Free Government

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Moderator: Uccisore

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:59 pm

Lawl @ this convo.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Aug 26, 2017 5:54 am

Freedom is not for everybody. Serendip, Wendy, Void, stay safe inside the walls (prison) of civilization.

Free Thinking is not for you, maybe try religion or science?
Urwrongx1000
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Sat Aug 26, 2017 9:49 am

Image
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:02 pm

Serendipper wrote:Image

When taxes were high in the 40s to 60s, money creation was low. When taxes were cut in the 60s and so on, money creation soared.

This is a log chart:

Image

I had to resize pics by 50% to fit the site, so I hope everyone can read them.



Thought experiment: Is there anything that one human can do 400X better than another human? Can someone be 400X smarter? Even if the dumbest guy had an iq of 1, a 400 iq is off the chart. Can someone lift 400X more weight? 1000lb is the record bench press, so the weakest person would have to only bench 2.5lbs for a 400X differential. What could possibly justify someone making 400X more money than the AVERAGE person? Being 400X more sleazy I reckon.

According to your video the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth, the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth, the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth.

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.

Arminius wrote:.... 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).

The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.) ....
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:19 pm

Yes this is related to the Pareto principle, that about 1/5 of the productive process creates about 4/5 of the value produced. You could argue that this doesn't say anything about possession and ownership of that value, but it really does.

Stop demanding what you are unwilling to create and value for yourself. Capitalism has allowed you access to immeasurably more wealth than you could possibly have produced on your own, this is only because you are part of the passive ground of consumption on which the Pareto principle climbs to new heights. More equality of wealth distribution (value distribution) leads quite naturally to less equality of it. And less, to more. But when less equality begins to produce a failure of abundance then the crops start to die. Rather, materials are instead recycled back into the earth, so the soils stay rich in nutrients.

Fighting for wealth equality is equivalent to replacing meritocratic recycling of unused elements with theft, which nature will not long tolerate.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby WendyDarling » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:27 pm

UrGod wrote:Yes this is related to the Pareto principle, that about 1/5 of the productive process creates about 4/5 of the value produced. You could argue that this doesn't say anything about possession and ownership of that value, but it really does.

Stop demanding what you are unwilling to create and value for yourself. Capitalism has allowed you access to immeasurably more wealth than you could possibly have produced on your own, this is only because you are part of the passive ground of consumption on which the Pareto principle climbs to new heights. More equality of wealth distribution (value distribution) leads quite naturally to less equality of it. And less, to more. But when less equality begins to produce a failure of abundance then the crops start to die. Rather, materials are instead recycled back into the earth, so the soils stay rich in nutrients.

Fighting for wealth equality is equivalent to replacing meritocratic recycling of unused elements with theft, which nature will not long tolerate.


I'm not following. To what/who is this post directed?
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6000
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:04 pm

Arminius wrote:According to your video the richest 20% of the US have more than 80% of all the US wealth, the richest 1% of the US have 40% all the US wealth, the poorest 80% of the US have more merely 7% of all the US wealth.

Maybe I will have to change my thoughts about the wealth inequality in the USA.

Arminius wrote:.... 2006:

The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The poorest Finnish 80% have 65% of the Finnish income (GNP).
The richest German 20% have 40% of the German income (GNP).
The poorest German 80% have 60% of the German income (GNP).
The richest US 20% have 47% of the US income (GNP).
The poorest US 80% have 53% of the US income (GNP).

The richest Brazilian 20% have 65% of the Brazilian income (GNP).
The poorest Brazilian 80% have 35% of the Brazilian income (GNP).

Maybe that the richest Brazilian 20% have already 80% of the Brazilian income (GNP). So at last we will possibly see the following scenario in the world: 20% of all humans have 80% of the global income. So 80% of all humans have merely 20% of the global income. (Cp. Pareto distribution.) ....

Yes and that video is old and before the bulk of the global central bank money printing. Coincidentally, this just posted today http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-0 ... ere-doomed

Image
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:22 pm

UrGod wrote:Yes this is related to the Pareto principle, that about 1/5 of the productive process creates about 4/5 of the value produced. You could argue that this doesn't say anything about possession and ownership of that value, but it really does.

Stop demanding what you are unwilling to create and value for yourself. Capitalism has allowed you access to immeasurably more wealth than you could possibly have produced on your own, this is only because you are part of the passive ground of consumption on which the Pareto principle climbs to new heights. More equality of wealth distribution (value distribution) leads quite naturally to less equality of it. And less, to more. But when less equality begins to produce a failure of abundance then the crops start to die. Rather, materials are instead recycled back into the earth, so the soils stay rich in nutrients.

Fighting for wealth equality is equivalent to replacing meritocratic recycling of unused elements with theft, which nature will not long tolerate.

We have to keep in mind that capitalism is absence of regulation. As soon as even one regulation is imposed for the good of society, it is socialism.

Once you concede one regulation, then it's a matter of how many are appropriate.

So to really get a picture of what capitalism is, we have to go back before regulations were in place.

Image

As you can see, the wild west was not that dissimilar than today and the true prosperity existed due to FDR and the regulations he imposed. The downfall began with Reagan and continues to this day.

The benefits you mentioned have been in spite of capitalism and not because of it.

The only way to get the money from the top back to the bottom is to redistribute because trickle-down is not enough to offset the deluge up. Money creation can help if it creates inflation, but people will only demand so much toilet paper regardless how much money is printed (and demand drives prices outside of supply changes). Now we have tshirts for 33 cents as automation continues the deflationary spiral to the disgust and consternation of central bankers. All the bankers are accomplishing is exacerbating the problem by giving printed money to the top rather than the bottom. The only hope is tax reformation, but as long as republicans are in charge, the curve is going to get flatter and further exacerbate the problem. All forces are pointing to the same end: revolt.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-3 ... irts-33c-0
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:22 pm

No, capitalism is not the absence of regulation, that is nonsense. Capitalism is targeted regulation for the purposes of allowing the principles of capital-ism to flourish according to their own nature. Capitalism is meritocracy in a field of enforced equality of opportunities such that the use of force to destabilize and overpower higher-order merits is banned (some dude cannot simply stab you and take your money when you made a contract or economic transaction with him, for example). Without law and order, economy is impossible, so are human rights impossible. Capitalism requires basic legal regulations against theft and fraud, and requires a courts and police system to enforce that law.

Anarchy (absence of all regulation, of any laws) is not capitalism but the absence of capitalism, indeed the absence of civilization as such. Socialism (extreme regulation that destroys capitalism and culture) is far closer to anarchy than capitalism is close to either socialism or anarchy.

Whoever thought up the relation between anarchy and capitalism was a useless worm. A pathetic will to nothingness whose nihilism and personal weakness and cowardice ruled his desires to strip everything away from everyone, so that "equality" could reign as gross inequality. "We are all equally savages in the wild", that is the dream of the absurd anarcho-capitalist.

Laws that protect rational human rights and that limit government to its proper functions are good laws. Laws that go beyond that are not good laws, and are indeed a slippery slope into socialism. Socialism is when the state usurps and owns the individual. The trick is not to have no state but to have a wisely limited state; you cannot get around the necessity of law. It is simply those whose ressentiment in having no power in law has taken over that you find this anarchist urge.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:12 pm

UrGod wrote:No, capitalism is not the absence of regulation, that is nonsense. Capitalism is targeted regulation for the purposes of allowing the principles of capital-ism to flourish according to their own nature. Capitalism is meritocracy in a field of enforced equality of opportunities such that the use of force to destabilize and overpower higher-order merits is banned (some dude cannot simply stab you and take your money when you made a contract or economic transaction with him, for example). Without law and order, economy is impossible, so are human rights impossible. Capitalism requires basic legal regulations against theft and fraud, and requires a courts and police system to enforce that law.

Anarchy (absence of all regulation, of any laws) is not capitalism but the absence of capitalism, indeed the absence of civilization as such. Socialism (extreme regulation that destroys capitalism and culture) is far closer to anarchy than capitalism is close to either socialism or anarchy.

Whoever thought up the relation between anarchy and capitalism was a useless worm. A pathetic will to nothingness whose nihilism and personal weakness and cowardice ruled his desires to strip everything away from everyone, so that "equality" could reign as gross inequality. "We are all equally savages in the wild", that is the dream of the absurd anarcho-capitalist.

Laws that protect rational human rights and that limit government to its proper functions are good laws. Laws that go beyond that are not good laws, and are indeed a slippery slope into socialism. Socialism is when the state usurps and owns the individual. The trick is not to have no state but to have a wisely limited state; you cannot get around the necessity of law. It is simply those whose ressentiment in having no power in law has taken over that you find this anarchist urge.

:text-yeahthat:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:15 pm

UrGod wrote:No, capitalism is not the absence of regulation, that is nonsense.

Then why do they call it "free market capitalism"? And how is socialism distinct? We can't have overlapping definitions.

On the far left is communism where the state owns all means of production, then fascism is totally regulated private ownership, then socialism is private ownership with less than total regulation, and finally capitalism is private ownership and complete lack of regulation. Each definition must be distinct.

Capitalism is targeted regulation for the purposes of allowing the principles of capital-ism to flourish according to their own nature.

Capitalism is regulation for the purpose of allowing capitalism? Self-causation?

Capitalism is no regulations because capitalism is for the individual (characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined by competition in a free market https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism )

The free market is essential for capitalism just like lack of regulation or intervention is essential for natural selection in evolution. It is the total lack of artificial laws. Now, just as you can't claim natural selection is indeed natural if you're meddling with it, similarly you cannot conclude a free market is free if there are regulations. Therefore, capitalism is the total lack of regulation and even one regulation makes it socialism, not capitalism.

Capitalism is meritocracy in a field of enforced equality of opportunities such that the use of force to destabilize and overpower higher-order merits is banned (some dude cannot simply stab you and take your money when you made a contract or economic transaction with him, for example). Without law and order, economy is impossible, so are human rights impossible. Capitalism requires basic legal regulations against theft and fraud, and requires a courts and police system to enforce that law.

That is incorrect. That is like saying your garden is a free market system even though you cut down all the trees and pull the weeds, giving your plants an unfair advantage. Capitalism does not seek to determine what is fair, but allows whatever is natural to take its course.

Anarchy (absence of all regulation, of any laws) is not capitalism but the absence of capitalism, indeed the absence of civilization as such.

Well, anarchy is a broader term including laws that are not economic in nature, but capitalism is economic anarchy and, yes, I agree that it's determinantal to civilization.

Socialism (extreme regulation that destroys capitalism and culture) is far closer to anarchy than capitalism is close to either socialism or anarchy.

No, that's a connotation people have about socialism. Extreme socialism is extreme, but socialism can also be very mild. Fascism and communism are extremes of socialism that are often destructive, while the socialism that existed in the US during the 50s and 60s worked quite well.

Whoever thought up the relation between anarchy and capitalism was a useless worm. A pathetic will to nothingness whose nihilism and personal weakness and cowardice ruled his desires to strip everything away from everyone, so that "equality" could reign as gross inequality. "We are all equally savages in the wild", that is the dream of the absurd anarcho-capitalist.

Throwing mud already?

Laws that protect rational human rights and that limit government to its proper functions are good laws.

Right, they are for the social good; hence, socialism.

Laws that go beyond that are not good laws,

Agreed. Too many laws are too many.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:23 pm

James S Saint wrote: :text-yeahthat:

Well, now I know I'm right! LOL!
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:34 pm

Google wrote:so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun
noun: socialism

1 a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
    synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
    radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
    communism, Marxism, labor movement
    "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
    • policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
      synonyms: leftism, welfarism; More
      radicalism, progressivism, social democracy;
      communism, Marxism, labor movement
      "my appreciation for certain aspects of socialism does not mean I'm a socialist"
    • (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Google wrote:cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
noun: capitalism

    an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
      synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture

"Free" meaning "free from government control". But government still maintains the general protection of society so as to allow for free trade.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:42 am

James S Saint wrote:"Free" meaning "free from government control".

Correct

But government still maintains the general protection of society

Correct. We could say it is a form of socialism that is not related to economics.

so as to allow for free trade.

Incorrect

Any interference at all is not free.

The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it's not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.

The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don't.

The reason we aren't still monkeys in trees is that we fell out and began taming our environment. Clearly, farming is better at sustaining a population than hunting/gathering and it argues strongly for a managed system rather than leaving things to natural selection. Then again, we mustn't get carried away and overmanage. The best system is a balancing act or a muddling along as conditions and considerations change.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby James S Saint » Sat Sep 02, 2017 1:59 am

Serendipper wrote:Any interference at all is not free.

The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it's not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.

The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don't.

So you believe that football, for example, should have no rules at all.
Interesting.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:28 am

Serendipper wrote:
UrGod wrote:No, capitalism is not the absence of regulation, that is nonsense.

Then why do they call it "free market capitalism"? And how is socialism distinct? We can't have overlapping definitions.

On the far left is communism where the state owns all means of production, then fascism is totally regulated private ownership, then socialism is private ownership with less than total regulation, and finally capitalism is private ownership and complete lack of regulation. Each definition must be distinct.

Capitalism is targeted regulation for the purposes of allowing the principles of capital-ism to flourish according to their own nature.

Capitalism is regulation for the purpose of allowing capitalism? Self-causation?

Capitalism is no regulations because capitalism is for the individual (characterized by private ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined by competition in a free market https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism )

The free market is essential for capitalism just like lack of regulation or intervention is essential for natural selection in evolution.

Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:09 am

Arminius wrote:Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).

That's a good point. I never thought of that. Well,,, define "human". I assumed the moment we left the trees to begin hunting was when we took the first degree of control from nature. Cooking came next, where we learned language because we had leisure time from the abundance of calories in the meat. As we became more agrarian, we had more and more time to contemplate science and art. As time moved on, we took increasingly more control from nature. This is where it gets philosophical: is that a good thing or bad thing? Are "we" part of nature or are we artifical?

If aliens observed us, they would conclude what we do is natural. When a beaver builds a damn, is it natural or artificial? We, being higher lifeforms, proclaim the beaver's actions as natural. It appears that it's based on perspective. But why should that be so? Well, if a lower lifeform exists, it must know something useful... and it wouldn't be cognitive. In other words, there must be some intrinsic aspect to the universe that enables their success and I think we call that natural selection. It's probably safe to assume that every species is the optimal design of that species for what that species does, right? So, for example, a shark has not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years; therefore, we can conclude that the shark is optimally intelligent and we know that because it exists. However, if we were to design a shark, I think we would err on the side of intelligence (because I know how humans think) and surely that would be a detriment to the species or else sharks would already be that way, right? Our meddling could actually cause their extinction! That appears to be a good argument for natural selection, yet we persist in taming nature. I don't know... what do you think?

It seems if we say meddling is bad, then we are artificial... and how could we justify that?
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:02 am

James S Saint wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Any interference at all is not free.

The purpose of freedom is to allow competition and if gov takes any action to protect free trade (or anything else), then it's not the fittest who are surviving but the chosen of government or those working under the constraints of an artificial system of regulation.

The purpose of competition is to not presume we know what is best. That begs the question of whether we actually DO know what is best. I think, concerning some things, we do; other things, we don't.

So you believe that football, for example, should have no rules at all.

Rules, in that case, define the game and they actually may have evolved by natural selection over time into what they are now.

But I think you misunderstood me somewhere... I'm for a mild socialist style like what the US has now except with an FDR-style tax structure because there has to be a mechanism to get the money back to the bottom so it can flow up again. The way it is now, money only goes up, leaving the bottom going into debt in order to replenish the supply of money at the bottom. Truly, most of the people paying taxes should not be taxed because it makes no sense to redistribute money back into the same class. The purpose of taxation is the engineering of an economy. But people don't want to hear that because they want everything to be "fair" and don't realize the government could print its own money in unlimited quantities and therefore doesn't need taxes at all. If anyone doubts that, just look at what the fed, ecb, boe, and particularly the boj and snb have been doing lately... only the money is going straight to the rich, bypassing the poor. I mean, the SNB is a major shareholder of Apple, for crying out loud! They printed Francs then gave them to Apple shareholders when they took possession of the shares. The BOJ is steadily buying japanese ETFs until it owns the entire market, it seems. Again, money is going straight to the rich. They should launch a Universal Basic Income (UBI) so that the money goes more towards the bottom instead of printing yen to buy stocks. That's why those idiots never got the inflation they've been targeting for the last 30 years. If one of those banks ever try UBI, they'll have more inflation than they could believe as the printed money is quickly put to work in the economy, bidding prices up through increased demand. Giving money to Goldman Sachs doesn't do shit... except increase the wealth divide. But the reaganites claim Goldman will lend the money out to businesses. Baloney! They will put it on deposit at the fed drawing interest. Besides, loans are dirt cheap and banks are full of cash and do not need more to lend.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby UrGod » Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:35 am

Dipper, your "definitions" are invalid. Reality doesn't care about however you want to narrowly define something, then cling to that definition at the expense of... reality. And also of logic, and deeper thought.

For a quick example, a free market requires some regulation to come into being: I already alluded to this with my comment about the dude who, rather than pay you the agreed upon price for your good or service, just gets a few of his thug buddies to rob and murder you. Yeah, that's not a free market, that lawless anarchy.

A market requires agreed upon and enforceable rules; laws. The fact you don't understand this is actually quite appalling.
I am your master.
User avatar
UrGod
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: Void of One

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:21 pm

Serendipper wrote:
Arminius wrote:Humans regulate or intervene. That shows clearly that the natural selection can be circumvented, and that the free market has never existed in human history (but only a relatively free market).

That's a good point. I never thought of that. Well,,, define "human". I assumed the moment we left the trees to begin hunting was when we took the first degree of control from nature. Cooking came next, where we learned language because we had leisure time from the abundance of calories in the meat. As we became more agrarian, we had more and more time to contemplate science and art. As time moved on, we took increasingly more control from nature. This is where it gets philosophical: is that a good thing or bad thing? Are "we" part of nature or are we artifical?

If aliens observed us, they would conclude what we do is natural. When a beaver builds a damn, is it natural or artificial? We, being higher lifeforms, proclaim the beaver's actions as natural. It appears that it's based on perspective. But why should that be so? Well, if a lower lifeform exists, it must know something useful... and it wouldn't be cognitive. In other words, there must be some intrinsic aspect to the universe that enables their success and I think we call that natural selection. It's probably safe to assume that every species is the optimal design of that species for what that species does, right? So, for example, a shark has not gotten more intelligent in 400 million years; therefore, we can conclude that the shark is optimally intelligent and we know that because it exists. However, if we were to design a shark, I think we would err on the side of intelligence (because I know how humans think) and surely that would be a detriment to the species or else sharks would already be that way, right? Our meddling could actually cause their extinction! That appears to be a good argument for natural selection, yet we persist in taming nature. I don't know... what do you think?

It seems if we say meddling is bad, then we are artificial... and how could we justify that?

Humans are both natural and cultural ("artificial"). Humans are partly their own selectors, also the selectors of pets and many other living beings, and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments, thus in environments that are not natural.

Arminius wrote:I am not saying that the political/social selection has nothing to do with the natural selection. I am merely saying that the political/social selection contradicts the natural selection, although it is embedded in natural selection. This is what I have been saying for a very long time and with many of my posts in several threads (you may read them). If a thing contradicts another thing, then this does not necessarily mean that the contradicting thing is outside of the contradicted thing. The relation of this things can be a hyperonym/hyponym, a superordination/subordination, set/subset relation. So, actually, we agree, but you have misunderstood me. I am also saying that political/social selection works within the boundaries of natural selection. There are many selections that contradict natural selection but are nonetheless part of it.

Maybe the following charts depict the relations properly:

Image
Image
N: Natural selection.
S: Sexual selection.
K: Kin selection.
P: Political selection.

As long as all these "islands" (in the charts: P, K, S or S-K-P [there are more than shown in this charts]) will exist and will contradict their "ocean" (in the charts: N) they will also have their own order within their own boundaries.

The everyday lives of the humans, if they are healthy and not somehow disabled, are more surrounded by their human environmant than by their natural environment. If asked where they live, they would answer with words that clearly indicate that their way of life is mainly surrounded by an artificial (cultural) environment, although this is completely embedded in a natural environment. This is comparable with the geocentric and the heliocentric point of view. In everyday lives of the humans the geocentric interpretation is more important than the heliocentric interpretation of the movements in the solar system. In an everyday life it is more important to know for example when the sun "goes down" and not when the rotation of the planet Earth has reached the corresponding "position" -. although both informations refer to the same issue. The former information is important for surviving and the organization of the daily life, the latter information is merely important for science/philosophy and some other aspects (except those that belong to the former information) and has only indirectly but not directly to do with surviving and the organization of the daily life.

Humans are mainly selected by humans, although they are natural. Most of the currently living 7.4 billion humans live because of relatively few other humans (and most of this relatively few humans are already dead), and those humans who were and are not allowed to live did or do not live also because of that relatively few other humans. Without human's technology (especially in medicine, hygiene, ... and so on and so forth) there would currently be merely about 1 billion humans; without human's selecting politics there would currently be about 10 billion humans or another number of humans (depending on the respective kind of the alternative politics). In addition, many living beings have become extinct because of humans, and many other living beings do live just becasue of humans. The natural selection, although the basal selection or God as the natural selector would have nothing to do, if the humans were capable of selecting like the natural selector - who- or whatever this may be -, and they are not but try to be in their typical way.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190270&p=2604589#p2604589 .

Arminius wrote:The ISS is such an "absolute island". There is no natural environment inside the ISS, everything is human-made, thus artificial (cultural), even the air that the humans breathe. So the environment inside the ISS is an absolutely artificial (cultural) environment. The natural environment is completely outside the ISS. If there were a natural environment inside the ISS, then the humans who are inside the ISS would immediately die.

Image
Image

There are more than this human-made "islands", some are absolute, for example spaceships or the ISS, the others are relative, for example the atmospheric "islands":

Image
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=375#p2608881 .

Arminius wrote:All of the are human-made and - either absolutely or relatively - isolated from nature.

Image

As long as all these "islands" will exist and will contradict their "ocean" nature they will also have their own order within their own boundaries. If you replace the natural environment by an artificial (cultural) environment, then you have created an artificial isolation of natural selection - either absolutely or relaitively.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=375#p2608882 .

Arminius wrote:Humans can live without any natural environment, because they can live in an artificial environment, which is made by themselves. They can live on their own "absolute islands" - thus: without any natural environment.

....

If you live in an artificial environment like the ISS, the natural environment is even deadly for you. An astronaut is immediately dead after leaving the ISS (artificial environment) without any other artificial environment (at least the astronaut suit).
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&hilit=selection+principle&start=400#p2635325 .

Arminius wrote:Living beings like the human beings who are capable of living in an artificial environment have, if they do it, nothing to do with any natural environment, at least as long as they live in their own artficial environment.

....

Humans who go through our solar system by their spaceship without any contact to the planet Earth can survive as long as they are in their self-made environment. During this time (which can be a very long time in principle) all living beings that live in this environment evolve because of a man-made environment. So this anthropogenic environment causes the adaptations of all living beings who live in it. They are selected by humans.
Source: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=188393&start=400#p2641695 .
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby Arminius » Sat Sep 02, 2017 3:51 pm

As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market: humans have always had rules ("laws") in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a "capitalistic" system, you need rules; if you want to have an "anti-capitalistic" system, you need rules.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5385
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Free Government

Postby James S Saint » Sat Sep 02, 2017 5:50 pm

Arminius wrote:As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market: humans have always had rules ("laws") in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a "capitalistic" system, you need rules; if you want to have an "anti-capitalistic" system, you need rules.

If one "wants" for anything, one must have rules to obtain it. 8)

Without rules, one gets whatever comes without any consideration from others - every man for himself and by himself. And no such thing as "money" or time to try to make it.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25298
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 02, 2017 9:45 pm

UrGod wrote:Dipper, your "definitions" are invalid.

Oh? By what reason or rationale? Proof? Anything? Oh, that's right, ur god now; you can make proclamations. :lol:

Reality doesn't care about however you want to narrowly define something, then cling to that definition at the expense of... reality. And also of logic, and deeper thought.

Definitions do not exist in reality and all definitions are manufactured by constructs of imagination.

For a quick example, a free market requires some regulation to come into being:

LOL! Oh yeah? So if I kill a beaver and trade it to a guy who has distilled some alcohol, by what regulations are we abiding?

I already alluded to this with my comment about the dude who, rather than pay you the agreed upon price for your good or service, just gets a few of his thug buddies to rob and murder you. Yeah, that's not a free market, that lawless anarchy.

Nope, I gladly trade the beaver for the booze instead of simply shooting the guy because I want him to continue his trade because I like his product. What you say makes no sense. Why shoot those who provide services to you?

The immorality of the capitalist system enters with employment, which is taking advantage of someone's hardship to make him a slave for the enrichment of the master and then calling the act a "service to the community".

A market requires agreed upon and enforceable rules; laws.

I just gave example to the contrary.

The fact you don't understand this is actually quite appalling.

Slander is the tool of the loser.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:06 pm

Arminius wrote:Humans are both natural and cultural ("artificial").

Why is culture artificial?

Humans are partly their own selectors,

Birds select mates based on colors and nest-building ability, so are they not their own selectors?

also the selectors of pets and many other living beings,

Are not lions selecting the evolution of deer by eliminating the weak? Likewise with the jackals who threaten them?

Animals can't interfere with natural selection because they ARE natural selection, but somehow when humans interfere, it is not called natural selection anymore. Why are we distinct?

and they can survive in very extreme and artificial environments,

Some bacteria thrive in nuclear reactor cores. Are they artificial?

Humans are actually quite vulnerable to extremes and our existence is owed to the very mild and stable environment whereas the cockroach, for instance, is more adaptable. Natural events such a meteor impacts, volcanoes, or a swing in climate could end humanity but the cockroach will survive even a nuclear war.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Free Government

Postby Serendipper » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:23 pm

Arminius wrote:As for the relatively free market or relatively unfree market: humans have always had rules ("laws") in order to regulate their markets.

If you want to have a "capitalistic" system, you need rules; if you want to have an "anti-capitalistic" system, you need rules.

I am not sure. Thinking back to the pioneering days where economies were based on trade, there were no laws that could be enforced. I think the mountain men and native americans would have laughed at the idea that anyone could tell them how to operate. They simply traded the goods and services they had for the goods and services being offered and the value was determined at the time of the trade with no rules or laws or preconceived notions. If you wanted to shoot your trading partner, there was nothing stopping you... except that then you'd have to find a new partner. The economy worked naturally and with no regulation because there was no mechanism (ie army) to enforce any regulation.

All that changed when there were too many people to be fur-trappers, smiths, coopers, farmers, etc and therefore many people needed to be employed under someone else and that's where economic structure entered the picture. Employment is what necessitated regulation. As societies grew, more regulations were necessary to protect the safety of food, for instance. Then we needed regulations to protect children, elderly, and the sick. Now we've gone as far as protecting people who are sexually confused.
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." Howard Aiken
Serendipper
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users