Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[flyingcatt]

The solution of poverty? ALIENS

Exactly, we need something like that, or an steroid, then we will learn to collaborate worldwide.

[BCEmporium]

"Damage to the planet" is very subjective to the scientific expert of the day endorsed and financed by subsidies. I have no way to verify the veracity of the fact, only having a pure belief in "experts", so I decide to not believe for the same reason I don't believe in god.
Tell me to not do a thing "because it damages the planet" it sounds the same that telling me not to do because "god will be angry".

The road does not belong to me, so I must obey the rule, because I will always respect the rule of the landlord.
But if road were private, and I owned one, then I would not accept the right of the state to impose their rule on my road. (Except if I decide they are right on my standards)

"Damage the planet" isn't that subjective, what can be is how much of damage it is.
And yes, there's plenty of bad science around, UNICEF just sent one today, WHO keeps "pooping" forged studies out and so on, but the truth is that human interference causes damage to the planet, the only thing to do is some damage control.
I won't advocate that the state or whoever should come after you telling what you can or can't do at anytime, but over some subjects it needs to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

[Nicolas Dorier]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

[twiifm]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

[BCEmporium]

So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That would be ransoming, and since there are 7 billion humans in the planet and just a couple of specimens of a protected species, my response would be "let it live and we let you do it too", as your life worth way less in the planet context.
See?

[gts476]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

[gts476]

So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That would be ransoming, and since there are 7 billion humans in the planet and just a couple of specimens of a protected species, my response would be "let it live and we let you do it too", as your life worth way less in the planet context.
See?

Your saying people should do what you want them to do or you will kill them?

Your a fucking psychopath.

[twiifm]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

Regulations don't have to come from govt.  industries can self regulate.  But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive.  

Can you cite the study that suggests Canadian govt regulations responsible for decline in fish stock?  I'd like to see this.  

[gts476]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

Regulations don't have to come from govt.  industries can self regulate.  But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive.  

Can you cite the study that suggests govt regulations respondible for decline in fish stock?  I like to see this.  

I don't need a study, just logic. Check this out.

Fish stock levels a problem? Yes.

Fish stock levels a function of fishing levels? Yes.

Fishing levels a function of fishing quotas? Yes.

Fishing quotas regulated by government? Yes.

So government is the cause of fish stock problems.

Fish stock levels is a tragedy of the commons problem? Yes.

Government is the cause of fish stock problems? Yes.

Government is a tragedy of the commons problem.

Tragedy of the commons problem needs to be resolved? Yes.

Government is the cause of the tragedy of the commons problems? Yes.

Remove the government.

Socialists complaining that this doesn't solve overfishing? Yes.

Lol. Overfishing a problem because of tragedy of the commons? Yes.

Tragedy of the commons exists because of the common? Yes.

Remove the common, land is now private.

Socialists complaining that people will rape their land for fish? Yes.

Land value will increase as a result of bidding for land by fishermen gauging its worth based on future return on investment? Yes

Future value a function of the amount of fish that may be caught over time? Yes.

Land value most valuable to those able to sustainably manage fish stock levels.

Person selling land sells to highest bidder? Yes.

Sustainable fisherman bids the most as the land is most valuable to him? Yes.

All land for fishing aggregates into the ownership of those most able to sustainably catch fish? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved by free market capitalism.



On a side note about governments having no profit motivating for the creating of regulations.
Regulations are created so the government can then sell licences to breach said regulation. There is you profit motive.


On a side note, this exact same argument applies to any 'tragedy of the commons problem'

Pollution? Deforestation? Endangered Species? Clean Water? Everything! Just change fishing to whatever and it is still valid.


On another side note, don't you feel ashamed to call yourselves men yet insist that every problem you see should be solved by some nightmarish governmental parental figure? You have the body of a man yet the mind and will of a scared little boy. Grow a fucking beard.

[twiifm]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

Regulations don't have to come from govt.  industries can self regulate.  But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive.  

Can you cite the study that suggests govt regulations respondible for decline in fish stock?  I like to see this.  

I don't need a study, just logic. Check this out.

Fish stock levels a problem? Yes.

Fish stock levels a function of fishing levels? Yes.

Fishing levels a function of fishing quotas? Yes.

Fishing quotas regulated by government? Yes.

So government is the cause of fish stock problems.

Fish stock levels is a tragedy of the commons problem? Yes.

Government is the cause of fish stock problems? Yes.

Government is a tragedy of the commons problem.

Tragedy of the commons problem needs to be resolved? Yes.

Government is the cause of the tragedy of the commons problems? Yes.

Remove the government.

Socialists complaining that this doesn't solve overfishing? Yes.

Lol. Overfishing a problem because of tragedy of the commons? Yes.

Tragedy of the commons exists because of the common? Yes.

Remove the common, land is now private.

Socialists complaining that people will rape their land for fish? Yes.

Land value will increase as a result of bidding for land by fishermen gauging its worth based on future return on investment? Yes

Future value a function of the amount of fish that may be caught over time? Yes.

Land value most valuable to those able to sustainably manage fish stock levels.

Person selling land sells to highest bidder? Yes.

Sustainable fisherman bids the most as the land is most valuable to him? Yes.

All land for fishing aggregates into the ownership of those most able to sustainably catch fish? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved by free market capitalism.



On a side note about governments having no profit motivating for the creating of regulations.
Regulations are created so the government can then sell licences to breach said regulation. There is you profit motive.


On a side note, this exact same argument applies to any 'tragedy of the commons problem'

Pollution? Deforestation? Endangered Species? Clean Water? Everything! Just change fishing to whatever and it is still valid.

Sorry science doesnt work like that.  Need empirical data to create hypothesis.  And your logic is sketchy.  Land ownership?  Fish live in the ocean

By definition govts dont need profit because they can fund themselves.  Thats the difference between public vs private

[gts476]

to be some control; toxic waste disposals, protected species, etc.

I know what you mean but the problem of such way of thinking is that the "etc." part always expand and never shrink, except with a revolution.
So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That introduces the concept of "tragedy of the commons".  If there were no regulations on the fish stock then laissez faire economics  will lead to overfishing.  Then nobody can eat tuna sushi anymore

You don't solve a tragedy of the commons by creating a government which is an even larger tragedy of the commons.

Fish stocks survived for years without quotas. Government gets involved, fishing stocks are raped to death. (see Canadian fish stocks).

Regulations don't have to come from govt.  industries can self regulate.  But usually govts create regulations because they dont have profit motive.  

Can you cite the study that suggests govt regulations respondible for decline in fish stock?  I like to see this.  

I don't need a study, just logic. Check this out.

Fish stock levels a problem? Yes.

Fish stock levels a function of fishing levels? Yes.

Fishing levels a function of fishing quotas? Yes.

Fishing quotas regulated by government? Yes.

So government is the cause of fish stock problems.

Fish stock levels is a tragedy of the commons problem? Yes.

Government is the cause of fish stock problems? Yes.

Government is a tragedy of the commons problem.

Tragedy of the commons problem needs to be resolved? Yes.

Government is the cause of the tragedy of the commons problems? Yes.

Remove the government.

Socialists complaining that this doesn't solve overfishing? Yes.

Lol. Overfishing a problem because of tragedy of the commons? Yes.

Tragedy of the commons exists because of the common? Yes.

Remove the common, land is now private.

Socialists complaining that people will rape their land for fish? Yes.

Land value will increase as a result of bidding for land by fishermen gauging its worth based on future return on investment? Yes

Future value a function of the amount of fish that may be caught over time? Yes.

Land value most valuable to those able to sustainably manage fish stock levels.

Person selling land sells to highest bidder? Yes.

Sustainable fisherman bids the most as the land is most valuable to him? Yes.

All land for fishing aggregates into the ownership of those most able to sustainably catch fish? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved? Yes.

Fishing stock problem solved by free market capitalism.



On a side note about governments having no profit motivating for the creating of regulations.
Regulations are created so the government can then sell licences to breach said regulation. There is you profit motive.


On a side note, this exact same argument applies to any 'tragedy of the commons problem'

Pollution? Deforestation? Endangered Species? Clean Water? Everything! Just change fishing to whatever and it is still valid.

Sorry science doesnt work like that.  Need empirical data to create hypothesis.  And your logic is sketchy.  Land ownership?  Fish live in the ocean

By definition govts dont need profit because they can fund themselves.  Thats the difference between public vs private

My logic is laid bare and flawless. Instead of hiding behind sophistry PICK APART THE LOGIC, WHERE DOES IT NOT HOLD TRUE?

And this is called deductive reasoning and this is exactly what science is. Science is the description of nature with deductively valid rules. This is physics, this is what I do.

[twiifm]

My logic is laid bare and flawless. Instead of hiding behind sophistry PICK APART THE LOGIC, WHERE DOES IT NOT HOLD TRUE?

And this is called deductive reasoning and this is exactly what science is. Science is the description of nature with deductively valid rules. This is physics, this is what I do.

All you demonstrated is formal fallacy

Your deduction:

If it rains the street is wet?
Is the street wet? 
Therefore it rained

[BCEmporium]

So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That would be ransoming, and since there are 7 billion humans in the planet and just a couple of specimens of a protected species, my response would be "let it live and we let you do it too", as your life worth way less in the planet context.
See?

Your saying people should do what you want them to do or you will kill them?

Your a fucking psychopath.

Nope, that's plain market rules. Your life's worth (as mine) is 1:7.000.000.000...

[gts476]

My logic is laid bare and flawless. Instead of hiding behind sophistry PICK APART THE LOGIC, WHERE DOES IT NOT HOLD TRUE?

And this is called deductive reasoning and this is exactly what science is. Science is the description of nature with deductively valid rules. This is physics, this is what I do.

All you demonstrated is formal fallacy

Your deduction:

If it rains the street is wet?
Is the street wet? 
Therefore it rained

This is a fucking straw man and has nothing to do with what I said.

IF THERE IS A FLAW IN MY REASONING THEN QUOTE THE FLAW AND EXPALIN IT!

[gts476]

So my response is : If you care about protected species, pay for their protection with your pocket and not mine by force.

That would be ransoming, and since there are 7 billion humans in the planet and just a couple of specimens of a protected species, my response would be "let it live and we let you do it too", as your life worth way less in the planet context.
See?

Your saying people should do what you want them to do or you will kill them?

Your a fucking psychopath.

Nope, that's plain market rules. Your life's worth (as mine) is 1:7.000.000.000...

That is a faction weighting of life and presumes a principle of equal a priori probability when determining the value of life.

Want to know how much you worth? Your value to society? Look at what you earn in a free market.

And the statement 'obey my rules or die' is psychopathic. You are a psychopath if you adhere to that statement.

Psychopath, like......... Norman Bates.

*edit. Lets rebuke this statement of worth quickly.

Is Einstein worth the same as an uneducated peasant in Africa? Your statement says yes. I say no.

[twiifm]

My logic is laid bare and flawless. Instead of hiding behind sophistry PICK APART THE LOGIC, WHERE DOES IT NOT HOLD TRUE?

And this is called deductive reasoning and this is exactly what science is. Science is the description of nature with deductively valid rules. This is physics, this is what I do.

All you demonstrated is formal fallacy

Your deduction:

If it rains the street is wet?
Is the street wet?  
Therefore it rained

This is a fucking straw man and has nothing to do with what I said.

IF THERE IS A FLAW IN MY REASONING THEN QUOTE THE FLAW AND EXPALIN IT!

here's your logic in a nutshell.

1.  Govt regulate fish stock
2.  fish stock decrease
3.  therefore regulations decreased fish stock.

The obvious answer is overfishing decrease fish stock & govt regulation isn't enough to overcome the decrease.  Duh!

Besides this you haven't even shown any empirical evidence of fish stock before vs after regulation.  Thats why I ask for citation or study

[BCEmporium]

That is a faction weighting of life and presumes a principle of equal a priori probability when determining the value of life.

Want to know how much you worth? Your value to society? Look at what you earn in a free market.

And the statement 'obey my rules or die' is psychopathic. You are a psychopath if you adhere to that statement.

Psychopath, like......... Norman Bates.

*edit. Lets rebuke this statement of worth quickly.

Is Einstein worth the same as an uneducated peasant in Africa? Your statement says yes. I say no.

Are you Einstein? No... so what's that to you?
And why should the life of an "uneducated peasant" worth less than yours?
If you want a "free market" or a completely free market, you have to pick the whole lot, not cherry picking just what may suit you.

BTW; I'm not saying it is right to kill people to force them to comply to something, I'm just pointing you what lies beneath the bed of roses in your head.

[gts476]

That is a faction weighting of life and presumes a principle of equal a priori probability when determining the value of life.

Want to know how much you worth? Your value to society? Look at what you earn in a free market.

And the statement 'obey my rules or die' is psychopathic. You are a psychopath if you adhere to that statement.

Psychopath, like......... Norman Bates.

*edit. Lets rebuke this statement of worth quickly.

Is Einstein worth the same as an uneducated peasant in Africa? Your statement says yes. I say no.

Are you Einstein? No... so what's that to you?
And why should the life of an "uneducated peasant" worth less than yours?
If you want a "free market" or a completely free market, you have to pick the whole lot, not cherry picking just what may suit you.

BTW; I'm not saying it is right to kill people to force them to comply to something, I'm just pointing you what lies beneath the bed of roses in your head.

No what you said was if people do what you say you let them live, which, can be restated, if you don't do what I say you die.

When you say you want a law to be used to effect an outcome, this is exactly what your saying. A law is the right to force compliance, failure to comply is met with kidnapping and death. (jail is kidnapping, resisting arrest is suicide by police).

When you say you think laws should be used you are saying no one may disagree with you, and anyone who does should be killed for acting upon their disagreement with you.

This is psychopathic.

And am I worth more? Yes. Why? Because I do more which benefit society. How can you gauge benefit to society in a free market? Wealth. As all wealth must be gained by voluntary interaction. More wealth = More benefit = More value.

Am I Einstein? Not yet, but I will do a lot more than him by the time I'm dead. That prick should not have contributed to the Manhattan project.

[BCEmporium]

People will NEVER comply with all rules by own will. They will always try to get the most advantage of any situation and this eventually leads to conflicts, to solve them a 3rd party has to force one of them to comply to a set of rules, otherwise the stronger one will simply get it (law of the jungle). Which means also this 3rd party has to be stronger than both.

Sorry for the shower of reality, you aren't yet able to withstand it. But before think "you've the perfect system", think about its' potential leaks and flaws.

About your racist comments and self-indulgence... I'll let it pass this time. They are just plain ridiculous.

[NapoleonBonaparte]

People will NEVER comply with all rules by own will. They will always try to get the most advantage of any situation and this eventually leads to conflicts, to solve them a 3rd party has to force one of them to comply to a set of rules, otherwise the stronger one will simply get it (law of the jungle). Which means also this 3rd party has to be stronger than both.

Sorry for the shower of reality, you aren't yet able to withstand it. But before think "you've the perfect system", think about its' potential leaks and flaws.

About your racist comments and self-indulgence... I'll let it pass this time. They are just plain ridiculous.

And people always find a way around rules and regulation. They will test how far they can do it without authority knocking at your door.

Those who break rules and get away with it get to the top. Those who follow the rules and play by the book rarely ever get to top.