Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Destroy the state. Destroy capitalism.

forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 10:38:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hello debate.org. At first glance, you seem to consist mostly of privileged young white male libertarians. Am I wrong? And of course you've shown some disdain towards the growing Occupy movement. Brace yourselves! For this fire is spreading and it will not be extinguished by the powers that be.

Bourgeois tyrants have long relied on the ignorance and division of the masses to maintain their unjust position in society. Let the ruling class tremble at a proletarian revolution. For we are empowered like never before seen in history. We have entered the Information Age. The people are connecting, uniting, and learning via the internet at a colossal rate. Through this newly found unifying power, the 99% will develop a class consciousness and therefore organize itself as a powerful force to be reckoned with.

A global consciousness is coming into being right before our eyes and your old, ego driven ideologies will become obsolete as technology progresses. Brace yourselves for a new way of thinking and be prepared for reality to smack you in the face.

Do not underestimate our power. For we have already started our march on the corporations as seen in Oakland during the General Strike.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 10:49:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How can you destroy capitalism without a state?

That seems kind of preposterous.

Capitalism is kind of just the way things are naturally.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:29:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful

The internet?

So, you are for the free market
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:29:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.

and the best example of free market with almost no regulations in which individuals pursuit their own interest, own the means of production to produce online services. Juggle, and Webcorp (previous owner) are quite the greedy capitalist. The CEO of Juggle and Webcorp are most likely millionaires.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:33:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 10:49:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
How can you destroy capitalism without a state?

That seems kind of preposterous.

Capitalism is kind of just the way things are naturally.

Firstly, take power over the means of production. Then control them via consensus democracy. Saying capitalism is just natural is a straw man in that capitalism has only existed for an extremely short period of human history.

Study history and you realize that as technology evolves, so does the society and culture built around it. With the invention of agriculture we see the first appearances of social class and state. This allowed property ownership on larger scales and eventually evolved into feudalism. Eventually the invention of industry swept the old system of monarchy under the rug and replaced it with capitalism. Inevitably this age of capitalism has created an invention that will render it obsolete: the internet.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:44:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:33:38 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:49:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
How can you destroy capitalism without a state?

That seems kind of preposterous.

Capitalism is kind of just the way things are naturally.

Firstly, take power over the means of production. Then control them via consensus democracy. Saying capitalism is just natural is a straw man in that capitalism has only existed for an extremely short period of human history.

Study history and you realize that as technology evolves, so does the society and culture built around it. With the invention of agriculture we see the first appearances of social class and state. This allowed property ownership on larger scales and eventually evolved into feudalism. Eventually the invention of industry swept the old system of monarchy under the rug and replaced it with capitalism. Inevitably this age of capitalism has created an invention that will render it obsolete: the internet.

I agree that the traditional way in which information is retrieved, and businsses will run will change.

However, a democratically running the "means of production" will never work for many reasons. Lack of competition, no profit incentive, lack of price signals, inability to take advantage of dispersed knowledge, ineffectiviness centralized plans.

The internet has given us greater freedoms for individuals to produce their own means of production. Juggle (owner of DDO) has made a successful company. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Wikipedia and Youtube are many examples of the free market working to create goods and services that people want.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:47:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:29:08 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful

The internet?

So, you are for the free market

Haha, no, not at all. Of course, a lot of profit has been made through the internet for private individuals, but an enormous amount of content has been shared freely via the internet by people without any expectation of monetary gain. This fact is undeniable. Therefore, the internet better represents the success of anarchy and democracy, rather than some so called "free market."

In fact, its the internet that has made these recent mass protests possible. Look at the early parts of the Egyptian revolution. The authorities completely blocked social media networks in the area to stop the revolutionaries from organizing themselves democratically via the internet. People really need to wake up and realize how technology is changing our world rapidly.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:33:38 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:49:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
How can you destroy capitalism without a state?

That seems kind of preposterous.

Capitalism is kind of just the way things are naturally.

Firstly, take power over the means of production. Then control them via consensus democracy.

Ok, so basically a democratic state? Technically, you are still talking about a state.

Saying capitalism is just natural is a straw man in that capitalism has only existed for an extremely short period of human history.

It has only been called capitalism for a short period of human history, but you will see that this is a very common thing with people.

We've been recycling the same ideas over and over again, but calling them different things for thousands of years.

Study history and you realize that as technology evolves, so does the society and culture built around it. With the invention of agriculture we see the first appearances of social class and state. This allowed property ownership on larger scales and eventually evolved into feudalism. Eventually the invention of industry swept the old system of monarchy under the rug and replaced it with capitalism. Inevitably this age of capitalism has created an invention that will render it obsolete: the internet.

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.

Those who are in power keep control via a large scale form of Stockholm syndrome. As generations pass, people get restless. The people are appeased in some form or another, maybe the state recognition of civil rights, or the state caving into a demand. Sometimes a revolution happens, and you have anarchy.. But anarchy always builds up to be what was rebelled against, albeit in a slightly different form.

The real bondage is one of the mind. The "state" as anarcho idealists recognize it will always be there in some form or another. The "state" as the anarcho realist understands it has a lot less influence and power than is thought by most people.

Anarchy is the true law of the world. Everything else.. Just the games that people play, and take too seriously.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:52:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:47:02 PM, forrestonfire wrote:

Haha, no, not at all. Of course, a lot of profit has been made through the internet for private individuals, but an enormous amount of content has been shared freely via the internet by people without any expectation of monetary gain. This fact is undeniable. Therefore, the internet better represents the success of anarchy and democracy, rather than some so called "free market."

It's individuals choosing how to produce their own goods and services and owning their own means of production. It's much more representative of a free market. Juggle, the owners, own Debate.org and the contents the site rather than some vague "democratic ownership".

In fact, its the internet that has made these recent mass protests possible. Look at the early parts of the Egyptian revolution. The authorities completely blocked social media networks in the area to stop the revolutionaries from organizing themselves democratically via the internet. People really need to wake up and realize how technology is changing our world rapidly.

Didn't realize that Egypt got rid of capitalism :p.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:56:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:44:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:33:38 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:49:56 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
How can you destroy capitalism without a state?

That seems kind of preposterous.

Capitalism is kind of just the way things are naturally.

Firstly, take power over the means of production. Then control them via consensus democracy. Saying capitalism is just natural is a straw man in that capitalism has only existed for an extremely short period of human history.

Study history and you realize that as technology evolves, so does the society and culture built around it. With the invention of agriculture we see the first appearances of social class and state. This allowed property ownership on larger scales and eventually evolved into feudalism. Eventually the invention of industry swept the old system of monarchy under the rug and replaced it with capitalism. Inevitably this age of capitalism has created an invention that will render it obsolete: the internet.

I agree that the traditional way in which information is retrieved, and businsses will run will change.

However, a democratically running the "means of production" will never work for many reasons. Lack of competition, no profit incentive, lack of price signals, inability to take advantage of dispersed knowledge, ineffectiviness centralized plans.

The internet has given us greater freedoms for individuals to produce their own means of production. Juggle (owner of DDO) has made a successful company. Facebook, Google, Twitter, Wikipedia and Youtube are many examples of the free market working to create goods and services that people want.

Lack of competition? Cooperation will work better and will render our old, primitive, authoritarian societies obsolete as information technology continues to dominate world culture and society. Progress incentive and enlightened self-interest will replace "profit incentive" as the information age ushers in a new global consciousness.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2011 11:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:29:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.

and the best example of free market with almost no regulations in which individuals pursuit their own interest, own the means of production to produce online services. Juggle, and Webcorp (previous owner) are quite the greedy capitalist. The CEO of Juggle and Webcorp are most likely millionaires.

This is partly true but then realize that the majority of the content on the web is shared freely without expectation of monetary gain.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:02:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:58:41 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:29:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.

and the best example of free market with almost no regulations in which individuals pursuit their own interest, own the means of production to produce online services. Juggle, and Webcorp (previous owner) are quite the greedy capitalist. The CEO of Juggle and Webcorp are most likely millionaires.

This is partly true but then realize that the majority of the content on the web is shared freely without expectation of monetary gain.

Do you think people should be prohibited from offering services or goods for monetary gain or just that those who do not are more ethically enlightened?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:03:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's a nice rave-burger you've made for us there. I'd like reason-fries with that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:08:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:03:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's a nice rave-burger you've made for us there. I'd like reason-fries with that.

Post a real argument.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:10:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:08:55 AM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:03:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's a nice rave-burger you've made for us there. I'd like reason-fries with that.

Post a real argument.

Ignore him, and talk to the person who actually wants to have a discussion then.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:11:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:56:12 PM, forrestonfire wrote:

Lack of competition? Cooperation will work better and will render our old, primitive, authoritarian societies obsolete

Personal Ownership of means of production is less authoritarian then centralized controlled production. If I wanted to I can start a business. Can't do that under communism.

If coorperation were more effective then competition then we'd expect government monopolies to be more efficient then private cooperations. Not surprisingly, they are not. This is because individuals will have a greater incentive to produce high quality products and spend on research and development to improve goods and servces. It also means that private businsses can not set prices too high since people will not buy from competitive cheaper prices.

as information technology continues to dominate world culture and society.

Which is not anti-capitalism.

Progress incentive and enlightened self-interest will replace "profit incentive" as the information age ushers in a new global consciousness.

Producing goods and services without creating a profit is not anti-capitalism. Likewise, there's no incentive to do jobs that are not fulfiling, or invest in capital that is risky if there is no return on investment.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:20:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or people I should say.

Really though, your goals and desires are going to drastically alter how you look at this issue.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:31:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:02:21 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:58:41 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:29:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.

and the best example of free market with almost no regulations in which individuals pursuit their own interest, own the means of production to produce online services. Juggle, and Webcorp (previous owner) are quite the greedy capitalist. The CEO of Juggle and Webcorp are most likely millionaires.

This is partly true but then realize that the majority of the content on the web is shared freely without expectation of monetary gain.

Do you think people should be prohibited from offering services or goods for monetary gain or just that those who do not are more ethically enlightened?

Money has no purpose nor value in a truly anarchist society. So there is no need for a prohibition. Whether the transition to that society is obtained through violent force or other tactics is up to the people.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
forrestonfire
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:42:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.

We live in a capitalist state. Global capitalism dominates because it is the richest and most powerful capitalists who buy out the politicians who in turn create law that favors corporate interests over the general welfare.

To say we live under socialism is absurd when you realize who controls the state. You cannot have capitalism without an oppressive state when economic power determines policy.
"Are we perhaps living in a time when leaderless groups can flourish thanks to the open-source, peer-to-peer sharing, social networking wonders we enjoy? With cheap, instant communication and vast amounts of information at our fingertips, could we run a society without a ruling hierarchy?"
—John Yemma
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:50:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:08:55 AM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:03:04 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
That's a nice rave-burger you've made for us there. I'd like reason-fries with that.

Post a real argument.

Right back at ya.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:51:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:31:13 AM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:02:21 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:58:41 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:29:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.

and the best example of free market with almost no regulations in which individuals pursuit their own interest, own the means of production to produce online services. Juggle, and Webcorp (previous owner) are quite the greedy capitalist. The CEO of Juggle and Webcorp are most likely millionaires.

This is partly true but then realize that the majority of the content on the web is shared freely without expectation of monetary gain.

Do you think people should be prohibited from offering services or goods for monetary gain or just that those who do not are more ethically enlightened?

Money has no purpose nor value in a truly anarchist society. So there is no need for a prohibition. Whether the transition to that society is obtained through violent force or other tactics is up to the people.

If you eliminate currency (which is nearly impossible even in anarchy), then the ability to trade becomes increasingly difficult, since bartering is inefficient. Liquidity is needed for trade, and currency is used for liquidity. Goods and services are scarce, so pricing systems are necessarily to allocate resources.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:53:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:42:34 AM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.

We live in a capitalist state. Global capitalism dominates because it is the richest and most powerful capitalists who buy out the politicians who in turn create law that favors corporate interests over the general welfare.

That's not really capitalism than is it? That would be closer to mercantilism or State capitalism, far from any conception of laissez-faire.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:56:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:31:13 AM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:02:21 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:58:41 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:29:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:46:51 PM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/3/2011 10:42:09 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Anarchy rulesssssssssss.

It will. The internet is humanity's greatest experiment in anarchy and its been pretty successful.

and the best example of free market with almost no regulations in which individuals pursuit their own interest, own the means of production to produce online services. Juggle, and Webcorp (previous owner) are quite the greedy capitalist. The CEO of Juggle and Webcorp are most likely millionaires.

This is partly true but then realize that the majority of the content on the web is shared freely without expectation of monetary gain.

Do you think people should be prohibited from offering services or goods for monetary gain or just that those who do not are more ethically enlightened?

Money has no purpose nor value in a truly anarchist society. So there is no need for a prohibition. Whether the transition to that society is obtained through violent force or other tactics is up to the people.

My question remains. If someone chooses to value a liquid commodity such as gold for example and give it to someone else in exchange for a service(let's say to clean their apartment), would you think it more ethical to kill them or at least more ethical than allowing them to make a voluntary exchange that in no way effects you or anyone else?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 12:59:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.


It's all technically the same thing. The rules people make up around it may be different, but it is still the same thing.

A feudalist economy is a lot like a highly regulated "capitalist" economy, kind of like..

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.

Yeah, not really all that much different from feudalism, just different rules(that in themselves are, and always were optional), eh?

But underlying all of this, pure capitalism is there, and has been since time immemorial. You know where the true regulation lies?

Mind control. People believe there is regulation, because THEY have done a good job of making you believe it is there. It really isn't.

As generations pass, old forms of mind control lose their power, and new forms crop up. In fact, without this, the economy would crumble entirely. The world can not operate without it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 1:00:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:42:34 AM, forrestonfire wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.

We live in a capitalist state. Global capitalism dominates because it is the richest and most powerful capitalists who buy out the politicians who in turn create law that favors corporate interests over the general welfare.

That's not capitalism but corporatism.

To say we live under socialism is absurd when you realize who controls the state.

Capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production. If the means of production are regulated and the state produces half of all goods and services, then that's not capitalism.

You cannot have capitalism without an oppressive state when economic power determines policy.

That's corporatism. You don't know what capitalism is. It's best defined as private ownership of the means of production and a system of property rights. Regulations, special privileges, and subsidies are not capitalist at all.

I also tend to disagree that economic power determines policy, since labor unions, and leftist lobbyist groups also have strong political power as well.
Also minimized state with a strong constitution can remove the abuse of economic power.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 1:05:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 12:59:05 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.


It's all technically the same thing. The rules people make up around it may be different, but it is still the same thing.

A feudalist economy is a lot like a highly regulated "capitalist" economy, kind of like..

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.

Yeah, not really all that much different from feudalism, just different rules(that in themselves are, and always were optional), eh?

But underlying all of this, pure capitalism is there, and has been since time immemorial. You know where the true regulation lies?

Mind control. People believe there is regulation, because THEY have done a good job of making you believe it is there. It really isn't.

As generations pass, old forms of mind control lose their power, and new forms crop up. In fact, without this, the economy would crumble entirely. The world can not operate without it.

Not really. Saying its all the same thing is unfounded. The rules are indeed important.

I'd say that the the most important factors of the different systems is based on how financial markets are run. Almost every system has markets though. However, feudalism never had financial markets.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 2:03:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 1:05:06 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:59:05 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
At 11/4/2011 12:30:01 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/3/2011 11:48:42 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

They are all all the same things, but with different names. Really, the thing that has changed the most over time has been the presentation.


Disagree. Before capitalism, it was considered illegal to offer interest on loans. I think this is actually the distinguishing factor between feudalism and capitalism. There were no real strong financial markets during feudalism.


It's all technically the same thing. The rules people make up around it may be different, but it is still the same thing.

A feudalist economy is a lot like a highly regulated "capitalist" economy, kind of like..

I wouldn't consider the system that we currently have anywhere close to capitalism, and really a mixed economy since finance institutions are highly regulated. Also 46% of the economy is based on the public sector, while somewhere between 16% is dedicated to following regulations. So it actually amazes me that people accuse Obama to be a socialist when we already live in a socialist state.

Yeah, not really all that much different from feudalism, just different rules(that in themselves are, and always were optional), eh?

But underlying all of this, pure capitalism is there, and has been since time immemorial. You know where the true regulation lies?

Mind control. People believe there is regulation, because THEY have done a good job of making you believe it is there. It really isn't.

As generations pass, old forms of mind control lose their power, and new forms crop up. In fact, without this, the economy would crumble entirely. The world can not operate without it.

Not really. Saying its all the same thing is unfounded. The rules are indeed important.


Belief is what gives these rules authority. The ability to enforce the rules is in itself dependent on belief.

Even then violence certainly is a part of capitalism.

People have always had capital. People have always sold and bought things, there have always been privately owned businesses. There is always competition, even in a monopolistic setting.

Yes, it was harder back then to escape from the institutions that did have control, because they had great influence that allowed them to easier trick people into believing that they were property of their masters.

I'd say that the the most important factors of the different systems is based on how financial markets are run. Almost every system has markets though. However, feudalism never had financial markets.

Financial markets as you are mostly likely thinking of them were not relevant back then. Feudalism isn't even really a codified economic system anyway.

Capitalism in its purest form isn't a codified economic system either, it's just anarchy.

In fact, there isn't even such a thing as an economic system, these are just ways people attempt to make sense of and/or control the way things are. It's all bullsh!t. Economics is all basically just chaos theory/game theory, magic tricks, and a lotsa bull.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp