I can't speak to your claims, since I didn't review them; but you can pretty much assume that mods aren't going to do anything about someone who is likely joking, or isn't but can't really follow through, unless they are really being an asshat.  Being offensive to one or some isn't enough, you would have to be offensive to just about everyone, and often, to be sensored for your opinions alone.

Also, since the new reporting system was put into place, the root problem with the old one never really changed; namely some people will report people that they don't like in mass to the point of spamming the reporting system.  I, for one, grew tired of checking for these reports and finding nothing particularly noteworthly, and don't put much time into researching them anymore.

He was serious.

Quote me, now.

I'm sure that everyone here, including you, were aware that was a joke.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated.  Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position.  Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything.  I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused.  I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

Dude, just walk down the hall.  I'm sure that he works in the same five sided building you do.

The Spanish did not introduce the concept of ownership to the Americas.  Get your real history straight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Civilized_Tribes

These were some of those 'Matriarchal' societies that you favor, and they most certainly had a concept of land ownership, particularly of homesteading.  They were often referred to 'the people of the longhouse' because they built long multi-family dormitories

EDIT:  BTW, just because you're another American mutt, doesn't mean that you're not a racist.  It's your beliefs that make you racist, not your bloodline.

Racist bastard.  My grandfather was full blooded Cherokee.  He was also Southern Baptist.  Leave your hollywood stereotypes at the door.  They didn't live in teepees either.  They owned farms well before any of them had seen a white man, and they most certainly did own trees. 

Interns generally don't even get the fish for a day, the daily pay of the unskilled cabin boy is a better deal for the cabin boy.  Your priorities are screwed.

I know how, and my children will know also; but subsistance farming isn't a preferable lifestyle to most.  Specialization is for insects, but free trade always improves the lifestyles of those who freely engage in it.  And yes, I can prove that.

http://desertislandgame.com/


Capitalist pig!

Form a premise that we can agree upon, and then try to build up from that logical beginning.  For example, you have already conceded that you own yourself, and that I own myself.  That's a premise. 

And based upon that premise; that I own myself, then no one else can own me without my consent.  How exactly, did I come to owe anything?  Did I consent to some great 'social contract'?  If you're going to say that I owe because I was born, when did I agree to that?  Even communist societies raise children for the benefit of the communist society, not for the children.  How do the children born in China under Mao owe Mao, or even China, anything?


Don't you wonder how I knew that?


What is there to elaborate?  Those words are opposites, and they are absolutes.  There can be no middle ground; literally speaking.  If you are working for someone, either you agreed to the terms in order to improve your own conditions, or you were forced into servitude against your own will.  Being 'forced' to work for a living simply because the alternative is hunger is not involuntary; society does not owe you a living, much less a comfortable one.

EDIT:  Pop Quiz!  What is the capital in this context?

More nonsense.  Pay is giving the cabin boy a fish out of the day's catch, he learns to fish by observation and participation in the trade of the fisherman.  His increases in the skill of the trade increase his value to the captain of the boat, and also his pay.  Eventually his wages exceed his need, and he can save up to buy his own boat from the boatmaker; or simply convince the boatmaker of his creditworthiness based upon his reputation as an experienced fisherman and crewman, in which case the boatmaker secures an ongoing source for fish for his own family's table.  Every step without coercion.  Employing an unskilled laborer is both giving him a fish for a day's work, and teaching him to fish.

I owe society nothing, but nor does it owe me anything.  Specificly, I don't owe the society that I was born into any loyalty, although I might choose to grant same for some time in exchange for ongoing consideration.  Likewise, my society does not owe me any support, although support might be provided. 


You have convinced me of nothing, and have yet failed to provide an argument.


My image of your capacity of rational thought is a bit lacking.  I know too little of the rest of you to form an opinion.  I honestly have no opinion upon your values, because I see no evidence that you have formed any of your own; all you do is quote other people's opinions.  That would be like me quoting my pastor in a debate with an atheist, and never so much as mentioning the Bible.  The impressions, opinions or value judgements of others are entirely irrelevant.


And my point is, once again, made for me.  Now you want me to read (again, mind you) the opinions of an ancient socialist, as if I should sudden declare, "Of course!  How could I not have seen it before!"


More word salad.  You are a liberal arts major, aren't you.  That degree is perfect for a career in food service, BTW.

They may have a say, (the right to express an opinon on the matter) but there can only be one person who "owns" me.  I'm the decider.  How my decision about me affects others is secondary at best.


In short, no.


My decisions to respect their rights also considers what I consider to be rights.  As long as I'm not trying to harm them, my decision to harm myself or my own property has no effect upon their rights.


Labor is time.  Nothing more, nothing less.


I've already presented many arguments that you have simply ignored.  Why waste my time, when you aren't really trying?  I'm not at all obligated to convince you of anything, It's you that is trying to convince me, remember?


This doesn't parse.  Do you think I have a poor self-image?


If they have the choice to quit without being thrown into some kind of debtors' prison, it's not slavery no matter what the conditions may be.


There really isn't a middle ground.  Either labor is voluntary or involuntary.


It needs at least one verifiable, objective, fact.  A subjective opinoin never qualifies.  Are you a liberal arts major?


No, they are not.  Argumetns are about objective facts put inot a hypothesis about the causes and effects of those facts.   Nothing less is an argument.  You might as well be blabering about how you 'feel' about things.


More word salad.

Lovely opinion.  Did you have an argument?


Says you.  Argument?


By my understanding of the term, slavery implies involuntary servitude.



You think that highly of your own opinion, do you?

Maybe for some people, but some people are easily influenced.  I'm not one of those people.  I require some convinceing, and you are falling down on the job.


I disagree, my labor is as much to sell as anything else of my property.  If you disagree, make an argument.


So what if it is?  If my life is mine, I have the right to dispose of it as I see fit, including to waste or destroy it.  And no one else has the right to trump my decision.


Are you a person or a random word bot?

http://www.treehugger.com/gadgets/meet-earl-your-solar-powered-backcountry-survival-tablet.html

A kindle type e-ink ereader, that can run Android apps natively, with a built in GPS/AM/FM/SW/LW/Weather Alert receiver, a FRS/GMRS/MURS transceiver, a complete weather monitoring sensor set, and a solar panel.

Holy sh*t!

Alternative title...

A Fool and his Money soon parted.

So we do agree on this basic root principle.  We are already getting somewhere.

I'll address the next princple after addressing your other statements...


I don't disagree, but nor do I agree completely.  My issue with the above statement is that what is a 'fair' price is a matter of perspectives, but what is the market price is independent of such perspectives. 

Again, we don't disagree on the substance, but on the causes.  While the above is true enough, it's not the fault of the employer that you cannot get a better wage than what he chooses to offer for his work. nor are the circumsatances that compell you to seek employment his responsibility, so long as he is not conspiring with those agensts of the state to do so, in which case we are talking about fascism again.


And why is that, if you were to choose to reject such claims?  If you choose to honor such claims, or honor an ideology that respects such claims, this cannot be slavery since it's voluntary on your part.  What about those who have a different ideology than yours?  Is is then acceptable to force your claims upon their person?


What you call capitalism is, hopefully, dying.  For myself and my family, I wish no part of it.  You project your biases upon those you percieve as being in opposition to your ideal worldview, without honestly or accurately considering why there is oppossition at all.  While it's possible that we are all deluded or hopelessly indoctrinated like you seem to assume, we are certainly not all ignorant nor stupid.  What would that foretell of the likely future successes of your ideology, be it correct or not, if you cannot change the minds of a few moderately to well educated people on an internet forum?  Simply decrying our perspectives as faulty, particularly lacking a rational argument as to why, is unlikely to do more than waste a lot of time.  And the quote you provided from Bookchin is not an arguement, it's an opinion.


You should not project so hard.  Personally, I don't consider Adam Smith to be the best author in this realm.  His language is difficult to read, which inhibits comprehension; and his was mostly arguing against mercantilism, not so much in favor of capitalism.  In some sense, he was arguing about national policies, and thus was arguing in favor of a soft facism.  Adam Smith was a great (classic) liberal, but he was still stuck in the idea that nation-states are necessary for such ideas as he advocated. 

Now back to the regularly scheduled discussion...

If you agree that your body belongs to yourself, do you agree that my body belongs to me?  If so, then do you agree that my life also belongs to me, since I can't have one without the other?

It's too early for either of those books.  IMHO, anyone new to this realm of thought should read Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice? first, followed by Economics in One Lesson before trying to tackle either one of those volumes.

Well, of course not, but at least it's a start.  What you seem to be railing against could be either corporatism (i.e. fascism) or merchantilism, or both; but it's certainly not capitalism in it's natural form.  Both of those could be considered corrupted versions of capitalism, so I can see the confusion, but one should be willing to start with first principles. 

The first principle is this...

Who owns you?  Is there anyone who has a greater claim upon your body, thus your life, then yourself?  If we cannot agree that I own myself and that you own yourself, as nominally free adults, then we can't proceed.