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

[wdmw]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

[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.)
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.

Being on an ignore list is nothing like i thought it would be, so i'll just pretend i'm not & try to argue my point as if i wasn't on it.  So here goes:

Please review my argument, in it's original form & all of its consecutive permutations. 
Nowhere do I claim that the text following (3), "Just like Coke & Pepsi," is false.  You are the one asking me to disregard it. Please stop and understand this if it is not obvious.  Make sure, and don't jump to hasty conclusions -- follow through.  My argument would indeed be a strawman argument* if it aimed to discredit the text following (3).  It doesn't.  It focuses on how you choose to validate that text.  You inform your reader that Coke drinkers, as one would expect, choose Coke because they like the taste.  While it seems like the logical conclusion, it is factually false.  You proceed to provide a corollary, presumably to spare us the mental gymnastics & drive your point home.  You then segway to your main point (and here's where you clarify the parallels between choosing soft drinks & choosing law):
"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."
In other words, just like you chose Coke thanks to a myriad of things you do not understand, you'll choose your laws [you poor dumb bunny you].
Are we on the same page yet?
The text after (3) doesn't even matter, your well-reasoned argument insists on it.  On the way to (3), though, we have us some fun.

* i make it a point to credit WikiP when I cut & paste from it, or use it for exact wording of fancy quotes.  Perhaps excessive, but i wish everyone would.

[myrkul]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

And I prefer Pepsi. Coke tastes too acidic for me. If a restaurant has only Coke products, I will avoid the colas entirely.

So now that we have disproven the assertion that statements 1 and 2 are false (they may not be true in all cases, but a false statement is false in all cases), can we get on with the actual discussion, instead of the straw man?

[crumbcake]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

This may be true for you (genuinely).  The people involved in the studies that led up to the "New Coke" disaster all insisted on the same thing, though.  This is a pretty fun thing to read up on, i'm sure googling "New Coke Marketing Fail" will bring up a bunch of articles -- it's both funny and a bit unnerving.  Studies are weird & slanted, and you can often predict what the results will suggest by following the money.  But this case is exceptional because it was Coke's own research that was telling them that original Coke was inferior, enough for them to throw their amazingly recognizable brand & recipe under the bus!  

[crumbcake]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

And I prefer Pepsi. Coke tastes too acidic for me. If a restaurant has only Coke products, I will avoid the colas entirely.

So now that we have disproven the assertion that statements 1 and 2 are false (they may not be true in all cases, but a false statement is false in all cases), can we get on with the actual discussion, instead of the straw man?

I know that you're not as ignorant as you'd want us to think.  I know you understand the difference between studies, surveys & a single anecdotal account. 

[crumbcake]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

And I prefer Pepsi. Coke tastes too acidic for me. If a restaurant has only Coke products, I will avoid the colas entirely.

So now that we have disproven the assertion that statements 1 and 2 are false (they may not be true in all cases, but a false statement is false in all cases),

All men are castratos.  Not a false statement? 

[myrkul]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

And I prefer Pepsi. Coke tastes too acidic for me. If a restaurant has only Coke products, I will avoid the colas entirely.

So now that we have disproven the assertion that statements 1 and 2 are false (they may not be true in all cases, but a false statement is false in all cases),

All men are castratos.  Not a false statement? 

Nope, that's false. Because you said "all." You'll note I did not.

[crumbcake]

I'll lay out your logic step-by-step:
1.  Coke drinkers buy Coke because they like the taste.  This statement is false.

Just to throw my single data point out there: I buy Coke purely because of the taste.  I will ask for Coke in a restaurant, and if they sneak and bring me Pepsi, I will know immediately and send it back.  I do not watch TV, and am generally less advertised to than the average person.  I have tried to drink RC because it is cheaper, but I do not like the taste.

And I prefer Pepsi. Coke tastes too acidic for me. If a restaurant has only Coke products, I will avoid the colas entirely.

So now that we have disproven the assertion that statements 1 and 2 are false (they may not be true in all cases, but a false statement is false in all cases),

All men are castratos.  Not a false statement?  

Nope, that's false. Because you said "all." You'll note I did not.

You're getting desperate.  "All men are mortal" is a statement.  Aristotelian logic, can't get more basic than that.  a proposition.  a well-formed statement.

"Strawson advocated the use of the term "statement," and some mathematicians have adopted this usage.[2]" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

Don't give up, myrkul!

edit: I assumed you were suggesting that my use of "all" failed "all men are castratos" as a statement.  In case you were saying that i misquoted you, and that's your beef:
"(they may not be true in all cases, but a false statement is false in all cases), "

[myrkul]

Still waiting for anyone to actually address this:

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]

Still waiting for anyone to actually address this:

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.

I already (though incidentally) addressed this.  Just like Coke drinkers think they know why they choose Coke, and may be easily manipulated into choosing laws detrimental to them. (and intelligence, knowledge that someone is trying to manipulate you etc., etc. makes no difference: well-crafted propaganda works regardless)
Case in point:  A good chunk of America's dumbest & least likely to succeed in a laissez-faire market wish to bring it about.  Go figure.

[myrkul]

Still waiting for anyone to actually address this:

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.

I already (though incidentally) addressed this.  Just like Coke drinkers think they know why they choose Coke, and may be easily manipulated into choosing laws detrimental to them. (and intelligence, knowledge that someone is trying to manipulate you etc., etc. makes no difference: well-crafted propaganda works regardless)
Case in point:  A good chunk of America's dumbest & least likely to succeed in a laissez-faire market wish to bring it about.  Go figure.

Actually, in my experience, the less intelligent Americans desire socialism. And the more things they can get the "Gub'ment" to take care of for them, the better.

Which soda you drink is significantly less life-affecting than what laws you live under. And the best part is, that if you find the laws you live under not to your liking, you can switch. Just call up the agency, and say, "I'm canceling my policy, I'll be going with X instead." Just as easy as switching car insurance.

[crumbcake]

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.

I already (though incidentally) addressed this.  Just like Coke drinkers think they know why they choose Coke, and may be easily manipulated into choosing laws detrimental to them. (and intelligence, knowledge that someone is trying to manipulate you etc., etc. makes no difference: well-crafted propaganda works regardless)
Case in point:  A good chunk of America's dumbest & least likely to succeed in a laissez-faire market wish to bring it about.  Go figure.

Actually, in my experience, the less intelligent Americans desire socialism. And the more things they can get the "Gub'ment" to take care of for them, the better.

Which soda you drink is significantly less life-affecting than what laws you live under. And the best part is, that if you find the laws you live under not to your liking, you can switch. Just call up the agency, and say, "I'm canceling my policy, I'll be going with X instead." Just as easy as switching car insurance.

Ok, easy question: How do these people interact?  Are there different clans (no better word comes to mind) living under different law?  Do these clans interact?  What happens where the ones who dig murder meet up with the ones who don't?  This is just so we understand each other -- there might be points that i've missed.

Edit:  Almost forgot.  Can i switch laws any time?  I remember breaking down ~70mi from home, and the tow truck driver let me upgrade my AAA on the spot, so i got a free tow & ride.  Will it be like that?  Could i save up my murderin' for Fridays, change over to "Murderer's Club Law" for just one day, get all my killin' done & switch back over to "Safepussy Haven"?

[myrkul]

Ok, easy question: How do these people interact?  Are there different clans (no better word comes to mind) living under different law?

A better word would be "Phyle" That's the word used by Neal Stephenson in Diamond Age to describe something similar, and it fits well here, too.

Do these clans interact?  What happens where the ones who dig murder meet up with the ones who don't?

As I said in the original statement, that you didn't bother to read:

"International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies.

As for a murderer's Phyle, David D. Friedman really explains it as well as I could, and it has pretty pictures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#t=1185s

After you've looked at that little bit, please do go back and watch the whole thing. It's well worth your time, and probably answers most of your questions.

I'm provisionally taking you off ignore. Don't go chasing straw men (or other fallacies), and you wont get back on there.

Edit:  Almost forgot.  Can i switch laws any time? 

Pretty much. Your example of the tow truck driver is valid, but "saving up your murdering" is not going to work.

[crumbcake]

As for a murderer's Phyle, David D. Friedman really explains it as well as I could, and it has pretty pictures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#t=1185s

Will watch when i get a chance.  In the mean time, on the off chance you haven't ran across these, here are a couple of fun informal fallacies that, for some reason, didn't become memes:
(wikip makes both seem pretty drab, but i guess it's all in the presentation)
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point").  This one (begging the question) is neat 'cos i'm neurotic about wrongs becoming right through continuous misuse, the "it's correct 'coz everybody makes that mistake, and majority rules" argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[myrkul]

As for a murderer's Phyle, David D. Friedman really explains it as well as I could, and it has pretty pictures:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#t=1185s

Will watch when i get a chance.  In the mean time, on the off chance you haven't ran across these, here are a couple of fun informal fallacies that, for some reason, didn't become memes:
(wikip makes both seem pretty drab, but i guess it's all in the presentation)
Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

I believe they call that meme "government."

[ktttn]

Speaking of coke, can anyone name any war crimey type travesties coke got away with?
Capital is a good thing, using capital to do evil things is evil.
Capitalism as it exists, is on the dole.
doledoledoleydoledole.
Taken off the dole, capitalism needs a new name.
The state defends capitalist warmongers, destroyers of lives and the land.
They will both fall out of practice as folks begin to ween themselves off the dying state. Hey... optimism.
Edit: Anarchism, at its most violent, is me not being police-prevented from strolling up to a monsanto, microsoft, exxon or coke decision maker and having a loud, angry, flip-out discussion with their gonads.
We already live in anarchy. Popular perceptions and implementations of power structures might obscure this fact.

[kodo]

Bitcoin is different forget about taxes

[johnniewalker]

I consider it unethical to pay for food.

So whats your solution?

[ktttn]

I consider it unethical to pay for food.

So whats your solution?

Sharing?
From my perspective, Im going to feed myself and those I love by hook or crook, reward those who help me, take advantage of discarded food, plant food and try my best to help phase out the structures, wherever they are, that starve poor people by requiring that they pay for mere sustainence by boycotting those structures. Monetizing and monopolizing basic human needs corrupts.
I'm not saying a talented chef should not be rewarded, I'm also mot saying that folks should never trade foods, I'm saying that there are enougj resources on this overpopulated earth to have anyone feed everyone without worrying about profit margins, branding, war, and corporate takeovers.

[myrkul]

there are enough resources on this overpopulated earth to have anyone feed everyone

Do you even read what you write?