|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted March 02, 2009 03:11 PM |
|
|
So, actually, humans give humans rights in the same way that dolphins give other dolphins their type of "rights".
And just like dolphins can't take our rights away (our way of thinking seems rather distant to them, too), we aren't really entitled to take their rights away either.
We are stronger than dolphins of course, and one might think that allows us to interfere with them and control them... On the other hand, some humans are also stronger than other humans, yet they can't interfere with their rights (theoretically at least).
So the "only sentient beings have rights" claim doesn't seem like such a sentient thing to say after all. 
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 03:16 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 15:17, 02 Mar 2009.
|
Of course not. But good luck trying to make one like Mvass understand THAT  Even neglecting the fact I (and I know lots of others) feel simple moral compelment to make such a claim, whereas Mvass apparently doesn't.
____________
|
|
DeadMan
Known Hero
The True Humanitarian
|
|
posted March 02, 2009 03:28 PM |
|
|
The problem with the banking system is that it's completely immoral. People should not be able to earn a profit by exploiting others.
____________
I don't matter. You don't matter. But we matter.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2009 05:15 AM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Your analysis is incorrect, for two reasons. First, even though one of the people may have less money, he would still be at least as well-off as he was before, because he chose to spend more of his money on the other guy's stuff. People don't just make profits by raising prices. If I sold lemonade on a street corner for $0.25 a glass, I would make a bit of money. And, according to you, all I'd have to do is increase the price. So suppose I sell it for a million dollars a glass. Guess what my profits would be? Zero. Because, you know, to make a profit, people have to buy your product too.
The second reason stems from your "money-as-debt" argument. The Federal Reserve doesn't lend out money. Here's how it creates money.
Bak:
We don't have dolphin rights. Dolphins don't have human rights.
As for the other part of your argument (about strength), I believe I've written about it before.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted March 03, 2009 12:10 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 12:15, 03 Mar 2009.
|
Quote:
Moonlith:
Your analysis is incorrect, for two reasons. First, even though one of the people may have less money, he would still be at least as well-off as he was before, because he chose to spend more of his money on the other guy's stuff. People don't just make profits by raising prices. If I sold lemonade on a street corner for $0.25 a glass, I would make a bit of money. And, according to you, all I'd have to do is increase the price. So suppose I sell it for a million dollars a glass. Guess what my profits would be? Zero. Because, you know, to make a profit, people have to buy your product too.
No geez louise, you sure? I'm not sure I get your example. The difference between 0,25 and 1 million seems rather extreme. Sell it for 0,30 and people still buy it. You make profits while still messing up the mechanism.
Quote:
The second reason stems from your "money-as-debt" argument. The Federal Reserve doesn't lend out money. Here's how it creates money.
That's the official theory yes. Although I do believe it is basicly a fact banks are entittled to outright create money out of thin air the moment someone wishes to make a loan. Money has become increasingly digital, and banks have even less need to actually store physical money because more and more people pay with digital credits.
Officially they are to have 10% of the sum of all saving accounts in physical money, but that's not the case. And it doesn't matter which bank you loan it from - you pay it back with debt. The moment you loan 10K, 10K is created out of nothing and you can pay it back later with interest.
Mind you this isn't necessarily a flaw of capitlism, it's outright stupidity from bankers.
But aside these two nitpicks you ignore the point I am making. Namely that capitlism is a system that transfers wealth from one person to another and creates a cleft between rich and poor. And about your whole "Well that doesn't mean you're bad off, maybe you just don't need as much" argument, go tell that to people in Africa or South America. I'm sure they'd very much agree with you.
Unless you're one of those arrogant brats who think third world countries' poorness is entirely their own fault and your own powerful corporations had nothing to do with it. You should study the meaning of "exploitation" some time.
----edit---- PS: I just discovered by claiming Capitalism as a system based on exploitation I said the same thing Marx said O.o And he explains it better than me.
Quote:
We don't have dolphin rights. Dolphins don't have human rights.
That's right, our Human rights are better and more important because we say so
God if you can't see the flaw in that...
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2009 01:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But aside these two nitpicks you ignore the point I am making. Namely that capitlism is a system that transfers wealth from one person to another and creates a cleft between rich and poor.
Well, that's not true, strictly spoken. Correct is that capitalism increases the cleft between rich and poor that has been there before there was capitalism. The trouble is, that there has never been a situation of equality, at least not when capitalism as an economic system developed from feudalism and mercantilism.
That's why all the examples are worth squat - there never has been a situation with a, b and c having 2 dollars each and that's it. There's always people owning land and resources which is a lot more than having just the ability to work something with your bare hands.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 03, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
Moonlith:
Quote:
Sell it for 0,30 and people still buy it. You make profits while still messing up the mechanism.
If I raise the price, then fewer people will buy it. The trick to making a profit is finding the equilibrium price. So if 0.25 is the equilibrium price, and I raise it to 0.30, then I won't make as big of a profit.
Quote:
Although I do believe it is basicly a fact banks are entittled to outright create money out of thin air the moment someone wishes to make a loan.
*puts tin-foil hat on*
Quote:
And about your whole "Well that doesn't mean you're bad off, maybe you just don't need as much" argument, go tell that to people in Africa or South America.
Because Africa and South America have such free economies... o wait. Notice how the last few countries aren't great socialist paradises.
And Marxist theory is wrong for many reasons. To name one, it completely ignores the concept of human capital.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 12:23 AM |
|
|
*bump*
Hmmm.. is anyone else out there a little concerned that our current [idiotic] congress is considering selective, punitive taxation against the recipients of the AIG bonuses? Not only is it a borderline criminal abuse of power, not to mention a horrible precedent to set, but don't these morons - er, congressmen - read any history? Are they not aware that the United States was BORN as a rebellion against abuse of taxation?
Granted, I find it annoying that AIG execs are going to be rewarded with taxpayer dollars, but to my mind it would be far worse if the government sidesteps the law in order to placate angry [voting] citizens. The government doesn't have the right to just throw legal contracts in the trash, and it certainly doesn't have the right to selectively tax a small group of people just because it wants to. Congress completely blew it by wrecklessly passing the bailout without thinking it through; I can't believe they're about to make it hundreds of times worse by breaking (rewriting) the law because they don't like the results of their own bungling.
God, we need new politicians in Congress...
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 12:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Congress completely blew it by wrecklessly passing the bailout without thinking it through; I can't believe they're about to make it hundreds of times worse by breaking (rewriting) the law because they don't like the results of their own bungling.
Welcome to the human race.
Enjoy your stay.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 01:51 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:53, 18 Mar 2009.
|
Just some random rambling...
The only thing that I hate more than governments acting so great as if they can do what they want (economically/lawwise speaking) in certain respects (and with certain limits).. the only thing I hate more are people who think that they have this right to claim property at all.
Kinda funny if you think how America got today the way it is (hint: european colonization).
There's also this thing called eminent domain. You think the government is "bad" when doing it? Heads up, speaking to Americans here, you kinda did the same, or rather the dudes you inherited from did. And it's even worse if it's "private" property. The government at least is not just 1 dude who thinks he has the right, it may include many people (although it's still very... bad).
Here's what I want to say: if you dare to claim property and say it's yours, please do not dare to call those who will blow it up into pieces "terrorists" or "evil bastards". They have all my sympathy for destroying something which is NOT yours, especially not "rightfully".
this goes back to owning the Moon... Do not dare to accuse anyone of trespassing the Moon EVER or "blowing up your property", they have all the rights to do it just as you had to "build" that property. Period. We already ****ed up the Earth, please do not **** up the Moon with this. Especially not with this false (and lying) form of "capitalism".
What are you gonna do? Shoot them? Well Stalin used to do it too. Guess force is the ultimate answer here, not BS about the good doings of capitalism... just the will to enFORCE it.
BTW Im not joking.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 18, 2009 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And Marxist theory is wrong for many reasons. To name one, it completely ignores the concept of human capital.
*sigh* I say it simple this time: You got no clue, and you refuse to even attempt understanding. When you se a socialist society you are going to complain about money, that simple.
African countrys, i wonder how long it will take for them to completely recover from the void of the capitalistic/imperialstic abuse. And its not over yet. What about Latin America? They suffer about the same problem times to times.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 02:54 PM |
|
|
Corribus:
TheDeath:
Quote:
Here's what I want to say: if you dare to claim property and say it's yours, please do not dare to call those who will blow it up into pieces "terrorists" or "evil bastards".
Indian removal was wrong - and anti-capitalist. Taking people's property is evil.
del_diablo:
Because African countries are suffering because of their very capitalist economies, right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 03:37 PM |
|
|
mvassilev: Actually yes and no. First the capitalists/imperialist abused them, then the capitalistic dictators rose because they saw an oppertinity for self gain and power.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 04:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
mvassilev: Actually yes and no. First the capitalists/imperialist abused them, then the capitalistic dictators rose because they saw an oppertinity for self gain and power.
This post makes absolutely no sense. For example, "capitalists/imperialists". If they are imperialists, then they are not capitalists. And capitalist dictators? I wasn't aware that having some of the strongest regulation in the world make a country capitalist. Just look at economic freedom. Africa isn't very high.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 04:26 PM |
|
|
The AIG bonuses are a disgrace! How can anyone support excessive bonuses to an elite of executives that are paid directly by his tax money? In a time of crises they only think for themselves! I thought you'd a bit more interested at where your tax money goes.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 05:14 PM |
|
|
Of course they're a disgrace. I agree entirely. Why should taxpayer money go to business like that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Indian removal was wrong - and anti-capitalist. Taking people's property is evil.
But how did they got it in the first place? Anti-capitalistic? (of course since they probably weren't even under the capitalism system)
My point is, you can't just say "capitalism works great without exceptions" when you have to START with something, like properties, that you can sell, and not CLAIM, which isn't capitalistic in the slightest.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:15 PM |
|
|
Capitalism means you can't claim property that others haven't already claimed. It has nothing to do with unclaimed property.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:18 PM |
|
|
That's the thing, it has nothing to do with it, therefore NO ONE SHOULD USE CAPITALISM IN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. Let me spell it easier: the dude who 'claims' property on the freaking Moon has absolutely no freaking right to then restrict it under "capitalist" laws or sell it to others via "capitalistic" means.
I mean, it's like saying, waging a war with the American Indians and colonizing and all that isn't capitalistic (I agree), but THEN YOU PUT PRICE TAG ON THAT LAND via capitalism means, for example. WTF mate?
If it doesn't have anything to do with it, then it DOESN'T, and go away. In this example.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 20, 2009 06:20 PM |
|
|
If property is unclaimed, then one can claim it and put a price tag on it.
If property is claimed, one can't do anything about it unless one wishes to buy it for that price.
The guy who claims property on the moon has no basis for his claim.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
