Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarian thread #1337a

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:36:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We had a libertarian candidate in WI this past election, and he was in favor of stripping every amendment off the Constitution and deleting every regulatory agency that exists. This type of miniature revolution could have great benefits, but not if we are going to re-institute capitalism - probably the single most destructive variable in our current system - and not even have some basic rules set up to control its ridiculous effects. Are these effects innovation, prosperity, and freedom? I think not. I've already argued prosperity and happiness to death, but I've often let the innovation argument slide. I'm beginning to think this was in error.

Electric cars are evidence against capitalistic innovation. We had electric cars 100 years ago (as the norm) and charging stations enough to support them. Although gasoline probably would have naturally overtaken electric simply because of its energy density, capitalism kept us chained to oil well after the realization that it was the undesirable option - despite the fact that the reason it was initially undesirable was because of capitalist monopolies controlling the supply. Now it is 2010 and we're about to see the first automobile (only one, don't get greedy you heathens) hit the US market.

This is the innovation you speak of in capitalism? I am starting to doubt that capitalism even was a major factor in the scientific revolutions we have enjoyed. Just because they lived under capitalism and had to work a wage doesn't mean the wage created scientific innovation. If anything, capitalism has been a drag on innovation and I wonder how much smarter we would all be if we were more open-minded and had access to all information possible without having to tediously play capitalist games to get to it. We'd be quoting more than Wiki on this sight if we had more freedom of information.
no comment
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:41:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nah, there's plenty of innovation in Capitalism. Where's the incentive to create new things when you're not being rewarded for it?
Anarcho
Posts: 887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:44:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 8:41:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Nah, there's plenty of innovation in Capitalism. Where's the incentive to create new things when you're not being rewarded for it?

Or like work your a$$ off and still get nothing.
InsertNameHere wrote: "If we evolved from apes then why are apes still around?

This is semi-serious btw. It's something that seems strange to me. You'd think that entire species would cease to exist if other ones evolved from them."

Anarcho wrote: *facepalm*
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:48:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 8:44:31 PM, Anarcho wrote:
At 11/6/2010 8:41:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Nah, there's plenty of innovation in Capitalism. Where's the incentive to create new things when you're not being rewarded for it?

Or like work your a$$ off and still get nothing.

Again, much of that is as a result of minimum wage. Remember our debate.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2010 8:55:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Special government favors done for the Big Three =/= capitalism.

Song related: It's Jacky White ranting about crony capitalism.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:10:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 8:41:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Nah, there's plenty of innovation in Capitalism. Where's the incentive to create new things when you're not being rewarded for it?

Define rewarded, and your statement falls apart.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:13:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 8:44:31 PM, Anarcho wrote:
At 11/6/2010 8:41:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Nah, there's plenty of innovation in Capitalism. Where's the incentive to create new things when you're not being rewarded for it?

Or like work your a$$ off and still get nothing.

Your statement proves you cannot define what a job is. Working your a5s off and getting nothing are two mutually exclusive statements.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:14:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/6/2010 8:55:33 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Special government favors done for the Big Three =/= capitalism.

I don't follow. Are you talking about the military industrial complex?
no comment
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:19:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:10:26 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 11/6/2010 8:41:47 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Nah, there's plenty of innovation in Capitalism. Where's the incentive to create new things when you're not being rewarded for it?

Define rewarded, and your statement falls apart.

Not really.

re·ward
noun- something given or received in return or recompense for service, merit, hardship, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com...

In the Capitalist system if you invent something and decide to sell it you get rewarded with profit. There's no such rewards in a socialist system.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:33:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Capitalism works, people don't want to take your rubbish away or unblock your stinking toilet but they do so. Why? Because they want to have a house, central heating, food etc.

The writer has an incentive to write, the inventor an incentive to invent. It is not perfect, the technologies that survive and thrive are the ones that are marketable not the ones that are necessarily objectively superior. That is why our lightbulbs are inferior to light bulbs sold in 1901, but that is also why kevlar might impede a bullet.

It is the default, natural, normal state of the economy. Other methods have been tried and they have failed. Humanity is not going to have a glorious revolution and create a giant circle-jerk utopian society were everyone is a pot addled artist yet somehow lives in a mansion stuffed full of luxuries and high tech gadgets and surrounded by acres of land.

We will get our electric cars, personal jetpacks and lunar colonies when they become profitable.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 1:08:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:33:21 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Capitalism works, people don't want to take your rubbish away or unblock your stinking toilet but they do so. Why? Because they want to have a house, central heating, food etc.

You know why you can't unblock your stinking toilet, C_N? Because you are spoiled and have had someone do it for you, which also costed you the wisdom of knowing how to do it. Next time your toilet plugs, go down to hardware hank and grab a snake. Do it; it will make you feel like a man.

Food should be grown by everybody; not because they "have" to or because they want a profit, but because gardening is useful, fun, and it makes you wiser about nature. Everyone doesn't need to garden; there would be plenty of volunteers who would practice "guerilla gardening" if it weren't illegal.

Rubbish is largely a factor of the mass production due to capitalism. Packaging is ridiculous (because costs are currently low) and everything is single-serve. If we had higher-quality goods we wouldn't have so much to throw out. We could replace trash service with metal trailers, passed around freely to the community. When it comes to you, you put your trash on it, and drive to the dump. Big deal. We can compost, reduce/reuse/recycle, incinerate with energy recovery (this would be feasible in a society that isn't abusing the environment beforehand), and reduce our waste to the point where trash service would be a much less pressing issue.

The vast majority of the examples you could throw at me are going to fall into one of several groups: those tasks which people can do themselves (e.g., cooking, cleaning, basic services that rich people pay out for), those tasks which are sort of like hobbies in that they carry great self-rewards through participation and recognition (e.g., gardening, hair-dressing, computer-game programming, art and design), and those tasks which people make careers out of because frankly, they wouldn't be half the men or women they could be if they weren't doing it. Instead of chasing dollar bills with an infantile selfishness, they would be chasing greatness.

"Here, meet my friend Fred. He... well he just sits around all day watching TV and doesn't care to shower. He can't cook and he sucks at cleaning, doesn't know how contraption work, and has no idea what a toilet snake is. Don't ask him anything intellectual because no one ever paid him to get an education, and he's never tried making anything out of himself careerwise because he didn't have to."

This is the type of person we would have without capitalism? Sounds to me like this is more like what capitalism produces, with the sole exception that Fred has a day-job.

The writer has an incentive to write, the inventor an incentive to invent. It is not perfect, the technologies that survive and thrive are the ones that are marketable not the ones that are necessarily objectively superior. That is why our lightbulbs are inferior to light bulbs sold in 1901, but that is also why kevlar might impede a bullet.

Funny... Who is paying us to do all this writing? Why does DDO exist? If you are all getting paychecks for arguing with me then I've been left out for a long time...

Your lightbulb example only proves my point - let's get a system that promotes superiority.

It is the default, natural, normal state of the economy. Other methods have been tried and they have failed. Humanity is not going to have a glorious revolution and create a giant circle-jerk utopian society were everyone is a pot addled artist yet somehow lives in a mansion stuffed full of luxuries and high tech gadgets and surrounded by acres of land.

Who said anything about people being rich? Our minds and bodies would be a lot richer than they are now, but we would have less material goods. A frightening idea, I know.

We will get our electric cars, personal jetpacks and lunar colonies when they become profitable.

DX
no comment
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:18:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Caramel, do you grow your own food? Do you know how to fix toilets? Whats stopping you?

I don't. I think those are a waste of time. I'm an engineer. Am I a waste?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:21:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:18:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
Caramel, do you grow your own food? Do you know how to fix toilets? Whats stopping you?

I don't. I think those are a waste of time. I'm an engineer. Am I a waste?

toilet's aren't all that complicated..
signature
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:31:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 1:08:52 AM, Caramel wrote:
Food should be grown by everybody; not because they "have" to or because they want a profit, but because gardening is useful, fun, and it makes you wiser about nature. Everyone doesn't need to garden; there would be plenty of volunteers who would practice "guerilla gardening" if it weren't illegal.

I've heard that global populations are so dense that if we did away with Big Time farmers, pesticides, etc...

then like 1/2 the worlds population would have to go.

probably quite painfully.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 5:37:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 1:08:52 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 12:33:21 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Capitalism works, people don't want to take your rubbish away or unblock your stinking toilet but they do so. Why? Because they want to have a house, central heating, food etc.

You know why you can't unblock your stinking toilet, C_N? Because you are spoiled and have had someone do it for you, which also costed you the wisdom of knowing how to do it. Next time your toilet plugs, go down to hardware hank and grab a snake. Do it; it will make you feel like a man.

But because I don't, someone else will. That offer person gets a job. He gets money. Ultimately because of money we don't all have to much on a turnip in a cave.

Food should be grown by everybody; not because they "have" to or because they want a profit, but because gardening is useful, fun, and it makes you wiser about nature. Everyone doesn't need to garden; there would be plenty of volunteers who would practice "guerilla gardening" if it weren't illegal.

Do you realise how much land it takes to feed to one person, how much labour non-industrial farming takes up?


Rubbish is largely a factor of the mass production due to capitalism. Packaging is ridiculous (because costs are currently low) and everything is single-serve. If we had higher-quality goods we wouldn't have so much to throw out. We could replace trash service with metal trailers, passed around freely to the community. When it comes to you, you put your trash on it, and drive to the dump. Big deal. We can compost, reduce/reuse/recycle, incinerate with energy recovery (this would be feasible in a society that isn't abusing the environment beforehand), and reduce our waste to the point where trash service would be a much less pressing issue.


Sure, we could produce less sh!t but there is no real need to do so. Plus, by creating all these landfill sites we are creating future jobs for our descendants, who will likely have to salvage key resources from these pits on behalf of their chinese overlords.

The vast majority of the examples you could throw at me are going to fall into one of several groups: those tasks which people can do themselves (e.g., cooking, cleaning, basic services that rich people pay out for), those tasks which are sort of like hobbies in that they carry great self-rewards through participation and recognition (e.g., gardening, hair-dressing, computer-game programming, art and design), and those tasks which people make careers out of because frankly, they wouldn't be half the men or women they could be if they weren't doing it. Instead of chasing dollar bills with an infantile selfishness, they would be chasing greatness.

You have not really thought this through. If you want a lifestyle that includes a nice haircut, microwave meals, cars, petrol, games consoles then capitalism and wage slavery is the way to go. If you want a lifestyle were we are all spiritually rich liberated, hungry, cold and living in mud etc then form a commune. It's one or the other.

"Here, meet my friend Fred. He... well he just sits around all day watching TV and doesn't care to shower. He can't cook and he sucks at cleaning, doesn't know how contraption work, and has no idea what a toilet snake is. Don't ask him anything intellectual because no one ever paid him to get an education, and he's never tried making anything out of himself careerwise because he didn't have to."

This is the type of person we would have without capitalism? Sounds to me like this is more like what capitalism produces, with the sole exception that Fred has a day-job.

It's not capitalism's fault that Fred is like this. He could sell his TV and buy a violin. He could read a book. He could go on a training course. All these things are open to Fred.

The writer has an incentive to write, the inventor an incentive to invent. It is not perfect, the technologies that survive and thrive are the ones that are marketable not the ones that are necessarily objectively superior. That is why our lightbulbs are inferior to light bulbs sold in 1901, but that is also why kevlar might impede a bullet.

Funny... Who is paying us to do all this writing? Why does DDO exist? If you are
all getting paychecks for arguing with me then I've been left out for a long time...

We are presumably doing this fun. People are not going to labour in a factory for 40, 50 hours a week for fun. But if they don't our lives will be sh1t. DDO now makes money from advertising.

Your lightbulb example only proves my point - let's get a system that promotes superiority.

The net result of capitalism is that. Sure, our goods won't last generations, but we can buy new crap.


It is the default, natural, normal state of the economy. Other methods have been tried and they have failed. Humanity is not going to have a glorious revolution and create a giant circle-jerk utopian society were everyone is a pot addled artist yet somehow lives in a mansion stuffed full of luxuries and high tech gadgets and surrounded by acres of land.

Who said anything about people being rich? Our minds and bodies would be a lot richer than they are now, but we would have less material goods. A frightening idea, I know.

Thats cool, but you really wake up to what all this entails. As I see it you can live in this current world, with all its warts and wonders, or live like the Amish. I don't know which option is better to be honest, but you are not going to maintain a normal western lifestyle without capitalism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:07:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True capitalism can only be achieved in space . . .
True socialism can only be achieved in space . . .
True anarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True communism can only be achieved in space . . .
True fascism can only be achieved in space . . .
True monarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True theocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True democracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True dictatorship can only be achieved in space . . .
True oligarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True autocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True laissez faire can only be achieved in space . . .
The simple solution is to go to space . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 1:08:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 12:07:15 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
True capitalism can only be achieved in space . . .
True socialism can only be achieved in space . . .
True anarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True communism can only be achieved in space . . .
True fascism can only be achieved in space . . .
True monarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True theocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True democracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True dictatorship can only be achieved in space . . .
True oligarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True autocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True laissez faire can only be achieved in space . . .
The simple solution is to go to space . . .

I think this is one of SRW's best posts to date.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:07:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 1:08:30 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/7/2010 12:07:15 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
True capitalism can only be achieved in space . . .
True socialism can only be achieved in space . . .
True anarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True communism can only be achieved in space . . .
True fascism can only be achieved in space . . .
True monarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True theocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True democracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True dictatorship can only be achieved in space . . .
True oligarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True autocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True laissez faire can only be achieved in space . . .
The simple solution is to go to space . . .

I think this is one of SRW's best posts to date.

Agreed.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:18:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Carmel, have you ever read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations"? He goes into this business of division of labor quite extensively. Your entire thread was refuted by a Scotsman back in 1777, if you'd care to go look.

Basically, it is far more efficient for one person to keep cows and milk them, selling the milk to everyone in the community, rather than having each person keep their own cow.

It's far more efficient for a factory to divide up the task of making clothes to a thousand workers, rather than have everybody make their own clothes. If I can buy clothes, I can spend the time I saved not making my own on improving my efficiency in creating whatever is is that I sell.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:41:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 3:18:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Most things that would provide a better standard of living for all--say, many of the cheap/free energy projects suppressed or abandoned by financial supporters in the past--would be quite unprofitable by virtue of their nature.

Good roads, law enforcement, sewage systems, automobiles, and computers are all things I can see not existing were the world to have followed caramel's system.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 3:48:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 3:07:30 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 11/7/2010 1:08:30 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 11/7/2010 12:07:15 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
True capitalism can only be achieved in space . . .
True socialism can only be achieved in space . . .
True anarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True communism can only be achieved in space . . .
True fascism can only be achieved in space . . .
True monarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True theocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True democracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True dictatorship can only be achieved in space . . .
True oligarchy can only be achieved in space . . .
True autocracy can only be achieved in space . . .
True laissez faire can only be achieved in space . . .
The simple solution is to go to space . . .

I think this is one of SRW's best posts to date.

Agreed.

I feel honored that you all say so . . . *in a ironic civil war era southern accent*
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 3:41:45 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 11/7/2010 3:18:42 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
Most things that would provide a better standard of living for all--say, many of the cheap/free energy projects suppressed or abandoned by financial supporters in the past--would be quite unprofitable by virtue of their nature.

Good roads, law enforcement, sewage systems, automobiles, and computers are all things I can see not existing were the world to have followed caramel's system.

I'm not really sure what Caramel's system is, nor would I probably support it. I'm just pointing out that technology isn't what it could be.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 9:24:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:18:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
Caramel, do you grow your own food? Do you know how to fix toilets? Whats stopping you?

I don't. I think those are a waste of time. I'm an engineer. Am I a waste?

An engineer that can't figure out a toilet...

I am stopped by the inordinate amounts of time I am committed to spend laboring for the owners of the means of production.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 9:26:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:31:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/7/2010 1:08:52 AM, Caramel wrote:
Food should be grown by everybody; not because they "have" to or because they want a profit, but because gardening is useful, fun, and it makes you wiser about nature. Everyone doesn't need to garden; there would be plenty of volunteers who would practice "guerilla gardening" if it weren't illegal.

I've heard that global populations are so dense that if we did away with Big Time farmers, pesticides, etc...

then like 1/2 the worlds population would have to go.

probably quite painfully.

I didn't say anything about doing away with big farms. I'm saying we could be gardening a hell of a lot more locally and in places in which it is not currently the norm. If people were slaving for the wealthy, there would be more resources to alot to this activity.
no comment
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 9:28:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 5:18:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
Caramel, do you grow your own food? Do you know how to fix toilets? Whats stopping you?

I don't. I think those are a waste of time. I'm an engineer. Am I a waste?

So you are a left-brained b*stard. I'm on to your lies! :P
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 9:42:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 9:26:04 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:31:28 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/7/2010 1:08:52 AM, Caramel wrote:
Food should be grown by everybody; not because they "have" to or because they want a profit, but because gardening is useful, fun, and it makes you wiser about nature. Everyone doesn't need to garden; there would be plenty of volunteers who would practice "guerilla gardening" if it weren't illegal.

I've heard that global populations are so dense that if we did away with Big Time farmers, pesticides, etc...

then like 1/2 the worlds population would have to go.

probably quite painfully.

I didn't say anything about doing away with big farms. I'm saying we could be gardening a hell of a lot more locally and in places in which it is not currently the norm. If people were slaving for the wealthy, there would be more resources to alot to this activity.

Ah, yes; that's called "feudalism." Works great, for the most part; has some problems with, oh, human rights and other such trivialities -but hey, Divine Right of Kings totally rocks! ;)

/deliberate misinterpretation of typo
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 9:43:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do it; it will make you feel like a man.

But because I don't, someone else will. That offer person gets a job. He gets money. Ultimately because of money we don't all have to much on a turnip in a cave.

Which completes the circular capitalist argument, which puts value in jobs and money which have no intrinsic value in and of themselves. I can create jobs by coming to your house and wrecking everything; that doesn't mean I did you a favor. Money is only valuable because we make it necessary for survival. Money is not a resource in and of itself. Come on C_N we have been here before.

Food should be grown by everybody; not because they "have" to or because they want a profit, but because gardening is useful, fun, and it makes you wiser about nature. Everyone doesn't need to garden; there would be plenty of volunteers who would practice "guerilla gardening" if it weren't illegal.

Do you realise how much land it takes to feed to one person, how much labour non-industrial farming takes up?

It is more labor intensive but the products are fresher, more healthy for us, need less pesticides/fertilizers, do not degrade the normal land-use of the area, don't require large amounts of fossil fuels, do not promote monoculture diseases and crop failures due to invasive species that thrive in normal artificial farms, promote more symbiosis with natural species that may need the help, and the best part is that anyone can pitch in. It doesn't take much expertise and equipment to run smaller gardens. In their spare time (and there would be much more without capitalistic land-lording) those who have a knack for gardening can tend the neighborhood plants. Its a job we could even alot to the kids (they wouldn't need to man a tractor or handle dangerous pesticides)


Rubbish is largely a factor of the mass production due to capitalism. Packaging is ridiculous (because costs are currently low) and everything is single-serve. If we had higher-quality goods we wouldn't have so much to throw out. We could replace trash service with metal trailers, passed around freely to the community. When it comes to you, you put your trash on it, and drive to the dump. Big deal. We can compost, reduce/reuse/recycle, incinerate with energy recovery (this would be feasible in a society that isn't abusing the environment beforehand), and reduce our waste to the point where trash service would be a much less pressing issue.


Sure, we could produce less sh!t but there is no real need to do so.

I disagree. Just as Republicans are stressing less spending of our psuedo-resources, I am pointing out the fallacy of overspending our REAL resources.

Plus, by creating all these landfill sites we are creating future jobs for our descendants, who will likely have to salvage key resources from these pits on behalf of their chinese overlords.

More circular "jobs are great" logic.

The vast majority of the examples you could throw at me are going to fall into one of several groups: those tasks which people can do themselves (e.g., cooking, cleaning, basic services that rich people pay out for), those tasks which are sort of like hobbies in that they carry great self-rewards through participation and recognition (e.g., gardening, hair-dressing, computer-game programming, art and design), and those tasks which people make careers out of because frankly, they wouldn't be half the men or women they could be if they weren't doing it. Instead of chasing dollar bills with an infantile selfishness, they would be chasing greatness.

You have not really thought this through. If you want a lifestyle that includes a nice haircut, microwave meals, cars, petrol, games consoles then capitalism and wage slavery is the way to go. If you want a lifestyle were we are all spiritually rich liberated, hungry, cold and living in mud etc then form a commune. It's one or the other.

No specific point to respond to here...

"Here, meet my friend Fred. He... well he just sits around all day watching TV and doesn't care to shower. He can't cook and he sucks at cleaning, doesn't know how contraption work, and has no idea what a toilet snake is. Don't ask him anything intellectual because no one ever paid him to get an education, and he's never tried making anything out of himself careerwise because he didn't have to."

This is the type of person we would have without capitalism? Sounds to me like this is more like what capitalism produces, with the sole exception that Fred has a day-job.

It's not capitalism's fault that Fred is like this. He could sell his TV and buy a violin. He could read a book. He could go on a training course. All these things are open to Fred.

The point was that if Fred wasn't receiving a paycheck, he would stop being productive. My point was that productivity is natural and not a function of wage. You seem to be missing my point completely.

The writer has an incentive to write, the inventor an incentive to invent. It is not perfect, the technologies that survive and thrive are the ones that are marketable not the ones that are necessarily objectively superior. That is why our lightbulbs are inferior to light bulbs sold in 1901, but that is also why kevlar might impede a bullet.

Funny... Who is paying us to do all this writing? Why does DDO exist? If you are
all getting paychecks for arguing with me then I've been left out for a long time...

We are presumably doing this fun. People are not going to labour in a factory for 40, 50 hours a week for fun. But if they don't our lives will be sh1t. DDO now makes money from advertising.

And people would de less factory work without capitalism. NOT A BAD THING. Look at how much turmoil people go through in factories... And the kicker is that most of the stuff we produce can be done so without the intensive labor element, by making more high-quality reusable goods with machinery as opposed to low-quality throwaway goods with menial human labor.

Your lightbulb example only proves my point - let's get a system that promotes superiority.

The net result of capitalism is that. Sure, our goods won't last generations, but we can buy new crap.

Not sustainable or equitable. Inefficient and damaging to our natural capital.


It is the default, natural, normal state of the economy. Other methods have been tried and they have failed. Humanity is not going to have a glorious revolution and create a giant circle-jerk utopian society were everyone is a pot addled artist yet somehow lives in a mansion stuffed full of luxuries and high tech gadgets and surrounded by acres of land.

Who said anything about people being rich? Our minds and bodies would be a lot richer than they are now, but we would have less material goods. A frightening idea, I know.

Thats cool, but you really wake up to what all this entails. As I see it you can live in this current world, with all its warts and wonders, or live like the Amish. I don't know which option is better to be honest, but you are not going to maintain a normal western lifestyle without capitalism.

Perhaps...
no comment
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 11:23:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 9:43:04 PM, Caramel wrote:

Which completes the circular capitalist argument, which puts value in jobs and money which have no intrinsic value in and of themselves. I can create jobs by coming to your house and wrecking everything; that doesn't mean I did you a favor. Money is only valuable because we make it necessary for survival. Money is not a resource in and of itself. Come on C_N we have been here before.

None of what you have said refutes me. The fact that I am too useless to fix my own toilet, the fact that we assign arbitary values to little bits of paper etc etc... that is reason why you don't have to toil in a field 8 hours a day. It is the reason why you are able to make posts on this message board. Do you seriously think that your computer can be made as a hobby by a group of farmers?

It is more labor intensive but the products are fresher, more healthy for us, need less pesticides/fertilizers, do not degrade the normal land-use of the area, don't require large amounts of fossil fuels, do not promote monoculture diseases and crop failures due to invasive species that thrive in normal artificial farms, promote more symbiosis with natural species that may need the help, and the best part is that anyone can pitch in. It doesn't take much expertise and equipment to run smaller gardens. In their spare time (and there would be much more without capitalistic land-lording) those who have a knack for gardening can tend the neighborhood plants. Its a job we could even alot to the kids (they wouldn't need to man a tractor or handle dangerous pesticides)

I have no land. Most peoples gardens are not land enough to produce enough food for them.

So anyway, assuming that I get the land.
Assuming that I know what I am doing (farming is actually complicated).

So what I just buy some tools from homebase? Oh wait... no one really wants to work there, no one really wants to toil in the factory making my tools, no one really wants to drive for miles delivering my tools. Guess I am making them myself, with metals from a mine I am conveniently find and via

You can't just grow some food in your spare time, non-industrial farming is a full time job.

Sure, we could produce less sh!t but there is no real need to do so.

I disagree. Just as Republicans are stressing less spending of our psuedo-resources, I am pointing out the fallacy of overspending our REAL resources.


Yet we still have a surplus of REAL resources.

Plus, by creating all these landfill sites we are creating future jobs for our descendants, who will likely have to salvage key resources from these pits on behalf of their chinese overlords.

More circular "jobs are great" logic.


If I have a job, I get paid money. This money secures me a nice western lifestyle and in doing so creates jobs for everyone else. Now of course I am slave to my stuff and my financial obligations yes.

Or, I could grow my own food and live in a mud hut. Cold, malnourished, no goods.

Hmm what option should I pick?

You have not really thought this through. If you want a lifestyle that includes a nice haircut, microwave meals, cars, petrol, games consoles then capitalism and wage slavery is the way to go. If you want a lifestyle were we are all spiritually rich liberated, hungry, cold and living in mud etc then form a commune. It's one or the other.

No specific point to respond to here...

Okay well we are decided then, I'll keep capitalism and you will join a commune. Good luck.


The point was that if Fred wasn't receiving a paycheck, he would stop being productive. My point was that productivity is natural and not a function of wage. You seem to be missing my point completely.

The more important point is that a wage maximises productivity and the rewards or productivity.

We are presumably doing this fun. People are not going to labour in a factory for 40, 50 hours a week for fun. But if they don't our lives will be sh1t. DDO now makes money from advertising.

And people would de less factory work without capitalism. NOT A BAD THING.

They and their families would have a lower standard of life, so would we. If they want that then opt out.

Look at how much turmoil people go through in factories... And the kicker is that most of the stuff we produce can be done so without the intensive labor element, by making more high-quality reusable goods with machinery as opposed to low-quality throwaway goods with menial human labor.

Is your solution high quality robots making high quality goods... not happening unless it's a result of capitalism.


Your lightbulb example only proves my point - let's get a system that promotes superiority.

The net result of capitalism is that. Sure, our goods won't last generations, but we can buy new crap.

Not sustainable or equitable. Inefficient and damaging to our natural capital.


It is sustainable and equitable now, we only know what our 'natural' capital is as a result of the inefficiency of capitalism.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2010 6:54:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 9:24:07 PM, Caramel wrote:
At 11/7/2010 5:18:15 AM, Sieben wrote:
Caramel, do you grow your own food? Do you know how to fix toilets? Whats stopping you?

I don't. I think those are a waste of time. I'm an engineer. Am I a waste?

An engineer that can't figure out a toilet...

I am stopped by the inordinate amounts of time I am committed to spend laboring for the owners of the means of production.

If starving European immigrants can set up farms, so can you. All you need is some seeds and a ho. Or you could go live with African tribes and hunt down rabbits WITH UR BARE HANDS. Or you can go be a fisherman in india. Don't tell me you don't have the money. You are richer than every historical laborer.

In short, you aren't serious. You complain about how bad the poor have it under capitalism and then turn around and advocate universal sustenance farming, a proposition that would probably kill half the human race.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...