Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:11:48 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Labor costs and prices in an economy using bitcoin exclusively  (Read 10680 times)
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 11:02:56 PM
 #41

To socialists and commies, profit is an abomination to be extinguished.

To capitalist pigs like me, profit is a natural goal that must be pursued prudently or else you just get rich while squandering resource.

1480810308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810308
Reply with quote  #2

1480810308
Report to moderator
1480810308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810308
Reply with quote  #2

1480810308
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480810308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810308
Reply with quote  #2

1480810308
Report to moderator
1480810308
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480810308

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480810308
Reply with quote  #2

1480810308
Report to moderator
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 11:19:10 PM
 #42

To socialists and commies, profit is an abomination to be extinguished.

To capitalist pigs like me, profit is a natural goal that must be pursued prudently or else you just get rich while squandering resource.

Much sense in that statement.

But I find it curious, that Socialists and Communists don't want profits. They need profits for the their systems to even work (no profits, no taxes, no taxes, no distribution of wealth).

I think they want to redistribute profits equally. And if that were to ever take hold, I just got a hurt back and can't work, send me my check and make sure it is the same as everyone else's.  Grin

If a hurt back doesn't work, I want to be a tenured professor, or an Xbox athlete, maybe a "modern Artist."  Yea, an Artist.

How about a Tenured Professor of Art that is an Xbox Athlete. <--- Yea, that is what I want to be when I grow up daddy.  I like this Socialism and Communism.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 22, 2011, 11:30:54 PM
 #43

Employers do not tax, the Government has the employers tax and give the money to them. However, employment is not a right in a capitalistic society. You choose to work for someone else because you don't want to or can't work for yourself. You have indentured yourself and blame the government and its system for your standing.  I know a blind guy that runs his own business, so many things that people complain about fall on my deaf ears. (metaphorically speaking).
Employers certainly do tax their employers. The employees pay the employer a portion of that which they produced with their labor in exchange for the conditional use of his property. The citizens pay the government a portion of that which they produced with their labor in exchange for the conditional use of its property. Same thing.

Quote
If you own your home and want to stay, I doubt anyone could coerce you to leave. You might not have electricity or water from the companies that supply it for you but they can't make you leave your home.  Drill a well, hook up a generator and supply it for yourself.
And you have to get all of these things, or the tools and resources to make these things, from a capital holder. And the more desperate you are, the more of that which you produce, can he take from you. So, depending on the force at his disposal, you can either submit or flee, and that is not a voluntary decision. It is a coerced decision.

Quote
Or go the Amish route and forgo indoor plumbing and electricity. The Amish don't complain about it, they choose to live that way and don't pay an electric bill.
You give the Amish too much credit. Within their community, they have their own hierarchical problems in addition to the exploitation they face from the outside world.

Quote
That is why Kings (Bloodline Rule) were terrible forms of government.
And capitalism is just monarchy.

Quote
The key words are: "He got rich".  Yep he sure did. He was born poor and struggled to become rich. He succeeded.
He gained at the expense of others.

Quote
If he was born poor in India, he would have stayed poor because he was born poor. The Caste system.
An the upper castes capitalistically profit on the backs of the lower ones.

Quote
What is the greatest reward or promise that America offers?  Is that no matter your station in life, perceived disabilities, or struggles you go through, if you work hard and never give up, you have a chance at changing your status for you and your family.
The promise is that you're allowed to use some types of exploitation to get ahead. There's no punishment for taking the product of other people's hard work as long as you do it in a certain way and the people you exploit will get punished for trying to take it back.

Quote
Abe Lincoln, taught himself, filed for bankruptcy, and became President of the United States. If others find that a flaw in our system, so be it. I find it an admired quality of the system.
And he issued the emancipation proclamation to mitigate the Confederate threat to his profit, not to abolish an evil institution.

Quote
Bill Gates dropped out of college, started his own business, IBM tried to take it from him through manipulation, but he out did them. Ditto for Steve Jobs and IBM. The little guy can win in this system.
Bill Gates was simply lucky enough to attend one of the few schools that had a computer. He subsequently used intellectual property too protect his profits. The amount of hard work he ever did can't possibly, justifiably entail such wealth and power over others. Jobs isn't any better.

Quote
The point being is that there is no guarantee, there is the "chance."
More probably, hard work goes unrequited.

Quote
Curiously though, what system do you think is the best?  Obviously you don't think it is Capitalism, so to which system do you subscribe?

Bloodline Rule? (Kings and Queens)
Dictatorship?
Communist?
Socialist?
Oligarchy?
Republic?
Democracy?
or something else.
Anarchy, wherein most people expect to own the product of their labor.

Quote
I would like to point out that Capitalism was working in each of those systems of governments because Capitalism isn't a system of government, it is a system of survival defined by Natural Laws. Even before money existed, Capitalism was at work all the way back to the stone age.
Capitalism and government are inseparable. Capitalism cannot exist without government. There is no purpose for government without capitalism.

Quote
Don't fight it, accept it and work with it. Your tag is apropos, Capitalism is like Wolves. Wolves trying to survive. Just hope your in the right pack of Wolves.
People deserve more than to just try and survive.

Yea, that confuses me also.

But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.
Whether it's natural, whatever that means, or not, capitalism is a harmful behavior.

Quote
You wish to for each to live like the fish in the sea. Eat when it is time to eat, and only eat when necessary.  Basically live like any non-pet animal. To each his needs and no more.

Let imagine what that system would bring. Starvation, goodbye Middle East, goodbye Ethiopia, or any country in need of food and they can't get it for themselves. I can't give them mine, I only eat when needed nothing left over. I don't have a house, no one to build it. I don't have a car, no one to build it. 

I make fire by rubbing sticks together, use a bow and arrow to hunt (but I have to be good because there is a lot of other hunters out there eating my food) Hmm... might be some conflict there if there is not enough food to go around. I might have to kill my competition in order to eat.

And on, and on.

Nah, I will stick with capitalism. It is more "Humane" otherwise I have to kill the weak so the strong will survive.
No, you misunderstand. When you produce something from your labor. It belongs to you. That does not mean you have a right to withhold your surplus from someone until they offer something in exchange which took relatively more of work to produce. Capitalists presume that they do have this right, and they create government to protect it.

Yea, that confuses me also.

But if I assume your position correctly and you want a system without the natural system of Capitalism.

His position is that use of means of production (land, factories, etc) is ownership. If you build or purchase a machine or plot of land and are not using it, others may use it as they wish.

Oh, I see, the American Indian idea. No ownership.
You are distorting what chodpada said. Your ownership of something does not give you the right to exploit others with their lack of ownership of that something.

Quote
Capitalism could still work with that idea. But I foresee problems. Some will be able to use more land than others. I could operate a 200,000 acre tree farm and use it indefinitely for generations to come. Oh, I found Oil under my acreage, and gold, and diamonds. Bummer for my neighbor. Without the principle of ownership, the larger families will always out perform the smaller families. What about those who don't marry or can't have children?
That is capitalism and government.

Quote
No, ownership was a step out of the animal kingdom. The rules on ownership could be tweaked though. I could agree with that. I would also be for fertile land set aside for "poor" people. But as soon as they start making profits, their profits need to be applied to the next poor persons acre. Sort of like homes for humanity. Pay for through work over time, so the next guy has a chance. If you don't work, you won't stay on your acre very long and hence open up a slot for someone willing to do it.
Why can't people just farm on unused land without a government setting aside crumby reservations for them?

Quote
The factory thing is a little confusing. Without ownership, who builds a factory.  Lets say I put $30 Million into building a factory but my business fails. Under no ownership, I not only lost my investment in the business but I can't mitigate any losses by selling the factory and recover any losses. Any investors must eat the losses, but if they knew that up front, I wouldn't have had investors, and hence no factory.
You and the other workers still have a useful factory in which to build and sell something else. Oh wait, you live in a capitalist society and had to borrow that $30 million from a usurer. Now he owns the factory and you have to grovel before some other capitalist for the privilege working for a wage with which you will try to pay off the usurer's interest.

Quote
To build a factory, you must have ownership.
So let the factory's builders own it. They can sell it to the workers who will pay them with a certain amount of that which they will produce, equal to the labor associated with building the factory.

To socialists and commies, profit is an abomination to be extinguished.

To capitalist pigs like me, profit is a natural goal that must be pursued prudently or else you just get rich while squandering resource.

Much sense in that statement.

But I find it curious, that Socialists and Communists don't want profits. They need profits for the their systems to even work (no profits, no taxes, no taxes, no distribution of wealth).
Those socialists and communists believe that the state is necessary. Perhaps they don't realize that the state is a capitalist institution.

Quote
I think they want to redistribute profits equally. And if that were to ever take hold, I just got a hurt back and can't work, send me my check and make sure it is the same as everyone else's.  Grin
This is because capitalism persists amongst the citizenry in a state capitalist society.

Quote
If a hurt back doesn't work, I want to be a tenured professor, or an Xbox athlete, maybe a "modern Artist."  Yea, an Artist.

How about a Tenured Professor of Art that is an Xbox Athlete. <--- Yea, that is what I want to be when I grow up daddy.  I like this Socialism and Communism.
Capitalism: get other people to work for you.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 11:33:46 PM
 #44

Quote
Yet, there is a myth of ownership that pervades the Capitalist system, that you can own part of a company without controlling it through shares of stock. Such fictitious ownership has been used time and again to steal wealth from investors. Unless you, and those that agree with you about how a company should be operated, own a majority of voting shares you control nothing. Instead you are being used to leverage capital for those that do control the company, to do with as they please. You are free to buy and sell shares on a kind of take-it-or-leave-it contract, but you are effectively denied any real ownership, you can say you own shares, but they rise and fall in value according to the actions of people who really do own them.

Ahh... Yea.  Of course, I know that unless I buy enough stock in a company; I will not have controlling interest (enough power to change the company).  Think of it like your vote, except you get to buy more than one vote. If I can get enough stock poor people to pool their shares together, we can control the company.  But most people don't buy stock to control the company, yea they own a "little piece of it", they "expect the price to go up" if it doesn't their investment is null but they may be able to get their original investment back.

But lets take your side, if you don't expect the company to go anywhere or if you think it is doomed to fail, by a PUT and put it to the capitalist pigs as you rake in your money, that you will obviously give back to us because of redistribution of wealth.

BTW: If you bought 100 shares of Microsoft when they went public 25 years ago, and sold at the peak, your non-ownership interest in the company would have gotten you 1.4 Million Dollars. <--Thats why people buy stock, not to loose it but to make it.  Another is hedging, to maintain costs.

I for example bought commodities when the FED issued QE2 (quantitative easing) that devalued the dollar. I pay more for food now, but I offset it buy making more money with the cost of food increases. And I don't even own the food.

But I will agree that the move in established markets are controlled by big investors. I stay clear of them, I go with new companies that I believe in. The Warren Buffet method.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 11:52:56 PM
 #45

FatherMcGruder,

 
Alas, I understand your position. You are an Anarchist.

As in:  is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations, but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."

I guess you can call me an Anarchist, an Anarchist that supports gun ownership and my defining position is that Survival of the Fittest rules. Now, in the word of a great South Park episode:  "Lets Get It On"  

I put statism above any anarchy organization, but that is an oxymoron. An Organized Anarchy becomes the State of Anarchy and would need rules to distinguish which Anarchy position is being taken. There would even be different Anarchy Organizations, they might even fight each other and do battle over some perceived difference of opinion. They might want to co-opt your position into their own. You wouldn't want that to happen and be against it.

Out of Anarchy comes Order. It is natural. Lets go back to the Fish, schools of fish would be the closest thing to your anarchy system, maybe flocks of birds, but take a closer look at them. Is it Anarchy? or is their an Hierarchy to their behavior?  Even there, there is a form of government. A natural Government.  The fish don't follow the young ones, they follow the adult fish of good health when the school changes direction. They have a group of leaders and many followers.

Sorry you will have to give me one example of anarchy in a natural system. There are Natural Laws, we must follow them.

  

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
March 23, 2011, 12:20:02 AM
 #46

Quote
When you produce something from your labor. It belongs to you. That does not mean you have a right to withhold your surplus from someone

Well there is a huge fallacy right there, and practically unworkable also. If you produce a surplus from your labours and it belongs to you, you have the right to withhold it from anyone you please, surely. Money is nothing but a surplus of your labour, that is how money began. Are you saying your money does not belong to you? Are comfortable taking my surpluses from me any time you see fit?

This "capitalism bad" mantra might sound seductive but it has no basis in reality and falls apart at the first logical inspection. Capitalism is not inherently bad, flawed maybe, bad people can do terrible things with capital, good people do amazing things with capital ... capital is agnostic, use it how you see fit and let your God do the tally up at the end.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto the Lord what is the Lord's" some wise guy once said that pithily sums it up in affairs of this matter, (Caesar is an allegory for material wealth in this context, if you were wondering.)

FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 23, 2011, 01:45:43 AM
 #47

FatherMcGruder,

 
Alas, I understand your position. You are an Anarchist.

As in:  is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations, but widely disagree on what additional criteria are essential to anarchism. According to The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance."

I guess you can call me an Anarchist, an Anarchist that supports gun ownership and my defining position is that Survival of the Fittest rules. Now, in the word of a great South Park episode:  "Lets Get It On"
As long as you do not seek authority over me we're cool. However, you seem to be content with the idea of being my employer (for the sake of argument). That is a position of authority and I don't like it. Unfortunately, I rarely have a choice when it comes to avoiding authority in this capitalist society of ours. For the record, I do condone gun ownership as long as their users do not use them to help impose authority over others.

Quote
I put statism above any anarchy organization, but that is an oxymoron. An Organized Anarchy becomes the State of Anarchy and would need rules to distinguish which Anarchy position is being taken. There would even be different Anarchy Organizations, they might even fight each other and do battle over some perceived difference of opinion. They might want to co-opt your position into their own. You wouldn't want that to happen and be against it.
I see no reason why the inhabitants of a society in which the majority of inhabitants represent all the flavors of anarchism cannot coexist without imposing authority on one another and therefore forming states. As long as capitalists--and capitalists are never anarchists--are in the minority, everything will work just fine. People will have disagreements, but I don't see why they'll have to rely on authority to settle them.

Quote
Out of Anarchy comes Order. It is natural. Lets go back to the Fish, schools of fish would be the closest thing to your anarchy system, maybe flocks of birds, but take a closer look at them. Is it Anarchy? or is their an Hierarchy to their behavior?  Even there, there is a form of government. A natural Government.  The fish don't follow the young ones, they follow the adult fish of good health when the school changes direction. They have a group of leaders and many followers.

Sorry you will have to give me one example of anarchy in a natural system. There are Natural Laws, we must follow them.
Really? How is the behavior of a school of fish relevant? They have little to no power to disobey their instincts. Humans do. They don't mind cannibalism. Humans can. We have evolved the ability to make and follow our own rules. So I don't see any harm in members of society mutually agreeing not to capitalistically eat each other. As such, anarchism seems entirely natural as a human behavior, not that it matters.

As for a natural system that exhibits anarchistic behavior: bacteria. Of course, bacteria are not people, so this example is irrelevant. "Natural Law" remains a crumby argument for just about anything.

Quote
When you produce something from your labor. It belongs to you. That does not mean you have a right to withhold your surplus from someone
Please do not misquote me. I had written as follows:

No, you misunderstand. When you produce something from your labor. It belongs to you. That does not mean you have an unconditional right to withhold your surplus from someone until they offer in exchange something which took relatively more of work to produce.
I've made some edits, in bold, for grammar and clarity. Feel free to critique my complete statement.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 01:55:12 AM
 #48

I see no reason why the inhabitants of a society in which the majority of inhabitants represent all the flavors of anarchism cannot coexist without imposing authority on one another and therefore forming states. As long as capitalists--and capitalists are never anarchists--are in the minority, everything will work just fine. People will have disagreements, but I don't see why they'll have to rely on authority to settle them.

Capital is just an accumulation of wealth. Bitcoin allows capital to naturally form. The idea that capitalists are in the minority is just strange. That would implies very few have any saving.

As long you spend less than you earn, then you will begin the process of accumulating capital. That is what I called profit, when expenses is less than income.

wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 02:15:30 AM
 #49

Quote
Really? How is the behavior of a school of fish relevant? They have little to no power to disobey their instincts. Humans do. They don't mind cannibalism. Humans can. We have evolved the ability to make and follow our own rules. So I don't see any harm in members of society mutually agreeing not to capitalistically eat each other. As such, anarchism seems entirely natural as a human behavior, not that it matters.

As for a natural system that exhibits anarchistic behavior: bacteria. Of course, bacteria are not people, so this example is irrelevant. "Natural Law" remains a crumby argument for just about anything.

Humans will not disobey "their instincts" when adaptive pressure is applied. Some might try, but then reach an evolutionary dead end.

Try not eating or drinking for a week, see what happens. Your instincts will start to rear their ugly head. Your argument assumes that their will alway be an abundance of resources. That is a fallacy. We have been fortunate, but it never lasts. History tells us so.

Bacteria still follow a system, and order for survival. Granted they have been reduce to the simplest basic form that all living organisms try to follow for success (Eat and Propagate)

Not to mention you have given the best example of Capitalism, Bacteria will try to exert their authority over you to gain resources for their survival, if you don't fight them, they will eat you alive and not give a second thought to it. Are they Evil?  No, they are just trying to survive. They work in a group to acquire as much of the resources as possible before someone else gets it.


Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 02:21:24 AM
 #50


Humans will not disobey "their instincts" when adaptive pressure is applied. Some might try, but then reach an evolutionary dead end.

This.

Think of profit as energy surplus. When you work, you try to get as much surplus as possible to compensate for all the work you done. Some work you do only break even. That mean you don't have any resources you can store for the future. Some work result in a loss, you have less energy now than when you start with.

In summary, capitalists do not seeks to exploit or control anyone. Rather they seeks economic surplus. They want to work as little as possible for as much gain as possible. This is smart.

FatherMcGruder despise my reasoning for this. I strive for any gain at all, even if that mean working for employers. He thought that justify slavery or something. He even compared me to a Libyan supporting her dictator, believing that father do not kill their children. Of course, mine is very pragmatical rather than being a delusion.

wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 02:42:40 AM
 #51

Kiba,

 You made me think on that one. There is some age old wisdom, in it. Store the surplus for when there is a time when energy will be needed. Grasshopper and the Ant story.  One stores the energy in their body, the other stores it in a home. When winter comes the Ant is better off because of an energy surplus. The grasshopper must migrate, move on or die. Just like Humans when we get old and are not able to work as much we dip into the acquired resources to help extend us. Others that lived on a day by day system of individual needs, when they get old and are unable to work so much, they will want from others that did save. Hmm... wonder how that will work out.

I wonder if there is a classification of species based on resource storage. Some use external storage, others use internal storage, and some use both.

I suppose I could be swayed to an Anarchy way of thinking when there is no need to acquire resources for survival. Maybe when someone creates one of those Star Trek Replicators the produces whatever you want, using an extremely efficient energy source that lasts for hundreds of years at a time.


Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 23, 2011, 02:47:52 AM
 #52

Capital is just an accumulation of wealth. Bitcoin allows capital to naturally form. The idea that capitalists are in the minority is just strange. That would implies very few have any saving.
Capitalists believe that they have the right use their surplus to maintain a position of power over others.

Quote
As long you spend less than you earn, then you will begin the process of accumulating capital. That is what I called profit, when expenses is less than income.
It's not capitalistic to maintain a surplus as long as you do not make people pay too much in exchange for it. That's why rent, employment, and usury are so exploitative. The worker will keep paying, but he will never own the shelter, the workplace, or the borrowed capital.

Humans will not disobey "their instincts" when adaptive pressure is applied. Some might try, but then reach an evolutionary dead end.

Try not eating or drinking for a week, see what happens. Your instincts will start to rear their ugly head.
Humans can choose to starve and not procreate. And they do from time to time. That such actions might qualify as an evolutionary dead doesn't have to matter to whoever commits them if he doesn't want them too. If I recall ninth grade biology though, evolution typically occurs on a population scale. A few individuals opting out from squirting DNA at each other probably won't matter much, but I digress.

Quote
Your argument assumes that their will alway be an abundance of resources. That is a fallacy. We have been fortunate, but it never lasts. History tells us so.
No, I only assumes that humans are capable of making intelligent decisions, not that we always do, of course.

Quote
Bacteria still follow a system, and order for survival. Granted they have been reduce to the simplest basic form that all living organisms try to follow for success (Eat and Propagate)

Not to mention you have given the best example of Capitalism, Bacteria will try to exert their authority over you to gain resources for their survival, if you don't fight them, they will eat you alive and not give a second thought to it. Are they Evil?  No, they are just trying to survive. They work in a group to acquire as much of the resources as possible before someone else gets it.
But individual bacterium do not exhibit authority over each other. In fact, they invariably share genetic information and cooperatively form bio-films. Behold, solidarity. Seriously though, Natural Law is irrelevant. Just because I can rightfully consume the energy of a plant or animal, that they contain or produce, doesn't mean I can rightfully consume yours, even if I can afford it.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 02:52:37 AM
 #53

I suppose I could be swayed to an Anarchy way of thinking when there is no need to acquire resources for survival. Maybe when someone creates one of those Star Trek Replicators the produces whatever you want, using an extremely efficient energy source that lasts for hundreds of years at a time.

In some sense, it already happened. In our ancestral environment, we rely on fat to ensure that we live through hard time. Nowsday, fat is often a liability because we eat too much of the wrong food. Our taste bud that would otherwise be useful in a world where resources are hard to acquire now work against us. We need our taste bud to tell us to eat the various nutrient that we're missing in our diet.

Now, if civilization collapse and we have taste buds adapted for civilization, it is conceivable that we would be doomed since we would all die because we did not have enough fat to sustain us through a dry period. It is scenario like this that make me want a human body that can use fat without ever becoming a liability, much like more gasoline is better.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 02:53:29 AM
 #54

Capitalists believe that they have the right use their surplus to maintain a position of power over others.

That's a very strange definition of what a capitalist is.

Anyway, a smart capitalist would sell goods and services as the highest possible price as he possibly can. That how I would do it, either as employer or employee. To attribute high prices of something as evil or good is a very strange concept. It's just business.

wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 03:03:49 AM
 #55

Look into the Petri Dish when the resources start to get low. They sure do exert authority over each other. Those on the end get pushed out, while the stronger get to the center. Typically the stronger are in the center when they reach the end and die.

Yea, when resources are abundant they live the la-di-da life, but when resources get low, it is a whole other game. Put adaptive pressure on them by using antibacterial and its every man for themselves, until one becomes resistant, then they will split into groups. One group left to die, the other goes on eating the resources.

I think I get the idealism, I just don't get the realism. But hey, if we all agreed there wouldn't be capitalism.




Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 23, 2011, 03:33:15 AM
 #56

That's a very strange definition of what a capitalist is.
How is it incorrect?

Quote
Anyway, a smart capitalist would sell goods and services as the highest possible price as he possibly can. That how I would do it, either as employer or employee. To attribute high prices of something as evil or good is a very strange concept. It's just business.
Any capitalist would do this, not just "smart" ones.

Look into the Petri Dish when the resources start to get low.
No. As I said, "Natural Law" is an irrelevant digression.

Quote
I think I get the idealism, I just don't get the realism.
I don't blame you. The capitalist delusion is very strong. I experienced it very strongly.

Quote
But hey, if we all agreed there wouldn't be capitalism.
Agreement doesn't preclude capitalism. Capitalists often exploit other capitalists, but they agree that it is a non-exploitative relationship.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 03:46:48 AM
 #57

That's a very strange definition of what a capitalist is.
How is it incorrect?

Quote
Anyway, a smart capitalist would sell goods and services as the highest possible price as he possibly can. That how I would do it, either as employer or employee. To attribute high prices of something as evil or good is a very strange concept. It's just business.
Any capitalist would do this, not just "smart" ones.

Look into the Petri Dish when the resources start to get low.
No. As I said, "Natural Law" is an irrelevant digression.

Quote
I think I get the idealism, I just don't get the realism.
I don't blame you. The capitalist delusion is very strong. I experienced it very strongly.

Quote
But hey, if we all agreed there wouldn't be capitalism.
Agreement doesn't preclude capitalism. Capitalists often exploit other capitalists, but they agree that it is a non-exploitative relationship.

No, it is just that you hate the way it works or what you think how it works.

To me, your position cannot be compatible with mine. We have different value system. That's all there is.

It's like I am the pyschopath, and that you're a normal regular human. A pyschopath don't have empathy and sympathy. They just fuck with you for no reason. Similarly, a capitalist don't understand the concept of exploitation and non-exploitation. He doesn't have any feeling for what's the proper price. There's good deal and there's bad deal. There is no good or evil.

For example, a paperclip maximizer AI loves paperclips. It ponders paperclips philosophically for thousand of years in human time. It wants to replace everything with paperclips. It believe that the creation of paperclips is the highest moral good. It doesn't hate you, or love you. You're just a bunch of atoms that can be turned into paperclips.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 04:02:37 AM
 #58

How is it incorrect?

Because I don't believe in "controlling" others. A capitalist is just a rational profit-maxing agent or someone who try to act that way.

wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 23, 2011, 03:35:40 PM
 #59

Quote
For example, a paperclip maximizer AI loves paperclips. It ponders paperclips philosophically for thousand of years in human time. It wants to replace everything with paperclips. It believe that the creation of paperclips is the highest moral good. It doesn't hate you, or love you. You're just a bunch of atoms that can be turned into paperclips.


^==^--- That is funny ---^==^

And scary cause it is probably true.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
FatherMcGruder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322



View Profile WWW
March 23, 2011, 04:41:17 PM
 #60

No, it is just that you hate the way it works or what you think how it works.

To me, your position cannot be compatible with mine. We have different value system. That's all there is.

It's like I am the pyschopath, and that you're a normal regular human. A pyschopath don't have empathy and sympathy. They just fuck with you for no reason. Similarly, a capitalist don't understand the concept of exploitation and non-exploitation. He doesn't have any feeling for what's the proper price. There's good deal and there's bad deal. There is no good or evil.

For example, a paperclip maximizer AI loves paperclips. It ponders paperclips philosophically for thousand of years in human time. It wants to replace everything with paperclips. It believe that the creation of paperclips is the highest moral good. It doesn't hate you, or love you. You're just a bunch of atoms that can be turned into paperclips.
Well, are you a human being capable of rational thought or a capitalistbot stuck in a profit loop?

Because I don't believe in "controlling" others.
Then why are you content with the idea of employing someone and being his boss?

Quote
A capitalist is just a rational profit-maxing agent or someone who try to act that way.
Yes, a thief.

Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519

Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple.

Shameless display of my bitcoin address:
1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!