Defending Capitalism

[NghtRppr]

But, yes, there should be a cost to having children -- a large cost.  And it is morally abhorrent, fraudulent un-physical nonsense to believe that this cost can be placed on the children themselves.  Literally every social ill would be substantially reduced and probably eliminated by forcibly preventing penniless, irresponsible jackasses from siring countless resourceless children and then sending them out into the world to terrorize the rest of us.

I'm sure people will be lining up for your eugenic sterilization program. Sieg Heil!

[1713482231]

1713482231

[1713482231]

1713482231

[1713482231]

1713482231

[TiagoTiago]

...

... Who the fuck desires a hole to be dug up and then refilled? Nobody...

Who desires a hole to be dug up and then filled? People with a religious belief in the ritual of burying their dead for example...

[benjamindees]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.  They are created by thermodynamic potential.  You can wish for jobs all day long.

[NghtRppr]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.  They are created by thermodynamic potential.  You can wish for jobs all day long.

Holy fuck. I've seen scientistic reductionism before but you've made it into an art form. Unfortunately, it's refrigerator art.

It's sad that we've got so many crackpots/trolls on these forums but I guess that's what happens when you live on the fringes of society. Welcome to ignoreland, population you.

[MoonShadow]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires. 

Wow.

That's so contradictory to evidence I can't even imagine how you arrived here.

So, in this theory, how does the character actor at Walt Disney World fit in?

[wb3]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.  They are created by thermodynamic potential.  You can wish for jobs all day long.

That is an interesting perspective. Thinking about it, jobs would apply to the laws of thermodynamics. You just won't like the definition of "Job".  You don't get paid for your "job" in thermodynamics with money, and sometimes your "job" costs you.(negative reward).

But the Second Law of Thermodynamics seems to apply to jobs.  The question is did we have "to many Jobs" and nature is equalizing. Or did we just inappropriately apply the energy and need to come up with a new and better way.

Or were we just supposed to "Eat and Propagate" efficiently.?

[JA37]

I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.

Please tell me what you think the difference is. I think that would be more efficient than me trying to guess. 

[benjamindees]

Oh, and jobs aren't created by human desires.

Wow.

That's so contradictory to evidence I can't even imagine how you arrived here.

So, in this theory, how does the character actor at Walt Disney World fit in?

Character actors attract people who bring money to the park.  Money is exchanged for energy and resources which are consumed.  If those resources didn't exist, no one would be able to fly 2000 miles to visit Disney World.  If the money couldn't be exchanged for energy and resources, Disney would go under.  Disney World requires a constant inflow of potential energy in the form of electricity and physical materials in order to exist.

If the resources and energy weren't consumed, people wouldn't have to dress up as cartoon characters and walk around in 100 degree humid swampland pandering to six year olds.  Likewise if everyone had their own personal replicators and fusion generators.  Saying "human needs create jobs" is only a tiny sliver of truth.  Jobs don't exist unless the resources necessary to meet human needs exist.  And if the resources necessary to meet human needs exist in abundance, then there is no need for jobs whatsoever.

I think you have completely failed to establish that your "gated community service charge" is even remotely comparable to a debt.

Please tell me what you think the difference is. I think that would be more efficient than me trying to guess.  

Contract.  Consent.  Saying "you consent to this by living" is not sufficient.  It is literally equivalent to kidnapping someone, taking them to an oasis in the middle of a desert, and then saying "you consent to be a servant by staying here".  You can leave at any time.  Start walking.  It's not really a choice;  it's contrived nonsense.  It's also equivalent to hooking a child on drugs, and then charging him once he turns 18.  Same thing.  Not a contract.  No consent.  Not a choice.  Not a debt.

[JA37]

Contract.  Consent.  Saying "you consent to this by living" is not sufficient.  It is literally equivalent to kidnapping someone, taking them to an oasis in the middle of a desert, and then saying "you consent to be a servant by staying here".  You can leave at any time.  But it's not really a choice;  it's contrived nonsense.  It's also equivalent to hooking a child on drugs, and then charging him once he turns 18.  Same thing.  Not a contract.  No consent.  Not a choice.  Not a debt.

Tell me, is there such a thing as an implicit contract? Or do every contract have to be explicit?
Is having children "literally" the same as kidnapping someone? It just struck me that libertarians must concider every birth an act of agression since noone has agreed to being born. Odd way of looking at things. Back to your desert example, it's not really the same is it? You can leave a gated community. You can leave a country. Neither is generally life threatening to do. And kidnapping is agression and "not cool", isn't it?
If none of the other communities/countries live up to your standard of freedom or safety it's not really our problem is it? Everyone has to make compromises. Or you suck it down for now and try to change the rules where you are.

[TiagoTiago]

Paraphrasing Budha, "to live is to suffer"; if you agree with that, then the obvious conclusion is that giving someone life is an act of aggression; you're making them suffer, suffering they wouldn't otherwise endure if it wasn't by your actions..... <.<

[Anonymous]

There is no objective basis for the government-enforced societal system or any for that matter.

Here's the facts: Progressive/statist political structures have hardly proved themselves to be prosperous or efficients way of living over the past several centuries of their existence. No state-based society has sustained itself without catastrophic failure. I have no tangible citations but elementary history ought to suffice.

To deny libertarian, nihilist or other systems any probability of success isn't exactly rational considering they have yet to be tested in reality, while statism has seen failure countless times.

To stay within the context of the thread, true free-market Capitalism has only been destroyed by statist political structures. It has never destroyed itself, unless, of course, a free-market society is always doomed to be sucked into this vacuum of power.

[MoonShadow]

To stay within the context of the thread, true free-market Capitalism has only been destroyed by statist political structures. It has never destroyed itself, unless, of course, a free-market society is always doomed to be sucked into this vacuum of power.

I'm on another forum, where this exact concept came up.  The idea was presented in the context of a human future similar to Serenity wherein a true free market exists on the leading edge of an ever expanding front of human occupation.  The theory being that those who seek freedom are always leaving the comforts of society and venturing outward to found new colonies, and for several generations those new colonies function as anarchist societies in a similar vein to the "Wild West" Western territories of the US before they were states; but eventually as the population grows on the colony, the society becomes ever more statist until those who seek freedom are driven outward in search of a new colony.

[benjamindees]

Tell me, is there such a thing as an implicit contract? Or do every contract have to be explicit?

Every contract has implicit elements.  And ultimately there is a fine line.  But what you're arguing is simply ludicrous and comes nowhere close to being reasonable.  I would have thought that the house-waving service would have made this clear.  Do you want to offer some argument as to what might constitute an implicit contract?  I think if you stop by your friend's house while he's out of town and borrow his lawnmower, then you implicitly agree to return it.  But this isn't really a contract so I fail to see what might distinguish between an implicit contract and made-up nonsense.

Is having children "literally" the same as kidnapping someone?

For the purposes of the example I gave, the outcome is the same from the child's perspective, but obviously it's a somewhat contrived example.

You can leave a gated community. You can leave a country. Neither is generally life threatening to do.

You can leave your house if you don't want to pay for the house waving service.  Slavery isn't life threatening either if that's the argument you want to make.  This is an idiotic point.

And kidnapping is agression and "not cool", isn't it?

I'm really not going to answer retarded questions.

If none of the other communities/countries live up to your standard of freedom or safety it's not really our problem is it? Everyone has to make compromises. Or you suck it down for now and try to change the rules where you are.

If you'd like to argue on the basis of "rules" that have some type of legitimacy other than through force, feel free.  It's a difficult argument to make.  And just saying "implied contract" doesn't cut it.  If you'd like to argue that rules have legitimacy that derives from force, then feel free to watch your rules get ignored.

[JA37]

Every contract has implicit elements.  And ultimately there is a fine line.  But what you're arguing is simply ludicrous and comes nowhere close to being reasonable.  I would have thought that the house-waving service would have made this clear.  Do you want to offer some argument as to what might constitute an implicit contract?  I think if you stop by your friend's house while he's out of town and borrow his lawnmower, then you implicitly agree to return it.  But this isn't really a contract so I fail to see what might distinguish between an implicit contract and made-up nonsense.

Why not steal from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied-in-fact_contract
"when a patient goes to a doctor's appointment, his actions indicate he intends to receive treatment in exchange for paying reasonable/fair doctor's fees. Likewise, by seeing the patient, the doctor's actions indicate he intends to treat the patient in exchange for payment of the bill. Therefore, it seems that a contract actually existed between the doctor and the patient, even though nobody spoke any words of agreement."
Or, perhaps, remaining in a country/gated community after you understood the rules.

For the purposes of the example I gave, the outcome is the same from the child's perspective, but obviously it's a somewhat contrived example.

Why is it the same from the childs perspective? Are they somehow prevented to leave? Or do they just have to decide which is more important, family or the imposed rules of the community they live in?

You can leave your house if you don't want to pay for the house waving service.  Slavery isn't life threatening either if that's the argument you want to make.  This is an idiotic point.

Leaving the only housing in the middle of the desert could be. I thought that was the point you were trying to make? The fact that there wasn't a real choice. And I will pay for the service if this is a collective service that the community I live in has decided is useful. I think we already covered this.

I'm really not going to answer retarded questions.

Rethorical question. And Bitcoin2cash's words. No answer required.

If you'd like to argue on the basis of "rules" that have some type of legitimacy other than through force, feel free.  It's a difficult argument to make.  And just saying "implied contract" doesn't cut it.  If you'd like to argue that rules have legitimacy that derives from force, then feel free to watch your rules get ignored.

How about democracy? That's what we generally use to give legitimacy to rules.
Or didn't I understand the question? You still want rules right?

[benjamindees]

The point I was making is that there is a cost imposed on a person whether he is kidnapped into slavery or born into it.  None of this has to do with anything being "life threatening" so I'm not sure why you keep saying that.

I think we've established that you are a collectivist.  Frankly, this point of view has no legitimacy whatsoever, especially not in any political system that respects human rights.

And I'm really not sure how you can fail to see the difference between actively soliciting a service (doctor's appt) and being forced to pay for something you don't even want (house-waving, gov't).

[JA37]

The point I was making is that there is a cost imposed on a person whether he is kidnapped into slavery or born into it.  None of this has to do with anything being "life threatening" so I'm not sure why you keep saying that.

I think we've established that you are a collectivist.  Frankly, this point of view has no legitimacy whatsoever, especially not in any political system that respects human rights.

And I'm really not sure how you can fail to see the difference between actively soliciting a service (doctor's appt) and being forced to pay for something you don't even want (house-waving, gov't).

I thought the example with the desert was to imply that there isn't a real choice. Agree or die of thirst when you try to leave. Again, sorry if I misunderstood you. Slavery you say? So you get freebie after freebie and when it's time to start doing your part it's suddenly slavery? Sure, you didn't ask to be born in the safety of a hospital with educated staff. You didn't ask to grow up in safe streets where there's law and order. You get clean water, parks to play in, safe food in the stores. You get lots of things for free, because others pay for it. But you don't want to. You got these things for free because your parents thought it was a good deal. You're not a slave, you're a freeloader.
Not you specifically, I have no idea about your special conditions, I'm talking generally here.

If collectivist is a name for "a person who sees his part in a society" then yes. I am because we are. No man is an island. You know all that stuff. If you're all alone somewhere far away from everyone else you can do whatever you want as long as they don't impact anyone else. When your actions start affecting others you no longer can.

You wanted an example of an implicit contract. That's one. Or, if you were a guest in my apt, but now you've stayed there for 3 months. I'll tell you that you need to pay your share of the rent or get out by monday. If you remain you've agreed to an implicit contract, wouldn't you say? Or could you say "No, I don't really want to live here, but since I haven't found my own place yet I'm forced to live here. I don't think I should pay any rent."

[NghtRppr]

You're not a slave, you're a freeloader.

Well, it is kind of idiotic to render services before the other person agrees to pay you for said services.