|
| Thread: The Federal Reserve |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV |
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 27, 2008 06:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Who's property is, let's say, Venus? The one who reaches it first? That's not civilized approach, that's "might makes right" barbaric approach.
We took out the effort to reach it and claim it. Therefore it is ours. Why should it be theirs? They did nothing. It's not barbaric - it's what separates us from the animals.
Quote:
How would you know if it is their property?
You don't. You take a risk. You take a risk when you get out of bed. You take a risk when you turn the lights on. Generally, the risk is heavily in your favor.
Quote:
Not all out there has a purpose to serve us and only us.
Everything we use has whatever purpose we give it.
Quote:
Mind you, if one can claim property, then he should be prepared to lose it at will -- otherwise it's just a barbaric question of "might" since he who claims it first has it. Is that civilized?
No, it's not barbaric. The person who claims it first deserves it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 06:12 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 18:14, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Well someone has the right to leave any of his/her property as it is. But then they should take the effort to communicate it to others and mark it in some way, like having satellites over Venus transmitting a signal, or having a station on high orbit with their representatives. As well has the owner right to not use his/her resources, fine by me.
Quote:
Mind you, if one can claim property, then he should be prepared to lose it at will
Why? Why if one takes something that belongs to nobody should be prepared to lose something that now belongs to him?
Fully agree with Mvass here.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:14, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
We took out the effort to reach it and claim it. Therefore it is ours. Why should it be theirs? They did nothing. It's not barbaric - it's what separates us from the animals.
You didn't get it. Let me explain one last time but I'm getting bored.
They come to Venus, they claim it (heck they could even create it  ). Then what do they decide to do? They don't want to 'colonize' it and use its resources, pure and simple -- just because you own an object doesn't mean you have to USE it.
Or do you think that if you have two houses (capitalist system of course), and you only live in one, then people can claim the other as their property as they wish? I mean, if you have two houses, will the one which you don't use be "available for public" or "available for the first guy to claim it"?
Why does that apply only to humans? You don't have to USE something in order to belong to you. In fact, the whole "claiming" thing is the PROBLEM.
If you claim, you also let others claim. If you claim and expect it to be yours forever, no wonder there are so many conflicts with this arrogant mentality 
You claim -> you let others claim it in return. Just because you got there first doesn't give you any 'noble' rights to it, apart from MIGHT, which is barbaric.
Quote:
Everything we use has whatever purpose we give it.
And the aliens. Who is to say they don't have given purposes to objects?
Quote:
No, it's not barbaric. The person who claims it first deserves it.
That's barbaric. You can just as well say "the person who can beat the other one deserves it" and we all know that only barbarism resorts to that kind of thinking
By the second logic the government can claim your property, and since they beat you to it, they deserve it... right?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 06:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then what do they decide to do? They don't want to 'colonize' it and use its resources, pure and simple -- just because you own an object doesn't mean you have to USE it.
Then, if I know that it's theirs, I won't use it. If I don't know that it's theirs, then too bad for them. Should've made it more clear.
Quote:
If you claim, you also let others claim.
Yes, but not what you've claimed already.
[quote\Just because you got there first doesn't give you any 'noble' rights to it, apart from MIGHT, which is barbaric.
How about the social contract? We allow each other to own stuff, and not take it from each other?
Quote:
Who is to say they don't have given purposes to objects?
But seeing as we don't know what they are (or even if they have done so, or if they exist at all), we have no reason to not use them.
Quote:
You can just as well say "the person who can beat the other one deserves it" and we all know that only barbarism resorts to that kind of thinking
No. It's completely different. Claiming property is protected under the social contract. Taking others' property is rather the opposite. Letting people claim property = better for society. People taking property from each other by force = bad for society, because it wastes effort.
Quote:
By the second logic the government can claim your property, and since they beat you to it, they deserve it... right?
Legally, yes, they can. Ever heard of eminent domain? But I don't agree with it. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So if I don't consent to having my property taken, the government has no right to do so. But they can certainly claim unclaimed property - Antarctica, for instance.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then, if I know that it's theirs, I won't use it. If I don't know that it's theirs, then too bad for them. Should've made it more clear.
In english? That kind of argument can really be used for anything.
"Sorry, I didn't see you!" 
if you're truly sorry then you get the hell out -- as far as I know, if you get into an abandoned house and the owner gets there the next morning, you should get out.
Quote:
Yes, but not what you've claimed already.
So it ends up as a "first wins", and you talking about not stealing others' opportunities
thanks for proving my point.
Quote:
How about the social contract? We allow each other to own stuff, and not take it from each other?
Socialism is a form of society which has a social contract too. Obviously you are against it for some reason -- and you don't give arguments against it.
If you DO give them, then you should maybe stop practicing the negative things you don't want to happen to you (i.e you do the same to aliens/whatever). That is, if you do give arguments like "my property is my property" then you should respect that on others' 'abandoned' homes as well.
Quote:
But seeing as we don't know what they are (or even if they have done so, or if they exist at all), we have no reason to not use them.
Bugs have no reason to not get into your food/home too (since they can't reason properly, and we can't reason maybe on their level too), why do you crush/move them outside? Or let's say animals...
Then you should have no problem with aliens forcibly "moving us out" right? After all we do the same, so it means we should accept it. Or are we degenerated to the point of "do unto others not necessarily what you would like to do unto you"?
Quote:
No. It's completely different. Claiming property is protected under the social contract. Taking others' property is rather the opposite. Letting people claim property = better for society. People taking property from each other by force = bad for society, because it wastes effort.
Socialism is society too.
Quote:
Legally, yes, they can. Ever heard of eminent domain? But I don't agree with it. Governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. So if I don't consent to having my property taken, the government has no right to do so. But they can certainly claim unclaimed property - Antarctica, for instance.
No they cannot, because if they do, it would be the same -- what if someone actually lived there and claimed the property? If he still is there, do you think the government cares about some wacko, or will they be greedy and extract the resources by force? After all the guy may not be willing to "give a share" of it since he considers it his. This is so selfish on many levels.
That is, you aren't forced to give up stuff which you don't "use" right? Then why should he be?
Ahh, but in barbaric societies, power and greed for resources (aka more power) prevails 
I mean honestly, even if we do find that guy there claiming it's his, do you really think we would not drill if we found oil? We can just as well say "he should make himself more clear" and shoot him up and possibly cover it up. This thing with "making himself more clear" (as in the case with aliens) is childish because it bears no arguments since it is open for interpretation, and abuse.
What does "make himself clear" means? If he uses light to make himself clear for blind people, they will not see him. Not my fault you are blind to see. (metaphorically of course)
so yeah I find it disgusting how you can be against losing your property when you want us to claim as we wish
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 07:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
if you're truly sorry then you get the hell out -- as far as I know, if you get into an abandoned house and the owner gets there the next morning, you should get out.
We know that houses are owned by somebody most of the time. Thus, we should get out. But we don't know - and have no reason to suspect - any similar thing for planets.
Quote:
So it ends up as a "first wins", and you talking about not stealing others' opportunities
You can't steal something immaterial.
Quote:
Obviously you are against it for some reason -- and you don't give arguments against it.
Because it's not as good of a social contract, since it's not as productive. But it's not what we're talking about.
Quote:
That is, if you do give arguments like "my property is my property" then you should respect that on others' 'abandoned' homes as well.
"My property is my property" only works when there are clearly defined property rights.
Quote:
Then you should have no problem with aliens forcibly "moving us out" right?
I certainly wouldn't like it, but I'd understand why they'd do it.
Quote:
If he still is there, do you think the government cares about some wacko, or will they be greedy and extract the resources by force?
If it doesn't, then it is tyrannical. It has no right to take his property. We would certainly have no right to take it. But if we don't know that he's there, and there's nothing to suggest that it's his, then we can.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 27, 2008 07:49 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 19:51, 27 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
We know that houses are owned by somebody most of the time. Thus, we should get out. But we don't know - and have no reason to suspect - any similar thing for planets.
No you don't, because it depends on the system. Not everywhere it's capitalism
If it's a public system then it doesn't belong to anyone see, apart from in fact belonging to everyone, but whatever.
Why do you keep saying with the "we have no reason to suspect"? That's what animals do too, when they enter our homes, since they prolly can't reason like us -- maybe we can't reason like aliens. That's not a good argument, UNLESS you let all animals move through your home as they wish, which I don't really think
Quote:
You can't steal something immaterial.
Yes why not? Ever heard of "He stole my chances!" at lottery for example? When someone buys a ticket he steals a bit of your chances. It's not bad in this case since it's made for that but not so with the opportunities.
Quote:
"My property is my property" only works when there are clearly defined property rights.
"clearly defined" in your reason? What is clearly? Colors aren't clear for blind people. sound waves aren't "clear" for deaf people. especially foreign art is not clear for anyone.
Quote:
I certainly wouldn't like it, but I'd understand why they'd do it.
You wouldn't like it? Why, cause we/you do the same. So you're not following the "do unto others as they do unto you" principle
Quote:
If it doesn't, then it is tyrannical. It has no right to take his property. We would certainly have no right to take it. But if we don't know that he's there, and there's nothing to suggest that it's his, then we can.
What does something 'suggest' that it's his? What if I say that Antarctica is mine? huh? How can I suggest it's my "older home"? How do I make a claim in the first place?
Suppose I'm an alien and I "own" Antarctica, but I have no intention of living there or using it (just like some people have more than one home, you know?).
What then? How do I suggest it's my "other" home? Make a statement? I did already and it doesn't seem you think it's mine
Sorry if I'm being realistic
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 11:53 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 11:54, 28 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Apparently in most 'modern' societies people have less than 2 children (excluding immigrants), that's a recipe for a dying society. Only French have like 2,2. And they don't have it like, everyone has two children, but many have none or one, and those who have 3,4 or more make the difference. And you think they would have less children if others had more? I doubt it.
Not dying at all. It would be very nice if it could go up and down between 6 bln - 5 bln over time, even though I think even that is too much.
Quote:
I am not a promoter of a too big population. I just have a different definition of where's the line between too big and not too big.
I read a news item the other day. It said if all human beings on this planet lived at the standard the people in my country live in, we'd need a second planet to meet the recource demand.
I demand all human beings to live at an even higher standard, since even at my standard we STILL need to work for our food.
So if you say we haven't reached the limit yet with 7 bln, you can only afford that by KEEPING the majority of the people in poverty.
Which is, congratulations, the sole reason WE can live in luxury
Granted, I am not sure if there SHOULD or SHOULDN'T be diversion between wealth in societies.
Quote:
Destruction of environment is idiocy. All who do that deserve extinction they cause.
I fully agree 
Quote:
Using environment in optimal way is not. Blame destruction of earth not on free market but on short-sightedness of people. Keeping your environment healthy is far more beneficial in the long term.
I'd dare to argue that at least the majority of that short-sightedness arises from idiotic capitalistic ideals.
Keeping the environment healthy does NOT earn you any money, so it is NEVER done in a society that is dependant on money.
Think about this:
If you cannot earn money from solving a problem in a monetary system, the problem will not be solved.
THAT'S the kind of society we live in.
Quote:
Your virus comparisons make me laugh, really. If you do not see difference between expansion into empty space and infestation, then call all life a virus. Grass will expand onto empty land, foxes will expand to nearby forest if there are rabbits there and no foxes. Calling mankind a virus? Call all other lifeforms too.
Of course, every species has virus traits. But that's the cycle. Foxes overpopulate and DIE as a result, just like virusses once they've destroyed the body. And humanity is just the same.
I just think we have the brains and capability to SEE and ACKNOWLEDGE this, and prevent reaching such a point!
Quote:
Property is what I claim to be mine and others recognize it as mine. I see little reason to not claim nonsentient beings, and inanimate matter is out of question. I am superior to cosmic dust or a rock simply because I am more than just particles, components of my body.
If we go with the idea God did not create us, you are STARDUST conquering STARDUST.
Quote:
Rocks have no 'rights'. Other lifeforms may have some, but we clearly stand out, be it only by self-awareness. And yes I think it is the right of all sentients to claim the Universe together.
I would reason if rocks could, they would give rocks rights. Again, the only thing that gives us humans rights, are humans themselves. By nature, we are not entitled to ANYTHING. We TAKE it, without consent, because nothing can GIVE its concent. At the very least you can show appreciation and respect to the elements that provide you with the fundaments of your existance, but that kind of respect seems VERY hard to find amongst greedy materialists.
-extends hand to Mvass-
Behold my proof.
Quote:
"Hey pal, they just said they found a totally backwater civilisation in system 1595878. They call themselves humans. They were more advanced than us some time ago, but they bunkered themselves in artificial abundance and made only miserable progress so far. Ha, I saw our meekest citizens laughing at their civilization's standards. Imagine that? They also said that with a population of 7 billion, and living on just one planet, they will be considered an endangered species."
Definitely a good way of presenting ourselves.
Only if said lifeforms were as poorly developed as we are. Civilized beings are better than this. Which is exactly why we are not.
Quote:
Basic needs are not everything, you know. Progress can always bring in improvement and new possibilities, and as such, in my opinion, it's rate should not be artificially entrenched.
But artificially bloating it is fine? This is exactly what I hate about economics: they see loss in things that are yet to come, loss in "profits" that could have been gotten in the future, but are not met.
GET REAL.
Quote:
Why? Because by doing so, you limit the options your descendants have. What would you think of your ancestors if they had limited your possibilities in order to comfort themselves?
Uhrm, I would have INHERITED said comfortable standards of living? I consider that a top priority in human lives; to ensure a basic standard that relieves human beings of low-class labour so they CAN actually focus fully on those things that interest them, be it art, science, exploration, etc.
Mind you, I could have very much lived without the invention of retarded Ipods or Mobile Phones, materialistic tools to compensate for a lack of mental happyness. It only creates spoiled, unappreciative brats who do not know what true happyness is.
Quote:
I am concerned about the future because that's where everyone will live.
Awesome job you are doing then 
Quote:
You want to be relieved of labour? Ethically obtain capital and live of profit, rent and interest. As simple as that  .
I don't see how that can make you happy knowing others work their asses off to survive. But then, I think I have a nasty disease called a conscience, hence I wouldn't be fit to ever work in that financial world to begin with obviously
Quote:
Besides, if you want an abundance of free time, I am sorry to disappoint you, but the time is a terribly scarce resource, and any individual will eventually run out of it. Societies too, unless they manage to move to another dimension of some sort.
And why would I care whether I pay for my food etc., as long as I get them  ? I see no logic in that. If I don't have something I want and nobody is kind enough to give it to me, I should strive to afford it on my own, not whine that 'they are sooo bad, they didn't give it to me'.
You don't seem to be getting it.
Stating that food is the utmost primair basic need all human beings need, naturally this would imply a society's MAIN focus should be on creating such an abundance of this material to provide it to ALL human beings without a price tag. (Again, IF we were living in a society that strives towards happyness.)
Hence, the focus should be on lifting technology to such a level that it can fully automaticly produce food. This technology should NOT be privately owned; it would be owned by the STATE, as the state is the representation of ALL human beings. That food would then be provided to all human beings for free.
There is NOTHING wrong with this.
Farmers lose there jobs? Yes and No. Is it bad? No.
They might lose their job since food is free, but there would still be people who would like natural produced food, probably.
It's not bad though since one wouldn't need money anymore to survive; all food is free. Hence a farmer can choose what he will do.
Would you agree or disagree with my statement that this SHOULD be main focus of any society that strives to create happyness?
Quote:
Yeah right don't strive for more, don't perform the best of yourselves, be satiated with what you have and stagnate. Do you think it is a sin to strive for more knowledge, better achievements?
I never said that was. My quarrel is with materialistic gain and strive.
Moreover, the capitalistic idea that only with an eye on profits one has enough motivation to work to his fullest extent, is the most rediculous piece of propaganda I have heard since the claim US went to Iraq to bring peace and freedom.
It DOES, however, make one capable of great atrocities (you can link this statement ENTIRELY (literally) to the above statement).
Quote:
It is not in my opinion. I think we should aim at our best as society and individuals, to give the best we can, not at having everyone take what he wants without effort.
And I think we should have both. What makes you THINK for one second this is a choice between A and B?
Quote:
Why? Why if one takes something that belongs to nobody should be prepared to lose something that now belongs to him?
Because you are the only one who gives yourself the right to claim it. Likewise I can give myself the right to claim items that belong to others. Unfair? No less unfair than what you are doing.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
That's not a good argument, UNLESS you let all animals move through your home as they wish, which I don't really think
If an animal moves through my property, I can remove it if I want to. If I move through an alien's property, it can remove me if it wants to. Likewise, that animal can try to stop me from removing it, and I can try to stop the alien from removing me.
Quote:
It's not bad in this case since it's made for that but not so with the opportunities.
Except that the number of opportunities is constantly increasing as people attain theirs. Imagine if the lottery worked this way!
Quote:
"clearly defined" in your reason? What is clearly?
Written on a document acknowledged by the government and other people.
Quote:
Why, cause we/you do the same. So you're not following the "do unto others as they do unto you" principle
Yes, I am. If I found an alien in my house, I might want to remove it. He might not like it. Same here. Very much "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Quote:
Suppose I'm an alien and I "own" Antarctica, but I have no intention of living there or using it (just like some people have more than one home, you know?).
You can't own it, because there is nothing that shows your claim.
Moonlith:
Quote:
Keeping the environment healthy does NOT earn you any money
What? It certainly can. If the incentives are misaligned, then the government has to tweak things a little bit to align them. And then it might certainly become profitable to keep the environment healthy.
Quote:
I don't see how that can make you happy knowing others work their asses off to survive.
Except that without me, they wouldn't even be able to do that in the first place. If I make the investment, then I make money and they don't starve. If I don't make the investment, then I don't make money and they starve. I don't see how anybody benefits from me not making the investment.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 03:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If an animal moves through my property, I can remove it if I want to. If I move through an alien's property, it can remove me if it wants to. Likewise, that animal can try to stop me from removing it, and I can try to stop the alien from removing me.
But you call the alien 'evil' in such a case, or 'bastard'. In fact, it is your mere reflection
Quote:
Written on a document acknowledged by the government and other people.
LOL.
This fails in both points:
1) anti-socialism arguments
2) alien analogy
For (1), such 'document' is acknowledged by the government as you said. If the government is 100% socialistic (not something that I would incline though), it won't acknowledge your property. So there is no problem right? Since your only argument for that was "to be written on a document acknowledge by the gov." then in a socialism government (that's a society too you know) you are left with no arguments what-so-ever about them not taking your property... Right? So why are we still talking?
For (2), you have got to be joking. You could have said such silly things from the start to prevent me from typing and arguing pointlessly -- surely you don't expect aliens to come and write a document in english so our government can acknowledge, ONLY IF IT WANTS OF COURSE -- say I was an alien and I want to SUGGEST to you that Antarctica is my home. Surely if I go there you won't just say it's mine right? So how do I proceed? (remember I am an alien, let's keep this serious, so I don't know english and all that "documents" (LOL) required).
Quote:
Yes, I am. If I found an alien in my house, I might want to remove it. He might not like it. Same here. Very much "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
You are rational. You can think that if an alien does the same to you, he can't be 'evil' unless you are also evil, since you do the same. In fact, if you are rational enough, you can just accept it as a consequence of how you are -- your reflection so to speak.
Quote:
You can't own it, because there is nothing that shows your claim.
So I proved my point! You see, you keep claiming "if the Moon suggests it's "owned" then we won't go there" but such a thing you say now that "you can't own it" which means what you said before was pointless. Pointless.
So then how come you don't like when the government takes away your property but you do so with "aliens" and claim as much as you want? How come? You acknowledged that it's kinda impossible so your previous statements are pointless (e.g: if they suggest blabla, yeah riiiiight...).
For example, like I said before, I asked how I can say that Antarctica is mine, you said i cannot -- so I proved my point. We will just take and claim anything anyway, as we know too well that it's kinda impossible to prove something abstract like a property (read: for those who don't respect a piece of document in english text), and in fact it's silly at the same time.
Therefore, we CLAIM as much as we want, and then like GREEDY bastards we KEEP on it and fiercely fight back if not -- which is where the barbarism aka might comes into play. But no, you see, you are annoyed when this rule (MIGHT) applies against you -- such as the government taking your property, or aliens taking your property. How come you get annoyed at it and you advocate such mentality? That's like advocating murder, without wanting to get killed. 
But if said aliens came to us with EXACTLY the same reasons (CLAIMING) and saying "you don't have the alien-documents, so there's no proof you own it", then I guess we fight back right? Maybe nuke them, right? Surely they would want to use this mentality and would find this very pleasant.
But we do the same, we can't blame them. I think we should nuke ourselves.
I find it disgusting, like I said, to claim as much as we want (knowing that there are no "absolute" property laws in the universe) and using our MIGHT to accomplish that (in short taking advantage of the weak), and not expecting that property to be taken or exploited by someone even mightier. It's disgusting, where's the freaking justice?
Or are we too barbaric for that notion (justice)?
Quote:
What? It certainly can. If the incentives are misaligned, then the government has to tweak things a little bit to align them. And then it might certainly become profitable to keep the environment healthy.
In our lifetime?
Quote:
Except that without me, they wouldn't even be able to do that in the first place. If I make the investment, then I make money and they don't starve. If I don't make the investment, then I don't make money and they starve. I don't see how anybody benefits from me not making the investment.
Yes they could do it. Look at it this way, with CLAIMING property which i find DISGUSTING, when you DON'T want others to take it away. You own the "factory" but if you die the next day they can "claim" it, assuming of course no government/inheritance. How can that ever be fair? In fact, how childish does it sound?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 04:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But you call the alien 'evil' in such a case, or 'bastard'.
No, I don't. The alien would be perfectly justified to do so.
Quote:
For (1), such 'document' is acknowledged by the government as you said. If the government is 100% socialistic (not something that I would incline though), it won't acknowledge your property. So there is no problem right? Since your only argument for that was "to be written on a document acknowledge by the gov." then in a socialism government (that's a society too you know) you are left with no arguments what-so-ever about them not taking your property... Right? So why are we still talking?
If people want to live under socialism and not have property, that's fine with me. Just don't make me live with them and by their system. It would be quite possible to have a socialistic social contract. On the other hand, such a social contract wouldn't be optimal to ensure people's well-being.
Quote:
(remember I am an alien, let's keep this serious, so I don't know english and all that "documents" (LOL) required).
Then, my friend, you're up **** creek without a paddle.
Quote:
So I proved my point! You see, you keep claiming "if the Moon suggests it's "owned" then we won't go there"
Because if the aliens were to go through the legitimate channels to claim the moon, then they would own it and we wouldn't go there.
Quote:
So then how come you don't like when the government takes away your property but you do so with "aliens" and claim as much as you want?
Because the government can only do what we allow it to do - it derives its power from the consent of the governed. With aliens, it's completely different. We're not in a social contract with them, we don't even know if they're there (!), and, if we take the risk of taking what might be their property, that risk is likely to pay off.
Quote:
Therefore, we CLAIM as much as we want, and then like GREEDY bastards we KEEP on it and fiercely fight back if not -- which is where the barbarism aka might comes into play.
I do not take what I know to be others' property. I expect others to do the same. I don't see what's so barbaric about the social contract. If someone breaches it, I am willing to defend my property and/or let them be punished.
Quote:
But if said aliens came to us with EXACTLY the same reasons (CLAIMING) and saying "you don't have the alien-documents, so there's no proof you own it", then I guess we fight back right? Maybe nuke them, right? Surely they would want to use this mentality and would find this very pleasant.
Not necessarily. If we can find some way to cooperate, then we wouldn't have to.
Quote:
In our lifetime?
Yes. Ever heard of cap-and-trade? A carbon tax? etc.
Quote:
How can that ever be fair?
It's perfectly fair. What's wrong?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 05:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I don't. The alien would be perfectly justified to do so.
Then you should accept that since you are rational, not just an animal fighting for its survival without thinking. We are civilized because we can resort to other things than might and we can ACCEPT the responsibilities and not pass the blame. So you shouldn't really fight back being rational, rather you should try to change yourself (if the aliens are rational too) to a civilized approach rather than "might makes right" used by primitive or barbaric mentalities (e.g: cavemen ).
Quote:
If people want to live under socialism and not have property, that's fine with me. Just don't make me live with them and by their system. It would be quite possible to have a socialistic social contract. On the other hand, such a social contract wouldn't be optimal to ensure people's well-being.
I don't think so. In fact it would be a lot more optimal on average. Sure you won't see billionaires anymore but you won't see so many beggars either. On average it's usually better, of course with an ideal government, not with one that burns money for a select few in charge
Besides, if you don't want to live under socialism, then you also want the socialists, implicitly, to not expand on your region right? Funny thing because you advocate your expansion upon aliens...
So there's nothing wrong here, it's just justice for mentality. You want to expand and claim as you wish? Then accept the socialists expanding and claiming and "not leaving you alone" and taking your property and ignoring your "documents" or "signs" that your home is yours. Sorry it's just justice... You reap what you sow, mentally
Still I would trust a government more than a big company without any government -- because the latter has no reason to represent the people, at least the government can have that conscience upon itself. (both can be abused of course)
Quote:
Then, my friend, you're up **** creek without a paddle.
See? See my point? Why do you keep saying that we won't just take it away from them without caring about what they give us as "proof" (e.g THEIR documents)?
Fine then, you go on an island but as long as you keep thinking we can claim as much as we want, then get ready for the island to be claimed by the socialists and take away your property soon enough -- just to make you feel a taste of your own mentality 
Quote:
Because if the aliens were to go through the legitimate channels to claim the moon, then they would own it and we wouldn't go there.
"legitimate channels"? please get serious. What is that, some HUMAN government DOCUMENT? Some alien documents? What's legitimate channel lol? Is it an absolute law of the universe?
Quote:
Because the government can only do what we allow it to do - it derives its power from the consent of the governed.
Ever heard of dictatorships?
Quote:
With aliens, it's completely different. We're not in a social contract with them, we don't even know if they're there (!), and, if we take the risk of taking what might be their property, that risk is likely to pay off.
You know, you risked a lot in Soviet Russia as well... it seems to me like you didn't like that regime to be oppressed, yet you advocate that against aliens or to be able to claim as much as you want.
Quote:
I do not take what I know to be others' property. I expect others to do the same. I don't see what's so barbaric about the social contract. If someone breaches it, I am willing to defend my property and/or let them be punished.
Let's think higher than the "social contract" found in capitalism shall we?
it's not the only one available you know...
Quote:
Not necessarily. If we can find some way to cooperate, then we wouldn't have to.
"War of the Worlds"??
or "The surest sign that there is no intelligence out there is that none of it has tried to contact us yet"??
no higher civilization wants to get in contact with barbaric humans like us as we are now. Here is a short review for example:Quote:
Enemy Mine, a 1985 science fiction film derived from Barry B. Longyear's award-winning 1979 novella, depicts an intergalactic war between human beings and an alien race called the Drac. Marooned by their battle-damaged space fighters on an isolated, inhospitable planet, a Drac and a man start off as enemies. Out of survival necessity, however, they make a wary peace.
Eventually, the two become the dearest of friends. The Drac has a faith and a sense of his own spirituality and the divine that his human counterpart can readily identify as such. The Drac reads frequently from a small book of religious/philosophical text that hangs around his neck, and often sits outside at sunset, pondering the larger questions of life and meaning and speaking about them with his newfound human companion.
Ultimately, the alien's faith and friendship motivate the human being to consider something other than his prestige as a top-scoring fighter pilot focused solely on advancing his military career. The alien reminds the man that life is so much more than just a scramble for conquest and material success. The Drac even rescues the man from being eaten by one of the planet's predators, and suffers for it later. The human being is much better off for having learned to respect and even love an alien as a being of great faith and courage.
How can you call the bolded part "higher" than what we are? It's exactly what we are. So if aliens were to be higher they would have to improve this mentality -- something which is found best in cavemen even MORE than in us (a lot more self interest and brutality back then), therefore it is logical to deduce it is a primitive mentality. Evolving surely isn't easy, and may not be pleasant for primitive beings though, and I'm not sure if we'll be strong enough (mentally) to overcome this.
Quote:
Yes. Ever heard of cap-and-trade? A carbon tax? etc.
Taxes aren't profitable per se, they don't produce anything.
Quote:
It's perfectly fair. What's wrong?
You advocate murder yet you don't want to be murdered. (example analogy of course)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 07:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So you shouldn't really fight back being rational
In this case, it's rational to fight back.
Quote:
Sure you won't see billionaires anymore but you won't see so many beggars either.
The capitalist system is more productive. Say under capitalism you have two guys: one produces 100 productivity points, and receives 100 standard of living points, and the other produces 5 productivity points and receives 5 standard of living points. Under socialism, though, both of them would be less productive: the first guy would only produce 95 points, and the second guy would produce 4 points. And they would both receive 49.5 standard of living points. So the guy with the higher standard of living would lose more than the guy with the lower standard of living would gain. Not to mention that redistribution is immoral.
Quote:
Funny thing because you advocate your expansion upon aliens...
Funny thing how the aliens don't make themselves known in any way. Until they do, I will not assume that they exist, as I have no basis for doing so.
Quote:
Fine then, you go on an island but as long as you keep thinking we can claim as much as we want, then get ready for the island to be claimed by the socialists and take away your property soon enough -- just to make you feel a taste of your own mentality
The socialists would see quite clearly that I live there. Also, they would gain more by cooperating with me than by fighting me.
You see, fighting is a waste of resources.
Quote:
"legitimate channels"? please get serious. What is that, some HUMAN government DOCUMENT? Some alien documents? What's legitimate channel lol? Is it an absolute law of the universe?
Or they could just leave some bit of technology or some sort of sign that says, "This is ours."
Quote:
Ever heard of dictatorships?
Even most dictatorships claim that, theoretically.
Quote:
You know, you risked a lot in Soviet Russia as well... it seems to me like you didn't like that regime to be oppressed, yet you advocate that against aliens or to be able to claim as much as you want.
I'm not going to oppress or kill aliens. But if they are leaving their property unattended without any kind of mark that it is owned by somebody (and remember that we've never encountered them, so we have no idea what it should look like!), then we can take it.
Quote:
"War of the Worlds"??
I never read it. I watched the movie, though. It seemed to me that those aliens were nothing like humans - they were too stupid to cooperate.
Quote:
So if aliens were to be higher they would have to improve this mentality -- something which is found best in cavemen even MORE than in us (a lot more self interest and brutality back then), therefore it is logical to deduce it is a primitive mentality.
Or maybe we've just come up with different and better ways to accomplish the same thing. Did that ever cross your mind? And I don't see how it's "higher" or "better" not to be self-interested.
Quote:
Taxes aren't profitable per se, they don't produce anything.
True. But they can make it unprofitable to pollute, which would make it more profitable to not pollute.
Quote:
You advocate murder yet you don't want to be murdered.
Not really. We were talking about a factory. It is my risk-taking that allowed the factory to come into being in the first place. Now, if I die, have no heirs, the government doesn't seize it, and there are no shareholders, then sure, the workers can have it. What's wrong with that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 07:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In this case, it's rational to fight back.
Because animals do it? Because the most primitive thing with no rational thought does it? That's why it's rational?
Quote:
The capitalist system is more productive.
Yep, more productive, for greedy people, at the expense of others. Thanks for proving my point that the capitalism works like a virus who doesn't care about other people and ALWAYS looks ONLY for profit/resources/whatever. Funny thing is that in capitalism system you don't want others to take away your property, when you do CLAIM.
I'm not really sure how many times I have to re-explain the obvious flaw in the logic here. Well, at least, the bidirectional logic, since it has one of the directions blocked in your case (unidirectional).
Quote:
Funny thing how the aliens don't make themselves known in any way. Until they do, I will not assume that they exist, as I have no basis for doing so.
I am an alien. Antarctica is mine. How should I make myself known? I don't know much about your government or documents -- instead, I propose, how about you make yourself known to us, because we don't see the Earth beings yours, or Antarctica, or your structure of elements, you call your "home". How should we proceed because you have to give us a sign to make sure it's yours.
Quote:
The socialists would see quite clearly that I live there. Also, they would gain more by cooperating with me than by fighting me.
You see, fighting is a waste of resources.
Why would they cooperate with you? By doing so their system gets changed, when they WANT that island. Some people (e.g: nazis) do not care for the WHOLE human race because they consider some of it filth or don't care about it. They care about nazis. Cooperation brings DEATH to nazis -- even though it might bring benefit to human society as a whole. So why should they do it?
I can ask the same: nuking ourselves brings MORE benefit to the universe. Would you do it?
Why do you expect the Nazis to "cooperate" then? That's what you're asking them to do! (that's what they are, so in effect, you "nuke" their mentality!). Who said you have more rights to say what's right and what's wrong or what's more "benefit" or what's not -- why limit to the human race and not to animals? You're being like them too.
Quote:
Or they could just leave some bit of technology or some sort of sign that says, "This is ours."
The Earth could be considered "special" for example, but nah, who am I kidding? You're arguing for the sake of it. We both know we will try to explain it with "natural causes" right? 
and why should they use that, what if they use socialist system? What if they want it to be undisturbed and in fact they do not THINK that a greedy and barbaric race like us would DARE to take it? But technically it is "theirs", what they own, even though they do not USE.
Only that they find no reason to put signs. You find no reason to put policeman if there are no criminals right?
Quote:
Even most dictatorships claim that, theoretically.
Yeah "theoretically", but when you rise up for "the benefit of all" they shoot you.
Quote:
I'm not going to oppress or kill aliens. But if they are leaving their property unattended without any kind of mark that it is owned by somebody (and remember that we've never encountered them, so we have no idea what it should look like!), then we can take it.
LOL. Are you repeating the same stuff all over again? I already explained this but here's it spelled out without details (if you bother to read my details before otherwise I'm done talking since it seems they are ignored):
Take Antarctica. So, if I am an alien, it's "enough" to claim the whole land just by putting a sign there "This is owned by Borsuc" in the middle?
or do I need to draw a border?
get serious... this is kinda childish
Quote:
I never read it. I watched the movie, though. It seemed to me that those aliens were nothing like humans - they were too stupid to cooperate.
hahaha that's funny, because that's what we would do. In fact, we could have cooperated -- you see, why do they have to make the first step? Why not us?
What's funny is that even robots feel 'threatened' by the human race, not only aliens. Perfectly understandable really... since even humans get nuked by humans, no wonder.
right?
Quote:
Or maybe we've just come up with different and better ways to accomplish the same thing. Did that ever cross your mind? And I don't see how it's "higher" or "better" not to be self-interested.
I never said anything about self-interested. I said that such materialistic-goal (note, materialism as a goal, that is more and more resources, rather than just philosophy) is primitive. It requires too much destruction for the sake of a few primitive pleasure when we could attain it differently -- if we dared to change our mentalities of course.
And it's higher of course, because it's really hard for animals to NOT be self-interested. On the other hand, it's easier for us -- and it's not a negative trait either (call it neutral). But we can so as we know, we should choose that if we are to evolve. (that is, if a creature grows 4 arms instead of 2, it should USE the other 2 if it wants to evolve further like 6 arms etc...)
But you want us to remain like we are now, only that more quantity. That's primitive, what is the point? We should instead cut down on quantity and improve on quality (in mentalities of course). That is, I'm talking about our own SELVES, aka humans, not the freaking resources we shape.
Quote:
True. But they can make it unprofitable to pollute, which would make it more profitable to not pollute.
Unprofitable to who? Surely, it would be very profitable for the government...
Quote:
Not really. We were talking about a factory. It is my risk-taking that allowed the factory to come into being in the first place. Now, if I die, have no heirs, the government doesn't seize it, and there are no shareholders, then sure, the workers can have it. What's wrong with that?
yeah so it becomes a primitive "who gets (claims) it first, wins it! On your marks, get set, GO!" right?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
Since it's obvious that you just don't understand and don't want to listen, I'm not going to discuss this with you any more. Thank you for your time.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 08:43 PM |
|
|
That was kinda inevitable. Dunno why you kept arguing for like a page because my post above contained 90% only previously-made points
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2008 11:22 PM |
|
|
There is still one more point that needs to be addressed, though. TheDeath, do you think that the Fed can do what he is supposed to, under a capitalist system? In other words, which would you prefer, all other things being the same: a capitalist system with a central bank, or one without one?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2008 04:01 PM |
|
|
|
To be honest I'm not sure. I know both of them are wide open to abuse or flaws -- heck just because I advocate some form of socialism doesn't mean 100% and most certainly doesn't mean it's unflawed (e.g: corrupted governments). For sure I'm positive the gold standard is bad. But that'll require a lengthy explanation I just don't have time now.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 08, 2008 01:38 PM |
|
|
The Federal Reserve will end this economic crisis! Right?
For those still interested in this topic
You know, it's a VERY bad thing when the hunch I had of Obama's team consisting of same douchebags as before, comes true. It underlines the fact Obama has no power whatsoever, but he's just another puppet. But that's a different topic
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 08, 2008 10:53 PM |
|
|
It's not the institution of the Federal Reserve that's bad, but it's just that Bernanke is a bad Fed. Every time he opens his mouth, stocks plummet 5%. The first thing he should learn is to be quiet.
The second thing both he and the Treasury have to learn is to stop bailing out everyone and their dog. I mean, you're subsidizing failure here!
The third thing Bernanke has to learn is how to look proactive. He cuts interest rates too late to have an immediate benefit, and cuts them too soon to appear planned. It just looks panicky. It just seems to me that he doesn't know what he's doing. Alan Greenspan did a much better job.
Then again, Bush put this country at a bad footing when dealing with recessions. During times of growth, the government is supposed to raise taxes and cut spending, and build up a surplus. During recessions, the government is supposed to cut taxes, raise spending, and use the surplus, maybe going into a deficit, but spending out of the recession. This is called countercyclical policy. What Bush did was that he cut taxes and raised spending to deal with the dot-com bust and the 9/11 downturn - but he never reversed them during the time of growth. So now we enter a recession without the tools necessary to deal with it.
But I'm really glad to hear that Obama's team has nice, moderate, experienced people who understand economics. Especially Larry Summers. It gives me a lot of confidence to see that he didn't pick a bunch of socialists. Perhaps Obama's rhetoric was much to the left of his actual position.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
