Youtube comments of Frenchie’s Philosophy (@tsuich00i).
-
283
-
156
-
55
-
50
-
35
-
30
-
28
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
15
-
Eliott Afriat lol then you forget or failed to read your history. Louis XIV, the greatest son France ever had, finalizing what Richileu had set in motion decades earlier, united France, making her, with the help of Vauban, what she is today--the bastion fortresses the latter erected along the furtherest reaches of french continental dominon at every point of geo-strategic defense, have defined the borders of our country since.
The revolutionaries, who, what they lacked in civic diligence, they made up for in political shortsightedness, accomplished nothing constructive of any lasting significance within the nation they plundered of centuries human capital built developing art, science and philosophy to their zenith, all wasted in pursuit of Hell on Earth, and who in their short reign of terror, proved so inept and malfiescent, that they ruined what was, in the century before, Europe's superpower; a status Napoleon restored France to in the same span the Jacobins had squandered the nation's blood and treasure on failed liberal policies. Why the king and Ancient Regime in general, seems in posterity, like the work of some great saint when you compare their foibles to those who succeed and then exceeded our worst monarchs in brazen stupidity.
But by all means, do no let me disabuse you of your taudry delusions with these unflattering truths, when you're already so convinced of such titilatting myths! I wouldn't dream of making a recalcitrant socialist come to grips with reality when he is so much more useful to me politically as an example of invincible ignorance that I am able mock with such ease for the benefit of the public whenever I please.
10
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
+Lam Phum
1. It would not "obviously encourage segregation", unless you have something against the Freedom of Association.
2. Given you're moral objections to discrimination thus far, why worry about the harm to bigots in business?
3. This isn't a question of discriminated based upon who you are, but what you can be compelled to do. As I understand the Baker's case, had they, the buyers, simply chosen a generic cake (any "non-gay" cake) out of the catalog, the proprietors would have accepted without protest. Custom cake-baking however, is a creative act that would force the business owners to involve themselves personally in the making of something which would represent and endorse views they disagree with. The objection is to the product not the person; a product they are under no obligation to produce, and if they were, then all opinion and free thought is subject to government review should it offend a member of the public. You are comparing ascribed status to forced labor; the 13th amendment came about to defend the former (African Americans) from the latter (slavery) and while you cannot deny service on the basis of race, neither can you be required to perform services and produce goods you don't wish to. Both are protected and not to be confused as they have been by morons like the one interviewed here.
6
-
And i'm sorry that feelings matter more to you than facts and reason.
Consent isn't always required to take action against someone. (save your surprise and shock for someone who cares) An officer of the law can arrest without consent, just as the state can collect what it is due. Your simplistic point is nothing short of an reductio ad absurdum dressed up in emotional platitudes. As i've said in previous comments, if taxation is theft, then mouth-to-mouth resuscitation is sexual assault. You are using (and abusing) a principle as it does not apply. Consent is assumed generally, yes, but it is not an absolute. And because you have the power to leave the country for Antarctica or Somalia, you have no excuse but to take it if you insist on not paying taxes that have sustained civilized life for at least the last five millennia.
What a facile comparison. Slavery is not an economic requirement of markets (I would have thought you knew that) while taxation has been the primary source of revenue for all societies throughout time without exception, and as you've already conceded, you have no alternative suggestion, and even if you did, history would place you, like all libertarians in the dustbin of bad, impractical, nonsensical ideas.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
antonizoon Considering the critical role marriage plays in society, yes.
Families are like the atoms comprising a civilization, with each civilization being but one object among many: If the nuetrons (mother) and protons (father) grow apart, the nucleus will collapse, sending charged electrons (children) scattered every which way, causing a chaotic chain reaction that ripples through the whole apparatus- threatening to undo the entire superstructure all together- that beyond the analogy, manifests itself in antisocial behavior, poor habits, a lack of focus and motivation, and unproductive efforts, and as this begins to destroy the whole object, others move to fill it's place.
It's pretty easy to observe these trends in the unmarried population, which I think speaks quite clearly to the benefits.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Alan Shteynberg Lol...
The solution to the problem of what is valued.
Capitalism is not a force. Natural selection is a force. The two are not the same thing. Capitalism is a artificial construct, which is itself, a byproduct of our economic system, which is also man-made. Learn to use better terminology.
For example, foraging hunter/gather peoples have no need for economics because they extract from the environment only that which is required, and which regenerates without any intervention on their part. By your logic this not that (the above) is of intrinsic value, because 1.) it is natural and 2.) it requires no explanation, because this is the way people are in a state of nature, as they are disposed in virtue of their faculties.
Secondly, her belief doesn't require an explanation. Humans do become attached to one another as a consequence of the value they vest in one another. A doll is a perfectly logical substitute for people wanting to feel that sort of affection. It is not subjective. On the other hand, our wants and desires are subject to culture.
4
-
Alan Shteynberg "Walter Kaufmann (the most eminent translator of Nietzsche's work, and a world-class philosopher in his own right) disagrees that Nietzsche actually preferred master morality to slave morality. He certainly gives slave morality a much harder time, but this is partly because he believes that slave morality is modern society's more imminent danger."
“(the great man) strives instinctively for a citadel and a secrecy where he is saved from the crowd, the many, the great majority…”
While Xavier runs for the crowd, the consumer, the common.
Additionally, he says: the men of great creativity” are “the really great men according to my understanding."
Xavier, a piddling copycat with half the mind to do anything of his own, is not this man.
Again, you have no idea what your talking about.
4
-
4
-
4
-
Where is the evidence for morality, or beauty, or free will, or for the ultimate origins of existence? And yet through experience and in exchange with others, we reason these things to be, and even when we doubt them, we act as though they hold true for practical purposes. So on the contrary, these beliefs come naturally and even with logical neccessity (you need an notion of The Good to judge the wrongfulness or rightness of acts in law, taste to choose the best of life, a presumption of violation in order to recognize the humanity in others, and a concept of first cause to make sense of reality)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
ChooseToThink
"Believed but not demonstrated."
Hitchen's razor applies only to those things which require agreement. That there is a God "out there" is inevident because it exists outside the material realm and therefore is unfathomable (although "involved" in worldly affairs to the extent it brought everything into existence). All your position does is personally place science above religion. Which, in itself is a belief in the scientific method based on faith in flawed human faculties. Where you make the jump is from saying that the senses are the best way to investigate and understand things, to the conclusion that there is nothing beyond our comprehension (O' how like a God!). It's fine to favor one over the other, so long as you're able to admit it's limits. and recognize the value of reason is not answerable in terms of itself, (without falling victim to the tautology you abhor) and thus arises only out of feeling. It also doesn't make sense to take a position from science on something unscientific.
By the way, the scientific establishment does not take a stance on is there or is there not a god, it simply states what it can study.If it where reversed, every researcher would be required to renounce their religion and everything else they had an opinion on, every time they went to work.
"we carry on as if it doesn't."
Ah, but you don't, or else we wouldn't need a word for atheism. There is a term for every possible and impossible thing we've yet conceived- atheism however is- as far as I know- the only one that is simultaneously a positive and negative claim, (there isn't one for "no bread" or "not Reagon" and so on...) which is why the word is redudance to begin with. If the default is nonbelief, leave it at that and if asked, say "non-declared"
"Abstract things like math and logic don't "exist""
Platoism- a philosophy adopted by many mathematicans (nearly a third according to the NYT) begs to differ.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E7D7133DF930A25752C0A96E9C8B63
"I'm out because it seems this is all lost on you"
I think i've been more than reasonable. But of course, I can't force you to see reason. All that's lost here is your sense.
3
-
Brandon G A handful of cherry-picked anomalies does not a market make. The fact is, all things being equal, they didn't make much of a difference, for the trend is clear. Blacks did not then nor have they succeed in business on parr with their white counterparts, and there is no other reason for this but for their deliberate exclusion by white people generally. That is an economic pattern, improved only by the law, not the world of fiance. These details of history are marginal and unremarkable. Unless you can cite how blacks played a major role in reshaping the market to meet their needs, then your examples are extraneous.
As for your attack on my presumption of black capability, you're argument borders on the absurd and indeed goes against your thesis. Of course blacks have done well inspite of the overwhelmingly disadvantageous circumstances under which they arrived on this continent, precisely because they are able. That effort however, has largely gone unrealized for historical reasons that ought trouble anyone aware of them. I have never once advocated welfare or state-dependence of any sort, as you fictitiously imply. The issue concerns creating an equal playing field, wherein merit makes a difference. Throughout the entirety of this thread, you still have yet to address what makes the choice of the "conscientious objector"/merchant justifiable. There just isn't a logical reason to deny black people service. Nor could the baking of a glorified pastry on the occasion of conjugation count as a betrayal of faith by any standard, even among the most ardent believer. Unless asked to engage in same-sex behavior, no line has been crossed linking them to homosexuality. If I, as a business person were to say to you "I don't accept money, money is dirty, I accept payment in denominations of good natured goats" well then who are you to say to me no? An individual's personal idealities are second to the conventional function of the entire economy as overseen by the regulatory framework which ensures "business as usual" in an interrupted process of lawful transactions.
And If your libertarian principles were consistent, you would understand that this impedes on the right of consumer to freely conduct themselves and engage in opportune exchanges. No civil society is about to abide a "deal breaker" condition stipulating the race, sex, age, or religion of the person as a requirement for entering into a contract. If that is what you defending, it's frankly laughable.
The market need discriminate on the basis of only one variable: the ability to pay. All other factors are irrelevant.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your first critique is not a critique but a silly question that you suggest an even sillier answer to. Language allows for a near-infinite variation of possible answers to the question of say, the value of human life. The chances that two people would think of the same answer to that question separately is close to zero. The second point just begs the question: "written on what basis?" if it's just made up, then how is it that murder is prohibited by virtually every society? The answer is moral sense, whose nature, biological or celestial, (perhaps both) is objective. It amazes me how the atheist can defend his doubts in the name of rationality, while at the same time, deny every human experience and intuition (morality, beauty, free will, etc) as "subjective" to avoid all argument, which as a result casts all discourse in dustbin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime I don't know. Seems like just about anyone who get's there hands on one has a burning desire to use it. I'd hardly call this "phenomena" an isolated event in human history.
I mean my people invited the Guillotine, and it was tuns of fun for a while, believe me, on second thought don't because I wan't there, but i've heard stories to that effect, anyway, at the end of the day it was a terrible mess, and, as hard as it is to imagine, killing people senseless is bad press. Who knew?
More seriously, an instrument of destruction, invented and intended to be used, especially in the context of war, where mass casaulties are the aim (thats why shooting sprees are so deadly: the imitate military scenarios), can never be "redeemed" as something less dangerous then what it is made to be.
It doesn't matter that they're inanimate when people are always there to animate them! so that oversimplified contention is nonsense. There is however, some pretty basic mathematics to the contrary however. Less guns = less harm. If you reduce the temptation of an individual to live-out their fantasies by denying them the opportunity to do so through a lack of means to kill, then the problem is no more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime This comment is so frawt is vaunted, indignant stupidity, it hardly warrants reference to. But here are a few points for anyone else interested in precisely how maniacal you are.
1. Wars are expensive. Governments rarely make a profit from them. Remind me, how much debt did Iraq rep up for you?... Oh and that's rhetorical.
2. Police, real police, require training, discipline, organization, and most importantly knowledge of the law, ALL things the average citizen lacks in abundance. They also must coordinate between themselves to prevent and end crime in an ever-evolving elicit environment. All of this seems to escape you however.
3. Psychology isn't magic. Many men see and use guns as a way to assert there masculinity, forcing people to pay attention to them, because they failed to develop the social skills necessary to be confidant in who they are in-themselves, which grows into a negative and twisted self-image which casts everyone around them in a poor, and even paranoid light. (your distrust of all public organizations is a good example of this) Which is done to avoid the a self-critical look at how they might be wrong. It is something in their childhood I would gather, leaving them damaged and broken, a danger to the public and therefor useless to the rest of society, which is a source of resentment on their part, and the cause of lashing out and clinging to guns as their only outlet and power they have over the world. That is it's most extreme expression, but those who find it with themselves to act on their fantasies, are symptoms of a larger, more common problem.
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime 1. nnnooooo, wars make profit for the military-industrial complex, and major corporations intertwined with the political body, but not a dime goes to wellfare, healthcare, public services, infastructure, or the treasury department. Unless you can show proof, I call bullshit.
government isn't in the business of making money because it isn't a business. Government oversees the orderly conduct of it's citzens, and fair and equal participation each plays in the economy, through rules and regulations. You haven't the slightest clue what your talking about.
2. Proof that your police system is flawed doesn't not make policing a flawed enterprise. Talk about fallacious.
3. http://onlinestatbook.com/case_studies_rvls/guns/index.html
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime It's an analogue. It's logically equivalent. A cat is like a child, I am like the government.
We force people who are over the age of eighteen (and under, laws still apply to minors) to do the speed limit. All laws fall within the perimeters of "forced"- if you don't believe in force, you don't believe in law.
At the very worst, a government is granted the power by law to restrain* a disorderly, non-rule abiding citizen, in the event they are unwilling to comply (if they are unable by menta/physical disability they aren't punishable) and then either made to pay a due to the community, or detained and confined for their safety and the safety of others. There is nothing violent about that. Police Brutality is a feature of the American policing system, most of the western world has found a way to go about enforcing the law without resorting to violence.
*restraint is not violent for the following logical reason: restraint is in fact, the prevention of violence by apprehending the offending subject, and securing his faculties (limbs usually), so that he can not bring harm to himself or others.
2
-
2
-
fmlAllthetime Government exists at many different levels, in many different ways.
If you like Presidents, there's the executive, if you like Judge's you've got your judicial, if you fancy a new law or two, try out the Congress.
If your like me, and want to keep radiation out of your food, and curse words out of your day time television, you've got your FDA, FCC, and EPA. My favorite kind of government.
If you want something that has the most immediate impact, look into your city council or mayor.
Political Parties aren't the best place to look to improve upon the structure and function of government.
Democrats and Republicans don't have to differentiate themselves, because they know it's only between the two of them, so as long as the cater culturally to their camps, it doesnt matter: the South will go red, the coasts will go blue. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. That is the problem with only having two. In Europe, we enjoy a variety of parties that have to work hard for our vote.
2
-
lennypoz As a Conservative (from France), I can tell you based on cultural experience (as well as historical knowledge) that that is not so. In fact, the origins of the contemporary conservative movement can be traced to just before the French and American revolutions, to the English Restoration.
Without having to bore you, conservatism has most traditionally been associated with the Aristocracy- whom strongly believed in a hierarchical, theocratic society that placed emphasis on the power of a central authority, particularly that of a King/Church/Emperor, so on and so forth. In Kingdom's (and later empire's, both conservative entities) there is no such thing as "semi-autonomous" departments, in any way, shape, or form similar to the level of independence your state's operate on. Territories that acted in a way outside what was ordained appropriate (such as worshiping unsanctioned gods, paying tribute to foreign organizations, etc.) were swiftly made to fall back in line. This is because conservatism, by its nature, promotes a homogeneous social system. (See Japan for a modern example, or America's current immigration policy) Which is why you need one leader, and one source of power in this kind of government- to maintain consistency, and thus order, (research Confucian China for an example) which is not a very American philosophy.
I find it Immensely ironic that Americans use conservatism to avow the idea of "small government"- If you read your history, It was in the 50's, when Barry Goldwater (who had a tremendous impact on the thinking of Ronald Reagon) ran for president, introducing his own libertarian spin on conservative ideology, that "small government" entered today's pool of political catchphrases.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Soff1859 Exactly. It's fallacious to say that simply because something is done in geographic location X, it ought to remain that way. Apparently, in this quaintly simplistic worldview of they'res, people never change, nor have they the need to change, because the convenience guns afford them matter more than the worthless lives of everyone who doesn't share the same good fortune of being at the right place and at the right time, as gun-nuts seem to posses an almost uncanny ability of finding themselves in- or so they have dreampt up.
The brutal truth is that a mainstream, middle America has accepted the practice of taking it upon themselves to seek their safety, not through any rational or remotely moral methods, but by judging for themselves who should live or die.
So far, the only argument made in favor of gun ownership by the posters above has not been guns are good- no one would believe that- but that there isn't anything you can do about them. Essentially, they're fatalistic defeatists.
The lesson we should derive from this, is an almost absurdly amusing conclusion, where it not for the fact it is so abhorrent: That Americans have given up on working toward the "hard solution", as evidenced by what the Japanese and others like them have accomplished, through centuries of cultivating a culture that is intolerant of these gruesome atrocities, and stands firm against indiscretion. They don't want to have to look in the mirror and reflect on the prospect that they have been in the wrong all along: even, and especially by their own standards! Instead, the easy route is opted, with no a care in the world for the dire consequences. They just go about there business pretending like nothing is wrong with this picture. In a phrase, shootings are the new J-walking. Something which makes American culture, a lazy culture and a weak one. For all the talk by neo-cons of self-discipline and hard work, they have all but given up on the prospect of making good on those principles here. What cowardice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Progressive taxation is not unjust. It is perfectly reasonable to ask more of those with more to give. Moreover, as a percentage of income, higher taxation has less of an effect on the purchasing power of rich as it would the poor. For example, let us say the minimum living standard in the US is 10,000 a year (this is the amount you must pay to cover the basic necessities) if that is so, the people at the lower bracket who make 20,000 and are taxed 10% of that, or 2,000 dollars still have 8,000 left to do as they please with; to spend or perhaps invest. Meanwhile, the group at the top, let us say they make 1,000,000 dollars at a rate of 90%. They still have 90,000 left, and so the burden is low for both. The question of whether this is right or not comes into play when you consider the value the government generates it's respective citizens, based on the amount they pay. With that in mind, I would argue this exchange- albeit involuntary- is a good deal for both, even the rich man at 900,000 a year. The reason being is the rich tend to make greater use of goods and services guaranteed by law. Like airport security, water reserves, and the court system (often just to make more money). They also take up large amounts of land that might otherwise be more productive in the hands of the general population. Finally, I arrive at the fact that best explains why the well-off tolerate paying a higher percentage: If the government was so demanding of the wealthy, then why do they stay? They have the money afterall, they can live anywhere! Surely they could find a country more appreciative of their affluence. And yet they never do- even when the tax rate were much higher than they are now, they've never once left in any noticeable number, and that I submit as proof that they approve of the contract they have entered into with the state to do their fair share. Unfortunately, with the effective tax rate such that it is, not even this is asked of them.
2
-
2
-
Egon Sung First, I never said physical currency was better than digital, I only said, and only can be interpreted as having implied, simply that Bitcoin is bad.
What you have just described does not set Bitcoin apart from government fiancal activity- bitcoin is not "special" nor is it novel. Online banking has existed for well over a decade, and a digital currency has been discussed for quite some time. Bitcoin, to their credit, has simply taken to opportunity to fill this gap in modern expection. What it does is not hard either, State entities are perfectly capable of replicating their results in far more controlled and regulated settings. Why they have not devoted more effort into digitizing the dollar is beyond me.
As for security, Paypal has all it's activity on records, and is regulated to prevent incident. Bitcoin on the other hand, has been the subject of several thefts, quite a significant amount actually. Additionally, bitcoin bypasses standard government transfer controllers, allowing it to make it's way into the black market, which bitcoin is now estimated to make up about 5% of the total value of.
Other than the press it gets, I don't see what sets Bitcoin apart as a viable, stable, and trusted form of currency. Having said that, I wish it all the best.
2
-
2
-
2
-
***** Your first response wasn't particularly informative.
Beliefs can be binding without being rational. We have faith in our senses, the basis for all science and just about everything else for that matter, ought we to abandon them as well?
If its a question of extent, well, theres a simple solution: look at how money has been used in relation to what it purports to represent in the world: namely, value. Obviously the amount of money in circulation currently, is not equivalent to assets on the planet, but now that national and international regulatory agencies, such as the federal resource or the Davos forum have the ability to monitor fluctuating trends thanks to internet, they now have the power to influence behavior through policy plans, faith in the market is maintained by the constant and predictable pattern that prevents the artificial accumulation of false-value such as the 2008 Crisis, specifically the housing bubble.
Faith is just one component of that equation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Alejandro Drabenche Gold and Oil can't make you rich though, that may sound oxi-moronic, but people are the only ones who can trade in "power" to express their value. For example, The man who is in need of a plumber is "powerless" to fix his plumbing. So if he wants something done about it, he must first find a suitable specialist, and come up with something that person wants.
In this case, Gold and Oil are only as important as the desire for them is. The universal use of gold and oil is what gives them near-intrinsic value. Nevertheless, the plumber may deny their value at any time without owing anyone an explanation. There is no guarantee, and therefore, no reason and more importantly, nobody to trust.
Decentralization may be beneficial in some respects, but on the issue of trust it is not, because you can only place your trust in people, not things. Bitcoin's trustworthiness is a function of the individual trustworthiness of each and every individual who makes a share of the total number of bitcoins. In effect, you are distributing your trust among a much larger pool of people then you normally would have to with a monetary agency that can be held accountable if there is a breach in trust, which in the case of the Federal Reserve, it would fall on Chairwomen Yellen to answer for. I'm much more comfortable pointing my finger at her if and when "shit hits then fan" than the dubious proposition of isolating who is to blame when Bitcoin goes awry.
The only way to rationally access the degree to which one trusts such a share, largely depends on how much faith you have in humanity, with so many individuals across distance involved. I'm not prepared to make such a judgement, and choose to err on the side of caution.
You can read up on and study public figures like Yellen, with a name and face, that can maybe give you a glance at their motives, morals, and abilities. You'll have a much harder time getting to know the people behind Bitcoin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
fmlAllthetime 1st reason. "other than... blah blah blah" It also has the right to eat, shelter, etc. Sounds like rights to me. First reason debunked.
2nd reason: the analogue was to children. Children have no say in what they do. They have rights, but they are not actors, they can not assert their will or have say in society. "limited physical control" What other control is there? Mind control? Lol. Objection sustained.
3rd. It is possible I have more than one cat. As for me having to be a cat, that isn't important to the analogue, because that isn't the "like" quality I am targeting.
What makes me an arbitrary force over my cat? I adopted my cat, take care of it, it likes me, its a fairly reciprocal relationship. "cats cannot overthrow your will" Cats run away all the time. Like kids.
"We as the people can" So what? What does that have to do with ethicacy of government? Your sidetracking into oblivion over a very simple analogue which has clearly gone over your head, so I will repeat my even simpler original question- What is unethical about a monopoly of force?
1
-
1
-
fmlAllthetime You don't know how an analogue works at all. "a literary work that shares motifs, characters or events with another, but is not directly derived from it"
You want cats to be exactly the same as children. Guess what? if they were, we wouldn't need the analogue! The point is to abstract similar qualities to get a sense for a simple case of a more complex phenomena.
"Life is like a river" is also an anlogue: it moves in one direction, it has twists and turns, and it ends. But they aren't exactly the same. But the ideas translated perfectly. You just don't have the education to figure this out, I can't help you.
2. Murder is physical last I checked, and unless your talking about the death penalty or war, I'd happily accept those could be immoral, I have no strong feelings about them anyway. But by your own logic you'd have to concede a war of defense is justified. Otherwise, I don't see the reason to bring this up.
"...provoking force upon adults acting peaceably.." uhm, where did you even get this? Who said or implied this? I'm utterly confused. "unprovoked force" was your term, not my. I asked why you think "force" is never justified, don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, you presume everyone is acting peacefully all the time in this statement. what? Thirdly, you connect the two in the weirdest way possible, as if to suggest the government is "out to get everyone" and "looking for trouble" which is a thought consistent with the rest of your paranoid preconception, but is still bizarre and bewildering beyond belief.
1
-
fmlAllthetime when did I ask if the destruction of indigenous cultures is unethical?...
you draw very strange conclusions from words having nothing to do with each other.
That is my opinion. Something wrong with taking pride in the accomplishments of your people? I'm sure the Chinese, Brazilian, and Russian feel the exact same way, and why shouldn't they?!
Technology is the global standard of civilization most used throughout the world, but I don't agree that it's the only one. I think the high cultural works of other peoples have great merit. Take the Louvre for example: Most of it's contents are not European, but are in fact from ancient cultures outside our domain, like Egypt, Sumeria, Babylon, Assyrian, Polynesia, Nubia, early dynastic China, Inca, Aztec, Mayan, and so on.
1
-
fmlAllthetime I think my analogy was pretty general. I didn't say anything specific about the cat or myself, just that the power relationship is similar not the same. As for what I believe, I could say the same of you, saying so doesn't get us anywhere.
Really? So a war of self-defense is also unethical? Thats strange. So what gives people the "special" ability to defend themselves and not groups of people?...
If you fail to contribute to your community, which is all a tax is, you loose the privilege of living in it, which is what prison is- a separate society which sees to your needs and needs alone. What is so hard about this concept? Taxes are collected to do what individuals cannot or will not do. Like disaster relief, research, education, safety and utilities.
In theory, you should have a say in what your taxes go towards, like a war you don't support, many liberal thinkers feel that is highly unjust, and I am sympathetic with that view, but the feelings of a minority, do not outweigh your obligation to support the majority.
1
-
1
-
fmlAllthetime again, you keep adding qualifiers, I already argued unambigously that not all force is violent under the concept of restraint.
Actually I just took it as granted: If a community raises you you owe them. Period. If you ever drank from there fountains, open a book in their library, or accepted medical services from their hospitals, you owe them. Now, if they asked you for six cents for that book you read, and 13 for the water, and 1450 for the stitches in your head, that wouldn't be very efficient or neighborly. So instead we do it lump-sum at one time.
Think about what it costs for you to exist even before you are born. Think of the planning your parents put into beforehand, the advice they took from friends in family around them, the cost of the pediatrician they saw to oversee the health of the embryo, the incubator that may have breathed for you when you couldn't, the opportunity cost of the nurses who delivered you when they could have been out shopping, the amount of research that went into any medication you've been prescribed, vaccine you've had, or antibiotics you've needed over the course of your life. And then theirs the education you've had, the sidewalks you've walked on, the water, food, electricity, and shelter you've consumed, the training of the military that kept harm far from your home, and so much more. So by the time you reach the age of eighteen, you already owe your society a tremendous debt, which is offset and payed for by the previous generation (because babies don't make money) as you will one day pay for the next succeeding batch and so on, cyclically, forever. That is the foundation for the Social Contract and why it works, and it's a very ethical exchange if i've every seen one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ChooseToThink 1. It is a claim for the existence of "the good", (as found in coffee) not coffee itself. (It is impossible for me to like coffee, or anything else for that matter, without it being good.)
2. I can see why placement would be trivial, but the status of the object could not.
3. Oh but it does matter, very much- If I didn't like coffee, I wouldn't drink it. Therein lies the consequence.
4. Your analogy presumes something of my argument not found in it. That I would want to know about your trip to Mars so that I may do the same. But if, as my argument goes, that perhaps God only reveals himself to individuals (the "God of relationships" as I would classify him) we couldn't come to a census. Some could say they know of a god, but they would never be sure if it was the same one. Which, for the most part, describes how humans actually think.
Note that this is not my belief, it is only leaves open the question.
1
-
1
-
ChooseToThink
"statement will need to be unpacked and backed up, not simply asserted."
Principle of Suffiecent Reason, Leibniz.
It's very basic a priori logic, or, as Hamilton put it, "a law of thought"
"No one believes in any god because of the teleological argument"
I, for argument's sake, will say that I do. The thesis is thus false.
"so they have something to say in a debate."
That is an insult, not an argument against it.
"dis-proven."
Disprove is different then dismiss. But, if you insist, demonstrate it.
1
-
ChooseToThink
"Then it's either not intended to be used as you have done here, or it's simply wrong."
That is not a reason. It is an argument from ignorance. You like logic, or so you say. Try using it.
"so denuded of anything recognizable in holy texts that it is meaningless."
This too is highly fallacious. If religion is defined by every religion presently, or previously recorded by history then the word cannot be used in general (abstract) terms. For example, under the your view, no future religion could be created. If you still don't understanding the rational failing you've fallen into, consider biology. Applying your reasoning, evolution would be rendered impossible by the fact life as it is known now cannot change. Obviously, this is wrong.
"of no use"
I could say the same of you and your view.
a. You yourself are of no use to me.
b. Atheism is a empty belief pertaining to a nonexistent deity.
c. "utility" is an anthropic concept, like a Unicorn. According to you, this would make it not real, because it does not describe the natural world.
The nonsense of this position extends far beyond my willingness to type, and I find myself left leaving as the indefensible absurdity that it is.
But even if this were true, it would entail the exclusive existence of those things of use to you and in the world, and so, your skepticism would then have to include your atheism; which has no practical significance whatsoever. Secondly, if there is no use to your existence (things can be of use to you, but you cannot be of use to the universe) in which case you would need a God to worship grounding your purpose, justifying yourself.
Somehow I imagine this is not what you meant, nevertheless, it is implicit in everything you've said up to this point- an issue problematic whether you deny or defend it. (either way, this gives birth to more errors I am prepared to report)
"the bible claims god is perfect in every way."
I am not arguing for Christianity, or any other specific religion for that matter.
I will accept this definition of god: _"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"
The burden remains on you disprove the possibility of just such a being.
On the "impractical"/immoral aspect of religion you touch on, religious serves an aesthetic purpose that secularism has never inspired in the slightest, nor come close to in the least.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Viole Grace What happens when they ALL refuse? I can well imagine a black person being refused service in the time before desegregation in every place of business might want to patronize. And of course, a predominantly white market is surely going to reinforce preferable service to the exclusion of competing, out groups, as the demand of blacks for the desired products would only raise prices for ethnic elite. The problem of course, is when one has NO alternative, and this may seem extreme, but in areas where cultural conformity to a prescribed ideology is the norm (I am looking at you Utah), it is difficult to escape an entrenched bias on the part of your peers if that is those beliefs are well-established and commonly accepted by the vast majority of people there.
So where is the black man supposed to get his wedding cake? Does he make it himself? and when the supermarket asks him to leave, what is he to do? Starve? My how those matrimonial arrangements were cut short for want of food!
I understand forcing private business to comply with moral statutes not there own is wrong, but it seems to me an equal injustice, to leave the disenfranchised minority, who has no advocate at least none with power, to fend for himself in a marketplace he is not welcome to, despite his full participation in that community in all other respects. How then do you accommodate the disputed parties?
1
-
Brandon G You are treating black business as though they were the equal of the white kind at the time. Take the case of a pharmacies as an example. Do you honestly expect me to believe the blackman could have fostered a peer-reviewed, quality controlled, profitable enterprise centered around providing their people with life saving medications reliably and affordably? If so you gest and the test is this: If the hypothetical white person wouldn't touch those pills, neither should the African they came from.
Your second suggestion has some merit, but is complicated by a variety of important social factors. Who is going to approve the purchase of the lot on which you erect your place of business? Not white people given your apparent sympathies that's for sure. Secondly, you, being better off then the blacks you cater to, and with your money tied down in capital investments, should expect your prices to be very, very low. So if your bakery sells bread at 25 cents a loaf, and the retail price you pay is 20, and the white man pays 50, how profitable do you expect this ethically-minded enterprise of yours to be? At a certain point, pushing product won't be enough when the margin is that close. Also, there's nothing to stop white people from going in there themselves and clearing your shelves. Then there is the class hazard to contend with. What happens when the uneducated and the delinquent come into your store to mislead, steal and deal drugs? The problem with racism is it has a double effect- the designated group is vilified, and vice versa. Simply put, if I don't like you, chances are you don't like me. And so you yourself, despite your good intentions, are bound to become the focus of people's hatred, largely out of ignorance but a target none the less.
I don't think these problems are surmountable. Least of all through the benevolence of market forces.
1
-
1
-
Brandon G There is a distinction between law, as it is written in the books at any one moment and lawfulness, which I would define as the principle that some rules should always been followed, unlike you, who seems to allow for different standards to be applied to different people, so long as they merely believe they should behave that way.
"Dictating to some people to have different principles and business preferences in terms of race down the barrel of a state gun is immoral."
Your right, but dictating that all people operate under the same standards and business preferences backed by force IS moral.
"how many would preclude customers based on such shallow standards like race? And how many competitors would be available to the precluded?"
Whole civilizations have at one point or another been ruled by a tiny few, at the expense of a vast number of peoples, pitted against each other to distract them from the far and aloof tyranny. Rome is one such example, modern times, another. You are naive to think this a rare occurrence; on the contrary, the concentration of power by a self-selected elite is a repeat motif of history.
"I'd argue that America in the early 19th century was largely libertarian and also largely successful. Now, I am forced to concede that no completely free market (anarcho-capitalist) has ever existed. That doesn't mean it won't or can't. "
The federal government has always been there, and wielded tremendous power then as it does now, perhaps most strikingly when it subjugated the Southern states to it's rightful rule. There were so who argued against this form of government at one time in the early conception of the nation, but those leaning libertarian lost, decidedly. The progress of taxation and regulation was of course slow.
Anarcho-capitalism does not work because society is defined by the unified power of it's central authority, without exception: Imperial China by the bureaucracy in the Forbidden city, ancient Egypt through the rites administered by her high priests, The Kingdom of France as inspired by Louis XIV. Because these things existed, their corresponding civilizations succeeded beyond measure. These phenomina do not just randomly crop up out of a crowd- it takes centuries of cultural conditioning to produce even a hint of greatness in a population. It is not something that one does on there own, within the scope of one lifetime as the libertarian would have us believe. For these reasons and more, property rights are meaningless without protection, liberty, unattainable without mutual distrust and mediating bodies to settle dispute, and institutional memory- the hallmark of human intellectual achievement, not possible without the collective conservation of new knowledge. The purpose of the state is the sum of these ideas.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ScottHigh23 "People are the problem, not the guns" is a very bad argument for a number of reasons.
1. Guns make the problem worse, not better. A.) The "good guy with a gun" is not a phrase substantiated by the evidence- most people with the opportunity to intervene, either choose not to, or freeze up. The NRA boasts a number between 2-2.5 million acts of self defense. However, a study from the Violence Policy Center places that figure closer to 67,740, nothing close to what gun advocates have in mind. So as counter-intuitive as it seems (serious sarcasm here), Guns don't actually save lives. Go figure.
2. Guns came before gun culture. Remove the guns, and the culture dies. The examples you vaguely attempted to rebute are true, despite your incredulity. Countries like Japan, China and most of Europe, have removed guns from their public life, and as a result, have drastically reduced the normative acceptance of guns as valid security option, and thus, gun related homicides with it. This position is strongly supported by multiple studies, including, but not limited to, a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine report, documenting that a household gun increased the risk of a fatal accident by three times.
3. Gun related incidents are psychologically traumatic for even the most well prepared. So even if you think you know how you will respond, say from a training exercise, the result may differ drastically in a real life, uncontrolled, chaotic scenario. Related to this, is the "Weapon Effect", which, to quote the man who coined to term: “Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.”
—Leonard Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin. Though his findings are disputed, there are numerous examples of unstable persons, acting on impulses with impunity, simply because a gun in their possession made it possible for them to do so. The Turner Diaries for example, has inspired criminal behavior related to a obsession with guns.
Lastly, Human nature is one thing, and as destructive as we might be, our primary nature is constructive- Man has mastered the environment, much of his mind, and imposed his will on his fellow man, creating the great countries of the here and now; erecting monumental marvels, inventing ingenious gadgetry, and inspiring through his creativity and talents, both physical and mental, to the credit of his kind. So to say that guns are somehow a "wild force" outside our control is utter nonsense- We brought it into the world, and we can take it out just as easily. Like the USPS, neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night may stop us doing what need be done- and if we see fit to eradicate the gun from our mists (as has already been done throughout much of the world), I haven't the slightest doubt our efforts shall prevail, for the human spirit is an inconquerable vessel through which anything is possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
gainmelk France being my beloved home, I am mortified by the acts perpetrated against her.
But to one line in particular, I must object vehemently; "After all, we are all responsible for our own safety, regardless of where we live."
It is the State of whichever country we owe allegiance to that is chiefly responsible for the protection of it's Citizenry, and unfortunately, the police here failed us, but passing the burden on to the average Joe isn't about to make things better, and I stand by the data when saying you would see an increase as guns fill cabinet draws and line the pockets of the public, in violent and accidental crime, when normal people take it upon themselves to conduct their own self-defense and pursue vigilante justice.
As policing training, surveillance technology, and education improves, so to will the decline of gun violence, and indeed, the need for guns on both sides- Civil and Criminal- decline.
What is important to remember is that guns are capable of a great deal more than most minds can handle- the speed and ease at which one may execute one's will alone is cause for great concern, and the same sort of "empowerment" that it gives people to perhaps do good, is more often than not, misplaced, and dangerous. Guns are by design, intended to kill, and they do it very well. If they weren't and it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
As it stands today, we have access to military handy-downs that we treat like toys, and the only thing worse than an evil army, is when the public thinks and acts like one. I'd much rather stare down the barrel of the State, and accept certain doom, then be thrown to a mob who's blood lust knows no end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Joseph Keenan You lost me when you said "the job of a mob". A mob is a mindless, meaningless rampage which has no place in civilized society.
And who said I supported the methods of the french revolution? I'm not even sure why you brought that up or what it has to do with..
The tribes of the Goths and Franks were a mob. The word "Berserk" for example, comes from Nordic tribes that would enter a fit of rage, possibly aided by hallucinogenic drugs according to some historians, who seemed to posses no sense of self preservation, and who's savagery was unparalleled- A mob mentality if I ever knew one. Refer to the "Sacking of Rome" for additional proof of my point.
Rebirth? Civilization is an everlasting wellspring from and through which it is eternal sustained. Society by it's nature, seeks stability and tranquility whenever and wherever it is possible. It is in no need for a "restart button" as you so grotesquely suggest.
What did the barbarians of Europe conclude upon conquering Roman? That they were much worse for wear without her. In fact, they regretted it almost immediately. It turns out life without lasting infrastructure, market economies, and sophisticated bureaucracies to tend to people's every need and whim, is'nt all it's cracked up to be.
So what did they do? Well at just about the exact moment the last Roman bleed out, they went about rebuilding Rome in whatever crude fashion they could pass off as "Romanesque", culminating in the great Empires of Europe some thousand years later, who paid homage In both form and function, to the Romans, which is evidenced by the architecture, art, and languages- not the cultural products of the Nords, Franks, or Goths mind you- abundant throughout the continent to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jack black LOL Leaving it up to faith- historically, humanities most tried and true, and valued virtues... Because what could be better than explaining the unknown, by the even more unknown? (paraphrased, Aristotle)
Hell, Why bother thinking at all, when you can just belief whatever you want on a whim? Lord knows that has a high success rate...
While we're still entertaining your senseless suggestion, allow me to propose one of my own: Instead of doing any real work maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of our public policies, why don't we just put the ideas on a spinning wheel and choose what to do based on where the needle lands?! Because if where going to be sit here and play stupid all day, the least we can do is enjoy ourselves- and what could be more fun then probability? I mean, probability is at least twice as fun as faith!
yeah... You'll have to forgive me if I don't differ to the dismal decision making (or should I say lacking?) abilities of the average schmuck off the street when it comes to my well being.
1
-
atomgonuclear I take your point however, I think you are limiting the options available to us in the 21st century. Monitoring and surveillance equipment, facial recognition software that is beginning to be able to detect and recognize emotional expression (such as nervousness), as well as chemical detection devices (that can scan for specific types of radiation, gun powder residue, and so on) coupled with diligent record keeping of known and suspected criminals/terrorists are just a few of the advances that make crime prevention possible in the hands of a strong state.
The problem is a question of scale not implementation- these methods are already standard practice for the likes of the FBI and CIA and internationally in most first world intelligence services. The only downside is the cost, which is why these technologies remain relegated and apply only to a small, but growing portion of the population.
And with the advent of Drones, I suspect "personnel/personal-policing" will be made obsolete by a fleet of machines who do not share man's prejudices and susceptibility to error.
Now that I finished discussing my methods, it is important to address the fact that guns have not been shown to help in the case of a home invasion / rape: Findings from John-Hopkins Center for Gun Policy Research have revealed that Women who lived in a home with a gun are three times more likely to be shot themselves in this scenario then had they no gun at all. This has much to do with the fact that you are much more likely to be the victim of a crime of someone you know then a stranger, and if that someone you know knows where your gun is, the chances of it ended up in your hands is negligible, especially if the assailant is a man who can physically overpower you even if you do. So not only do guns make it not easier to protect yourself, they actually ADD to the danger of the situation. In light of the overwhelming data that shows this trend, it would be irresponsible to recommend a gun to anyone based solely on the off-chance it "might" help, when we know it almost certainly will make things worse.
1
-
How fragile are you, that you can't handle the negative portrayal of someone in your "kin-group" (who, by the way, deserves all the mockery he's earned) and how desperate for attention do you have to be, that five years after the fact, you "miraculously remember" to remind everyone what a bigot Jon Stewart is? If your that worked up over someone pretending to be another person for comical effect, turn off the television and surrender yourself to the nearest insane asylum.
You have to deliberately go out of your way to find (more like contrive) racism in that bit. Sadly, there are some people out there who live their entire lives, lying in wait to hear or see someone do something "questionable" or at the very least- something that can be skewed, twisted, spun and made out to be bad, just to DESTROY that person. This race-baiter is just such the kind.
P.S. lives matter. Your feelings don't.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I never said it would be easy, I said it was envitable. You overestimate the brainwashing, which is merely a form of reinforced conditioning. Because Kim is so uninvolved in the process of programming the public perception, doing little to overlook his generals' affairs, and how they shape government propaganda, preferring to use his wealth and power to indulge his own pleasures, primary authority is infact in the hands of a few, veteran generals and part leaders. Despite what may seem as an all powerful leader, the reality is this is grossly exaggerated, and it is far more likely Kim Jong Un has been groomed and manipulated by his advisers to vest his trust solely in their ideas. Yet if he were to stray with the status quo, and show his own initiative, that is where it becomes possible for a couple to occur.
Afterall, the soldiers follow the generals- they are the most direct form of authority they answer to on a day to day basis, even if they "worship" the kims, their devotion may not actually be as it appears. It is not inconceivable that as I describe, these generals may cooperate with one another, vying for power to assume control, by using the loyality that they have earned from their soldiers over decades, against the regime, leading to civil unrest and instability that opens the doorway for the South to make a move.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+256shadesofgrey You know there is more to a man's faith than strict adherence to doctrine.
I can't speak for Milo myself, but considering the Aristotelian naturalism he evokes, it seems well, natural to assume that if one is born gay, one ought act gay- to do otherwise would be an affront to the divine will of God. And if being gay is bad, so be it. I very much doubt the label "bad gay" makes Milo sad. If God loves his creation, then sin is something he can accept as a flaw that as human as any other failing of the flesh. Besides, Jesus saves us from sin, so it sounds to me as though there is no issue, if you bother to consider the theology, and not just jump to absolutist judgement which haven't the slightest trace of sense or thought.
Disclaimer: I'm no Christian, but i've bothered to read my Bible. You might consider doing the same if you want to discuss religious belief with but a hint of nuance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sword of Apollo From your text: "For example, when Dave attempts to sue his neighbor, Rob, for theft of his intellectual property, (copyright violation) Rob’s PGA responds that it doesn’t recognize intellectual property. (The PGA agrees with Rob’s own opinion.) In an internal dispute, Dave’s PGA would have awarded 10,000 grams silver in damages (12% royalties on what was sold) and would have halted sales by Rob. Rob’s PGA would have dismissed the case and allowed sales without any royalties. To avoid war, a compromise is reached, in which Rob is required to pay Dave 5,000 grams silver, but can continue selling Dave’s books without further royalties."
Awarded from there? In a lawful, state setting, money is taken from the guilty party by force if necessary, and granted to the victim.
Halted by what authority? PGA(A) does not have jurisdiction over PGA(B) or Rob for that matter.
A compromise on the law is no law at all.
Edit: I see now you reject this, however you never articulate an alternative. How would an Objectivist PGA resolve the same problem?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mirza Borogovac Most of your answers are satisfactory, however there is one assumption I would bring up that overlaps a couple points: What makes Bitcoin safe?
Philosophies differ, and what i've found interacting with Americans and their financial attitudes is that they always prefer high risk, high rewards, to maintaining a strong capital base with gradual, minimal returns, the latter of which I subscribe to myself.
To illustrate my point with a concrete, micro-economic example, try and sell me on bitcoin if you will. Because from where I stand, with lets say upwards of 250,000 dollars, I can safely sit on that money knowing it is ensured by the FDIC. I can put the rest in Index's and annuities and make interest without great concern. Now this is no guarantee that the price of goods and services external to my capital will not increase beyond my possible purchasing power, but I am reasonably certain any government interested in it's own self-preservation will subsidize food and other basic necessities to keep their prices in an affordable range, at least until it runs out of money, which is a highly unlikely scenario, as any and every other financial institution will have run out of funds long before the government coffers run dry. The basic principle of my position is that any alternative medium of exchange will always be secondary in nature to that offered by the government. It's simple hierarchy: Government is the only legal entity that can force parties to honor their contracts- through violence and/or detention if that becomes the only option- which is why banks have incentive to favor and follow government initiatives, and so long as the store of wealth among the rich, and the need for loans among the poor continues, banks will be favored by the citizenry. By the reverse, if citzens seek these services, they will go to banks where government currency will be the primary/popular medium of exchange, with the peace of mind that the courts will protect their investments in the worst case. I hope this exacerbated exposition makes my perspective clear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Kim Rollo Name a currency based on faith that has failed. I honestly don't know enough about the history of money to know, so If it's happened, i'll look it up on a case by case basis and address it then and only then.
To be clear, that is only an expression. What we actually mean when we say that "money is based on faith" is that, when I go to Starbucks and hand the Barrista a Jackson, I have faith, that he or she will hand me my mocha in return. What we have faith in is not the money itself, but in 1. the persons with whom we individually interact, and their faith in a 2. system of reciprocity we call the economy and the 3. role currency plays in that domain, namely that it will be accepted as value, in the absence of cumbersome and irregular forms of intrinsic value, such as heavy and scarce gold, or disobedient and/or undesired goats.
When those elements unite, a healthy market is made possible.
And this is just a side note not entirely relevant here, but faith is actually an incredibly stable force in history. Ancient Egypt is the most famous example: artistically, political, socially, and economically it remained EXACTLY THE SAME for three thousand years. When Herodotus visited the Land of the Nile, he remarked that the people who lived there where the most pious he had ever come across. Catholicism filed the power vacuum of the Roman Empire and similarly maintained an era of continuous "sameness" for centuries, by forcing conformity and strict observance of scriptural dictates.The Ancestral Worship of Ancient China, passed on from generation to generation, a loyal lineage of denizens who honored their descendants by respecting millennial old traditions that is the hallmark of Chinese Confucian collectivism to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mirza Borogovac Good answers overall, with a couple caveats if you don't mind. I'm pretty tired but here are some of my thoughts.
"Governments can easily run out of money, and be unable to borrow. Then they would start printing money which is why there would be a hyperinflation in the first place."
I would challenge this, especially using your example of the Greece/Germany relation. I think the reason they are unable to borrow because they are presumed the guilty party- which just means Europe, with good reason, holds the Greek Government responsible for fudging the books, and leading the European Union to believe they were solvent. Here it's just a matter of international law, but when were talking about world powers, which I recognize as being the five members of the Security Council, with the addition of Japan and Germany. These countries have within their means, through central control, the ability to redirect productivity as needed to prevent and handle crisis as needed, using a multiplicity of specialists, the latest technologies, communication and coordination on a scale only government can accomplish, and lasting infrastructure that the private sector just doesn't have access to. That is how they are able to handle food shortages, droughts, and over consumption of oil. Which they do through major projects like the Hoover Dam, rationing as was done during WWII and during the 80's. Additionally, governments usually hoard a large store of natural resources and money for a "rainy day" like the US's oil reserve, or how China saves roughly 70% of everything dollar they make annually. All these facts put government into a class all it's own.
I prefer political theory to economics and bitcoin presents a fascinating cross-pollination between the two which are sure to have vast implications for both fields of study.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jimmy Hickey So whats the problem? Doesn't sound to me like you disagree with my approach, maybe just my conclusion. My opinion may be an unpopular one, but the point should be to attack me on what i'm wrong on, which most people have done without resorting to insult. I haven't for the record, "made anything up" nor do I think there is a "knowledge base" relevant to this subject: this isn't ancient Greek Philosophy, its online economics, a relatively new field, which any modern Economist worth his or her salt would tell you they don't understand never mind what the public thinks, which is the basis for why I have asked questions in the first place: because bitcoin is new territory with absolutely NO precedence, and even those who are considered "experts" say without reservation that Bitcoin is an experiment and until the thesis is proven through replication and time, having a background in it isn't really possible. If you disagree however, point me in the direction of some established academic source, and i'll take a look.
otherwise, it's an fascinating topic which is interesting to discuss. It really doesn't bother nor discourage me that some feel inclined to put the people they disagree with down, rather than engage in the material. I could care less what halff-witted miscreants buried in the shallow crevices of the web think. For everyone else, who has worthwhile to say add or ask, chances are i'll respond. It's only a matter of what I deem worth commenting on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mirza Borogovac "The whole point of engineering fields of study is to be able to design cars that don't burst into flames and bridges that don't collapse. Similarly the whole point of computer science, encryption, etc. is to solve for enormous complexity that is needed to achieve basic functionality behind algorithms and software such as bit-coin."
That is not exactly true, any field that causes confusion and breeds disagreement such as we are having now- introduces just as much if not more complexity as it aims to address and simplify. Physics for example, under a classic, Newtonian view, was simple before the advent of quantum mechanics. In a sense, the more we studied this science, the more we made things harder for ourselves, despite how useful the former model was, which is why it is still taught and used even though we now know Classical physics isn't "the whole picture". Computers likewise are systems created to add functionality which in the process become more complex, the greater the demand for greater utility becomes, and then simplified as the software and hardware is better understood and mastered.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mirza Borogovac ahh but there is a big mistake made here: If I don't understand an action of my bank, what do I do? I enter my branch and i ASK. Because 1.) that IS where my money is, albeit it digitally they are responsible for it and 2.) they are the ones providing the service. Bitcoin is a "service" without a "server". Don't take that as a play on words btw, server as in person/provider.
If I have question about my Bitcoins, who do I go to? No one, I can't, because it is nonlocalized and autonomous. If I want, I have to 1.) look it up and hope the information I come accross is credible or 2.) attain a computer science degree and study the software itself. That is what I meant when I said it adds complexity; "need-to-know" complexity. which means If I dont know, I put my money at risk. I don't need to know how a Bank works to put my money there, provided it is below the 250,000 insurance cap, at which point I would assume the risk. The proof is that millions even billions do without much problem. Bitcoin is another story altogether. That comparison is a false equivalence.
In fact the whole reason to use a bank is precisely because you (not you personally, but any bank member) are dumb. If you were smart, you could always use that expertise to make money on the stock market.Put it in a bank, and you don't have to think about your money, because 1.) you trust that bank, it has a good record, so on and so forth, and 2.) you are protected by the law.
1
-
Mirza Borogovac "Problem with bitcoin is that you do not have the knowledge to understand the information that is freely available to you."
Me and everyone else, as you have yet to answer my original questions, under the auspice that it is "too technical".
"Your understanding of situation and how you choose to label things does not change the reality of things."
That is not an answer to anything, just a empty accusation of ignorance. If I have mischaracterized Bitcoin, you had and still have, the opportunity to correct me. Come back with substance not slander.
"Just because sometimes is not localized and is autonomous that does not mean that it is not well defined and well understood."
Then Define it. Here, i'll get you started:
Bank (noun, middle English): "A bank is a financial intermediary and money creator that creates money by lending money to a borrower, thereby creating a corresponding deposit on the bank's balance sheet."
See that definition was not hard for me to understand. Now you try:
Bitcoin (?): "?"
"You seem to imply that you have to understand every product and process that you use."
No... You may have inferred it, but I certainly did not imply it.
I allege only that the control of Bitcoin is dubious and therefore suspect. You seem to be under the naive impression that Bitcoin is beyond the realm of human intervention. Earlier you admitted this possibility though conditioned it was "contrived". It isn't.
"The fact that there is risk in investing does not mean that a risky investment is not legitimate investment."
Never said it was illegitimate, only that it can 1.) never reach the status of national currency and 2.) This predicated on 1.), it cannot be trusted because it isn't backed by an institution that can be persecuted for wrongdoing. You cannot sue a program, you can only sue it's author(s)
In fact, the true identity of Bitcoin creator remains hidden for I suspect this very reason. Adding cause for concern, not detracting from it.
"So then you should use something even if you do not understand it?"
You should use what you trust, not what you have faith in, and while people use the latter expression to describe money, money has "social standing" spanning decades if were talking about the dollar, which adds credence to it's acceptance. Doesn't mean you shouldn't stay informed. Open the paper, follow trends, make wise decisions. Bitcoin's current, brief track history only adds fuel to suspicion.
"I am not sure, but I seem to recall some sort of banking crisis back in 2007. Must not have been that important."
Fair point, but that was because Banks, aided by government deregulation made irresponsible investments. As a counter-example of how government should operate, I would refer you to Iceland's handle of the Crisis, which is exactly the kind state-based model I am supporting.
The last statement is anarchist nonsense. Banks are bad because Wall Street and Silicon Valley culture is degenerate. Bitcoin isn't the opposite of banking, it's just another part of the problem. For the record I have most of my money in a Credit Union, the only financial institution I would recommend in good conscience.
1
-
1
-
Charlie Mopps I'm still not sure how adopting Bitcoin makes things easier/cheaper. Yes, getting those middle men out of the way would be nice I guess, but 1.) Everyone lives in lives in a place under the jurisdiction of some government, thats unavoidable, and most people have an account with a major bank capable of international transfer. All you're avoiding are higher transfer fees. Bitcoin charges 1% Banks charge 4-5%. If it becomes more popular, I haven't the slightest doubt this fee will increase to be on par with Banks. OR Banks will drop theirs to be competitive, and as it grows- if it grows, government regulation will increase. The main reason the EU has not regulated it so far, is just a matter of size, and the fact that they have a lot more pressing financial troubles to deal with.
Furthermore, as the value of bitcoin fluctuates as dramatically as it does, your more likely to loose money (the longer you wait between purchases) then what you pay in fees to a Bank.
Bitcoins "freedom" is only a function of it's youth and size. The older and larger any attractive investment becomes, the more we will want to control it. That is human nature.
btw, people don't have a problem with expensive shipping fees when it comes to gold and silver, despite the fact those are not in the monetary mainstream anymore. This is for the same reason that a 15 cent can of coke, albeit in bulk, is worth shipping over seas: because people are willing to buy it for more. Cash isn't going any where. Many small business and private citizens still prefer this, and always will, because you can only manipulate it's value, but once it's in my possession, you can't do anything to it save to steal it, assuming you know I have it in the first place.
1
-
1
-
Mirza Borogovac "However categories are approximations for your understanding and not defining characteristics of existing things. Your argument was basically: 1) birds fly, 2) penguins are birds 3) therefore penguins fly."
Fine. This too is a characterization btw, and could fall well within the category of the strawman fallacy if I bothered to match my argument up with your analogy, but I'm not nearly interested enough, so i'll just leave it at that.
""what is to prevent anyone from declaring themselves to be a bank and then lending money that they they create."
LOL the Law, end of story. So no, I wouldn't have. Which is why they're different to begin with, and why the false-dichotomy is the sustained.
FYI: Banks require licensing. Some Legislators have considered this a requirement for bitcoin sites, but so far haven't acted on it.
"But you can trust a program to do exactly what it is programmed to do"
Circular argument- you only trust it because you trust the programmer OR you understand the program. Which you have admitted to the contrary.
"If you have access to it's source code and you know how to read it and compile it, than what is there to not trust?"
I suppose that would be fine. However this would mean that bitcoin is a trustworthy service for those with the privileged education of knowing how to use it. To repeat my argument, personalized banking overcomes this issue.
". You either prove something to be true yourself or you take it on faith. "
No idea what this means. You can't prove ANYTHING to be true, unless you think your Descartes, in which case you believe in yourself. Scientific proof requires peer-reviewed consensus, you can't do it alone in your basement.
But you can trust things on intuition which is a pretty powerful force in the mind. A recent study I wish I had on hand, and if you really want i'm sure I can dig up, suggests that you judge a face on how trustworthy it is in less than 35 milloseconds of first seeing it, and that your first impression is often your best. So if you walk into a bank, and think to yourself these people seem trustworthy, chances are you are correct. There is no face to bitcoin, no values to speak of. That is both a flaw and something in it's favor. I think we just fall on different sides of that fence.
"Yes those things help but they are just some of the factors to consider and not a "definite proof" in themselves."
Sure, they help, what more would you have me do? What sort of "ideal proof" were you hoping for?
Your argument hinges on the fact that Bitcoin is "divorced" from imperfect beings, and is therefore unnameable to human influence. The former is partially true: it is not a closed, impenetrable system as you have portrayed it as thus far. How bitcoin is used, and what it enables it's users to use it as, is just as important as what it is, and anecdotal evidence, including Bitcoin's more prominent supports, does not reflect well on the digital currency.
1
-
Mirza Borogovac "There is no disagreement in math"
My father, a theoretical physics in the forefront of his field, would take strong exception to this statement. (Daniel Gogny, whom you can find the work of on google.)
And Programming is a language, and language, as a means of representative, is inherently subjective. That is it's definition.
"Similarly there is inherent complexity in what bt is trying to do and that can't be reduced for your benefit."
Ah! Which is reason enough not to use it. Again, anything your going to recommend the public to endorse, you had better be able to explain to an idiot child. Take a page out of advertising agencies and find a way, or don't advocate for something neither of us seem to comprehend. It just isn't responsible, ethical or intellectually honest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** You do alot of guess work for someone so sure of themself. It's easy to call someone "narcissist" or "troll", anyone can do that. And your an idiot. See? that was simple! Of course I don't have the slightest proof. You say some awfully stupid things, but i'm not about to stand by that statement, because i'm not stupid enough myself to test your IQ over Youtube. Name calling online, is about as meaningful as calling an elephant a helicopter. But by all means, you seem to be the expert, so i'll let you explain that to me. Apparently, you know me better than I know myself, so this i'd love to hear.
You weren't here for the whole thread, you bowed out some time ago, so I could care less about your proclamations.
As for what's obvious, I doubt you'd know truth if it hit you in the face. and the Info? Lol, I have cited my sources on the subject several times: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/
If your not going to deliver on substance, don't bother interjecting whenever it suites you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** The only reason you commented was presumably to correct me. It is theoretical because it can, in theory, be done. That is all I need say; the proof is in the definition as applicable to the context. Since the two are logically sufficient, my wording is justified.
It isn't "impractical" (def: "not easy to do or use") because it never has been done. Once it has, and proves difficult, it can then be said to be "impractical".
You are thinking of the word "Impracticable" (def: "difficult or impossible to do or use : not practicable") Which is different, but may be so.
Lastly, they are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both "theoretical" and "impracticable"; (since it is not impossible, only difficult, only the other part of the definition applies by default) the 'practice' in this case being limited only by the extent to which one is willing (feasibly) over an inconceivable span of time. It is additionally the difference between "probable" and "possible". YouTube debate attracts binary oppositions. It is fallacious to fall into a self-constructed category on the feeling that one is really and truly right, and the other completely wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CrystalStearOfTheCas If you are refering to me, this is my answer:
Governments are risk adverse in that they cannot be dissolved, save to be replaced by some other government. Even in this most extreme case, your money would still be good, as this new government would still have to do business with the citizenry it now governs, which means accepting the money they now have as just as good as it was before. Yes, under dire circumstances your money can be worth less but it cannot be worthless. Governments that cannot maintain the quality of life it's citizens demand however, are doomed to fail and be replaced. The Wiemar Republic, for example.
Businesses on the other hand, like bitcoin, come and go: they are not tied to the land nor do they have stake in the world. ex: Nation-states have historical ties to the land, owners of gold have stake in a percentage of all the gold in the world.
and math is merely a mental abstraction: yes, you can trust it to be correct, but all math statements are meaningless unless having some context/application. It can show you that an apple and an orange is worth five dollars, but it cannot explain why they are valued. Value comes from our needs and wants, which there is no equation for.
The logic is this: The necessity of the state is universal. The use of money is universal. The two are tied to each other in such away as to allow the free exchange of goods and services as secured and guaranteed by the government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the contrary, remember that hospital you were born in? Yeah, its called Social Contract Theory, its the basis of this little thing some of us like to call Civilization. From the moment you are brought into this world, given everything you are provided with at no cost to you, you owe, atleast in some small way, something to the government, namely, taxes. If you want, become a stateless citzen, and move to Somalia, I here the weather is great this time of year
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To the allies of course. In 1918 the german lines were falling apart- So an armistice was agreed, and later, the Treaty of Versailles. Walther Rathenau, Minister of foreign affairs, for example, was dubbed by the nazi's a conspirator against the war effort.
"Nazi propaganda depicted Weimar as "a morass of corruption, degeneracy, national humiliation, ruthless persecution of the honest 'national opposition'—fourteen years of rule by Jews, Marxists, and 'cultural Bolsheviks'..."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
you'd have to cite info on spain, as for france, although unemployment continues to stagger down slowly, granted, our Debt (which i believe, from your own statements, is your main point of contention) is rapidly decreasing, and in fact, is on track to disappear i believe (though dont quote me, sorry i couldnt find the source) by 2020. And if you believe taxing doesn't work, what does? If your going to cite Reagan, your going to have a bad time, as thats where the problem of deregulation began.
1
-
Buddhism has before yes, this is true. Though these are isolated accurences, not true of most, (sects, are very singular organizations) Confucianism, your completely and utterly mistaken, North Korea takes nothing from it, it has no links to Totalitarianism. Confucianism preaches for the rule of law, and for the difussion of power, and what you say of Taoism is nothing more than a western bias, which i see no evidence for...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First, if we dismissed every mass killing with the largest mass killing (say for example, Fukashima) then by that logic, no one should ever care except for that one instance. Second, your judging a man based on legal standards alone- That is how society punishes the guilty, individuals, have to come up with ethical determinations. He condones without any sort of doubt, let alone regret, the actions of the Nazi regime, that alone, is worthy of severe condemnation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1