If you feel that love could be explained, to your satisfaction, as a set of chemical formulas, i'm afraid i have no better analogies. You'll have to settle for dry arguments to internal consistency. Of course, by expressing love in a set of formulas, you've made it as elevated & sublime as as the crap you took today, and just as laudable.
I didn't say that love was meaningless. We can measure changes in brain chemistry when someone feels love. We can measure changes in electrical brain activity. We can even track permanent structural changes in the brain synapses when someone falls in love, and the continuing changes as that love continues to affect that person's life. All I was saying was that it's measurable, not magical. Just because landing an SUV on Mars and being able to take high resolution pictures of another planet was entirely reliant on an enormous slew of physics calculations, doesn't make the fact that we actually f'in did that any less special. It also doesn't make it a magical miracle. It's like the religious mindset has inextricably bound wonder and mystery together, and they find themselves incapable of experiencing wonder without the mystery. I can tell you in pretty exact detail how the atoms in our bodies (and everything else) were formed. That doesn't make it any less awesome and amazing (in their undiluted meaning) that we are made of star-dust. How's that for wonder? Jesus died for your sins? That's nice. Stars died so that you can exist. |
|
|
|
None of you could even say these things if you didn't live in a democracy.  Of course you could. If your rule/master allowed freedom of speech, dissent, etc. Nothing wrong with a King as long as he is just. The problem is just the tendency for a King to not be just. In theory you could have a just authoritarian state. It is is highly unlikely as it would require a utopian (not to be confused with utopia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorshipNo, neither in theory nor in reality can this be just. A kingdom is a collectivist organisation, and as soon as somebody wants to rule more than one natural blood community, he needs weapons, soldiers, henchmen and organised violence, and therefore census, tribute and taxes. Because people who are not related could never agree to follow someone voluntarily.  |
|
|
|
"Uniformed terrorist gang robs small-time entrepeneurs in plain daylight" I like this version. |
|
|
|
If you have a well-organised neighbourhood, what happens when a well-organised army from a whole region comes knocking at your door?
You ask the nearby well-organized neighborhoods to join in fighting off this army, and destroy the supply lines, rear bases, and transportation. In other words, you destroy their organization. If you have a relative that fought in Vietnam, ask him how well that worked. |
|
|
|
|
Still going, waiting for responses from:
Foxpup
FenixRD
Cameltoemcgee
Viscera
Jobe7
|
|
|
|
And how do you tax a people who have no money but lots of assets? Printing more money won't affect his wealth
this is the whole point: you wont tax them, it is supposed to hit only those with cash in hand. because when someone is poor and its only asset is flat he was working whole life to get one, there is no point to force him to pay for this when he cant or force him to sell this so he can buy cheaper. its not fair to me. So then the super-rich will all buy property, and the poor, who typically rent, will be unable to save any money to buy property. Good plan. Central banks can print money because the Governments say they can.
Prove? Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution: The Congress shall have Power...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; By definition, if the government takes away the Federal Reserve's power to print money (repeals the Federal Reserve Act), they become a counterfeiter and subject to "Punishment" as determined by Congress if they print any more. |
|
|
|
Capitalism failed to deliver (catalyzed by resorting to force in WWI) "If goods don t cross borders, armies will." - Frédéric Bastiat The most perverse being the concept of property rights, being a human right.
Property rights are required for capitalism to function. How can someone agree to trade something that isn't his? |
|
|
|
Uh... what? I take this to mean that you assume that they could have gone from 64% back up to 88% or more? Yes, that is what I meant. Well, they could, but if you look at what caused them to lose that market share, you'll see that it's not very likely that they would. Every time Standard Oil failed to capitalize on new technology, a competitor did, and so snagged a little bit more of their market share. The large company was simply too inflexible, and couldn't keep up with the more "nimble" smaller competitors. Then you have to look at what got them the 88% in the first place. They competed on quality (thus the name, even, selected because it indicate that their oil was all standardized, and of the same quality), before Standard, heating oil was basically a crapshoot. the refining was shoddy, and the quality of the product highly variable. There were fires, even explosions, resulting from varying, and thus unpredictable, quality of oil. Standard fixed that, and then all the other companies (the 12%) met their quality standards, and the competitive advantage that Standard had was gone. Then they had to compete on price. In fact, refined oil prices "fell from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869, to 10 cents in 1874, to 8 cents in 1885, and to 5.9 cents in 1897." So you can hardly say it was bad for the consumer. Well, they have government to regulate their industry, and keep competition from horning in on their business, don't they? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size. This is your assumption, and I disagree because I have yet to see solid proof of this hypothesis. Edit: wait, sorry, I'm not 100% sure whether I'm understanding you correctly. How are any of these corporations not suffering from diseconomies of scale exactly? Or are you suggesting that they are? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. They are (well, at east some of them are), in that their per-unit cost of production is higher than it absolutely needs to be. In a free market, a competitor could take advantage of that, and snag some of their market share from them. The bigger company would then be forced to "trim the fat," and get costs down. You can visualize this by looking at the graph I posted, and imagining that the bottom axis is "% of market served." If a company pushes past the bottom of that curve, in an attempt to serve more of the market, that opens up an opportunity for a competitor (Imagine a line coming in from the other side of the graph) to undercut them and make a profit, pushing them back to the bottom of the curve. Now, CEOs know this, and they also know that if they can secure 100% of the market, it doesn't matter what their costs are, because they can charge whatever they want. But as the graph shows, at 100% of the market, the cost would be very nearly prohibitive, so the only way they can keep a competitor from undercutting them is to prevent the competitor from competing in the first place. (Again, this is somewhat simplified, in the real world, that curve changes drastically for production of each item, changing shape, and moving around, and for some, the bottom of the curve does lie at 100%.) As for proof of this, you need only look at Amazon. Until recently, they have been vehemently against making internet sellers collect sales tax on the items they sell. They are forced to collect taxes on items they sell in states where they have physical presence, however, and so as they move into more states to supply their same-day-delivery service, their per-unit cost is rising due to tax. A competitor could take advantage of that, by servicing same-day delivery to states that Amazon hasn't reached yet, and only having to collect taxes on those few states, thus keeping their costs low. So to prevent that, they now have switched sides. The marginal cost of collecting all the taxes, not just the ones in states where they have physical presence is minor, now, compared to what they already pay. But, by forcing that smaller competitor to collect all those other taxes, and thus suffer the same costs as they do, they can keep the competitor out of their hair. The marginal cost for the competitor of these new regulations is much higher than that of Amazon, possibly removing the ability of the smaller company to compete at all. It doesn't get more textbook than that. Your personal incredulity of the science of economics does not mean that I am failing to debunk your fallacies, or even doing a poor job of it. It just indicates that you are unwilling to examine any other point of view.
Economy is a social science, not an exact science, like many people seem to think. And since it is a social science, you should wonder whether we should call it 'science' at all. The father of modern science (=scientific method) will explain to you why this is the case, if you really care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science. As opposed to a growing number of scholars, I don't think economic 'science' is totally useless myself. But you need to apply it in a very different way than you do exact sciences. If you drop a ball in an enclosed environment, you will be able to measure the velocity it falls with, how long it will take to hit the ground, etc. Do it again, and the outcome will be exactly the same. This is one of the main reasons the result will be scientific. Meteorology is a science, and the system that it models is chaotic, and hard to predict. The weather man is never 100% correct. Does this mean that meteorology is not a science, or that it is merely an inexact one? You judge a model in an inexact science, such as meteorology or economics by how well it predicts the behavior of the system it models. And Austrian economics has been vindicated time and again by correctly predicting market behavior. Keynesian economics, on the other hand, fails miserably. So, which model do you think we should adopt? |
|
|
|
Love is not a sin, and any God who calls it such is a sick and twisted one, not worthy of faith.
You are right, LOVE is not a sin. However, sex can become sinful depending on the circumstances. Sex and love are not one in the same. Sex can cause tremendous hurt. However, in the right context, it can be a beautiful thing that God created for us to show love. If it hurts, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
You will not like this but I have to write it anyways, the laws of scripture are there to protect us from pain and sorrow. The Bible has laws about sex. Sex was created by God to be something sacred. However it is the one thing I feel like Satan uses to hurt so many people when we go down a path that might seem OK at the time. I have been tempted to fall into sexual "sin" myself many times. I have had to ask for God's help not to do that and it is easy to ask the common question "if you love someone how can it be wrong?" But God's laws are actually meant to help us and protect us and are meant to bring peace, joy and every good and perfect gift to us. Love is not a sin, and any God who calls it such is a sick and twisted one, not worthy of faith. Let my worship be within the heart that rejoices, for behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals. Therefore, let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you. Now that's a deity I can get behind. |
|
|
|
The question is If bitcoin is the only currency in the world (as most of you expect), How the Economy will grow if the interest rate is not stable and is very high?
Well, setting aside that nobody with a lick of sense thinks bitcoin will be the only currency in the world (or even that cryptocurrencies will be the only thing used as money), the simple answer is that it won't. Which is why the interest rate will be low, and fairly stable. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you for sharing that, Rassah.
|
|
|
|
Everything is planned out
Well, I feel better now. That four-word phrase has completely restored my faith in your project. |
|
|
|
Agree, it's like the whole purpose of this devices is to be as loud an annoying as possible.
What do you mean "like"? The manufacturers do deliberately design these machines to be as loud as possible. They once tried putting mufflers on them, but nobody would buy them because they thought the quieter motors were less powerful. They honestly think the loud ones are better. So that's what the manufacturers make. Which proves that capitalism only works when the consumers aren't complete morons. Tsk... sound is energy too, and noise is energy lost. Such a shame. |
|
|
|
|
It is very difficult to buy 1/4 of a share of Apple stock.
It is very easy to buy .25 GBP
Bitcoin is a currency, not a stock.
When/if the Satoshi costs more than $1 USD, then you should probably bump this thread. Until then, let it die.
|
|
|
|
I'd thought that the "gun control" conversations got heated and rude. Who'da thought there'd be way more rudeness about computer OS's, eh myrkul?
Well, maybe Tonko is Bill Gates. Would explain a few things. Bill Gates is too smart to say such things. Applies to geniuses too:  |
|
|
|
Have you tried WineBottler? I'm a Linux man, myself, and haven't tried the Mac port, but I've had pretty good luck with WINE itself. As for littlefighter, looks interesting, I'll have to try it out. |
|
|
|
Well, maybe Tonko is Bill Gates. Would explain a few things.
C'mon myrkul. I understand that making a porn site in Czech Republic cheaply, with all the free Linux and JS tools, does make you biased a bit. But you just use, not understand the technology. You are basically techno pimp. Wut? If I have a Czech porn site, I don't know about it. Shouldn't I be getting some income from that? Dammit, where's my cut? |
|
|
|
I generally like reading your post, it's interesting that as an anarchist you know more than a lot of statists about how real-world politics work. Rather like an atheist knowing the bible (and all it's contradictions) better than a good many Christians. As for China, it should also be pointed out that, is there is not a collective self-consciousness for a movie like "V for Vendetta" to provoke repercussions, to the extent that perhaps even the censors failed to get the movie's point. Last time I checked, in Amazon China "1984" was given away on a "buy one get one" basis.
I did not know that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
