LightRider (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1500
Merit: 1021
I advocate the Zeitgeist Movement & Venus Project.
|
 |
January 01, 2016, 02:32:44 AM |
|
Capitalism is what enables fascism.
Guns are what enable murder? Its that capitalism is a tool, depends how it is used. Capitalism in it's core it's blank, it's only if you fill it with unethical practices and uncompetitiveness, is when it's dangerous. If you leave the sheep to be guarded by wolfs , then its bad. If competitiveness is maximal, and power is balanced, then I dont see any harm with it. You can have murder without guns. You can't have fascism without capitalism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
deisik
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
January 01, 2016, 11:01:58 AM |
|
By logic: I own my body, I own my life, I own my work , I own my time, therefore whatever capital I accumulate with those things, is rightfully mine.
That's typical standard libertarian reasoning, which unfortunately fails to that in order for you to work, you need energy which ultimately comes from the sun and the earth which was here long before humans roamed it and started calling it "theirs". Also, according to that statement, a libertarian would be perfectly fine with a father raping his daughter, because he is merely "enjoying his property" This observation is essentially the same that I came up to myself, though from an entirely different starting point. I was asking myself about what can actually be called mine in a true, absolute sense of the word. If something can be taken from me (by force or whatever), can it truly be called my property? A human body is made up of atoms (and whatever makes up them), but do they really belong to the mind (or soul) that dwells in this body? And what is left then when we thus strip an individual of his claimed "possessions"? |
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 01, 2016, 11:06:01 AM |
|
By logic: I own my body, I own my life, I own my work , I own my time, therefore whatever capital I accumulate with those things, is rightfully mine.
That's typical standard libertarian reasoning, which unfortunately fails to that in order for you to work, you need energy which ultimately comes from the sun and the earth which was here long before humans roamed it and started calling it "theirs". Also, according to that statement, a libertarian would be perfectly fine with a father raping his daughter, because he is merely "enjoying his property" This observation is essentially the same that I came up to myself, though from an entirely different starting point. I was asking myself about what can actually be called mine in a true sense of the word. If something can be taken from me (by force or whatever), can it truly be called my property? Yes, because a property for to be property it doesnt mean it has to be glued to you or bound to you eternally. It just means you have a claim on that item, and that claim makes you the exclusive owner of it. If another person has a claim on it then you can resolve that dispute by some means, if they just take it, that is just theft and its wrong. |
|
|
|
deisik
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
January 01, 2016, 11:15:37 AM
Last edit: January 01, 2016, 11:55:56 AM by deisik |
|
It just means you have a claim on that item, and that claim makes you the exclusive owner of it This assertion is self-contradictory, since, if followed to its logical conclusion, it just says that what you consider as your property is, in fact, what others consider as such. Which essentially destroys the whole concept of something belonging to you (as an owner of something), in its own right... So we are back to, it is truly yours only as long and as much as someone else can't take it from you |
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 02, 2016, 07:26:36 AM |
|
It just means you have a claim on that item, and that claim makes you the exclusive owner of it This assertion is self-contradictory, since, if followed to its logical conclusion, it just says that what you consider as your property is, in fact, what others consider as such. Which essentially destroys the whole concept of something belonging to you (as an owner of something), in its own right... So we are back to, it is truly yours only as long and as much as someone else can't take it from you Everything can be taken, but it doesnt mean it should be. Otherwise people would just go off and destroy everything in their path, which would be a crazy world. In order to keep order, we need to assign items to people for safeguarding, so the concept of private property is needed, even if philosophically it's not valid. |
|
|
|
ngupowered
Member
Offline
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
|
|
January 03, 2016, 04:34:39 PM |
|
In order to keep order, we need to assign items to people for safeguarding, so the concept of private property is needed, [...]
In a public library, items are kept for safekeeping, without them having a specific owner. Public roads are used by all, without ownership. "private property" is an artefact from immemorial antiquity, born out of scarcity and necessity, and furthered by greed and inequity, which automation and the scientific method - the new enlightenment - stand to render meaningless. |
Needing longer signatures, up-rank me!
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 03, 2016, 06:37:31 PM |
|
In order to keep order, we need to assign items to people for safeguarding, so the concept of private property is needed, [...]
In a public library, items are kept for safekeeping, without them having a specific owner. Public roads are used by all, without ownership. "private property" is an artefact from immemorial antiquity, born out of scarcity and necessity, and furthered by greed and inequity, which automation and the scientific method - the new enlightenment - stand to render meaningless. Well then I hope you are right, but I just hope this theory wont turn into a global communist dictatorship who will send people into gulags. |
|
|
|
thejaytiesto
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
|
|
January 03, 2016, 06:45:09 PM |
|
Both models have problems. The current capitalist model is dead in the long run as automation deprecates more and more jobs. On the other hand, the RBU model is really naive in thinking people will be happy to not have an advantage over others (being in a privileged position if you have a lot of money, this would disappear in a RBU). We'll see how things develop, the future is extremely blurry.
|
|
|
|
|
loulis
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 35
Merit: 0
|
|
January 04, 2016, 01:37:52 PM |
|
Both models have problems. The current capitalist model is dead in the long run as automation deprecates more and more jobs. On the other hand, the RBU model is really naive in thinking people will be happy to not have an advantage over others (being in a privileged position if you have a lot of money, this would disappear in a RBU). We'll see how things develop, the future is extremely blurry.
Technically all jobs in the service sector can disappeared in one day because of computers and automation. So the capitalism is allmost dead. They keep it alive with mechanical support... |
|
|
|
|
HarizDB
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
January 04, 2016, 01:42:24 PM |
|
Both models have problems. The current capitalist model is dead in the long run as automation deprecates more and more jobs. On the other hand, the RBU model is really naive in thinking people will be happy to not have an advantage over others (being in a privileged position if you have a lot of money, this would disappear in a RBU). We'll see how things develop, the future is extremely blurry.
Technically all jobs in the service sector can disappeared in one day because of computers and automation. So the capitalism is allmost dead. They keep it alive with mechanical support... True. It does sound like something which couldn't happen, but we all have to remember, under the industrialization, nobody could believe machines could take over jobs managed by men. |
|
|
|
|
deisik
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1280
English ⬄ Russian Translation Services
|
|
January 04, 2016, 01:48:20 PM
Last edit: January 04, 2016, 02:02:59 PM by deisik |
|
Both models have problems. The current capitalist model is dead in the long run as automation deprecates more and more jobs. On the other hand, the RBU model is really naive in thinking people will be happy to not have an advantage over others (being in a privileged position if you have a lot of money, this would disappear in a RBU). We'll see how things develop, the future is extremely blurry.
Technically all jobs in the service sector can disappeared in one day because of computers and automation. So the capitalism is allmost dead. They keep it alive with mechanical support... No need to keep it alive. 50 years ago we had industrial capitalism (since 1800s), now we have financial capitalism, where you pretty much don't work but mostly invest (or just speculate, lol)... You may question its benefits or its overall virtues in general but not its existence |
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 04, 2016, 02:02:15 PM |
|
Both models have problems. The current capitalist model is dead in the long run as automation deprecates more and more jobs. On the other hand, the RBU model is really naive in thinking people will be happy to not have an advantage over others (being in a privileged position if you have a lot of money, this would disappear in a RBU). We'll see how things develop, the future is extremely blurry.
Technically all jobs in the service sector can disappeared in one day because of computers and automation. So the capitalism is allmost dead. They keep it alive with mechanical support... You have no clue what you are talking about. You mean the production sector not the service sector, because only production will be automated, services cant. This really sums up your ideology, you dont even know what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
loulis
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 35
Merit: 0
|
|
January 04, 2016, 03:51:03 PM |
|
Both models have problems. The current capitalist model is dead in the long run as automation deprecates more and more jobs. On the other hand, the RBU model is really naive in thinking people will be happy to not have an advantage over others (being in a privileged position if you have a lot of money, this would disappear in a RBU). We'll see how things develop, the future is extremely blurry.
Technically all jobs in the service sector can disappeared in one day because of computers and automation. So the capitalism is allmost dead. They keep it alive with mechanical support... You have no clue what you are talking about. You mean the production sector not the service sector, because only production will be automated, services cant. This really sums up your ideology, you dont even know what you are talking about. e.g. Why we need bank employees? |
|
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 04, 2016, 06:53:49 PM |
|
e.g. Why we need bank employees?
Why we need banks? |
|
|
|
ngupowered
Member
Offline
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
|
|
January 07, 2016, 12:02:18 PM
Last edit: January 07, 2016, 12:34:04 PM by ngupowered |
|
You mean the production sector not the service sector, because only production will be automated, services cant.
You mean like this robotic bartender? How about self-driving cars? Or robotic lawn mowers? Maybe even "Watson"? |
Needing longer signatures, up-rank me!
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 07, 2016, 02:35:47 PM |
|
You mean the production sector not the service sector, because only production will be automated, services cant.
You mean like this robotic bartender? How about self-driving cars? Or robotic lawn mowers? Maybe even "Watson"? But you cannot apply that to everything, most service sector jobs, while they can theoretically be replaced by bots, they are demanded not too. There is a human aspect in many jobs that just can be taken away. |
|
|
|
ngupowered
Member
Offline
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
|
|
January 07, 2016, 02:49:53 PM |
|
You mean the production sector not the service sector, because only production will be automated, services cant.
You mean like this robotic bartender? How about self-driving cars? Or robotic lawn mowers? Maybe even "Watson"? But you cannot apply that to everything, most service sector jobs, while they can theoretically be replaced by bots, they are demanded not too. [So, in a capitalistic society, everyone will end up in the service sector, even though those jobs could be automated - what a waste of human potential!]There is a human aspect in many jobs that just can be taken away. [Such as?] |
Needing longer signatures, up-rank me!
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 07, 2016, 03:32:11 PM |
|
You mean the production sector not the service sector, because only production will be automated, services cant.
You mean like this robotic bartender? How about self-driving cars? Or robotic lawn mowers? Maybe even "Watson"? But you cannot apply that to everything, most service sector jobs, while they can theoretically be replaced by bots, they are demanded not too. [So, in a capitalistic society, everyone will end up in the service sector, even though those jobs could be automated - what a waste of human potential!]There is a human aspect in many jobs that just can be taken away. [Such as?]Why if people like that, example is a doctor. YOu could theoretically replace surgeons with AI robot arms, and family doctors with medical vending machines but would that be the same? What if that doctor likes his job, and like to help save lives, would you take that away from him? I thought your ideology was to maximize happiness, not to replace the system with an automated robot-planet. |
|
|
|
ngupowered
Member
Offline
Activity: 92
Merit: 10
|
|
January 07, 2016, 03:59:58 PM |
|
RealBitcoin, why would a society allow a doctor to continue practicing, when there's a robot that does it 10 times faster, 10 times more efficiently, and 10 times safer; indeed, it would be malpractice. The goal is to automate as much as possible, to free up human potential.
|
Needing longer signatures, up-rank me!
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 07, 2016, 05:06:27 PM |
|
RealBitcoin, why would a society allow a doctor to continue practicing, when there's a robot that does it 10 times faster, 10 times more efficiently, and 10 times safer; indeed, it would be malpractice. The goal is to automate as much as possible, to free up human potential.
It would be very dangerous to absolutely replace everything with robots, because then practiaclly the value of humans would be 0. And the elite will then wipe us out, terminator style, with AI warrior robots. You have to leave value to humans too, otherwise there will be no point of humanity and robots will replace the life on earth. We would go extinct in 10 years. |
|
|
|
|
