/lit/ - Literature

>a magician who thinks he's a credible authority on politics, philosophy, or theology
It's the American dream.

>>3263817
while hes not credible in any sense he is funny and goddammit i love this man more than my local dry cleaning buisness

>>3263803
no, not even remotely.

His political and theological views are annoying, in-your-face and poorly thought through.

>>3263858
>annoying
personal opionion cant bash you on that
>in-your-face
i like it like that
>poorly thought through
while not everything he says i completely agree with, you really have to be the same type of atheist as him, which i am so i agree with much of the things he says.

>>3263858
He does make some entertaining stuff, but everyone should take anything he says with more than a grain of salt. Kind of like how an evolutionary biologist starts writing on philosophy. A specialist in one field does not make you a specialist in another.

Penn Jillette is an amazing entertainer, but he's really not so scientific or philosophically literate. he denys anthropogenic global warming FFS.

>>3263884
as an ethologist and evolutionary biologist dawkins does have at least a little bit of credibility discussing evolutionary psychology, which is what many of his philosophical arguments are based around.

>>3263923
he also invented the field of memetics, so there's that.

>>3263858

He's a pretty good juggler though. I wish I were suficiently focused/autistic to become as skilled.

>>3263803

>opening your presents before Christmas
>2012

Seriously, do you even yule?

>>3263923
>he denys anthropogenic global warming FFS.

Quite a lot of people find the scientific evidence on that front to be partial, biased, and unscientific.

And it's "denies", by the way.

>>3263923
It allows you to discuss evolutionary biology, but that doesn't exactly jump to basic metaphysical and philosophical discussion. Plenty of philosophers (theistic and atheistic) dislike his childish attempt to write on theology.

>>3263938
>quite a lot of people
and 2% of scientists in relevant fields.
the other 98% of qualified people would agree that man-made global warming is real.

>>3263817

And where do you get credibility and authority from? A university?

>implying reason and logic don't give arguments authority and credibility.

>implying credibility and authority are just handed out if they were licences or something.

>>3263957

handed out as if they were*

>>3263957
From knowing your arguments. That means by having done a well prepared literature review, by understanding the history behind the discipline, by submitting peer-reviewed papers, and so on.

A degree doesn't make you an expert automatically, but it certainly gives you the tools and time to become one. Penn isn't exactly well known for his academic input into certain disciplines.

Every day is also a gift from God, but I'm not writing a book about it.

Actually that's coming off too harsh, I wish that guy the best.

>>3263956

>the other 98% of qualified people would agree that man-made global warming is real.

i.e. the other 98% of people who have careers, tenure and reputation at stake in the academic/scientific community.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think you misunderstand how scientific truths are arrived at.

>inb4 experimental method and all that romantic bullshit - anyone who's in the system knows how the system works. Tenure, funding and grants are supreme.

>>3263943
it allows you do discuss evolutionary psychology, which extends to some theology and philosophy.

dawkins' purely philosophical augments, such as the 'ultimate 747' are often unconvincing though.

>>3263957
He never implied that.

Point is, Penn doesn't have good arguments. He argues on the surface, on the form of disputes.

I don't hate him though.

But your post is ridiculous, you answer yourself ("a university?") and then draw conclusions from there.

>>3263970

Atheism is not a discipline.

> evangelical atheist
> believes in magic

>>3263973
>experimental method and all that romantic bullshit
>anyone who's in the system knows how the system works

Good one! ya sure showed me that modern science is just a liberal conspiracy funded by the multi billionaire solar tycoons!

I concede! :)

>atheist

>believes in voodoo economics

>said on glenn beck he would rather live in a theocracy than a socialist country.

>tolerates glenn beck saying that rights come from god and doesn't call him out on it.

fuck penn jillette

>>3263980
Nutrition and philosophy certainly is though.

>>3263879
Of course he's funny and he at least holds great respect for the intelligence of the actual thinkers he takes ideas from.

He makes great reaction gifs too like this one.

But I wouldn't read a fucking book from him he's not a writer.

>>3263974
You might as well say studying anything gives you the opportunity to say anything because it can extend to other disciplines. I study economics, which is a branch of philosophy which means I can discuss theology. :3

It's outrageous. You're either engaged in the discipline or you're not, Sure you might have knowledge on a discipline that ends up being tied to another discipline in some way, but you can only talk about that other discipline completely in the context of the extended discipline that you know.

Being an evolutionary biologist doesn't make you an authority on philosophy or theology.

It's not really that he has no academic background, more that he seems to only be halfway there in his arguments, probably in order to appeal to the layman.

>>3263957
Not necessarily a university, but a credible authority on a subject has to have extraordinary knowledge of the reputable opinions on that subject and a firsthand familiarity with factual data relevant to that subject, if applicable; a university education can certainly provide these. Penn Gillette is not an expert in any of the topics on which he pontificates except stage performance and magic. Reason and logic are good, but a layman can only get so far by checking another person's consistency. I'm not qualified to discuss biology with Richard Dawkins because, not being a biology expert, I can't do anything but express confusion about paradoxical statements he makes and thence demand clarification. I don't have the knowledge to actually call 'bullshit' on any of his claims.

>>3264043
Exactly. You don't need a degree, but it certainly can help.

>>3264043

You could make the same exact argument for why richard dawkins is not credible when it comes to God.
Does Richard Dawkins have a philosophy degree or a theology degree? I am pretty sure he fucking doesn't.
if he doesn't have a theology degree or a philosophy degree then we can just ignore what he has to say. That's basically what you faggots saying

>>3264068

That's basically what you faggots are saying*

>>3264068
That conclusion doesn't trouble me. Richard Dawkins is entitled to his opinions about God but he gets undue attention given his background.

>>3264068
You don't have to have a degree, but you need to have an extensive knowledge of what you're talking about the academic discussion and you need to be involved in it. I guarantee you that Dawkins isn't involved in current philosophical discussion.

>>3263987
lel

>>3264068
It's not about the degree, it's about engagin in what is being talked about. Richard Dawkins has nothing to do with theology or philosophy, so in general he doesn't know what he is saying about it. Or to put it better, his attacks are consistent and coherent only when you put them to be compared with a pretty ordinary fundamentalist point of view, political implications in relation to religion and things like that. He is not relevant in terms of philosophy in any way.

>>3263803
doesn't he hate social security like a moron?

>>3264542

he's a stupid libertarian lol. reject religion and he picks up something just as cult-like and illogical.

>>3264091
except that's not actually true. argumentum ad hominem is an irrelevance.

>>3264756
Ad hominem? When did I? Did you mean argument from authority? Also, what about what I've said is true? Show me academic philosophy literature that engages with Dawkins at all.

See:
>>3264132

>>3264793
It seems like your argument against dawkins' credibility is that
1. his arguments can't be taken seriously because he is not qualified to argue
2. he is not qualified to argue because he isn't involved in philosophical discussion
3. he isn't considered by you to be involved in philosophical discussion because his arguments can't be taken seriously due to lack of qualification.

If this is incorrect, please correct me.
if it's not then your argument is circular.

>>3264877
He doesn't understand the discussion, he doesn't attempt to participate in the discussion seriously because he doesn't attempt to even understand what is being discussed, and those facts disqualify him from being an authority on the subject. When someone wishes to be taken seriously in any topic, they must know what is being discussed, what has been laid out, and not try to argue like babby's first attempt at philosophy. Again, just look at the sage post I linked you to.

>>3264886
>He doesn't understand the discussion
on what basis is this claim made?
>he doesn't attempt to participate in the discussion seriously because he doesn't attempt to even understand what is being discussed
That's incorrect, dawkins has participated in several academic debates on theology.

>>3264886

once again, i'm not saying that dawkins' arguments are sophisticated or correct, but the argument by which you're dismissing them seems dependant on your premise.

>>3264905
It's basically common knowledge. Go to any philosophy or theology department and ask the professors, "Is Richard Dawkins involved in philosophical or theological discussion?" They will certainly say no; not because he's an atheist, but because he's an evolutionary biologist that doesn't have a shred of qualification. So what if he wrote a book that pissed off some fundamental Christians? That doesn't mean he's suddenly an expert on philosophy. It's like saying Glenn Beck is an academic economist because he writes a book on gold or that George Bush is a political scientist because he talks about democracy on live TV.

People like William Lane Craig and Paul Copan have both blatantly pointed out that Dawkins is a novice philosopher that hasn't even begun to dive into academic philosophy. They're both Christians, you might say? Even Atheist philosophers think he shouldn't be taken seriously for philosophical discussion. Michael Ruse, an atheist philosopher of science at FIU has said, "“Richard Dawkins makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”

Again, it's common knowledge from theists and atheists in the discipline of philosophy that Dawkins is not an authority at all.

>>3264946
The argument is that he isn't an authority within the discipline because he doesn't attempt to engage with it. It's clear he hasn't read much on the subject and it's clear that he certainly isn't publishing papers or having discourse with other academic philosophers. He's probably a great evolutionary biologist, that much is true; but, he isn't credible at all as a philosopher.

>>3264968
Unrelated to your argument, but man is William Lane Craig an utter douche bag

>>3263803

Guaranteed replies. Not even a prole would want this.

>>3264999
He might be, but he's an academic philosopher who has been published and part of the discussion for some time now. It's kind of his right to act douche-baggy when someone from another discipline is given authority in another discipline after he writes just one book (of which hasn't been received too well by philosophers in general).

>>3265018
sure, maybe if he was just a douche to dawkins. But he isn't, he is a flaming douche bag whenever he talks


and trust me, I've watched like 50 debates with him in it

>>3265028
I've watched like one video of his, but I mostly see his name pop up in papers more often (I read some academic papers on philosophy and it's interesting stuff to say the least).

>>3264968
He's published more than one book addressing theology. His background in evolutionary psychology and memetics in and of itself if it is used as the basis of his arguments against the existence of a god.

also Craig is a hack, qualified, but a hack. Copan is ok though.

>>3264975
still circular.

>>3265096
*is qualification in-and-of-itself

i accidentally a word

>>3264003
Yes, voodoo economics, as opposed to socialist economics aka FREE STUFF FOR EVERYONE!!

>>3265096
>having a background in evolutionary psychology and memetics is qualification
No, his background in evolutionary psychology and memetics makes him qualified in evolutionary psychology and memetics.

Why does it make him an authority in philosophy or theology? Tell me? Because you can apply these disciplines within philosophy and theology? In that case, he's only an authority as far as his specialized disciplines can carry him. Here's an example: Pretend I'm a specialist on Y and I know Y in and out. Now, there's this discipline X that sometimes overlaps with Y. I am only an authority in X within the scope that overlaps Y. Which really just means I just know Y. It's pretty much tautology.

It does not make him an authority in philosophy or theology. I might as well say Coase was an authority on philosophy because he dealt with economics, which is a branch of moral philosophy. Repeating your statement doesn't make it true.

>Craig is a hack
Have you read any of his works or have you just seen youtube videos of him? His works in philosophy are peer-reviewed essays that the philosophy community views as professional. You'll see him cited quite often in cosmological discussion.

>>3264877
Dude, I'm not the guy, but I was also saying that about Dawkins.

Just flip the thing around. Would you listen to me on biology over Dawkins? If Dawkins and another biologist were debating about a chemical detail they disagree, do you think I can go and speak up about it? I can try, of course. But that's beside the point.

It's not about qualification, forget that shit about degree or qualification. Think on what "credibility" means. It needs a reader, someone to believe. We are not talking people not being allowed to say things, but who we are willing to listen on these subjects. When you read on philosophy and theology more deeply, you see that Dawkins and whoever he is debating are really not dwelving much profoundly on the matter.

Just like I can have a passionate debate on biology with a friend, but not really be talking much for a guy like Dawkins to hear. Why? Because I trust that Dawkins knows his shit on that matter.

It's not about qualification or that bullet points you raised. It's just a matter of who could say something new and interesting to us on that particular matter.

>>3265096
Not who you're talking to. But how does him being an expert in one study make him an expert in another?

>>3265106
>false dichotomies

the capitalist patrol arrived

>>3265096
How is it circular? You have a guy arguing very superficial arguments that are literally things that undergraduate philosophers yell over, you don't see Dawkins appear in any academic philosophical or theological literature at all and those prove that he's not really in the discussion. It's like having Bill O'Reily and Michael Moore argue over economics. Just because they cause a media shit storm doesn't make them academic economists.

>>3265120
>Why does it make him an authority in philosophy or theology? Tell me?

It only makes his philosophical and theological arguments based around evolutionary biology, memetics, or ethology substantiated. that's nothing to do with tautology.

>[Craig's] works in philosophy are peer-reviewed essays that the philosophy community views as professional.

That is true, but he has also deliberately misrepresented science in some of his lectures.

>>3265136
Capitalism is the free exchange of goods between people. The only way to rid the world of capitalism and the market is by the use of force, and therefore anarchism that is hostile to capitalism doesn't exist.

>>3265174

> The only way to rid the world of capitalism and the market is

Inevitable collapse

>>3265106

It is actually capitalism in which people receive free stuff. For the capitalist builds his riches by exploiting (aka stealing from) the proletariat. Socialism would right this wrong and labourers would be entitled to the sweat of their brow.

>>3265181

>the party would be entitled to the sweat of their brow

Fixed. Statist scum need not pontificate.

>>3265177
>Marx said so, therefore it's true

I'm still waiting for this "inevitable collapse. Meanwhile I'll just sit back and watch as the free market increases the wealth and living standards of the average person more than any other economic system in history. Now if you're talking about the inevitable collapse of this pseudo-corporatist abomination that currently exists, then we would agree.

>>3265148
>It only makes his philosophical and theological arguments based around evolutionary biology, memetics, or ethology substantiated. that's nothing to do with tautology.
Which means he can only make arguments based on what he knows; which, to be honest, isn't very lot outside his own discipline. That won't cut it for serious philosophical discussion. Philosophy is more than just memetics, it's logic, it's metaphysics, it's a whole load of concepts that you have to properly understand (along with the history behind it) in order to be taken seriously in academic circles. Almost any academic philosopher who has read "The God Delusion," thinks it is a layman's book. I've had one friend (getting his doctorate in philosophy) describe the book as "a book filled with incorrect syllogisms and belittering insults."

>>3265186

Capitalists are the ones who are statis scum. Capitalism inherently requires a state to exist. Communists and anarchists are really the only ones who fight for freedom.

>>3265188

I'm not a Marxist, cowboy.

>wealth and living standards of the average person

Are you kidding?

>>3265181
The worker and employer engage in a voluntary contract that determines his wage. Again, the only way to stop the private cooperation of individuals is by the use of force, which so called leftwing "anarchists" are perfectly fine with.

>>3265198
Are you denying that living standards have rose drastically faster under capitalism than under any other economic system in history?

>>3265199

>living standards have rose drastically faster under capitalism

At the price of widespread economic disparity throughout the lower classes and the world

>>3263971
nice guy you

>>3265189
your friend sounds like good times

>>3265201
The lower classes in capitalist countries have also become richer under capitalism when compared to their living conditions prior. Naturally, people in poorer countries are still poor by our standards. But in China, people line up to work at sweatshops because they are dying for a job. That's not exploitation, it's an opportunity that these poor people would never of had with the expansion of international capitalism. It's so amusing watching first world white kids take photographs of Chinese factory workers and say "LOOK AT THIS EVIL CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION" when those people would be jobless or working a job that pays much less.

>>3265201
>moving the goalposts when proven wrong

Typical socialist tactic.

>>3265208
He's a bit of a social drone. Imagine your generic /g/ stem student, but in philosophy. Crazy, right? Anyways, I'm going to sleep. It's pretty late for me.

>>3265210

>those people would be jobless or working a job that pays much less.

Or we could get rid of a system that enables usury and start having no problems at all of this kind

The freer the market, the fewer the hands at the top with the power

>>3265212

I never said he was wrong. I was laughing at his willful ignorance of the larger scope of the issue

>>3265212
>misusing a fallacy

typical capitalist tactic

fresh from /pol/?

>>3265217
>Or we could get rid of a system that enables usury

Usury is no different from someone charging for any other service.

>The freer the market, the fewer the hands at the top with the power

That's fucking hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_T0WF-uCWg

>inb4 ad hominems

>>3265219
Capitalism has increased the living standards of all parties involved. Feel free to prove me wrong. I'm waiting.

>>3265174
capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. you can have a whole number of systems that involve free exchange of goods between people. it doesn't have to be a capitalist system

>>3265174
also the capitalist system encourages greed. how does capitalism address this problem?

as far as i can tell, 'post-scarcity' for the capitalist is when resources are no longer scarce but non-existent

>>3265227

just a start

http://www.workers.org/2008/us/socialism/

>>3265227
yeah the london slums were full of increased living standards

>>3265228
So in a non-capitalist system, you would be fine with an employer and an employee agreeing on a wage for which the employer will pay the worker? You would not object to this voluntary contract?

>>3265230
>greed

That's an inane buzzword. Educate yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

>>3265199

Wage labor is not voluntary if you must engage in it in order to survive.

Your likely response to this will be "but you can homestead! or even join the capitalist class yourself." Can you tell me how one obtains the necessary start-up money to start a business or become self-sufficient without having to engage in wage labor first?

>>3265235
if the agreement is devoid of coercion, economic or otherwise

educate myself... with a youtube video?

>>3265237
>Wage labor is not voluntary if you must engage in it in order to survive.
>EAT OR DIE? IS THAT REALLY FREEDOM?!? STOP OPPRESSING ME NATURE!!

Fallacy. You what isn't voluntary? The seizing of wealth from others and redistributing it to those deemed deserving. The only way a non-capitalist society can exist is if you initiate force on others, this is indisputable.

>>3265243
>I have no argument so I'll just attempt to attack the source of said argument

Also, this is amusing coming from an ally of someone who linked at article from fucking "workers.org". Sounds unbiased to me.

>>3265259
no i'm wondering what you could possibly educate me about with a youtube video that you couldn't also do with a peer-reviewed source

the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. i don't know this guy or what he does

>>3265231
>http://www.workers.org/2008/us/socialism/
>Trillions of dollars in retirement funds have been wiped out in the stock market in the last few months.

As opposed to all the people "paying into"(read: having their money seized by force) in social security that is now bankrupt?

>Over 10,000 households a day are being foreclosed, and evictions are rampant.

Yes, that's what happens when you force banks via regulations to loan to people who would normally not be able to afford such loans. You inflate the housing bubble until it gets so big that it pops, and we are faced with an economic crisis.

>Credit card debt is at a record high.

People getting free money via credit cards and now they are victims when they have to pay it back? This article is a joke.

>It brushes aside trillions of dollars in bailouts for the banks and keeps going.
>implying I support bailouts
>implying they would exist in a free market

>The lower their wages are, the higher the bosses’ profits. Profits consist of unpaid labor. The bosses take the products, services and infrastructure created by the workers, sell them on the market, pay the workers as little as possible and keep the rest. Every capitalist tries to lower wages to gain higher profits.

Yes, but because the "capitalists" have to compete for workers, the prices naturally go up. 96% of people make above minimum wage, this is because competition make wages rise. If what this author was even remotely correct, everyone would be making minimum wage.

>>3265261
Continued.

>The top 1 percent of the U.S. population, the super-rich who have all the levers of power in society, owned 34.3 percent of the wealth in 2004. The bottom 90 percent owned 28.7 percent. The top 400 individuals owned $1.26 trillion in 2006, up from $470 billion in 1995.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU

>It must be replaced by a system where production takes place for human need, not for profit.

False dichotomy. You can't make money in a free market system without providing a service and therefore helping another person.

> Under socialism, that money would guarantee that everyone would have a decent job and income, free health care, affordable housing, free education, low-cost transportation, healthy, reasonably priced food and much more.

[citation needed]

>If this sounds utopian, the fact is that socialist Cuba, poor as it is, with all its difficulties, has gone a long distance toward establishing these rights for the Cuban people.

That's fucking hilarious. I bet this guy also worships Che and Fidel who burned books they didn't like and killed gays.

>The end of private ownership of the means of production would mean a vast increase in the personal property and social property of the workers.

History disagrees.

>>3265260
If you aren't intelligent enough to understand your own position and defend it against criticism, no matter the source, I don't know what to say.

>>3265266
no really what is the video about?

some people have more money than I do. Obviously they're exploiting me somehow, this isn't fair and I deserve a cut of it.

>>3265273
shut the fuck up corporation worshipper

>>3265273

'money' shouldn't be a thing

Usury allows for an imbalance of power, which is fundamentally evil

>>3265276
dat anger

>>3265273
i know this is sarcastic so how is this wrong? how is this any more valid than "i earn everything i work for"?

>>3265285

Why have a system where profit overrides utility?

>>3265280
>'money' shouldn't be a thing

How fucking economically ignorant are you? Before money people bartered with goods, aka I'll give you some eggs for some salt. The invention of currency was a way to avoid the inevitable occurrence of "well you don't have anything I want to trade for, sorry."

The problem today is that our money is not backed by fucking anything. It's a piece of paper that only has value because the government says it does.

>>3265280
and totally voluntary, unlike socialism, which is why capitalism is morally superior

>>3265293
what's with the false dichotomous references to socialism?

>>3265299
ok ill rephrase it. Capitalism is based on voluntary mutual exchanges, not coercion, which is why it is the most morally superior system. there, didn't say socialism once. faggot.

>>3265292

Is can't into ought, compadre. That currency was invented led to any number of societal problems

>>3265293

>doesn't understand social conditioning

>>3265300

>>3265228

>>3265302
It arose to meet the demands of society. What you propose is instituting rules that you think best and forcing them on everyone else.

>Is can't into ought, compadre.

You really want to get into this? Socialists are the ones making claims like "people ought to be equal in every way because my feelings say so" that has no basis whatsoever.

>>3265303
>anyone who doesn't agree with me is brainwashed
>WAKE UP SHEEPLE CAPITALISM IS EVIL!!! GOD WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING AT ME!?!?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SwKxUz7osM

>>3265311
>complete misunderstanding of socialism

>>3265305
so if i invent a revolutionary way to create wangdoodles, the government can come in and take it from me for the good of society? yeah fuck off with that bullshit. The means of production should belong to whoever rightfully owns them.

>>3265315
>anyone who doesn't agree with me is brainwashed
>WAKE UP SHEEPLE SOCIALISM IS EVIL!!! GOD WHY IS EVERYONE LAUGHING AT ME!?!?!?

youtube propaganda

>>3265311

I'm not advocating socialism, by the way. Being against capitalism doesn't make you a socialist.

I'm not proposing any rules, I'm questioning the ones that exist and why they exist in the fashion they do

>>3265317
i didn't say the government owned the means of production doofus

>>3265317
>rightfully owns them

who determines and upholds 'rights'? god? lol

someone tell me how the government can come to control the means of production without use of force. Oh yeah, they can't.

>>3265320
BUT AT LEAST IT'S NOT SOCIALISM!!!!!

>>3265316
>no argument
>w-well you just don't get it

>>3265319
Nice counterpoints.

>>3265321
Tyranny of the majority is just as bad as government tyranny.

>>3265317

If you invent a revolutionary way to create wangdoodles, the system should enable you to spread your method in order to benefit society, as opposed to utilizing utility for your own benefit

>>3265324

Fuck off with your labels. They don't help thinking

>>3265323
no one is arguing that though

>>3265323
They'll just say "w-well the government won't control the means of production, it will be the workers who will form a group that decides whats best for everyone else via the use of force. Wait a second.."

>>3265325
my argument is that you don't get it. you can look up literally any definition of socialism if you want but you will find that none of them whatsoever coincide with your definition of it. i guess everyone else is just brainwashed?

>Nice counterpoints.
it was really a worthwhile argument to come up with a counterpoint to

>Tyranny of the majority
what? who says tyranny? is tyranny of the minority any better?

>>3265325

>Tyranny of the majority is just as bad as government tyranny.

By what metric?

>>3265330
>via the use of force
sounds more like capitalism bro

>>3265330

>for everyone else

You don't get it. That 'everyone else' is the same as those 'workers who form a group'

ITT capitalists come in here with pre-written arguments and throw them at anyone not capitalist in hopes that they are relevant to what the discussion is actually about

>fucking socialists!
>tyranny!
>the government!

>>3265331
>it was really a worthwhile argument to come up with a counterpoint to

Amusingly enough, my two long posts got no reaction because I suspect none of you actually understand economics at fucking all and are just making naive statements based on feelings. >>3265263 >>3265261

>>3265335
I understand it very clearly. The workers come together and decide what's best and anyone who disagrees has force used upon them. Don't tell me that you believe that every decision will have 100% agreement and there wont be dissent?

>>3265333
>I made this pair of shoes, do you want to by it?
>STOP FUCKING OPPRESSING ME YOU CAPITALIST SCUM

>I will pay you this amount if you agree to work for my business and perform these specific tasks.
>Sure, that sounds great.
>N-NO DON'T YOU SEE HE IS OPPRESSING YOU!!! FCUKIGN CAPITALISM.

>>3265333
lol how. explain how capitalism uses coercion. don't worry, I'll wait a while.

>>3265342
>by

Buy*.

These mentally challenged socialists are disturbing my mood.

>>3263803
I'm buying myself at least 5 books as my Christmas....

So no.

>Call of the Wild
>Walden
>On the Origin of Species
>The Blind Match Maker
>And some fiction book I haven't yet thought about.

>>3265342

>Don't tell me that you believe that every decision will have 100% agreement and there wont be dissent?

This is why hierarchy exists. There can be a structure in place without private ownership, pal

>>3265340
I'm sorry that you're getting intellectually humiliated by people actually understand how economics works. Feel free to give up and go back to basing your political views on shittily written fiction and trying to apply your nonsense to reality.

>>3265342
>Amusingly enough, my two long posts got no reaction

that's fine. some of my points haven't been addressed either

>you don't understand economics!

always shouted by capitalists despite any evidence to the contrary

>I made this pair of shoes, buy them or else

>I won't shoot you if you agree to work for my business and perform these specific tasks.

>>3265343

Allowing for the private ownership of production means allows for coercion on a grand scale

>>3265350
no one has mentioned anything about economics

again with the pre-written arguments lol

>>3265349
Yes and that hierarchy has a monopoly on force and thus uses it on all those that it disagrees with. Sounds like freedom to me!

A completely free market society would not allow the initiation of force on other people, read up on the non-aggression principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

>>3265352
how? explain.

>>3265350

>actually understand how economics works

I repeat, slowly: is cannot into ought.

>>3265357
>A completely free market society would not allow the initiation of force on other people

through... magic?

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

aww that sounds nice... in theory

>>3265357

>thinks a NAP overrides human greed

This thread is a joke, right?

>>3265351
>>I made this pair of shoes, buy them or else

What? Nobody is forcing you to purchase goods from a corporation.

>>I won't shoot you if you agree to work for my business and perform these specific tasks.

Are you fucking delusional? Macy's doesn't threaten people by gunpoint to work for them. It's a voluntary contract.

>>3265358

Allowing power to flow through ownership of property enables a collection of power in the hands of few - oligarchy. Oligarchy works through coercion by its nature

>>3265362
he got red-pilled two weeks ago and he thinks he understands literally everything about human interactions despite being a total shut-in

i would welcome you to /pol/ but we're on the wrong board

>>3265364
>Nobody is forcing you to purchase goods from a corporation.

except the corporation. if they have the power, what's stopping them?

>Macy's doesn't threaten people by gunpoint to work for them.

because of the government

>>3265362
It's impossible to make money in a free market system without providing a service to someone else. Feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

>>3265368
the service is "don't get shot by me"

>>3265368

What kind of service is Coca Cola providing? And is that service on par with the profit they make?

>>3265365
>Allowing power to flow through ownership of property enables a collection of power in the hands of few - oligarchy.

Wrong again, kiddo. The collection of wealth into the hands of a few individuals is the result of rich people lobbying the government to deter competition and sustain their control. In a free market, the only way a company would be able to stay on top is by providing the best service.

>>3265369
Is this how desperate you kids are now? Nobody gives a fucking if you chose not to work in a capitalist system. Just don't expect for other people to give you things for free.

>>3265371
It's providing soda, how much they make is determined by the demand for such a product. By very definition, from an economic point of view, what they make is very clearly on par with their profit.

The problem is they get their shills to then go to the government and write rules to smash competition. The problem is government.

>>3265374
no i'd expect bullets for free in the back of the head if i didn't work for the promise that i would get none of these bullets

>>3265374

How much Coke makes is determined by how well they can manipulate you into thinking their addictive product is worth buying - advertisement when in cahoots with capitalism is an aggressor all its own. We can't mistake profit for utility. What sells is not what is healthy for society.

>>3265374
you're basically telling me that when your ideal system of governance and economy comes into effect, everyone will magically adhere to the 'morals' is promotes because they all understand how everything is supposed to work

this is literally what marxism does

>>3265379
>How much Coke makes is determined by how well they can manipulate you into thinking their addictive product is worth buying - advertisement when in cahoots with capitalism is an aggressor all its own.

Translated: People are choosing to buy things that I don't think they really need. Therefore I need to step in to decide for them what's best.

>What sells is not what is healthy for society.

And who decides that, some government bureaucracy? You're a statist who supports using force on people you disagree with, admit it.


>>3265381
There is no objective morality. People decide for themselves what they value, and seek it. In a free market society, they would be free to pursue their own personal goals as long as they do not initiate force unto other people.

Here's an introduction, it's kind of long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>>3265385
>In a free market society, they would be free to pursue their own personal goals as long as they do not initiate force unto other people.

THIS IS LITERALLY MARXISM

>>3265385

>People are choosing to buy things that I don't think they really need. Therefore I need to step in to decide for them what's best.

A corporation is running a campaign to sell pure heroin to infants.

What do?

>>3265385

>as long as they do not initiate force unto other people.

What's stopping them? State interference?

>>3265385
>People decide for themselves what they value, and seek it.

like wealth at gunpoint

>In a free market society, they would be free to pursue their own personal goals as long as they do not initiate force unto other people.

or what are they going to do?

offer me solutions to these problems that are unique to pure capitalism

>>3265379
How much Coke makes is determined by how many people like the taste of delicious Coke

>>3265385
I don't think you realize that we are essentially in your ideal system, except the government is as much an actor as any "legitimate" "business". It's values are different, yes, but how is its existence less valid?

Here is a good resource in contrast to the meme-spamming lolbertarian's position, from someone who used to occupy it in his angsty college days:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

>>3265393

>>3265387

>>3265393
here's our technologically advanced supersociety: millions of flavours of coke

>>3265387
>dat appeal to emotion

I didn't expect to find "B-BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" on /lit/. First of all, how the fuck would an infant buy or use heroin?

To clear up the question a bit, let's change it to "What if a family bought heroin and was letting their infant shoot up?". I would reply that it's none of your fucking business what a child does with his or her body, if they do not like the service their parents are providing, they are free to voluntarily leave and form a contract with another pair of adults.

>>3265389
Watch the video, he addresses this.

>>3265394
Because the government has a monopoly on force.

>>3265398
If you exclude economic force, then you could be right. It's not like the state fucking despises corporations though.

Anyway, how is a monopoly on force less valid? Isn't there no such thing as objective morality?

>>3265398
>none of your fucking business what a child does with his or her body, if they do not like the service their parents are providing, they are free to voluntarily leave and form a contract with another pair of adults.

Have you never read a psychology book?

>>3265398
>I would reply that it's none of your fucking business what a child does with his or her body

>>3265408
You're argument is literally "we need people with guns to stop people from doing this I don't like". As I said, if the child doesn't like their parents, they can leave and form a contract with another family. But if the kid wants to shoot up heroin and has the permission of his parents, it's none of your business what he does. You don't own him.

>>3265413
>they can leave and form a contract with another family.

who is going to tell the child this? the parents?

>>3265413

>they can leave and form a contract with another family

Because children can just wander the streets and find adults willing to take care of them? This is your ethically superior model?

>it's none of your business

It is if I choose to have an ethical framework

>>3265413

>they can leave and form a contract with another family

Seriously, do you not understand child psychology???

>>3265416
What do you mean? It's nothing that needs explaining. If your parents are complete shit and you can't stand them, you are free to leave and no government agency or group of thugs that call themselves "police" will stop them.

In the words of Rothbard -

"parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die."

>>3265418
>This is your ethically superior model?

It's ethically superior to "I want the government to come and take the children by force from their families because they are doing things I don't like".

>It is if I choose to have an ethical framework

Maybe if you have no problem with using force on people who don't agree with based on arbitrary moral values that you seek to impose on the rest of society.

>>3265428
>What do you mean? It's nothing that needs explaining. If your parents are complete shit and you can't stand them, you are free to leave and no government agency or group of thugs that call themselves "police" will stop them.

again, who is going to tell the child that they are free to leave? who is going to tell them that their parents aren't just lying to them about the child dying if they go outside or anything?

>>3265428
>It's ethically superior to "I want the government to come and take the children by force from their families because they are doing things I don't like".

proof?

>>3265434
You know kids already run away from home, right? And shockingly, they did not receive and pamphlets from a government agency prompting them to do so.

"The mother becomes at the birth of her child its “trustee-owner,” legally obliged only not to aggress against the child’s person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home.

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature—in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to runaway and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age."

>>3265436
The wording should have been, "This position is no less ethically or morally inferior to X, because morality is subjective."

Any attempts to force another person to oblige by your rules is faulty, because morality differs from person to person.

>anarcho-capitalism
>not an oxymoron

>>3265441
i also know that kids are afraid to cross the road when they run away from home because their parents have told them not to do it unless they're with the child.

also you're assuming a kid hooked on heroin is willing or even physically capable of leaving home to wherever you expect the child to run.

>"This position is no less ethically or morally inferior to X, because morality is subjective."

how are you even advocating a cultural system then if it doesn't actually matter morally?

>because morality differs from person to person.

how is this not your subjective interpretation?

also you are aware that promoting such a system, you're essentially telling people what is good for them?

>>3265453
>>3265455
I'm not advocating any sort of moral system, just for the voluntary association between individuals without the interference of the state.

>>3265461
so why is the state bad again? without referring to morals

>>3265461

Why advocate for that, aside from morals?

>>3265466
If a community forms a contract with a group of people and anoints them as their "government", that's perfectly fine. There no problem with an authority using force on others, as long as that force is agreed to by the people in the community.

>>3265471
without referring to morals

>>3265471

>perfectly fine
>no problem
>as long as

All moral judgments.

>>3265479
>>3265476
That's not morality, it's saying that the burden on proof is on the authority figure to legitimize their authority. Interestingly enough, this is an argument echoed by Chomsky, though he takes it to a different end.(libertarian socialism).

>>3265482
of*

>>3265482
it's legitimised through force

>>3265482

> the burden on proof is on the authority figure to legitimize their authority.

This is a moral judgment.

>>3265487
No it's not, it's logic. Just as the burden of proof is on the religious to prove god's existence, the burden of proof is on you to prove your authority.

>>3265486
But a murderer would be tried and killed by the private court system. Therefore if you use force, force is legitimately used in reciprocation.

There is nothing wrong with force, and in some societies they might embrace a Stirner-esque egoism with free-for-all killing.

>>3265490

Authority moves through force - an elimination of centralized force is the collectivist ideal. The argument is that power should lie in public as opposed to private holding - a private holding subject to greed and human emotion as opposed to utility and a society that functions fluidly.

>>3265490

Claiming that authority need be proved through force is your own prerogative. An arbitrary more, a constructed value.

>>3265493
> The argument is that power should lie in public as opposed to private holding - a private holding subject to greed and human emotion as opposed to utility and a society that functions fluidly.

Individuals make up both the private and public sectors, do you really believe that people in government only think of the people and not themselves?

>"People are shitty, therefore we should put people in charge of other people to make the people less shitty".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

In a capitalist system, you cannot make money without providing goods services.

>>3265499

>n a capitalist system, you cannot make money without providing goods services.

That video doesn't say anything

'Capitalism has been throughout history shown to work better than communism'

Like history has anything to do with it. He's effectively saying 'no system we currently have rewards virtue over clout, therefore we should reward clout.' An equally arbitrary social more

Is cannot into ought. I'll keep saying it.

>>3265504
Greed in a capitalist society is desirable because it causes people to seek the accumulation of money, which can only be acquired by providing services to other people.

>>3265514

Money can be acquired through all kinds of ways. Executives who shuffle billions of fictional dollars around daily aren't necessarily providing any service. They're gaining the system. This is what greed leads to, inevitable collapse.

>>3265522
Investment isn't beneficial to the economy? Putting your money in a bank that then makes loans to people looking to start a small business isn't beneficial to the economy?

>>3265526

Not when that bank is filling its executive's pockets with millions of dollars and cheating people out on their loans. This is what greed leads to.

>>3265529
Define cheating. Do you mean giving them loans and charging interest for the service the bank is providing?

>>3265533

Manipulating the public by falsely advertising crap loans is cheating. This is what greed leads to.

>>3265535
>manipulating

That's a buzzword. The person seeking a loan has to sign a contract agreeing to the terms. Are they a victim because they didn't read what they are agreeing to?

>>3265540

The bank is under no obligation morally to provide the full story in the contract. Obviously.

>>3265544
A contract that did not fully inform the person as to what they were agreeing to would be invalidated in the court system.

>>3265546

And if the bank is paying off the judges?

>>3265547
Way to move the goalposts.

In a free society, the prominence of a judge would be determined by how well he interprets the law that the community has established. A judge that does not do his job to the satisfaction of the community will have no clients and thus lose his job.

>>3265551

Greed can always play.

In a purely free market society, a judge could very well be decided by how fat his wallet is

>>3265554
>In a purely free market society, a judge could very well be decided by how fat his wallet is

..and his wallet would increase in size based on the satisfaction of his customers. If he did a shitty job he would have no customers and be out of work.

>>3265556

greed will drive the powerful to gain the system if necessary to retain their power or increase it. If it's worth taking the fall, the judge might very well pull through a decision that would be harmful to society, so long as it fills his wallet

>>3265560
>If it's worth taking the fall, the judge might very well pull through a decision that would be harmful to society, so long as it fills his wallet

If he continually makes decisions that the society feels are not in accordance to their laws, nobody will purchase the service he is providing. There is no use bribing a judge that nobody goes to, and if they bribe a judge to make "harmful decisions" he will lose his customer base. This conversation is going in circles. What it comes down to is:

take bribe ------> come to a decision that the public disagrees with ------> people decide they will find a different judge to go to that does a better job of providing the desired service ------> judge is now poor as fuck

>mfw a glorious communist revolution occurs and OP + his capitalist friends are thrown into the gulag

>>3265591

>this is what Stalinists actually believe

>>3265591
Funny you use that image, seeing as how you will be getting fucked, but it will be by your vanguard party dictator and I doubt your face will show any signs of pleasure.

>>3265594
Why is Ron Paul so kawaii?

>>3265597
Here's a picture of Ron Paul with the people who actually agree with his crackpot views.

>>3265598
>implying freedom is a crackpot view

>>3265591

>your face when you turn into a girl getting her pussy worked

Freudian slip when.

>>3265599

It actually is.

Not him,

>>3265598

>libertarians
>>>/pol/

Back to your gulag

>anarchists

>>>/lit/

You're welcome here.

>>3265603
>marxists
>>>/mlp/

Back to your imaginary world of friendship and magic.

>this fucking thread

>>3265605
What if I'm an anarcho-capitalist?

>>3265615

That's like being a christian atheist

>>3265616
Anarchism - a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

>>3265619
Yes, and capitalism is based on coercion.

Geeze, this is not hard.

>>3265713
>voluntary contracts
>coercion

Sorry champ, but you're wrong.

>>3265721

>muh voluntary contraction to fuck over the poor

>>3265721
Hahaha.

Nah, yer a cunt.

>>3265724
>Here is the wage I will pay you to work at my store
>Sure, that sounds agreeable, thank you for this opportunity

Daily reminder that living standards have risen drastically faster under capitalism, including for the poor.

>>3265730
The last 30 years or so they have fallen for the poorest. In America, that is.

For people in the Third World capitalism has been a disaster.

>>3265730

Not for the very poor. Not even close.

>>3265736
>The last 30 years or so they have fallen for the poorest. In America, that is.

Nice talking points. They're wrong, by the way. Wages have stagnated, but compensation has gone up which includes things like healthcare.

>For people in the Third World capitalism has been a disaster.

You know that people in the 3rd world line up to work at sweatshops right? They work there because in that country there aren't many options. Without that factory they would be working a shittier job or have no job at all.

Criticizing sweatshops is the epitome of first world bias.

>>3265738
Go ahead and post the average wealth of the poor people in the early 1900's and compare it to now adjusted for inflation.

I'm waiting.

>>3265739
>You know that people in the 3rd world line up to work at sweatshops right? They work there because in that country there aren't many options. Without that factory they would be working a shittier job or have no job at all.

Ahahaha oh wow

>>3265740
You know that's why they work there right? They literally line up outside. There are scarce job opportunities in 3rd world countries.

Use that tiny socialist brain of yours for a second, why would they work there if better jobs were available? Protip, it's because there aren't.

>>3265741

>there aren't

Thank you, capitalism

>>3265741
Yes, exactly, you daft, impossible cunt.

>>3265741
Are you mentally challenged? Before capitalism "arrived" in these countries they were extremely shitty, and now that factories are there many of them have jobs. The argument is that they would magically all have better jobs in capitalism didn't give them jobs?

>that delusion

>>3265749
Meant to respond to
>>3265748
>>3265746

>>3265749
Capitalism didn't give them any fucking jobs. Capitalism knocked out sectors of their old economy and created a demand for a new kind of labour. Do you think they just sat around and did nothing until capitalism came around?

>>3265755
>Capitalism knocked out sectors of their old economy

This is a cute way of saying "the sweatshops offered a higher wage to laborers so they quit their old jobs and starting working at the sweatshops since they were much better."

>>3265763
No, that is not it at all. Cheap, mass-produced wares outcompeted domestic ones produced by artisans or rudimentary industries. Farmers were unable to buy tractors, seed or fertilizer, and thus had to go into debt and become veritable peons, or flee into the cities seeking new employment. They earned more and had better working conditions before - it is just that they suddenly had to compete with industrialized economies (domestic as well as foreign), and they were not remotely competetive enough.

>>3265771
The mass-produced wares outcompeted domestic wares because demand was higher for mass-produced wares. That's just a fact.

So, what you're saying is, sweatshops came in and provided a better service for a cheaper price, whilst employing large amounts of people for wages higher than before? Why is this bad?

>they earned more before

Let's see that citation, sonny.

>>3265779
Look if you can't read, perhaps /lit/ isn't the board for you? Just a suggestion.

>>3265783
>Let's see that citation, sonny.

I'm waiting.

>>3265787
No you're not. You are not the least bit interested. As long as you can get your cheap loafers from it, you will be in favour of sweatshops.

>>3265798
>still can't provide a citation
>instead rambles on about capitalism and how I'm evil and enjoy exploiting workers by creating the demand needed in order for their job to be sustained

>>3265801
Just read any fucking introductory economical history textbook. Pre-industrial artisans did not need to work 12-16 hours per day to earn their sustenance and even had some disposable income. They also didn't need child labour.

>>3265810
>still no citation

>>3265815
You're not good at this.

>>3265820
>number of citations detected in your post: 0

At this point you're pretty much admitting defeat.

>>3265826
I do not know how many introductory economic history books there are in the world, but I am sure they are more than 0.

You have not cited shit either.

>>3265830
He's not claiming shit either

Surely if you're read up on these matters you can point to your intro. to econ. textbook and where in it it's pointed out?

>>3265830
>I just pull statistics out of my ass and backpedal when asked for citations

Is this the best marxists can do?

>>3265810
HOLY SHIT CUNT JUST GIVE A CITATION YOU FUCKING RETARDED CHILD WITH AIDS

>>3265835
>He's not claiming shit either
>The mass-produced wares outcompeted domestic wares because demand was higher for mass-produced wares. That's just a fact.
>employing large amounts of people for wages higher than before
Sure looks like fucking claims.

>>3265836
If that looks like statistics to you, you might need to retake elementary school.

>>3265841
No, because this is much too fun.

>>3265843
>Haha I'm just pretending to be retarded xDDDDDDDD

>>3265841
>impersonating me and then responding to yourself
>2012

>>3265847
Sure don't see any citations in that post.

ITT Marxists crumble when asked to provide a simple shred of evidence for their claims.

>>3265779
>>3265779
>>3265779
>>3265779
>>3265779
>they earned more before

Proof provided: 0

>>3265861
Read Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England.

:3

>>3265861
>read this book that was written in the 19 century to learn how globalization has destroyed 3rd world countries and lowered their living standards

Are you being serious?

>>3265871
>>3265867

>>3265871
It illustrated quite well the shift from pre-industrial to industrial conditions. It is of course far worse for people in the Third World, as they have to compete with an already-existing industrial economy.

>>3265881
That's not what I asked for. Provide a single citation for your claim that 3rd world countries had better living standards before capitalism arrived.

Protip: You can't.

>>3265886
Provide evidence to the contrary first.

:3

>>3265891
That's like a creationist saying "God is real until you prove me wrong". At this point I'm just embarrassed for you, you clearly don't even understand something as elementary as burden of proof.

>>3265894
No, your position is not the null hypothesis, you idiot.

>>3265886
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/capitalism-will-eliminate-poverty-africa

>>3265900
Claim: 3rd world countries had better living standards before capitalism arrived.

Proof provided: None.

Still waiting.

>>3265902
That article proves me right.

>What is true for Africa is also true for the rest of the world. In 1981, 70 percent of people in the developing world lived on less than $2 a day and 42 percent on less than $1 a day. In 2012, 43 percent lived on less than $2 a day and 14 percent lived on less than $1 a day. According to Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gert of the respected Brookings Institution, “Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time.”

>>3265902
>http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/capitalism-will-eliminate-poverty-africa
lol

>>3265909
Thought provoking response.

>you can't provide a citation for you claims
>suddenly someone else gets tired of watching you squirm and provides a source that proves you wrong
>you can't refute any of the facts so you resort to "lol"

>>3265906
>That article proves me right.
Sry misread your claim.

>>3265911
It is utterly irrelevant for our, to be very generous to us here, discussion, and furthermore it's a fucking unsourced opinion piece.

>>3265932

http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Whats_driving_Africas_growth_2601

>>3265932
>facts are irrelevant

Typical socialist.

While I hate Richard Dawkins, his background in evolutionary biology and memetics can certainly be useful if it is the center of his argument. Philosophy has always been a cross-disciplinary thing, it would be ridiculous if certain scientific subjects couldn't be discussed because no philosopher happened to major in biology in college.
With that said, is Richard Dawkins credible? No.
But he definitely could be. If he published even one article about the relationship between so-and-so niche of ontology and its relation to his of ev. bio. in a reputable philosophy 'zine, he'd be credible.

>early christmas present

Are you 5?

>>3266331
What really matters is that one needs to read his shit up to talk about it. Even a videogame pimple teenage nerd could develop brilliant insightful philosophical arguments on what he does if he ever read philosophy. But he doesn't...

>>3266331
>background in memetics
didn't the whole memetics jazz originate with Dawkins?

>>3265886

Actually, simple agrarian communities did have arguably better standards of living before they were modernized this century. Indians often had better standards of living that the colonists or Europeans did in the 17th and 18th centuries. Our way is not the only way to live well. It's not all so black and white.

>>3266743
*Native Americans

>>3266743
>you will never live in a peaceful hunter-gatherer community

>>3266757
>hunting
>peaceful
>check your cis species privilege

>>3265886
>being this White American

>>3266743
It wasn't free market capitalism in 17-18th century Europe. It was partly feudalism and mostly mercantilism.

>>3265886
Read on Richard Leakey's The Making of Mankind on the !Kung tribe.

>>3266769
Ha ha ha ha ha ah a haha ha ha. That's hilarious. Ha ha ha. You should be a comedian.

>>3267057
>Bottom Center
I also agree. One of the most detrimental developments of civilization is Clip Art.

>>3265615
then I suggest you go back to /pol/

>>3264015
>not a writer

read "Sock" and tell me that

>>3265177

Capitalism collapses about thirteen thousand times a year. Whats your point? As soon as it's needed somebody revives it.

>>3265228

all ownership is private ownership, if it excludes the mandate from any individual.

>>3265352

>allow

who has the right to disallow? don't say the people or society, because that's who I am.


Guys, the answer is technology, and efficiency, and fucking science. It really doesn't matter who has the most when everybody has all they can use.

"Let us make it so there is a dozen times enough food, a hundred times as many goods, ten times as many houses and hospitals and parks as we can ever need. Then the philosophers and the politicians can be safely left to argue whose system is best, whose strategy can create universal harmony, and the rest of us may safely ignore them."

captcha system codsci

>>3267235
>Guys, the answer is technology, and efficiency, and fucking science.
No. No, no, no, no. Take your utilitarian bullshit out of here. That kind of mentality is the source of a billion problems we didn't have before. Trying to control everything and fucking things up.

>Let us make it so there is a dozen times enough food, a hundred times as many goods, ten times as many houses and hospitals and parks as we can ever need.
But that is impossible, fool. Not only because we can't get to that point, but because that point escape us. For once you have cured cancer and shit, people will live to 200 years old and everyone will have to wear diapers. Once you get a good beautiful park everyone asked for, the park is filled with people and is soon going to be wrecked.

Don't you know shit about ecology?
And I'm not even talking about stricly nature ecology, but about ideas of balance and maintenance in every system. You want to embrace it all but you're not willing to accept certain facts. It is with that good intention that a huge snowball of problems got rolling down on us.

sage this horrible thread

>>3267280


I teach Environmental Science.

here are some of the main things we teach:

technology is the big difference between a poor society and a wealthy one. it is this that allows less and less work to produce more and more goods and services and enrich everyone in society. and it's not about control, it's about empowerment. the internet is technology, and it doesn't control, it empowers.

and the rate at which technology does this is increasing geometrically: it will be within our lifetimes that the goods and services that everybody needs to live a good life will be in surplus all over the world. The agricultural sector already produces twice as much food as is needed to feed every person on earth to the standards of even American consumption, if so much wasn't lost to waste or simply discarded.

And the ecology of humanity passed the tip-over point in terms of planetary impact in the late sixties. sustainable productivity has outstripped growth consistently since nineteen sixty eight, and it is still growing. Per capita affluence of the whole world has been getting better since then and will probably continue to increase into the foreseeable future .

even pollution per unit production is way down


this is one reason i agree that threads like this are bizarre. You guys are all fighting a war that was won before you were born, for everybody. It's just the inertia of political systems that keeps it from being obvious. But the walls are crumbling, and we'll all live to see, if not utopia, at least a stronger world, free from want, if not from strife.

holy shit
/b/ and /pol/ leave

>>3267057
Oh my god.

Okay then, if you think that the tribal life-form is superior then sell all your goods, donate the incoming money and move to Africa. Mind you, that you won't have toilet, any books, electricity, healthcare, you will only travel by foot or with a donkey. But hey no traffic congestions!

>>3267280
>a billion problems we didn't have before
and solved ten billion. Not need to be utilitarian, could be libertarian.

>Don't you know shit about ecology?
Did you know that 95% of economist supports stricter environmental regulations? They know when markets work, when they fail.

Went away for a bit.
Came back to this.
Never change.