently unless my goal is isolation, which you unwittingly conflated with individualism. For example, I know how to cook; but I still go out to eat. Do you I "depend" on chefs to eat? By delegating some tasks to others who have also taken on an opportunity cost to specialize, I can focus on my own specialization(s) and cultivate expertise and efficiency as a result.
So no, I disagree with your description of a society. A society is a circuit of specialized individuals who trade resources (whether it be property, skills, or even company) in order to bring about a condition in which they believe they ought to live. As individuals, the extent of their participation begins and ends with them. This countermands Statist proproganda because it doesn't mesh with the notion of "dependency," which is just a platitude democracy proponents use to justify coercing minorities and dissenters into participation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sweden is currently a capitalist nation with protections for the wealthy.It is fair to say that Sweden was socialist, at least in terms of temperament and the direction of public policy. In 1975, Sweden’s state-owned well over half of the productive resources in the country, and directed prices in much of the rest. It subsidized debt, in part paradoxically by having enormously high tax rates with generous deductions for borrowers. Its attempts at “Keynesian” policy interventions were clumsy, were mistimed, and created disastrous uncertainty in investment returns even in the portions of the economy that were still market-oriented.The state taxed successful industries heavily, and used the proceeds to subsidize industries that were inefficient, corrupt, and failing. This meant that interest rates on capital were prohibitive, especially when you tack on double-digit inflation.To protect workers, the state required that wages could not be cut, and also enforced a panoply of restrictions on firing, layoffs, and other means of adjusting hours. Swedish products shot up in price, and the government was forced into a series of devaluations of the krona that made purchases of imported products beyond the reach of much of the middle class.The electorate took a dim view of all of this. The tax system was a Rube Goldberg mechanism, with a level of complexity and arbitrary favoritism that encouraged distortion of investment into whatever happened to be taxed less, rather than whatever might produce useful products. Gunnar Myrdal, hardly a conservative, famously asked in 1978 whether Swedes “had turned into a people of swindlers.”Fortunately for its citizens, but unfortunately for those who think Sweden is still socialist, the Swedish government, more or less by universal consensus, turned sharply back toward capitalism beginning in about 1995. It deregulated the domestic industry, privatized its education and pension systems, and opened the economy to international trade and competition.The reason it did this is precisely because capitalism, wherever it is practiced seriously in a system with rule of law and protection for property rights, always creates prosperity.
Yes, but Sweden is still very much a welfare state (e.g. union edicts are enforced, state-run health care, and municipally run education system even to the university level, etc.) Sweden hasn't set it self apart by being an exemplar of capitalism--that hasn't been true since the 70's. Sweden sets itself apart by decentralizing and allowing its municipalities to function independently. Granted, this is more efficient than for example, the U.S. welfare state, and Sweden has increased its strides to privatize health care and education. But this only makes my point: Sweden could no longer rest on its laurels and siphon the success it had in the late 20th century. It eventually had to privatize less it wished to share the same fate as Greece eventually did.
The real question we should be asking is what would it take to become like Sweden and get the government out of the business of education and in the business of funding charter schools where poor people can choose the best privately run school available?
Or we can ask: why must the government fund them? Is it possible to fund these charter schools where government has no influence on how these schools are regulated?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seemed to be suggesting that each person is too unique for a general policy to apply to them.
Seem is not an argument; you're suggesting a "solution" to crime. It's not that policy can't be applied; it's that policy won't achieve its intended result if it seeks to "solve" crime. General policy can only achieve some amount of acquiescence by exploiting the fear of death. But even that goes so far.
Do you believe we should strive to have a system of laws that are custom tailored to each person individually?
Yes, autarchy.
Created:
Posted in:
I.Q. tests don't measure intelligence; I.Q. tests gauge only I.Q. It abstractly estimates testing discipline using arbitrarily selected tasks. It then takes this estimate and attempts to correlate them with average estimates. Psychometrics like the I.Q. despite its name isn't an actual metric. It doesn't measure anything quantifiable because intelligence isn't quantifiable. Giving credence to this pseudo-scientific metric is like giving credence to a judge's score card in a dancing competition or rating system for attractiveness. Psychologists have come up with these gimmicks (i.e. psychometrics, mental illness, etc.) in attempts to garner the same integrity and acclaim as the physical sciences. So for example, claiming to have gotten a 132 on a low-scale online test doesn't mean you have 132 units of intelligence. It means out of everyone who took that test, you were given a meaningless number in relation to everyone else who took the test.
Gimmicks can be fun, but they can also be abused as the I.Q. tests have been (a prospect conjectured even by its creator.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
The ideal society wouldn't implement a democratic system because (majoritarian) democracy as its been practiced is immoral. It's a means to validating coercing minorities and dissenters out of their property, labor, and resources using a consensus fallacy. Places like Denmark, Switzerland, and Singapore have benefited from the capital inflows of the late 20th century, but when their welfare burns through them, as they eventually will, then like Sweden, they'll have to start privatizing.Will the ideal society look like Denmark ,Switzerland , or Singapore ? Is small better, or must big government be contained in small states?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you call yourself a "wild-west" "live and let die" libertarian?
I wouldn't refer to myself as a libertarian at all. Much like the antifederalists and the liberals, the name at the very least has taken on a transformation. Political libertarians are really minarchists in disguise. Autarchist, anarchist, individualist, any of those would better suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I wouldn't base a hypothesis on a mere correlation, much less one with a rather unimpressive covariance and few controls. Do I believe that poverty may play a role that isn't showing in the data? Perhaps. But by the end of the day, to commit a crime is a decision. And people should be held accountable for their decisions first and foremost, "mitigating" factors notwithstanding.What's your hypothesis regarding poverty and crime? 100% coincidence?
I love that you believe every criminal is a unique snowflake.
Correction: I believe every individual is a "unique snowflake." Though, I don't know how this is relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Where he mentions that you should learn to use debt as money (borrow fiat to trade real assets, like real estate).
He doesn't once state that anyone should do that; he states that his "rich dad" told him that if he wants to "be a rich," then "learn how to use debt as money." He follows this up by mentioning the housing industry where because of debt the housing bubble had burst. If anything, it's a cautionary tale.
I'm surprised you haven't suggested a "Logan's Run" solution.
I'd never suggest death upon individuals who didn't have it coming. And I could only presume that the drafters of these entitlement policies didn't anticipate the baby boomers living this long. The baby boomers will learn soon enough that these entitlement policies, particularly social security, are nothing more than ponzi schemes.
Do you really trust corporations to "do the right thing"?
I don't trust the government to do the right thing, because it hasn't done the right thing. Any act of aggression by a private corporation can be met easily with a government act that is much, much worse. Of course, I don't simply presume that the absence of a central government would be a fix. But it would be a start. A moral revolution would have to take place as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
People who have basic food, clothing and shelter are less desperate and less likely to become criminals.
This is perhaps the largest abuse of statistics: conflating an observed trend with psychic readings of the future. Those who often cite a statistic do little to avoid the ecological inference problem. For example, Athias has purchased sweets every Saturday since he was twelve. It's likely he'll purchase sweets this Saturday. This is a sound inductive argument. Next, 60 percent of men who are six feet tall and above have purchased sweets every Saturday since they were twelve. It's likely that Athias will purchase sweets this Saturday as well. This argument is unsound. There's no empirical data on Athias in determining the prospect, just the group in which he is categorized.
All the statistic can tell you is that which it observes at the moment, which is already based on an assumption using "confidence intervals." You can make an inductive argument assuming all conditions remain the same, but that'll never tell "what is likely?"
Are you suggesting that criminal behavior is an inscrutable mystery that can never be mitigated or resolved?
It's not a mystery. And yes crime will never be solved. Can it be mitigated? Yes if you can make the cost of committing the crime larger than not committing the crime. Can you write a policy measure which operates on an algorithm addressing the subjective values of each individual citizen? Good luck.
Created: