meanwhile at a diner near you

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh, gosh. Where to begin? First of all, your nonsense over "wealth to beget more wealth" is nothing more than a leftist paper tiger. Oh, dear! Somebody is getting wealthy? Hell! We better take their wealth, since we aren't getting wealthy! Besides, their wealth is causing *gasp* suffering, etc.!

Are you saying that having $100,000,000 doesn't make it easier to make $1,000,000 than having $10,000?

Because that's what "wealth begets more wealth" means. It's easier to make money when you have money. Is that fundamental law of economics a leftist paper tiger?

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean seriously, do you really believe that bullshit? Could it possibly be that something other than wealth is the cause for "suffering, exploitation" and the "shitstain on the human condition" ? Gosh, maybe humans are inherently... *gasp* not good? They seek after their own survival?

Yea so let's remove the only institution that attempts to protect humans from preying upon other humans economically: the government.

Originally Posted by B4EQWASCOOL [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Take everything you own that was made by an evil corporation and throw it away if you're so mad at them.

Wanting to strike a favorable mixed market balance != hating the concept of corporations.

[Pokesan]

lol at lune thinking facts are at all irrelevant at this point

[B4EQWASCOOL]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you saying that having $100,000,000 doesn't make it easier to make $1,000,000 than having $10,000?

Because that's what "wealth begets more wealth" means. It's easier to make money when you have money. Is that fundamental law of economics a leftist paper tiger?



Yea so let's remove the only institution that attempts to protect humans from preying upon other humans economically: the government.



Wanting to strike a favorable mixed market balance != hating the concept of corporations.

The same institution that causes strife and suffering among it's population by sending it to unjust wars and fucking the economy up to get votes.

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you saying that having $100,000,000 doesn't make it easier to make $1,000,000 than having $10,000?

Because that's what "wealth begets more wealth" means. It's easier to make money when you have money. Is that fundamental law of economics a leftist paper tiger?

You're joking right? Seriously, you think there's a connection between leveraging money and "widespread suffering, exploitation, and [the] shitstain on the human condition"?

Do you play with voodoo dolls, too?

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yea so let's remove the only institution that attempts to protect humans from preying upon other humans economically: the government.

What? You think government is some glorious institution that DOESN'T do what it does... prey on those they say they protect? Yeah, OK. So you are a bit naive. Government is supposed to be limited so that it can't become an institution that takes your wealth and gives it to another. In fact, government is supposed to protect your ability to create wealth so that others may be lifted up. I know... sounds like a foreign concept to you leftists, but it is true.

[Lune]

I'm too tired of this discussion to have it again for the 100th time, especially with someone who knows so little about politics that they can confuse Bernie Sanders with a communist.

This is my case against your brand of anti-government free market Randroid capitalism:

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You guys know how efficient nature is, and that efficiency is what made market capitalism such a magnificent system to carry humanity through industrialization.

Also consider how fucking disgusting and depraved nature is. Consider the Coot, which is a duck-like waterbird. Coots will lay far more eggs than they could ever possibly feed, under the assumption that predators will eat some of them. Oftentimes, that doesn't happen, and 10-12 little coots will hatch that the parents can't feed. Over the next few weeks, when some of the coots ask for food, the parents will peck them. The weakest coots get pecked with increasing aggression until their parents either peck them to death, or they stop asking for food and slowly starve to death. This will occur until only enough young coots remain for the parents to feed, sometimes as little as 2-3.

This sickening brutality is universal in nature. Primates will team up and murder social outcasts and the weak. Baby birds will push their weaker siblings out of the nest. Starving bears will eat their extra cubs. Male ruminants will spar for a mate to the point of exhaustion or injury. The winner mates, the vulnerable loser is eaten by a predator.

This system facilitated biological evolution, which is ultimately an efficient and necessary process. But when you start applying human morality and utilitarianism to this, it begins to unravel a little. Humans have the capacity and the impetus to minimize harm at the cost of some of nature's depravity, and also some of its efficiency. Consider this:

The free market approach to the case of coots is business as usual; the natural, optimally-efficient order of things. Lay a surplus of eggs to hedge against predation, and cull the weak in order to survive. Sacrifice no growth or competitiveness for the sake of "humanity".

But the miracle of humanity is the capacity for abstract thought, and therefore abstract policy, providing a new approach, government. It brings the ability to make a rule: Coots may now only incubate as many eggs as they have the capacity to feed. Now, yes, you have a higher chance of any given coot losing all of their eggs to predators. Evolution and growth are now moderately less efficient. However, you no longer commit wanton murder and savagery at the opening of every new generation.

I would contend that while capitalism was a necessary and beneficial medium for the conveyance of civilization from primitive civilization to industrialization, its usefulness has diminished. As technology makes society exponentially more productive, and scarcity of resources becomes less an issue, we have the luxury of protecting human life from being ground to pulp by the economic machine. I think many places have already realized this (Denmark, Germany, FDR's New Deal USA, Australia, etc), as their functional and highly effective governments create policy that make human life safer and more enjoyable, sometimes at the cost of efficiency.

And guess what? Does their entire society implode? Does everybody stop working and stay home and live off neetbux? No. They continue to pull ahead of places like the USA that are stuck in the industrial age with an industrial mindset. In many ways, the United States is, therefore, still a developing nation. Consider a world where we've managed to automate resource production and the vast majority of our services. Do you still think every human still needs to work 40 hours a week to drive consumption, profits, and capitalist machinery? What happens when artificial intelligence exists, and scarcity is no longer a thing? Is the free market still relevant? If so, how can you say that it's just as relevant now, as it was 100 years ago, with how productive we are? Can you even consider that maybe it's time to begin the transition and rethink the way we do things?

Of course, all of this depends on a sophisticated culture with respect for the rule of law, hard work, etc etc, and culture goes a long way toward explaining differences between denmark / USA / nigeria etc, but that's another discussion.

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm too tired of this discussion to have it again for the 100th time, especially with someone who knows so little about politics that they can confuse Bernie Sanders with a communist.

This is my case against your brand of anti-government free market Randroid capitalism:

No, actually you got it wrong. I wrote that Sanders is a communist shit sucker. As a socialist he sucks the shit of communists. He is a commie wannabe. Get it now?

BTW, I studied politics at a university, I have a degree in Political Science. I'm not some guy who dinged into the highest rank on EverQuest and now thinks I know all that there is to know about the universe.

EDIT: Your "cut and paste" job didn't address my points. Nice try though.

[Pokesan]

ALL HAIL SS-18 SATAN MAY HIS PASSING CLEANSE THE WORLD AND ALL HAIL HIS AGENT HERE ON EARTH PRESIDENT ERDOGAN

BY THE ALLFATHER PUTIN THE MOST GLORIOUS SON SS-18 SATAN AND BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF DESTRUCTION LET THE EARTH BE BATHED IN ETERNAL LIGHT LET CHAOS RULE LET THE GLORIOUS NEW SUNS ARISE AND LET US WATCH THE END OF ALL THINGS IN 4K IN OPPENHIMERS NAME AMEN

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ALL HAIL SS-18 SATAN MAY HIS PASSING CLEANSE THE WORLD AND ALL HAIL HIS AGENT HERE ON EARTH PRESIDENT ERDOGAN

BY THE ALLFATHER PUTIN THE MOST GLORIOUS SON SS-18 SATAN AND BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF DESTRUCTION LET THE EARTH BE BATHED IN ETERNAL LIGHT LET CHAOS RULE LET THE GLORIOUS NEW SUNS ARISE AND LET US WATCH THE END OF ALL THINGS IN 4K IN OPPENHIMERS NAME AMEN

You really are a nutcase.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You really are a nutcase.

in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWPvKxSA7nw