as a nihilist i’m a very dark person, mags. the beliefs and ideas most take for granted that keep them in such good (superficial) spirits, i do not share. so i thought that maybe some bright colors might lighten the unsavory existential aura that surrounds me. i’m actually wearing at this moment a neon green scarf with yellow paisley print, and so far three people have nodded at me today. this is progress.
i… i just… god I DON’T KNOW. maybe i got them laced too tight? or maybe i just need to look inward… do some sole searching and find some inserts.
Progress, or, a charade? a charade into making others think that you’re inner light is shining, or, perhaps these new interactions will trigger your inner light and so lessen the nihilism in you.
Neon green and yellow paisley…? this too is questionable, but if it’s having an effect you feel you are benefiting from, then it’s definitely a thing… a thing that is working for you… work it baby.
Lol at all of the above…
I would prescribe that you simply swap said Asics for something more you, less not you… perhaps something with touches of colour, but not so… colourful.
Choosing the right trainers is definitely a philosophical matter, regarding their matter and reflection of you thereof.
you need government regulation because without it excessive liberal freedoms will be abused and you’ll end up shooting your eye out, ralfy. happens every time.
So you can still have a “free market” when coercion is maximally privatised?
If so, “free market” would seem a misleading term just because the unfreedom was decentralised.
I’m guessing the implication is that with minimal government regulation, we reach minimal coercion by definition?
This would, of course, place a great deal of faith in Classical Liberal economic theory - that tending towards perfection competition minimises coercion through monopoly and oligopoly etc.
I’ve explained that through the “Competitive Exclusion Principle” we know that perfect competition is not stable unless poverty is so great as to negate the advantage gained by success. The point is for the Free Market to get us out of this state of poverty so that we no longer need it, which means that with the physical restrictions of poverty no longer around to actually enable perfect competition to keep the Free Market in line, other means are needed. I’m not certain that only government regulation can satisfy that requirement, but it is certainly one way to do so if done properly. Anything that overrides the authority of decentralised markets could potentially fulfill this requirement, though in practice with too minimal government regulation or with government working too in line with markets and not to keep them in line, government will not suffice in this regard.
So what then? This is the only relevant economic question of our age. We know the market solution is limited and we know pre-Information-Age totalitarian governments with can’t keep up with populations beyond a fairly small size.
Until that is answered, we are left with hack solutions such as enforced advertising just to maintain the illusion of voluntary trade when the Information Age makes so much so freely available. The more we progress into this age, the less viable these hack solutions become.
The infusion of advertising even permeates into the information age, and some say it consists of the very opposite You are describing. It may consist more of a build up of pressures of the very complex forces of the market, which, like earthquakes, we can not really understand by prediction.
Great transformations have to naturally occur along pressure points, to be able to understand the under lying forces that shape the forces which drive the effective ingredients.
Distribution patterns suggest the effects to be contrary to curves expected, and that was behind the last past great recession.
The e caption to the rule is more manifest in economic history then the rule, and I gather, this exceptional and repetitive phenomenon has already been somewhat factored in, or rather, been devoured my the market.
If the great crash were ever to return, would market in extreme situations be for ed to view an ultimate shakeup like another world war to straighten it up, would it require it’s implementation? Certainly !
That is why minor quakes naturally are instituted to relieve pressures on major faults.
The point of a general depression of a universal scale can never again be permitted to occur, and that is the final arbiter of limits to authoritarian forces bearing down on market no events, the level of poverty can not ever negate successes.
So if Conservative were to say that return to the era of a great America would entail child labour, cessation of if social programs including cutting social security , who would listen?
Well some would, and they would argue on the basis of retransforming society into less complex, less visually promoted eras, where smaller family of resembling circles of affinity drove societal needs.
If this type of retransformative awareness became dominant force, would advertisement lessen the impact of cautionary voices of those, who warn that what you see is not always to your best satisfaction?
In fact , it diminishes your need to understand the idea of why you even considered buying it in the first place.
The infusion of advertising even permeates into the information age, and some say it consists of the very opposite You are describing. It may consist more of a build up of pressures of the very complex forces of the market, which, like earthquakes, we can not really understand by prediction.
Great transformations have to naturally occur along pressure points, to be able to understand the under lying forces that shape the forces which drive the effective ingredients.
Distribution patterns suggest the effects to be contrary to curves expected, and that was behind the last past great recession.
The exception to the rule is more manifest in economic history then the rule, and I gather, this exceptional and repetitive phenomenon have already been somewhat factored in, or rather, been devoured my the market.
If the great crash were ever to reoccure , would markets in extreme situations be forced to observe an ultimate shakeup like another world war to straighten things up? Would it require such extreme implementation? Certainly !
That is why minor quakes naturally are instituted to relieve pressures on major faults.
The point of a general depression of a universal scale can never again be permitted to occur, and that is the final arbiter of limits to authoritarian forces bearing down on marketable events, in which case , the levels of poverty can not ever negate successes absolutely.
So if Conservative were to say that return to the era of a great America would entail child labour, cessation of of social programs, including cutting social security , who would listen?
Well some would, and they would argue on the basis of retransforming society into less complex, less peripherally promoted eras, where smaller family of resembling circles of affinity drove societal needs.
If this type of retransformative awareness became dominant force, would advertisement lessen the impact of cautionary voices of those, who warn that what you see is not always to your best satisfaction?
In fact , it may even diminish the need to understand the idea of why competitive buying was considered in the first place.
That is, competitive buying based on peripheral levels of attributing value.
Ok if you say so, but relative ones had in the original marketplace, where there was some village recognition of who was trading with whom, and what was being traded.
Unawareness came later, and anything advertised en-mass, was instantly a generic success.
Sure, monkeys see and do out of rote.
Valid? Ask the man who has
to steal to eat to survive, if he can’t trade. He is no less true.
I did just changed the terms, but meaning changes apart from a personal matter to get out of fallacy.
Situations change, what if it was a true Irishman, forced to abandon the village because of the potato famine?
Nothing in this world is free or even free from coercion. There’s nothing free in the free market other than the ability for those that control it to steal other people’s labor, time, and livelihoods under a variety of false pretenses.
If I tried, you’d call them all no true Scotsman - that’s the point of the fallacy.
Your response to Meno_ was actually the point of the thread - indeed nothing in this world is entirely free, as there is necessarily another side to the same coin wherever freedom can be identified.
This is absolutely clear as soon as you exemplify one person being completely free in one way, since another person is logically not free to do differently to what that person wants to do out of their own freedom.
This is probably your whole point as well, so I don’t want to come across as hostile or averse to your point - in fact I want to agree with it, just in the most correct terms that I can.
But more than merely a general point about freedom, I simply meant to apply it specifically to the market model that is characteristically central to Western economics for the purposes of this thread. I explain how the facade necessarily becomes increasingly untenable the more we advance into the future, and specifically why it will do so.
Ideally I intended to open up discussion concerning the future of the “Free” market model, as foundationally unfree as you rightly identified it to be.
My point still stands, there has never been a free market and free market economics is a fantasy or a kind of fairy tale people lull themselves with into believing even though it fundamentally has nothing to do with reality.
There is no reforming the current social, political, and economic system where this will become abundantly clear within two years or less.
What comes next is western civilization’s violent and brutal downfall or collapse. It will be the most spectacular sight to behold once civil war, rioting, martial law, world war, and violent chaos engulfs the entire west. [And the entire world.]
We cynics and pessimists tried to warn the world but nobody would listen to us calling us crazy from the start. Well, now everybody gets to witness what we were talking about in horrific real time. Enjoy!
So you can’t coerce someone less, or coerce them less often?
Are you thinking this through?
Do you mean coercion is inevitable to some kind of balanced constant across any given society as an average?
This would make the “free market” no different from somewhere like North Korea, which doesn’t seem right to me.
I’m trying to make sense of this seemingly bizarre blanket statement, especially in the absence of any explanation by you.
Of course it is.
It’s a solution to keep money circulating even though anything digital can be easily distributed for free. The only “need” for money is capitalist.
Without consumers paying money for digital things they could get for free, and trying to enforce restrictions that can be bypassed being futile, selling exposure to advertising companies seems to be the only way to get money to circulate through these ever-growing markets. It’s a last resort, the model wasn’t intentionally constructed to bring about voluntary trade or an illusion of it, it’s to maintain voluntary trade, but only an illusion of it since it’s enforced.
Society needs coercion because people are largely selfish, lazy, and care only about themselves which is why volunteering societies never work. The trick is finding the right kind of stable management to run things but of course it only takes a few generations for any system to become corrupt, decadent, or self destructive which is why social revolutions whatever political guise they take is never ending all throughout human history because human beings have an enormous inherent character flaw concerning human nature. Human nature is definitely not inherently good nor do I believe most people are inherently good. Some people are good, honorable, and virtuous but a majority of human beings are simply just dumb destructive vindictive animals that need to be herded for their own good.
