Last time I checked, the phrase was death and taxes. |
|
|
|
Did you forget what site you're on? If you think Bitcoins can be regulated, let me know how.
Bitcoins are not an economy. At best, they're a financial instrument. An economy is a much greater thing, which includes agents, instruments, resources, and waste, and often exists within a closed system. |
|
|
|
Then excuse my language, but what in the hell are you doing in an economy that cannot be regulated?
Clarify, please. |
|
|
|
Why is preserving ones own possessions bad?
Is there no moral or other difference between preserving ones own possessions without initiating force/fraud, and preserving ones own possessions by initiating force/fraud, that is relevant to this thread? (I'm actually curious, because if no such difference is relevant, then I'll just bow out.)
There is nothing wrong with preserving one's own possessions. It's just that there are other issues at play due to the complexity of the world and its closed system. They should be addressed with equal, if not more weight. I can assure you, that nobody here wants to break into your house and take your possessions. That's why it would be a really good idea if everyone could get past that and move on to bigger issues, like large entities using their possessions and wealth to cause bad thing to happen within that closed system, both near term and long term. |
|
|
|
Say what now?
Sorry. I just keep hearing how economies run amok are so great around here. Problem is, they aren't really forward thinking, amd there are cancerous elements in them which harm the system. In medicine, external influences are applied to restrain these cancerous cells. |
|
|
|
The individual is the economy. the Market is the sum of all voluntary human actions.
Kind of like cancer cells, then? |
|
|
|
All you can think is "me me me, mine mine mine."
That's all you're doing. EDIT: You haven't said one god damned thing that would indicate that your views are nothing more than about preserving your own possessions. |
|
|
|
It sure does. I think that murder, rape and theft are wrong and if you disagree, tough shit. I am a tyrannical bastard when it comes to you keep your hands to yourself unless you have permission otherwise.
What are you going on about? Honestly. It must really suck to have to argue from your point of view. I said earlier that the world and human society are of great complexity, and the confluence of the two doesn't make it less so. Why the fuck do you think everything is the same as rape and murder? I challenge you to make a clear point going forward. |
|
|
|
I'll only get back in when it gets above $30.
Actually, that's a lie, but nonetheless, it would be a valid trading strategy, as counter as it may seem.
Somebody has to buy high, sell low! Do you mean to say that you aren't familiar with the validity of that strategy? |
|
|
|
If you think you should be able to put your hands on other people or their property without their permission because you feel entitled to a comfortable life, I feel bad for you.
Do not confuse my statements with welfare programs. |
|
|
|
At the turn of the century, the US had thousands of telephone companies...
You're missing the point. Those thousands of telephone companies were not in competition with each other. They were regional. There is a reason that the government allows one utility to have a monopoly. It's because of economies of scale. It is more cost effective to have one set of lines (gas, water, telephone, cable, power, sewer) then to have multiple. Someone has to invest in that infrastructure. Obviously, you don't believe it should be the government, which is fine. So, some business does it. Now, to prevent them from having power over you, there needs to be some type of regulation. |
|
|
|
How are your responses making your proposed world appealing, again? I thought the point of debate was to try and win your case by showing it's better. My case is won by showing that we should keep our hands off other people and their property unless we have their permission and following that to its logical conclusion. Your simple one liners are not solutions to very large, complex and finely nuanced problems. I am open to addressing each of these issues on a case by case basis, given time. The world is a very complex place, and human society is a very large system. The confluence of these two systems creates complexities which are beyond your simple answers. |
|
|
|
Walk. Grow your own food. Live in a plastic bubble.
How are your responses making your proposed world appealing, again? I thought the point of debate was to try and win your case by showing it's better. |
|
|
|
I wonder though, how much of the information presented there is information that was shown to be falsified in Climategate.
Climategate is old news. Seriously. For the scientific community, it's business as usual, which means that research continues as it has. If you want to post recent material that isn't from a conspiracy rag that clearly shows that the current consensus on Global Warming is highly questionable, then please do so. |
|
|
|
|
I'll only get back in when it gets above $30.
Actually, that's a lie, but nonetheless, it would be a valid trading strategy, as counter as it may seem.
|
|
|
|
What I'm saying, as in the pornography example, is that while you think freedom of personal choice means total freedom, the rest of the universe that doesn't have their heads up their asses do not. This is because I am also affected by OTHER PEOPLES' persons choices that I have absolutely no control over or say in, as in the pornography example.
In Liberkidland, while I can personally choose not to do drugs, I cannot choose to not live in a society that is tainted by rampant drug use.
While I can choose to carry car insurance on my own car, I cannot choose to not be subjected to roads full of uninsured drivers.
While I can choose to eat healthy, I cannot choose to not be stuck wondering whether the labels on food (if there are any) are false or not because there is no regulatory agency controlling them.
While I can choose not to harm the environment myself, I cannot choose to not live in a world whose environment is being destroyed by unregulated businesses.
While I can choose to not take people to a heavily biased, privately own kangaroo court, I cannot choose to not be at the mercy of others taking me to these courts for frivilous reasons because that is the only legal system in existence.
While I can choose to work hard, I cannot choose to not live in a society of exploited workers and I will be worse off for it.
Here's what their predictable answer will be: "But if you don't like it, then you can change it!" Or, "You can move to an area where it is like you want it to be!" Or, "I'd rather have all those freedoms than live under the boot of my oppressor!" Or, "But you can set up a petition to get some laws and then legally show how what I am doing is unlawful!" |
|
|
|
Hey, as long as you're not knocking heads to get your way, I'm OK with it. Hell, if you run an ad campaign that convinces people to use less efficient methods because they value the Environment. Just don't force anyone to do anything.
These are my beliefs: - The ecosystem is an asset, in many ways.
- Picking the low hanging fruit in excess disrupts the ecosystem in irreversible ways.
- It is human nature to pick the low hanging fruit, thus education is necessary, and regulation.
- By imposing stringent regulation, there is a rush to develop efficient alternatives to living off of the low hanging fruit.
- There is a lot of money and power who have short term goals, and would prefer to pick the low hanging fruit. These are self motivated individuals and entities, and they will prey upon the general ignorance of the masses by creating massive campaigns to lead others to believe that preservation of the world's ecosystems are not a priority. They further have the advantage by arguing that regulations will cause higher prices. It is easy to buy into this, but in the end it is exploitation, both of the public, and the ecosystems.
Note to point number one: it may be reversible over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, but in the shorter term, which is the world we live in, it is essentially irreversible. |
|
|
|
Here's a third: You make a way to do something without damaging the environment, that is as or more efficient than one that does, and make a whole load of money in the process.
I agree. So you've come around completely to my view, which is that of ecological economics, as put forth by Herman Daly? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
