Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[ktttn]

Trading trash. Negative value?
Smaller value, more specific value.
(Value value, value)
Margins.

Profit margin?
Posession of waste products. Whose waste? Our? The county? The state, nation, country?
"Talks revolution for an hour without using any verbs!"

EDIT: Quantum trading with surreal numbers. QUANTUM TRADING WITH SURREAL NUMBERS!

[crumbcake]

Trading trash. Negative value?
Smaller value, more specific value.
(Value value, value)
Margins.

Profit margin?
Posession of waste products. Whose waste? Our? The county? The state, nation, country?
"Talks revolution for an hour without using any verbs!"

EDIT: Quantum trading with surreal numbers. QUANTUM TRADING WITH SURREAL NUMBERS!

...and everything gains meaning through repetition:

There was an old lady who swallowed a fly
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,
That wriggled and wiggled and tickled inside her;
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a bird;
How absurd to swallow a bird.
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a cat;
Fancy that to swallow a cat!
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady that swallowed a dog;
What a hog, to swallow a dog;
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a cow,
I don't know how she swallowed a cow;
She swallowed the cow to catch the dog,
She swallowed the dog to catch the cat,
She swallowed the cat to catch the bird,
She swallowed the bird to catch the spider,
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly;
I don't know why she swallowed a fly - Perhaps she'll die!

There was an old lady who swallowed a horse
She swallowed a horse?  Is she dead?!
                                                         Of course!

[myrkul]

Market law.

How are new laws created in a market law system?

Highest bidder win and you'll get soylent green at nearest streetcorner. 

Gross.

Also completely inaccurate.

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

[crumbcake]

Market law.

How are new laws created in a market law system?

Highest bidder win and you'll get soylent green at nearest streetcorner. 

Gross.

Also completely inaccurate.

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes.

Neat example, it's as if you've intentionally picked it to see if anyone notices.  Remember "The Pepsi Challenge"?  Well, many Coke drinkers prefered it to coke in blind taste tests.  Remember The New Coke"?  Did you think Coke didn't conduct taste tests before marketing it?!  (Hint:  Did they ever!)  Now, how did the New Coke fare?  Right.  One of the biggest marketing blunders in history.
You were saying?

[myrkul]

Market law.

How are new laws created in a market law system?

Highest bidder win and you'll get soylent green at nearest streetcorner. 

Gross.

Also completely inaccurate.

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes.

Neat example, it's as if you've intentionally picked it to see if anyone notices.  Remember "The Pepsi Challenge"?  Well, many Coke drinkers prefered it to coke in blind taste tests.  Remember The New Coke"?  Did you think Coke didn't conduct taste tests before marketing it?!  (Hint:  Did they ever!)  Now, how did the New Coke fare?  Right.  One of the biggest marketing blunders in history.
You were saying?

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

[crumbcake]

Market law.

How are new laws created in a market law system?

Highest bidder win and you'll get soylent green at nearest streetcorner. 

Gross.

Also completely inaccurate.

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes.

Neat example, it's as if you've intentionally picked it to see if anyone notices.  Remember "The Pepsi Challenge"?  Well, many Coke drinkers prefered it to coke in blind taste tests.  Remember The New Coke"?  Did you think Coke didn't conduct taste tests before marketing it?!  (Hint:  Did they ever!)  Now, how did the New Coke fare?  Right.  One of the biggest marketing blunders in history.
You were saying?

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

[myrkul]

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point:

In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

[Anon136]

*Deep breath*
A factory takeover is always a peaceful, organized process if the profiteer being deposed has the good sense to gtfo, and doesn't call in the riot cops, instead opting to let the rightful owners, the workers, take over.
It is shameful ignorance to say riot cops show up in response to violence. As a rule, with negligible exceptions, the police instigate the violence. Can't have a riot without riot cops. Can't have capitalism either. Ive been arrested twice, both times in NYC parks during riots that started after the storm troopers marched in.
Rothbard, if I run into it in one of my republican (token cheap shot at "ancaps") buddies' houses, I swear to you personally I will read. I mean this
Until then, we make our own points. Yes?
Also, Bakunin>Marx. I raise you a Kropotkin and half a deCleyre.
You're a CEO? Cool. Seriously, cool. Fortune 500,000,000 I presume? Less than 1000 wagesla- er
..employees?
Not the same thing or even the same order of thing as the examples I mentioned. To claim the state does not facilitate capitalism is due to a misindoctrination.
The Capitalist invented the wage slave, darlin.'

so wait. if i build a piece of capital and then hire people to operate it, the moment i do so the capital ceases to be my property and becomes their property instead? If this was ever reflected in law you could be sure that no sane person would ever build a factory and a society with no factories would be very poor indeed.

[crumbcake]

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point:

Here is my point:
In the Coke/Pepsi analogy you offered, people do not choose Coke or Pepsi based on the taste (the empirical data was collected from unrefuted studies, conducted by both Coke & Pepsi), but for reasons not readily apparent to them (packaging, brand recognition, advertising, etc.).  In other words, the Coke vs. Pepsi example illustrates the exact opposite of what you suggest it does -- people don't choose Coke based on taste, enlightened self-interest or any other reason most of them would claim.  They choose Coke 'coz Coke is Coke & people don't always know why they do stuff.  If this is the analogy you chose to illustrate your point, should i expect your reasoning to contain similar flaws?  Clear & self-evident at first glance, but obviously false when examined by anyone who knows a bit about the subject?  That's my point.

[myrkul]

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point:

Here is my point:
In the Coke/Pepsi analogy you offered, people do not choose Coke or Pepsi based on the taste (the empirical data was collected from unrefuted studies, conducted by both Coke & Pepsi), but for reasons not readily apparent to them (packaging, brand recognition, advertising, etc.).  In other words, the Coke vs. Pepsi example illustrates the exact opposite of what you suggest it does -- people don't choose Coke based on taste, enlightened self-interest or any other reason most of them would claim.  They choose Coke 'coz Coke is Coke & people don't always know why they do stuff.  If this is the analogy you chose to illustrate your point, should i expect your reasoning to contain similar flaws?  Clear & self-evident at first glance, but obviously false when examined by anyone who knows a bit about the subject?  That's my point.

So, you're addressing a completely unrelated subject. Here, let me repeat my point, so maybe it will eventually sink in:

In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

Address this point, and not my analogy, and we can continue the discussion.

[crumbcake]

*Deep breath*
A factory takeover is always a peaceful, organized process if the profiteer being deposed has the good sense to gtfo, and doesn't call in the riot cops, instead opting to let the rightful owners, the workers, take over.
It is shameful ignorance to say riot cops show up in response to violence. As a rule, with negligible exceptions, the police instigate the violence. Can't have a riot without riot cops. Can't have capitalism either. Ive been arrested twice, both times in NYC parks during riots that started after the storm troopers marched in.
Rothbard, if I run into it in one of my republican (token cheap shot at "ancaps") buddies' houses, I swear to you personally I will read. I mean this
Until then, we make our own points. Yes?
Also, Bakunin>Marx. I raise you a Kropotkin and half a deCleyre.
You're a CEO? Cool. Seriously, cool. Fortune 500,000,000 I presume? Less than 1000 wagesla- er
..employees?
Not the same thing or even the same order of thing as the examples I mentioned. To claim the state does not facilitate capitalism is due to a misindoctrination.
The Capitalist invented the wage slave, darlin.'

so wait. if i build a piece of capital and then hire people to operate it, the moment i do so the capital ceases to be my property and becomes their property instead? If this was ever reflected in law you could be sure that no sane person would ever build a factory and a society with no factories would be very poor indeed.

You're ok 'till you get to the end of your last sentence -- i guess that would be part two of your compound conclusion.  
The answer's no.  No sane person would ever hoard enough capital to build a factory, which is the desired result.  Don't know about OP, but i'm open for business -- ask away.

[crumbcake]

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point:

Here is my point:
In the Coke/Pepsi analogy you offered, people do not choose Coke or Pepsi based on the taste (the empirical data was collected from unrefuted studies, conducted by both Coke & Pepsi), but for reasons not readily apparent to them (packaging, brand recognition, advertising, etc.).  In other words, the Coke vs. Pepsi example illustrates the exact opposite of what you suggest it does -- people don't choose Coke based on taste, enlightened self-interest or any other reason most of them would claim.  They choose Coke 'coz Coke is Coke & people don't always know why they do stuff.  If this is the analogy you chose to illustrate your point, should i expect your reasoning to contain similar flaws?  Clear & self-evident at first glance, but obviously false when examined by anyone who knows a bit about the subject?  That's my point.

So, you're addressing a completely unrelated subject. Here, let me repeat my point, so maybe it will eventually sink in:

No, i am addressing the the subject, simply not on the turf you'd like to defend it on.  First, agree that you often rely on examples you know absolutely nothing about, using them as analogies to explain topics you

[myrkul]

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point:

Here is my point:
In the Coke/Pepsi analogy you offered, people do not choose Coke or Pepsi based on the taste (the empirical data was collected from unrefuted studies, conducted by both Coke & Pepsi), but for reasons not readily apparent to them (packaging, brand recognition, advertising, etc.).  In other words, the Coke vs. Pepsi example illustrates the exact opposite of what you suggest it does -- people don't choose Coke based on taste, enlightened self-interest or any other reason most of them would claim.  They choose Coke 'coz Coke is Coke & people don't always know why they do stuff.  If this is the analogy you chose to illustrate your point, should i expect your reasoning to contain similar flaws?  Clear & self-evident at first glance, but obviously false when examined by anyone who knows a bit about the subject?  That's my point.

So, you're addressing a completely unrelated subject. Here, let me repeat my point, so maybe it will eventually sink in:

No, i am addressing the the subject, simply not on the turf you'd like to defend it on.  First, agree that you often rely on examples you know absolutely nothing about, using them as analogies to explain topics you

So, you have no argument. Great. Welcome to the iggy list, and I'll wait for FinShaggy to address my point that I was making to him (not you). Have a nice life.

[myrkul]

Just to make it clear:

Market law.

How are new laws created in a market law system?

In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

[crumbcake]

I'm sorry, did you have a point that actually applied to the discussion at hand?

Unless you make a habit of illustrating your flawed reasoning with demonstrably flawed examples, then ... yes?

Well, feel free to make it, then. Please, remember that the Coke/Pepsi bit was an analogy. Here is my actual point:

Here is my point:
In the Coke/Pepsi analogy you offered, people do not choose Coke or Pepsi based on the taste (the empirical data was collected from unrefuted studies, conducted by both Coke & Pepsi), but for reasons not readily apparent to them (packaging, brand recognition, advertising, etc.).  In other words, the Coke vs. Pepsi example illustrates the exact opposite of what you suggest it does -- people don't choose Coke based on taste, enlightened self-interest or any other reason most of them would claim.  They choose Coke 'coz Coke is Coke & people don't always know why they do stuff.  If this is the analogy you chose to illustrate your point, should i expect your reasoning to contain similar flaws?  Clear & self-evident at first glance, but obviously false when examined by anyone who knows a bit about the subject?  That's my point.

So, you're addressing a completely unrelated subject. Here, let me repeat my point, so maybe it will eventually sink in:

No, i am addressing the the subject, simply not on the turf you'd like to defend it on.  First, agree that you often rely on examples you know absolutely nothing about, using them as analogies to explain topics you

So, you have no argument. Great. Welcome to the iggy list, and I'll wait for FinShaggy to address my point that I was making to him (not you). Have a nice life.

Why do you hate being wrong so much?  Everyone makes blunders, some choose to crash & burn, some recover gracefully.  

[crumbcake]

And just to make it clear to you (dang hard, being on your ignore list):

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. (1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. (3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.
2.  Pepsi drinkers buy Pepsi because they like the taste.  This statement is also false.
3.  The following proposition is "Just like with Coke & Pepsi."  The following text, regardless of its content, should be disregarded.  Like the preceding statements,  it is also false.

By agreeing with myrkul's logic & refusing to read the text he obviously wished for me to disregard, I wound up on his ignore list.  


Edit:  Perhaps mykul wanted me to solve for ~A? (not A).  The solution set can only be expressed as ~A, or "everything imaginable and then some just not A".

[myrkul]

Why do you hate being wrong so much?  Everyone makes blunders, some choose to crash & burn, some recover gracefully.  

Once again, feel free to address my point, and not my analogy. Until then, toodles.

[myrkul]

And just to make it clear to you (dang hard, being on your ignore list):

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. (1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. (3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.
2.  Pepsi drinkers buy Pepsi because they like the taste.  This statement is also false.
3.  The following proposition is "Just like with Coke & Pepsi."  The following text, regardless of its content, should be disregarded.  Like the preceding statements,  it is also false.

By agreeing with myrkul's logic & refusing to read the text he obviously wished for me to disregard, I wound up on his ignore list.   

Very well, let's look at those statements, shall we?
(1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (debatable)
(2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes.  (debatable)
(3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. (verifiable fact. The ingredients list of Coke and Pepsi are nearly identical until you get to the flavorings.)
Intervening statement ignored: In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted.
Conclusion: Strawman. By persisting in a strawman, you ended up on the ignore list.

[crumbcake]

And just to make it clear to you (dang hard, being on your ignore list):

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. (1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. (3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.
2.  Pepsi drinkers buy Pepsi because they like the taste.  This statement is also false.
3.  The following proposition is "Just like with Coke & Pepsi."  The following text, regardless of its content, should be disregarded.  Like the preceding statements,  it is also false.

By agreeing with myrkul's logic & refusing to read the text he obviously wished for me to disregard, I wound up on his ignore list.   

Very well, let's look at those statements, shall we?
(1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (debatable)
(2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes.  (debatable)
(3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. (verifiable fact. The ingredients list of Coke and Pepsi are nearly identical until you get to the flavorings.)
Conclusion: Strawman. By persisting in a strawman, you ended up on the ignore list.

Strawman?  You come back with strawman after putting me on ignore?  No.  The concept of strawman used to lie in barren & inhospitable domain of high school debate clubs & intro phil. courses.  Now it's a frickin' meme, along with any-other-logical-fallacy-by-name.  Bonus if Latin.
No, myrkul, this is not a strawman argument.  This is you being called out for pontificating to wasted children & trying to bluff your way out of an undefendable position.  It doesn't work.  Bad strategy.  Don't be the fool defending a bridgehead he knows he can't hold!  Let the frickin' dogs overrun it & live to fight another day.

[myrkul]

And just to make it clear to you (dang hard, being on your ignore list):

Again, I go back to Coke and Pepsi. (1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes. In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. (3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot.

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.
2.  Pepsi drinkers buy Pepsi because they like the taste.  This statement is also false.
3.  The following proposition is "Just like with Coke & Pepsi."  The following text, regardless of its content, should be disregarded.  Like the preceding statements,  it is also false.

By agreeing with myrkul's logic & refusing to read the text he obviously wished for me to disregard, I wound up on his ignore list.   

Very well, let's look at those statements, shall we?
(1) Why does a Coke drinker buy Coke? Because he likes how it tastes. (debatable)
(2) Why does a Pepsi drinker buy Pepsi? Again, because he likes how it tastes.  (debatable)
(3) Just like with Coke and Pepsi, most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. (verifiable fact. The ingredients list of Coke and Pepsi are nearly identical until you get to the flavorings.)
Intervening statement ignored: In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted.
Conclusion: Strawman. By persisting in a strawman, you ended up on the ignore list.

Strawman? 

Yes, textbook:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

• Person 1 has position X.
• Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y.
• Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.