The aspie as revolutionary

Post Reply New Topic

I can apologize for any belief I choose to. In the end it doesn't matter, and my reasons are my own.

Nihilist.

Still irrelevant. These so-called specialists will follow whatever the consensus is because they have no argumentative capabilities.



Argumentum ad ignorantium. What we have not had yet does not tell us about our future; once there was no democracy. Plus, the advent of the digital age, I guarantee, will bring forth many new horizons. In fact, I count on it. The new world we're building is what re-inspired my political thought.



Biased sample fallacy.

I am talking about overall situations. This country hasn't seen an honest presidential race (or at least what was once held as honest) in forever. Once again, you're trying to use absolutes to disprove conditions in a world in flux. This is completely fallacious on all levels.

Lastly, you commit a strawman, because this past is not even close to ideal, but was only brought up to show the massive power of the media.



Your problem, not mine. If it didn't make sense, you could point out the inconsistencies like I constantly do with you. Your empty statements do not stand up to my specific examples and contradictions.



Force is constantly being applied at all times! How can you even say this? Absolutely ridiculous!

The forces of the consumer's hedonistic desire, and the power's that be exploitation of this is the a complex system of forces that defines us as a group of people.



Did you actually read the Ego and His Own? Seriously now. There is a specific idea about expansion of the ego; to fulfill one's self. I care about others because I wish to make them a part of me; in this case, I will grow larger, while you will stay small. I will gain might, while you will feel the fury of the oppressed. It is entirely self-driven.

It's not about morality, it's about being an egoist. The more who are egoists the more I can fulfill myself in this world.



Leaving Flint caused the collateral damage. Am I going to have to define collateral damage?

"Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome."

By leaving, they caused unintended and incidental damage to that community. Period. Lastly, why do you not care about worker's jobs but you care so much about the so-called property rights of the bourgeoisie? Is this for shock value or what?



You're reasoning is fallacious on the basis of ambiguous language. In a system in which all who can work, a system which can create various means of distributing goods evenly, and a system in which industry is self-started and sustained by supply and demand, the meaning of free distribution is easily understandable. But apparently you refuse to leave your framework to understand others, and thus you will never be able to effectively argue me. I understand what the freedom of capitalism implies, but you do not understand what the freedom of what I propose implies. Freedom is an unattainable concept in it's absolute form; so what kind of freedom are we speaking of? I'm speaking of an egoistic freedom. To guide one's self and to be what one wants to be regardless of power.



I did not say the proletariat was conscious, I said that it's expression is the greatest of any conscious entity. But what does conscious entity even mean? You obviously haven't asked that question. If the proletariat is a group of people with extremely similar interests, then the consciousness of the proletariat exists within each mind of that person. The group itself is not conscious, but it's essential nature is, thus it can be correctly defined as a conscious entity. Consciousness is not necessarily the same as your consciousness. Not only that, you can not prove to me that a group of people cannot have their conscious, and I cannot prove they do. This is a baseless statement.



I do not propose a system where you are not allowed to seek your ends, only one in which property is redefined to all involved. How many strawman arguments are you going to make?

Freedom is not a series of choices. Freedom is to be free from something. To make yourself a servant is to sign away your freedom based on a choice, not to exercise the freedom itself; this is the fallacy of capitalist freedom. It is another thing to do things that happen to benefit another, though. That is fundamentally different from indentured servitude.

Denial is not a proper argument. I seek to analyze power structures and definitions of property to find flaws and illogic, while you deny me. Not good enough, frankly. How am I supposed to answer a question like that, anyways? How can I express what I really know about economic theory, when asked to prove myself in such a manner? Frankly, it's irrelevant, because it is a red herring from the actual argument itself. So let me ask you an equally meaningless question, what do you know of logic? You have clearly violated laws of logic consistently through out this discussion. Yet you wish to retain an assured sense of superiority...

I am a constant questioner. I would throw everything I hold true in an instant if it could shown to be wrong. I've thrown away so many things, even the thoughts you express to me here and now.



Do all of your arguments boil down to an assumption? Look at what you wrote last there, you say I am "ignorant of the system" you propose, and then you explain my behavior from that assumption. Well, shouldn't we be arguing what apparently makes me ignorant in the first place? Like I said, you avoid the point of contention, and I have consistently been trying to divert attention back to it.

I have no theory of money, because money is not a factor in what I support. Money was once a great advancement for civilization; in a time when information was scarce and people needed something to follow. I do not look to the past to learn how to live, I look to what new developments are giving us. The new age of technology brings my ideas much more hope. Soon, truth will become the greatest factor, because the internet is raising us to seek it. This will only advance us as time goes on. It's almost like gaining a new sense, really. Our nature is changing.

The simple fact is that I don't rely on spooks; leftists may, but I do not. I rely on strategy, expressions of might, and real things. Words like "fair" only describe the relationship between them; like how an electron orbits in an atom. It's not a "thing", and you could call it a "spook", but the simple fact is that they are not words of deception like moral terms. You call my terms BS, but once again, this is the bare assertion. If you wish to continue you need to cut out all of the fallacious reasoning. Denial shows that you're not willing to see something new and as it is. There are many possibilities beyond left/right economics as long as we're smart enough to define things differently. Do you honestly believe we've discovered all systems, or at least the frameworks of them?

You did mention rights. Period. And don't call me ignorant when you keep arguing me like I'm a socialist. Mr. George Orwell is equally wrong in his characterization, and he only shows his own misunderstandings.



Uhh, wow. You messed up here pretty bad. Even worse than before.

in·dus·try Audio Help /ˈɪndəstri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-duh-stree] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -tries for 1, 2, 7.
1. the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product: the automobile industry; the steel industry.

Good ol' definitions, always set things straight. See, industry implies production. To have an industry, you must produce. Thus, industry and production require workers, because they're all part of the same thing.

The car is the product which man or society compensates the workers for. The factory is the means of making the product, and thus is in constant flux and in a constant state of work. You keep trying to say they're the same thing, yet I've contradicted you numerous times. You are committing a proof by assertion fallacy (surprise, surprise). The factory should belong to all involved because all constantly work to uphold it; the man who gets the car made an even trade of some fashion (in what I propose), thus it is his work alone that upholds it. It's not just about creation, it's about how creation is related to what is owned. You're not going below the surface; you're just viewing things as objects even though there is much more depth to it. Oh, what's that phrase I keep saying? Oh yeah, you're avoiding the point of contention.

And you once again beg the question. Deal-makers take the risk in capitalism, and the workers do not in capitalism. If all have ownership, then all take the risk of failure. You're saying the deal-makers deserve it because they take a risk, and thus capitalism is justified, yet they only take this unique risk within capitalism itself. Round and round and round and round we go...

I said they "don't deserve it", so you're obviously not getting what I was saying. I didn't imply deserve really meant anything, I just said they don't inherently do. Then you contradict yourself by saying deserving implies taking a risk. Seriously, this is laughable. Besides, workers take effort as well, so I don't even know why you would mention that. If anything, the workers put more effort.

Existing power is more important to the present, but potential power is more important to the future. Since I am talking about a revolution of the way we structure ourselves, the present power is highly irrelevant.



Of course it doesn't explain all wealth. It explains wealth as it is relevant to those in power. Come one, connect some dots here...

A person in the professional class could become a world power. It is indeed possible. I do not deny that. But since absolutes mean nothing to me, I am only talking about the weight of these structures.

Class divisions are spooks. They're spooks created by the bourgeoisie, in many political and economic systems. Class division exists as a semi-reality because capital exists in the hands of those who can write up exploitative contracts. By empowering the proletariat, and by bringing them to power themselves, I effectively destroy class. Thus, by empowering the proletariat, I end the proletariat. I am destroying the spook, once again. How can you not see this? These terms are only relevant to the times. You need some serious context.

And I'm not going to do an analysis because this is an autism forum. If I was going to do a serious analysis, I would publish it and not let you see it for free. See, as a moral nihilist, I am not opposed to making money, but as an anarchistic sort, I would destroy it if given the opportunity. I am not bound to freegan nonsense, like many ego-starved anarchists. I am not bound by lifestyle to these politics. Thus, I do not follow any spook.

Not only that, but I consider many things to be more important than mere economics. Economics is a piece of the puzzle. A means not an end. You hold it far too high.



Talk about pedantic. Seriously, where is your argument? You have nothing but empty declarations.

First part is a strawman (which is quite funny, as you talk about reason towards the end here). I do not seek to "free people from their chains", I seek them as allies for all of our own fulfillment. Simple fact is, most people want the same basic things, and these basic things can be met in civilization. Once again, instead of trying to discuss things and talk about ideas, you frame me as a socialist sort so you can pass me off with your pedantic qualifiers. Reason is, ahem, the reason for a quality, not the statement of a quality itself.

Those who are rewarded chose that reward simply because that is what money gets you. It's a framed capitalist choice, not a free choice.

It's funny how you try and justify circular reasoning. I literally laughed. You justify capitalism by speaking of what this system defines as ownership, liberty, practicality, and etcetera. Instead, you justify wealth by using it's mechanisms. It doesn't make sense. Period. It does not follow. You cannot escape this fact no matter how much you want to BS.

So, you expect me, a budding thinker, to put forth the sort of information that has defended capitalism for hundreds of years? What do you want me to do, write a novel and then post it here for free? Seems against my interests as long as I exist in this place. Seems irrational for you to expect that. No, the fault is on you. You're the one who makes fallacious arguments to discount me, and you're the one who doesn't want to talk about these ideas. You latch on to the hashed out ideas of others, and thus you have "relevance" (what the hell does that mean anyways?), "definition", "systemized construction", and "respect? So, I shouldn't be given respect simply because I have not latched on to a tradition, from which these qualities follow? So you're appealing to tradition? So you're appealing to ignorance, because you nor I have not had the opportunity to flesh these ideas out? Seriously, nothing you say makes any sense. I can point out fallacies in your posts all day if I want to. The ideas you hold yourself would never exist if they weren't discussed seriously at some level similar to this one. You have no table stakes if that's the case. You have no seat in a room of discussion. You cannot quote Stirner if you continue to latch on to other ideas, rather than looking inside. I don't think you've really found yourself, to be honest. Maybe you haven't been able to build yourself up from nothing yet.



Well, you're wrong. Why do you continue to disconnect theory from reality so much, yet apply theory as if it's a reality? This is a sign of reverse reasoning, like a reverse scientific method. You've decided your position, so that is how things happen. In truth, the media does run the elections. They can promote whoever they wish, and the people are under such a spell that they will follow along. In all practicality is what matters, not in theory. You've got to make the jump to reality some time.

The democrats are in corporations pockets. The democrats do support corporations. Minimum wage only means people will spend more. The money still flows regardless. The corporations are hardly hampered; not only that, but issues like the environment are in many corporation's interests. Keeping the people blind and seemingly happy is important to the corporation. They satisfy us to control us. No, they are not in complete control, but neither was Stalin. Nobody is in complete control. This is meaningless. Once again, you're using absolutes where they cannot apply.

It's not as if corporations are some group of conspirators, like some silly secret society theory. They have conflicting interests; however, the bulk of their interests are in alignment. They will sell Chomsky because he will not penetrate the mainstream and they know it. They want the rebels to be a part of the system. Instead of eliminating them, they swallow them. This strategy works better in our political system. Why do you expect power struggles to be so straight-forward in a society full of conflicting institutions?

I have not been trying to separate production and money in a moneyed system. There are things that replace the practical use of money in some situations, but it's value is inherently different. Value is determined by work and need more so than anything else.

Capitalism in itself works as it should, but not when it comes to political and informational power. Your narrow-minded obsession with economics has blinded you to this.



...

Do you forget or something? You avoid the point of contention by stating the necessity of the organizer, but refusing to explain why he deserves the greatest amount of value. You have not contradicted the necessity of all in industry. They make whatever arrangement they want to by voting. The vote creates the contract. You are being incredibly dense.



I was talking about credit cards. That is a form of a loan. Yeah, I'm SUCH an idiot. You sure pegged me, with all your fallacies and whatnot.



I was a capitalist for what, four years? I mean, a serious one at least. Does it make you feel better to characterize people as a premise, rather than characterize people as a conclusion? You can't even think straight.



Incorrect. Didn't you just get done talking about oversimplification? The subjective part of these words is the part which inspires people to fix it; if it isn't fair, we should make it so. That is subjective. However, the weighing of these things is objective and undeniable. So, the question becomes, are you going to deal fairly, or are you going to try and exploit people? Neither is wrong nor right.



Oversimplified.

It has little to do with objectivity because action is based on the subjective notion, and action is what counts most. But if we're discussing these relationships, there isn't much to deny if anything at all.



Technology slowly gives us access to more and more information. The information is the awakening. History shows that the powers may slow things down, but things change in favor of the small people over time. The analogy is false because since the proletariat can be awakened, they are not as useless as the dead. The fact that there can be a "who", and a "how", which you admitted (even if negatively) proves that this analogy is false. You contradicted yourself by asking those questions.



It's simply meaningless power; I would say that these self-made men could be offered much more than their riches. Why is it that so many rich people are so miserable? Simply because they are trapped, even if affluent.

I like Buffett as a person. I think he would have great use and respect in a society of my ideal. However, even he doesn't want his money. He's realized what it takes to fulfill himself to a pretty decent degree. We could use men like him, and we could probably give him a better world. Do you really see no reason? How about that we cannot sustain that many rich people? Any bloodline has an opportunity, but that doesn't mean much when only a limited amount are capable of getting there, and not just because they're superior either.



And what does that have to do with what is true? You're making an argument there. It doesn't matter what I "deserve". Red herring. Learn to think.



It's inevitable in the context that we continue to survive and develop, so no it is not absolutely inevitable, but then again I was speaking in a context, and your statement doesn't make much sense to that.

I'm not even sure if it will happen with fighting. I'm not sure how it will happen at all. At some point, though, people will become smart enough to know what can be their's, and they're naturally going to want the power. Even if one stomped on the others, the others would be aware of it and take measures against it. Ironically, your game theory problem carries the assumption that the rebels would be a militarized or even identifiable group. Even the way the so-called Al-Qaeda is organized makes it difficult for the US to destroy it.

One argues in a framework once the premises are justified. Only after that. All arguments go deeper than they are expressed.



I know the lingo, but I don't speak with it often because it's not relevant to what I'm working towards. New economic language would have to be developed, and there is no way I could be that far along yet. Excuse me for being subject to time.

By "narrow thinking" you're describing "rational thinking", but what I was saying was "boxed thinking". There is no argument for mysticism, thus it is pointless. However, one should always explore what has real arguments.



More bare assertion? It's difficult for me in my position, for you see I understand you so well, but you really don't understand me. I'm like the Joker to your Batman (yay pop culture). It's not that I blame you; you have no frame of reference of me. There is no established philosophy or political system that can explain me. I, however, have argued from capitalist positions for a long time, until I realized I needed to find something greater than what already is. I cannot fulfill myself if I keep obsessing with the ideas of others, nor can I fulfill my own expectations. You have no way of knowing, but I am individuality incarnate. I live it. I've cast out all ideas in order to build everything from scratch. I destroyed myself to be completely my own. I think we should come to understanding before we call eachother idiots and assume we have no hope. Nothing matters to me but me. And when I say that, I mean I've expanded my sense of ego beyond my physical body, and beyond conceptions of ownership.



I wish only to discuss the objective implications of the basics I've spoke of before. Subjectivity is truth, but if we question the basic premises in great depth unlike those before us, we may find that our essential selves are akin.

You have to understand that when I say you sound so much like my former self, I really mean it. It's no mere coincidence that we enjoy and appreciate the same obscure philosophers. Our subjective truths can be shared, and I think the major difference is really within the strategy behind these subjective truths. The extension of those truths: action.



Precisely.



I redefine it in a way that it means the same essential thing without superstitious conceptions. I suppose it would be best to find another term, but I would probably have to decide that after fleshing many factors out.



My religion is my own idea. My idea. Thus, my religion is myself. To serve myself is to be free. Freedom from the self means nothing. I have it for my own selfish purposes. It is merely in the nature of being an animal that I find I can work with others.

If institutions are run by the people, and these institutions allow the freedom of movement I've spoken of, then the institutions can embody a strong sense of freedom themselves. My guilt, my love, my hate, my pain, my hunger, my biology, and logic are all a part of me. They are mine. All of these things together are me. I have no consciousness without at least a trace of them. So am I a slave to myself, or am I my own master? They both mean the same thing: nothing. I am simply an egoist, and I am thus free. Even if capitalism oppresses my physical self, I am a spiritual person who has freedom of the spirit. I am free in any case, I can merely become more of myself if the world was designed better.



Ahh yes, but the concepts most hold are of somebody else. I ask that we hold the same vision not for the sake of the vision, but the vision for the sake of the individual. This is where things change. When one's place in the community becomes to be an individual. If we can define that in a system...

Besides, I'm quite sure I haven't referred to any nothingness...



Already responded.



Capital comes from trading products, and the products come from workers mostly (I consider manager's workers as well in my vision). Capital is the representation of these products on a capitalist market (at least today it is).



No, no, no! Capitalism is justified by arguing the nature of it's conception of property primarily. It's mechanics follows from this premise. It's not so much that a man can't own a factory, it's just that the constant bidding process in the future society I support would not allow him to. The might of the people would simply not allow it, because they are taking ownership of it as well. A man can negotiate with others, but I want to design a fair negotiation. I don't care about just or unjust; I care about what is contrary to individualism and the practical desires of the mightiest sorts. It's not about what one cannot do; it's about what comes when all have a say without a government to protect these conceptions of property.

I have talked about the mechanism design. I haven't wrote you an essay about it, if that's what you mean.



I think we need to talk about the actualities, first and foremost. Is a factory really a factory if it doesn't produce anyways? Doesn't it lose what makes it a factory?



There is a difference between an assertion and one that is bare. I say individuality's greatest expression is when people have personal control of their own labor, the ability to set their own values somehow, and the ability to express yourself as an individual at all levels in society. By asking for opinion for all things, it becomes their societal duty to be an individual.



That's... counter-everything.



The levels of societal influence certainly are different.



But your assertions are often bare. I think you're emphasizing the wrong word here.



First of all, we must never be reactionary. You will lose yourself in it.

I know the individual is, because I am one. But at the same time, I am like a cell to the organism that is society. Theoretically, if a cell is my part and it is unaware of my consciousness, then I may be a part of society that is unaware of it's consciousness. It could be a consciousness so great that I can't contemplate it, like the cell on my body. There is no evidence that society does not exist, and there is no evidence that there is not a consciousness beyond us. Just because it can potentially deny freedom does not mean it is incorrect. If we have the ability to understand freedom, unlike cells, then perhaps we can be self-driven while sustaining society at the same time. Perhaps we can exist for ourselves, but still be a part of and concerned with society. Perhaps society can fulfill the individual in some ways. Society is not just like us, but there are some striking similarities; the areas that pertain to freedom is actually what sets us apart from the cells.

You say a man alone is something, but this is once again a bare assertion. We have a better understanding of what makes up our supposed reality, and in truth the individual is not sovereign as a physical being. We could say that our essence may be, but then again, the essence is what pertains to the free individual, not to the whole society. Be physically a part of something larger for the sake of essential self. Which also means that you come first. Individual over society; not the individual alone.



The exception doesn't disprove the rule in a world in flux. And seriously, freedom *TO* something doesn't make any sense. That's simply not what freedom means, if we're talking about what the word "free" means. Beyond this definition, how would you use it in every day speech? Sounds like it would be in the way I use it. Freedom is sovereignty; I'm attempting to allow sovereignty in a communal society by expecting individualism.



Yes, their work is necessary. It's not them I'm concerned about; it's their current status.



I may have started it, but I didn't make it an aspect to the entire argument. If you consider a thought a reality, I suppose so, but I would think there is a far better word Wittgenstein could use.



I disagree. There are multiple purposes. A person in capitalism builds a computer to build a computer and gain capital. They are not opposed, they go hand-in-hand. The collective effort of the computer allows the improved individualistic effort for money.



Perhaps that's an issue. In this world that is so full of lies, even in our highest academic institutions, why wouldn't you want your ideas to seem odd to others? I would consider it a good sign if my ideas are odd to all others, yet are not so easily discountable. If you knew yourself superior, and you do not wish to debate the concepts as a whole, then there is no reason for your responses. This smells like a lie to me. Probably because I said the same things to some people who threatened my ideas.

And of course I willfully reject it; that is the only sort of rejection there is!

I don't think you realize how much we have in common. I championed many causes, and in just a half year I switched from a "anarcho-capitalist moral nihilist". I am not a communist, I am not a socialist, and I am not even left. I don't think the proletariat owns the means of production, nor do I think the community does. I think people involved have ownership. We obviously have a similar pattern of finding ourselves and truth.

True, but could you convince all people to learn the "dirty, nasty habit" of argumentation? I'd like a world that was so.


It does not do so conclusively, but such an argument cannot be easily dismissed if reduced to a probabilistic sense. The digital age will bring about some things, but I do not think it will turn us into something other than beasts.


It is a biased sample, however, it was meant to point to something, especially given that the sample size of presidential elections is rather small in the first place. Not only that, but honestly, there are other things I could point to if I ever so chose. There must be solid anchoring for any idea.


A strawman? Well, the issue is that this was not even close to ideal, and to an extent that is quite ridiculous. I think I was attacking the position as I saw it, as perhaps I am casting you too much as an idealist.


Specific examples and contradictions? I doubt it. You point to some small snippets, but nothing of real substance. Heck, for the most part, we talk past each other as you invoke class concepts that I care nothing for, and I keep on arguing from a capitalistic idea of individuality and pushing forward based upon that. There is no great victory as your pride would like to say.

And then the issue is the definition of force. There is nothing ridiculous except we both spoke past each other again.


A consumer's hedonistic desire is a force upon him? No, a consumer's hedonistic desire *is* him. I don't see any terrible exploitation. Once again, you appeal to something and I do not see that.


Am I a slave to "The Ego and His Own"? Others will never be a part of you, they are only slaves to whatever they choose to be slaves to, and will be so no matter what you assert for them. The only reason to destroy their spooks is to scatter them, not to make them allies.


You honestly think so? Egoists do as they will in all cases, they do not serve you, if you really want power, you want to be their God, not to be a fellow egoist. The only value of an egoist is that of a fellow to speak to, but you do not extend your power, as they, like an egoist would, will do as they will no matter what others think, including you.


Is it damage to remove a good thing? I suppose you can make a psychological argument that it is, but in another sense it is not, so the point is rather moot. The reason I care about the property rights of others is because I care about my own property, including my person. If I defend it, I defend myself, and defend future gains by me as well. Shock value is something I enjoy as well.


Ambiguous language? Well, I don't think I am being so much ambiguous as I am playing around a bit, if you want clarification then ask. Well, the issue is that you need to define your framework, as to be honest, I will look at anything with the terms that I have been trained to view things under. I don't think the meaning of free distribution is apparent, as free distribution would be cost based distribution if supply and demand hold. People can guide themselves no matter what, not only that, but nothing except things in regard to the self, can be done regardless of power.


I have something in mind when I think of it. I also have not met a group of people with extremely similar interests. No, you cannot prove it, and thus I would argue that such a concept only deserves removal. If it cannot be proven then to the furnaces. That your position has no meaning if it will never live? You essentially said the same about mine, as it is all about might.


The issue is that it is not a strawman if I think that your system is a threat to that. I also think that your redefinition of property is one against freedom.


No, it is not a fallacy. How can one be free from something, if one isn't now free to do something? Freedom is a removal of a restriction, therefore, there is an issue.


Yeah, and you do a sucky job at that. I can deny you if I think you are baseless. You can express it quite easily, state a background. It is not a hard concept. It is not a red herring, it is a means of saying I think you suck. I know logic quite well, and I do not violate them so much as you express anality and frankly, you are just as arrogant.


Ok, I have my doubts. If you really knew my thoughts then you would know how to address the deeper issues more effectively.


Everything boils down to an assumption. 99% of what you say seems to be based upon a number of assumptions about the capitalist system that you have barely supported. I would argue that, but we haven't been able to finally get down to a bare bones understanding, we are still talking past each other to a great extent.


Right, assertion there. I think everything stated here is wrong, and you have not provided support. And you attack me all of the time for "logical flaws", that tend to just be the sloppiness of informal debate.


Sure you do, everyone does. "Fair" is a moral concept related to justice, it is not a purely relational term. Calling your terms BS is asserting that you are making assertions. You are fallaciously reasoning as much as I am. I think I've discovered the system that works, and have not seen anyone with anything new.


Umm..... right? Yes, because I was so being incredibly moralistic. You are ignorant and arrogant along with that as well.


Right, because we all refer back to the dictionary when arguing things. You are being anal, and I have still established the issue of the factory.


No, you haven't. The issue is that I am asserting a factory without the labor, and you are ignoring that fact off-hand. So, you are being fallacious by not recognizing the distinction I am making. I am avoiding the point of contention because the point of contention is bogus and I think it to be a fiction in and of itself. If I successfully avoid it, which I have because you are ignoring my distinction quite blatantly, then I win.


The issue is that this does not necessarily help risk assessment, as I keep on pointing to the source of capital, as that is also essential. If the workers are fronting the capital through some means, then there is not a problem at all, but the issue is that you assume capital arises from nothing. Therefore, you have failed to justify your system while my system has a developed and effective mechanism for achieving it's ends. Ever heard of presuppositional apologetics? The idea is that the theist proves that his own system is consistent and the other system is inconsistent, the middle ground is explicitly rejected on the basis of different assumptions.

I asserted the will to take it with the act of receiving it. It is hardly a problem, more of a semantical issue to be honest, because a system of "he who has, deserves" is not really seeking morality and is egoistic. Workers do put effort in, and they contract for what they get. I don't see how there is an issue with the capitalist system there, and you have not made very much of a positive case at all. Your argument rests on a lot of criticism, conspiracy, and assertion.

No, make good arguments.


The weight? I don't care. I care about the concrete details.


Which is why everyone but self-conscious Marxists seems to ignore social classes? Exploitative is a meaningless term there, they write up contracts that both sides agree to, you don't have a definition for the term so drop it as nonsense. The spook only exists in the minds of those who accept the spook as existing, so just say that class doesn't exist. Like I said, you really don't have some concrete definition of "exploit", so why not deny it meaning? I do not see this because I don't believe in your spooks.


Ok. And if you don't give a little, then you don't get a little. I really don't see a big market is egoistic criticisms of capitalism though.


No, you hold it far too low. Economics is one of the most grasping and far-reaching of social sciences, and thus is ideal for understanding issues.


Umm.... yeah, I was totally not denying the validity of the points you had established, and I was asserting based upon reason and other facts my position.


There is no strawman, simply an unclarified position. It is not making a strawman if the other side expects psychic powers. I disagree with that, and think that desires are heterogenous. The issue is that our ideas do not have similar basic frames, so, if I am true then you aren't and if you are true then I am not. I am pretty certain you do not have a good argument, otherwise you would have been presenting it, therefore I seek to pass you off as quickly as possible, while still trying to retain some level of honesty in doing so.


What is the issue with the frame? As I stated, money gets you lots of things, it can get retirement, a better job, even respect and women if you hang around the right crowds.

The issue is basic assumptions more than circular reasoning. If you think about it, all reasoning may very well be circular anyway, for there is no objective fact behind any assertion of anything. I mean, your own reasoning could easily be dismissed if I went down to the right level to do so simply due to the regress argument. I recognize what is going on.


Sure, why not? You chose to attack it, why not post a brilliant criticism?

I don't care what you do. If you cannot meet whatever demand I make, I can simply assert what I want about the situation. Why should I want to talk about these ideas? Not only that, but why should it matter whose idea I latch onto? The world has ideas, I pick the ones I like and dismiss the rest. Yeah, I would tend to say that, at least to some extent. If you do not have a tradition, then you likely do not have a systemized basis of knowledge, and you are going against something that big. I mean, one thing I once heard is that you know somebody is full of crap if they do not have references for their ideas. I can flesh out my ideas, even if only because I have a tradition to refer back to. I am not making fallacies so much as you are arrogantly dismissing thoughts to be fallacious simply due to similarity. The ideas I hold to would never have existed if they had never been rigorously developed and countered claims against them. Does it matter what I've found? Shall we begin Freudian psychoanalysis? You cannot build from nothing, you assert something and then build from that. The issue is that something cannot come from nothing, otherwise that something is baseless, let your basis be baseless for you so that way you don't have to dirty your hands.


Because theory is better than "reality". You can state a thousand things are real, but unless you have theories to back up the realities and their truths, then the realities could very well be false. Facts are meaningless without the interpretation. Ok, you are making assertions and I refuse to jump onto that boat.


Minimum wages mean that corporations will spend their money less efficiently towards the goals they seek, and thus can eat into profits if we argue that they are less efficient. People in general don't care about the environment anyway, so how do you know that democracy isn't the fault? The issue is that in order to make a point, you will have to absolutely establish somethings, and build a framework rather than make squishy points where I can go "nuh uh" and you can go "yuh hunh!".


Ha, you'd be surprised at how many people assert that on some level. I expect there to be power struggles, and frankly, your description of this element of the system is something I'd accept and am fine with. They have competing interests, but are interested in a stable society and an efficient one, now, I am sure you mean different bulks, but still, I see nothing wrong beyond what you do not state.


Value is determined by valuation.

You mean economics is not about information? You mean that economics does not study politics? That is interesting given that economists have studied voting habits, political structures, and things like that and has a branch called informational economics. Interestingly, one of the bigger ideas in information in the economy was developed by Friedrich Hayek called "The Use of Knowledge in Society", and was essentially an argument for capitalism based upon it's ability, above that of other conceived systems, to deal with information problems.


I don't have to explain why anyone deserves anything, only say that if others wanted this, then they'd work themselves into the position, and if they cannot for whatever reason, then the organizer is all the more important. I think you are being dense as well, perhaps I am being a little unreasonable with you, but sometimes I can be plain contradictory for the sake of that alone.


Umm... credit cards are different from banks, so therefore you are such an idiot. Still, credit cards, there are concerns about bankruptcy there too, they are also consensual and usually designed for short term purchases, the fact that some use them for the long-run is just their choices.


No, not really. You still seem not to engage the system in a good systematic manner, so, I still see no problem with my statement. I can think straight, oh crooked one, as holding to an idea does not mean being highly knowledgeable on it.


Umm... no, weighting is subjective. There is no such thing as a fair trade, only an agreed upon trade. Frankly, you have not systemized the notions so that I have anything concrete to grasp on to, so therefore, like most economic thinkers, I dismiss the idea as nonsense. I mean, we can say that there are less employers than employees but that says nothing about fairness. Even if there were a monopoly, fair is not a useful term.


This is debate, so objectivity is necessary. I mean, I don't care much about the hypothetical actions of another being.


So? You need more than information for a rebellion, you need rebels, and most people are risk averse. No, it really doesn't, a hypothetical who and how, if they can never be effective, is the same as death. I did not contradict myself, you simply are seeing logical contradictions where none truly exist.


I have mostly heard that richer people tend to be happier, all else equal. Really though, I doubt that wealth is a reason to be unhappy, as to be honest, the brain seems to show an ability to adapt to any situation to hit the same baseline level of happiness.


I don't see why not? Some rich people will become relatively poorer, perhaps, but wealth continually increases.


No, I am merely attacking you for no reason. This is not a red herring, nor is is a sign of a lacking a thought.


Umm.... you still think that your system is the only system, you think in terms of inexorability, and a false one at that. You are simply making an assertion.


So, you are saying that a bunch of religious zealots who kill themselves for their cause is analogous to a bunch of egoists? Egoists are not the best soldiers. I don't think that the assumption I make really carries the problem on the same level that you think it does, even if it is not militarized or strongly identified, there is still some way to quash it at it's roots rather effectively.


Well, the issue is that so far all we are doing is asserting frameworks and mocking premises. There has been no justifications that either side has accepting.


Ok, I don't see why it would be at all. A lot of micro economic thinking is pretty basic.


Boxes are important for any thinker. Referent categories are necessary for making sense of the world, that is why the brain has more senses directed for categories than for actually seeing.


Sure, why not? Right... you do realize I have heard all sorts of people assert that they understand me and were in my position, but somehow few have ever gotten me to budge. Maybe they never were in my position. And I don't believe in fulfillment of anything, I think that man, in and of himself, carries contradictions that are irresolvable, so I don't see any of this. Perhaps we should come to an understanding, however, understandings demand clarity. My sense of ego is only buried in myself, and is something held against all other egos, I do not seek kinship with them, perhaps domination, perhaps destruction but not kinship.


My basic premise is my drive, these political debates mean nothing to me, and I do not truly seek kinship.

Interesting, however, on some level I have my doubts. I don't even actually care about these issues, and my truth expressed through action will not be towards any true political end.


Ok, well, doing that might help me deal with the hang-ups. I can handle a different analytical term, but fair was never an analytical term, so I have difficulty with it.


And so it is with any innovative mind, but then again, I define freedom in the context of slavery.


Ok. Either would work for me. I simply think I am more myself if I am in the capitalist system.


True, but they are the ones we accept and mark as our own. Unless one is a blind fool, one accepts ideas for the sake of those ideas, not for the sake of those who accept them. I don't care what one accepts their place in the community to be, some have such distorted identities that they are most fulfilled as slaves, others need to be masters, others perhaps freer. Let them flock around what they want to, I do not want to be oppressed by the concepts of others so let them be free to keep those concepts away from me if I do the same.


There we go, a much stronger answer!


Without a government to protect the conceptions of property, new ones will arise, but the issue is that all relations are on some level property relations. They are exchanges and trades, all can be economically analyzed and dissected, so I do not see an issue.


No, a factory is a factory if it has the capabilities of a factory, just as a car is a car even if it never drives.


Ok. I don't see a major difference.


Perhaps we misunderstand each other, however, if I remember correctly, Hegel defined freedom as the freedom to obey the law. Really though, I do not see "freedom from", I see "freedom to" in this world, we never escape others, we only get to choose these others.


So? What does societal influence matter? Why shouldn't I get to buy that if I strive for it?


And I don't think that your assertions are somewhat bare as well, you run at this aggressively rather than methodologically and it tends to show.


So, there is no reason to posit it either. So, if we have a concept that is not necessary, and that stands against a more valuable concept to our conceptions, then just deny the unnecessary assumption and assert the favorable one, especially given that the favorable one reduces more entities. I care little for society.


No, it really isn't a bare assertion. It is a pretty supported and supportable assertion. I simply do not buy into your societal metaphysics.


No, but it certainly is data towards that rule, especially given the extremity that a bus driver represents. Freedom *TO* makes a lot of sense, that is what it means. If I were using freedom in every day speech, I would talk about my possibilities, so it does make sense.


I don't see a reason to be concerned.


A thought is a limit to our reality.

I see the collective effort as an element that can be reduced away.


I wouldn't consider it so. If my ideas are not built upon those of people before me, then it is likely that I am off my rocker, as there are few people *so* unique that they overthrow everything before them. Ideas usually have context, and foundation. I like to argue.

No, not so. People can reject things due to incapability of acceptance, which is either based upon the "inability of self-delusion", or the lack of mental ability.

Not responding to all of this yet, but I have to quickly tell you:

They are a part of the same actual institution (like separate corporations being a part of the same conglomerate, for example). If you use a visa card, it is a bank that is lending the money to you, and the credit card company makes money from small credit card fees. So yes, it is the banks that are doing this.

Not all credit cards are like this, but I know Mastercard and Visa are for sure. Even if they don't, they loan the money in the same way, so the actual point stands. Some credit card companies will loan themselves, but banks are the largest factor.

Last edited by SertraOD on 29 Jul 2008, 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

How do you type for soooo long?

Well, the issue is that they are not the same institution, they are interconnected certainly but, Visa and Mastercard are directly the lenders and are separated from the banks through some means. So, to call Visa or Mastercard to be the bank does not seem that correct, because Visa and Mastercard are the ones organizing the money to be given to you. So, still, I would state that you are not using the terms very clearly to make your point.

Not only that, but credit cards, are meant for short term loans anyway, so if there is a long-term payment, it is assuredly the user who has a lot to do with that, so I do not see the issue. And I still claim that bankruptcy is a possibility that such a company has to look out for. Honestly, by saying "banks" you seem to imply that the debt was a long-run debt, and everything associated with that.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 29 Jul 2008, 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steroids, you know, what all professionals use for their athletic endeavors.

I'm a left-wing wacko who would like to see multinational corporate elites hanged and dragged through the streets.

It takes a group to make a revolution work. Individuals with revolutionary ideas are of no use if he/she cannot influence and persuade others.
It seems to me that many aspies suffer from low self esteem and pretend to be someone they are not. Many normal people do this too, but especially us aliens. First, we must accept ourselves and embrace who we are as individuals, then go out and tell people who we are and make real friends, and that may be all that's required to make the world a better place.

maybe not.

Or at least, I would venture, not better enough.