Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalism's Walking Dead

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:21:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A disclaimer, the following hypothetical scenario is admittedly wildly and preternaturally fictional. But the supernormal scenario per se is actually beside the point, and to focus on its preposterousness would be to miss the point.

Recently the cable television channel AMC polled the audience of its series The Walking Dead regarding a plot situation that in the real world would present somewhat of an ethical dilemma and test of character. The plot situation in outline is this, a child is lost and alone in the woods and if you linger to search for her you may very well encounter cannibalistic zombies whose only drive is to devour you alive. The question of the poll is would you remain for several days to comb the woods for the unfortunate youngster; or for several hours; or not at all, would you make no effort to rescue her and continue on the move?

Well, presented with the horrific prospect of being consumed by carnivorous reanimated corpses it's hardly surprising that a high percentage of respondents to the poll would say that they would only put themselves at risk to conduct a search & rescue operation for a misplaced child for a mere several hours, or not at all. It would certainly not be at all surprising if, say, 60% of respondents said that they would only make a brief effort to recover the wandering waif. Such results would be pretty predictable, right?

But here's the disappointing shocker, in fact a whopping 99%, yes, 99%, answered that they would not brave the danger of the above-described situation to search for and save a missing child! Yes, almost a hundred percent of respondents to the poll said that they would promptly write off a hapless and terrified kid astray in the woods and hightail it to someplace less infested with zoophagous zombies.

Now it's of course not that every average Joe and Jane can realistically be expected to heroically prioritize the well-being of a child above his/her own life that makes the results of this poll so disheartening, it's the starkness and shameless honesty of 99% of participants responding that they would make no attempt at all to locate a lost child if they had to face some personal peril.

Okay, let me at this point cut straight to my social critique, as it were. That the cravenly self-interested attitude that one's personal safety should totally trump the survival of a dear little tyke in need of rescuing is apparently taken for mere common sense by most folks (and the popularity of the zombie genre is good indication that the viewers of The Walking Dead are representative of most folks and not possessors of aberrant attitudes) would, alas, seem to be symptomizing something about our culture. Something not at all to be proud of.

Prima faciely the prevalence of such unchivalrous self-interest in ordinary and typical TV watchers would indicate that ours is a society and culture that socializes its members to egocentrically view themselves as atomized individuals with a natural right to be selfish and with no transpersonal connection or moral obligation to their fellow human beings. Ergo it's perfectly acceptable to our sensibilities and consciences to abandon a child to its fate in order to save our own skins.

Hmm, where does my sociocritical nose smell the morally reeky odor of such narcissistic privatism coming from? Could it perhaps be from the egoistic ethos of economic individualism at the heartless heart of capitalism and its view of life?

Come on now, one doesn't have to be an out-and-out Marxist economic determinist to realize that a society's economic system and ethos will naturally color and condition the values, attitudes, and philosophy of those who live under it. And in a capitalist society, whose mode of production, and status quo, and ideology, and incentives all reflect and inculcate self-interest, social atomism, inequality, and elitism, well, it would be quite remarkable if people didn't grow up to be unaltruistic little egoists capable of allowing a child to perish to maximize their own chances of survival and self-advancement.

This is, after all, what the capitalist power structure and worldview inherently molds us to be, i.e. morally puny and thoughtless me-firsters who are in point of fact, in the real world and not just in an unrealistic scenario derived from a TV show, okay with being complicit in the ways that capitalism puts the lives of children at risk, in overseas sweatshops, and in unemployment & poverty-ridden neighborhoods here at home.

You can try to blame it on our "selfish genes", but being acculturated to capitalism's every-man-for-himself outlook; and to its socioeconomic organization, which fundamentally consists of a ruling class of capitalist alpha egoists exercising dominance over the working and under classes, capitalist alpha egoists who, btw, are held up to us as the models of success; i.e. being deeply acculturated to an egoistic ideology and system certainly takes our selfish genes and strongly accentuates them. Nope, you can't glibly blame the extreme self-interest and greed found in so many of us reared under capitalism to human nature, to a genome shaped by a Darwinian evolutionary process.

Socioeconomic environment and culture clearly also play their parts, for good or ill, in determining which facets and potentialities of our nature come to the fore. To restate the obvious yet one more time, a society with an economic substructure such as capitalism will of course emphasize anti-social traits, inclinations, and values, such as egoistic self-assertion, competitiveness, classism, and overgreediness, producing specimens of humanity who exhibit such characteristics in spades.

What this means is that conservative boosters of capitalism can't define human nature, per se, by the nature of capitalist man, and then proceed to confirm their belief that human nature is such as to make capitalism the most commonsensical system vis-à-vis our nature. This is just abjectly circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophesying about our human nature.

We are actually not innately morally wretched individualists. A society that emphasizes pro-social behaviors and beliefs will indeed produce very different human specimens. I.e., people who aren't all saints and heroes, but who are certainly more selfless and giving, more morally decent and dignified than Homo capitalismus.

The anti-ethics of capitalism, and the way they conduce to anti-social individualism, are certainly not merely of interest to armchair ethicists and social critics. It was precisely the anti-social economic individualism and avarice of the barons of Wall Street brokerage & banking firms that caused the Great Recession and the massive pain being endured by the bulk of working-class humanity today. The recession refutes Gordon Gecko's assertion that "Greed is good". It tragically makes the case that self-interest, and a "free-market" system pseudologically predicated upon it, is an exercise in moral, sociological, and historical folly that can easily destroy the economic well-being of our global community.

That is, capitalism not only mass produces the kind of unabashedly egoistic, spiritually walking-dead folks who have no humanitarian qualms about saying that they would hypothetically leave a child in the woods to fend for itself against the elements and ravenous revenants, it also mass produces the ilk of ambitious-for-self capitalists whose behavior brings about the rising misery index of the masses, and "ruggedly individualistic" conservatives who would deny them any benevolent assistance from government in their hour of most grievous need.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:22:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Capitalism ideologically infects our worldview and our souls with its pathologically egoistic ethos, and it's at the level of our values, and attitudes, and self-understanding that it must ultimately be combated, not just at the level of street demonstrations. That is, a deeper kind of revolution is direly needed, a revolution of consciousness and conscience.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 6:55:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neodialectic paradigm of expression or conclude that narrativity is capable of significance. Therefore, Pickett[2] suggests that we have to choose between cultural discourse and textual theory. Derrida uses the term ‘social realism' to denote the role of the participant as reader.

But if precapitalist Marxism holds, we have to choose between postsemiotic socialism and the dialectic paradigm of narrative. The opening/closing distinction depicted in Joyce's Ulysses is also evident in Dubliners, although in a more neomaterialist sense.

Therefore, de Selby[3] holds that we have to choose between textual postcultural theory and dialectic discourse. Foucault uses the term ‘postsemiotic socialism' to denote a self-referential paradox.

It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a pretextual objectivism that includes consciousness as a reality. In Clerks, Smith examines cultural discourse; in Mallrats, however, he reiterates capitalist theory.

In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of postcultural culture. But the subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes sexuality as a whole. The main theme of Buxton's[4] critique of precultural dematerialism is the role of the observer as poet.

The characteristic theme of the works of Smith is the fatal flaw, and some would say the meaninglessness, of structural consciousness. However, Foucault suggests the use of social realism to deconstruct and modify society. If subcapitalist nationalism holds, the works of Smith are modernistic.

In a sense, Bailey[5] states that we have to choose between Baudrillardist hyperreality and dialectic precultural theory. In Dogma, Smith analyses social realism; in Chasing Amy he affirms the semiotic paradigm of expression.

It could be said that if postsemiotic socialism holds, we have to choose between Sartreist absurdity and subdeconstructivist nihilism. Drucker[6] holds that the works of Smith are an example of mythopoetical Marxism.

Therefore, if postsemiotic socialism holds, we have to choose between social realism and textual postdialectic theory. Baudrillard promotes the use of Baudrillardist hyperreality to challenge archaic perceptions of truth.

Thus, Lacan uses the term ‘postsemiotic socialism' to denote the role of the participant as poet. The example of the cultural paradigm of consensus which is a central theme of Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs emerges again in Pulp Fiction.

"Class is fundamentally impossible," says Derrida. Therefore, several appropriations concerning the common ground between sexuality and class exist. Bataille uses the term ‘Baudrillardist hyperreality' to denote the rubicon of predialectic sexual identity.

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the distinction between closing and opening. It could be said that Hanfkopf[7] implies that we have to choose between capitalist discourse and subdialectic semiotic theory. The subject is interpolated into a social realism that includes art as a paradox.

"Class is part of the futility of truth," says Marx. In a sense, Sartre suggests the use of Baudrillardist simulation to analyse society. The main theme of Scuglia's[8] model of Baudrillardist hyperreality is a self-fulfilling reality.

In the works of Gaiman, a predominant concept is the concept of posttextual consciousness. It could be said that in Stardust, Gaiman examines postsemiotic socialism; in Sandman, although, he deconstructs Baudrillardist hyperreality. Any number of narratives concerning patriarchialist Marxism may be revealed.

However, if postsemiotic socialism holds, we have to choose between neotextual theory and the dialectic paradigm of expression. The subject is contextualised into a postsemiotic socialism that includes truth as a totality.

But Sartre promotes the use of Batailleist `powerful communication' to deconstruct class divisions. The characteristic theme of the works of Gaiman is the difference between class and reality.

However, the subject is interpolated into a postsemiotic socialism that includes truth as a whole. Lacan suggests the use of posttextual demodernism to challenge and analyse society.

It could be said that the feminine/masculine distinction depicted in Gaiman's Death: The Time of Your Life is also evident in The Books of Magic, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Sontag promotes the use of Baudrillardist hyperreality to deconstruct sexism.

Therefore, Humphrey[9] holds that the works of Gaiman are postmodern. A number of situationisms concerning a cultural reality exist.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 7:04:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:55:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neodialectic paradigm of expression or conclude that narrativity is capable of significance...

Cute cutting and pasting, Cerebral N. How about some tongue-out-of-cheek input now?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 7:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 7:04:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:55:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neodialectic paradigm of expression or conclude that narrativity is capable of significance...

Cute cutting and pasting, Cerebral N. How about some tongue-out-of-cheek input now?

I've finally read the rant, do you realise it's absolute bull?

Everyone knows you don't wander around aimlessly in the middle of zombie outbreak. I would not look for the child because I know that we would both die. If someone said, that I could kill myself to save the child I might very well do that... so I am not being selfish, my initial choice would be based on pragmatism.
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.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2011 10:16:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 7:39:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 7:04:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:55:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neodialectic paradigm of expression or conclude that narrativity is capable of significance...

Cute cutting and pasting, Cerebral N. How about some tongue-out-of-cheek input now?

I've finally read the rant, do you realise it's absolute bull?

Everyone knows you don't wander around aimlessly in the middle of zombie outbreak. I would not look for the child because I know that we would both die. If someone said, that I could kill myself to save the child I might very well do that... so I am not being selfish, my initial choice would be based on pragmatism.

Hmm, so your interpretation of the scenario outlined in the OP is that it would simply be fatally foolhardy and futile to search for the missing child, therefore the only sensible course of action would be to resign yourself to a negative outcome for little Johnny or Janey and remorselessly move on in quest of a safe haven from the zombie apocalypse. Well, this gives your conscience a convenient loophole from struggling with the morality of making a spinelessly self-concerned option for self-preservation. The only problem, however, with taking this cravenly casuistic loophole is that you have to create it, it doesn't actually exist in the scenario (derived from the TV show) that the participants in the poll based their responses on. That's right, nowhere in the scenario is it evident that certain death is going to be one's reward for tarrying to search for the stray babe in the woods. (In point of fact in the last couple of episodes several forays have been safely made into the woods in search of the mysteriously vanished tween.) So then, the upshot is that respondents to the poll were not even remotely reasoning along the lines of your self-provided loophole and were, rather, quite probably expressing precisely the attitude of pitiless self-interest that I impute to them, and that the rest of the OP analyzes as attributable to the ethos of our socioeconomic system, and as a serious ethical indictment of capitalism.

Mm-hmm, not only does your attempt to substitute "pragmatism" for selfishness as an explanation of your unheroic choice to flee rather than beat the bush for the brat utterly fall apart for yourself, it wasn't even available to the folks who took part in the poll, therefore you can't so easily absolve them of the charge of egoistic individualism, nor can you absolve capitalism of the charge of promoting their egoistic individualism. In other words, if you're going to respond to the post in good faith you can't simply obviate the issues that it raises by facilely saying that you're merely making a dispassionate calculation based purely on rational situational ethics. You really must take the scenario as it's presented rather than treating it as a thought experiment to cleverly wriggle your way out of (btw, recall that the point of the OP is not at all to provide an ethical thought experiment) and engage the central critique of capitalist culture and its effects on human character. If you fail to do so then your good faith falls into question, I'm afraid.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 12:40:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I'm going to end there for now, but I may come back for more later.
President of DDO
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 12:54:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Were the polled given any statistics, or even estimates, about their chances of survival or finding the child? If every hour, I have a 2% chance of being eaten by zombies and a 2% chance of finding the child, I would not search for the child, as the child would also risk being eaten and probability would suggest that neither of us would come out alive if I dedicated all of my time to finding the child. I would probably take a quick glance around, but unless I'm prepared to take on the zombies, honestly, how much help could I be to the child? It's a zombie apocalypse; we're both doomed in the end.

The fact that you're trying to connect this to capitalism is actually not a surprise to me anymore, despite its ridiculousness. Do you have polling numbers for any other economic systems, or are you just jumping to conclusions?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 6:09:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 10:16:30 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/4/2011 7:39:40 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 11/4/2011 7:04:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/4/2011 6:55:48 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
If one examines social realism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neodialectic paradigm of expression or conclude that narrativity is capable of significance...

Cute cutting and pasting, Cerebral N. How about some tongue-out-of-cheek input now?

I've finally read the rant, do you realise it's absolute bull?

Everyone knows you don't wander around aimlessly in the middle of zombie outbreak. I would not look for the child because I know that we would both die. If someone said, that I could kill myself to save the child I might very well do that... so I am not being selfish, my initial choice would be based on pragmatism.

Hmm, so your interpretation of the scenario outlined in the OP is that it would simply be fatally foolhardy and futile to search for the missing child, therefore the only sensible course of action would be to resign yourself to a negative outcome for little Johnny or Janey and remorselessly move on in quest of a safe haven from the zombie apocalypse. Well, this gives your conscience a convenient loophole from struggling with the morality of making a spinelessly self-concerned option for self-preservation. The only problem, however, with taking this cravenly casuistic loophole is that you have to create it, it doesn't actually exist in the scenario (derived from the TV show) that the participants in the poll based their responses on. That's right, nowhere in the scenario is it evident that certain death is going to be one's reward for tarrying to search for the stray babe in the woods. (In point of fact in the last couple of episodes several forays have been safely made into the woods in search of the mysteriously vanished tween.) So then, the upshot is that respondents to the poll were not even remotely reasoning along the lines of your self-provided loophole and were, rather, quite probably expressing precisely the attitude of pitiless self-interest that I impute to them, and that the rest of the OP analyzes as attributable to the ethos of our socioeconomic system, and as a serious ethical indictment of capitalism.

Mm-hmm, not only does your attempt to substitute "pragmatism" for selfishness as an explanation of your unheroic choice to flee rather than beat the bush for the brat utterly fall apart for yourself, it wasn't even available to the folks who took part in the poll, therefore you can't so easily absolve them of the charge of egoistic individualism, nor can you absolve capitalism of the charge of promoting their egoistic individualism. In other words, if you're going to respond to the post in good faith you can't simply obviate the issues that it raises by facilely saying that you're merely making a dispassionate calculation based purely on rational situational ethics. You really must take the scenario as it's presented rather than treating it as a thought experiment to cleverly wriggle your way out of (btw, recall that the point of the OP is not at all to provide an ethical thought experiment) and engage the central critique of capitalist culture and its effects on human character. If you fail to do so then your good faith falls into question, I'm afraid.

In conclusion if it's you and me in a survival situation I am bashing your brains out with a rock, even if we appear to have plentiful rations and relative safety. You are far too stupid and therefore a massive liability. Also conversation with you would be a nightmare.

Me: Hmm should we build some sort of fire so that planes might see us.
You: Aaah well you see you are falling into the selfish capitalist paradignm, trees are a limited resource, what moral have you to destroy them and...
Me: I am going to look for a rock...
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.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 9:38:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
capitolism = moral values?

Being a self centered imoral jacka@@ is engrained long before any understanding of how an economic system works
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 10:53:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/4/2011 6:22:43 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

Capitalism ideologically infects our worldview and our souls with its pathologically egoistic ethos, and it's at the level of our values, and attitudes, and self-understanding that it must ultimately be combated, not just at the level of street demonstrations. That is, a deeper kind of revolution is direly needed, a revolution of consciousness and conscience.:

How wonderfully vague given your penchant for verbal masturbation. Your scathing invective still amounts to nothing more than empty rhetoric. For all practical purposes it's as useless as the mantra, "give peace a chance" -- a wonderful sentiment, sure, but a clear, concise, and practical application would be a whole lot better than platitudes.

Give actual measures you would implement to curb crony capitalism instead of nonsensical corrolaries between an economic system and a fictitious zombie apocalypse.

K, thanks.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 10:57:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm sorry I haven't read Charleslb's posts in such a long time that I cannot get through it, would someone mind condensing it down for me [I already know its bashing on Capitalism]?
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.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.
President of DDO
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 12:31:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I thought most people in Europe and Asia were socialists, my bad.
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.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 2:28:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 12:31:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I thought most people in Europe and Asia were socialists, my bad.

Compared to Africa and South America, Europe and Asia (not to mention Australia and North America) are much less socialistic and much MORE supportive of economic freedom.

Nationalist and Marxist type movements and ideaologies are much more prevalent in Africa and South America than in Europe, Asia, etc.

In places like Europe and Asia, people are more supportive of bedrocks of economic freedom, like property rights, sound money, free trade, etc.
President of DDO
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 3:10:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 2:28:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:31:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I thought most people in Europe and Asia were socialists, my bad.

Compared to Africa and South America, Europe and Asia (not to mention Australia and North America) are much less socialistic and much MORE supportive of economic freedom.

Nationalist and Marxist type movements and ideaologies are much more prevalent in Africa and South America than in Europe, Asia, etc.

In places like Europe and Asia, people are more supportive of bedrocks of economic freedom, like property rights, sound money, free trade, etc.

Wait what? Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment, there are regulations but anyone can get around them due to government incompetence or straight up bribery [except South Africa], and from what I have seen Europe has more regulations upon industries [they even banned GMO's]. As for Asia, most of it is the same as Africa except for Japan, Korea [both halves], and China which have regulations [Japan having the most] and China goes as far as to take land and property by force [more often than the USA where at least you can sue the government and ask for compensation].
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.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 3:24:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But Hong Kong is the best example of Limited Government based capitalism I can think of. So if you are talking about limited government capitalism Asia is the most capitalist place on earth [or you could look at some of the Caribbean Islands that do quite well]! If not Africa [Sadly Somalia is there, but the land is dirt cheap and I have been thinking about buying some].
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.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 3:31:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 3:10:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 2:28:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:31:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I thought most people in Europe and Asia were socialists, my bad.

Compared to Africa and South America, Europe and Asia (not to mention Australia and North America) are much less socialistic and much MORE supportive of economic freedom.

Nationalist and Marxist type movements and ideaologies are much more prevalent in Africa and South America than in Europe, Asia, etc.

In places like Europe and Asia, people are more supportive of bedrocks of economic freedom, like property rights, sound money, free trade, etc.

Wait what? Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment, there are regulations but anyone can get around them due to government incompetence or straight up bribery [except South Africa], and from what I have seen Europe has more regulations upon industries [they even banned GMO's]. As for Asia, most of it is the same as Africa except for Japan, Korea [both halves], and China which have regulations [Japan having the most] and China goes as far as to take land and property by force [more often than the USA where at least you can sue the government and ask for compensation].

"Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment,"

Are you even remotley informed on world affairs?

Africa is by far the LEAST economically free continent... only a retard would deny that

They actually have a ranking of economic freedom by country, and it looks like this:

http://www.google.com...

As you can see, Africa is by far the least free economicallly... South America is the second least free...

Meanwhile, North America and Australia are the most free... with Europe a little bit behind in economic freedom, but far ahead of Africa and South America...

Asia, as you can see, is not that free... that is largely becaue of middle eastern countries and former communist countries...

However, it is only East Asians that are smart.. ANd, as you can see, the two most economically free countries in the world are Singapore and Hong Kong... Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are not far behind

Anyways, the idea that Africa is the most "capitalistic" is retarded and actually the exact opposite of reality.
President of DDO
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 4:05:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 3:31:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/5/2011 3:10:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 2:28:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:31:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I thought most people in Europe and Asia were socialists, my bad.

Compared to Africa and South America, Europe and Asia (not to mention Australia and North America) are much less socialistic and much MORE supportive of economic freedom.

Nationalist and Marxist type movements and ideaologies are much more prevalent in Africa and South America than in Europe, Asia, etc.

In places like Europe and Asia, people are more supportive of bedrocks of economic freedom, like property rights, sound money, free trade, etc.

Wait what? Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment, there are regulations but anyone can get around them due to government incompetence or straight up bribery [except South Africa], and from what I have seen Europe has more regulations upon industries [they even banned GMO's]. As for Asia, most of it is the same as Africa except for Japan, Korea [both halves], and China which have regulations [Japan having the most] and China goes as far as to take land and property by force [more often than the USA where at least you can sue the government and ask for compensation].

"Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment,"

Are you even remotley informed on world affairs?

Africa is by far the LEAST economically free continent... only a retard would deny that


They actually have a ranking of economic freedom by country, and it looks like this:

http://www.google.com...


As you can see, Africa is by far the least free economicallly... South America is the second least free...

Meanwhile, North America and Australia are the most free... with Europe a little bit behind in economic freedom, but far ahead of Africa and South America...

Asia, as you can see, is not that free... that is largely becaue of middle eastern countries and former communist countries...

However, it is only East Asians that are smart.. ANd, as you can see, the two most economically free countries in the world are Singapore and Hong Kong... Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are not far behind

Anyways, the idea that Africa is the most "capitalistic" is retarded and actually the exact opposite of reality.

I thought regulation by Governing bodies were explicitly anti-capitalist, and lack of regulation was capitalist [Somalia has the least and the rest of Africa have very sporadic government control], and I went over Hong Kong earlier [see my second post] it still has regulation imposed by governing bodies [although minor].
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.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 5:06:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But the issue isn't capitalism, the problem is Bad Capitalism VS Good Capitalism. Third World Nations have been infested by Bad Capitalism, what they need is Good Capitalism which is made by educating, this education leads to job skills and he development of native industry which cuts down on Bad Capitalist types.
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.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 5:46:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 4:05:55 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

I thought regulation by Governing bodies were explicitly anti-capitalist, and lack of regulation was capitalist [Somalia has the least and the rest of Africa have very sporadic government control], and I went over Hong Kong earlier [see my second post] it still has regulation imposed by governing bodies [although minor].

It also ranks "protection of property rights" as part of the economic index. Somalia doesn't exactly protect property right. The problems in Africa are the lack of property right protection and not necessarily "regulations" and government-controlled industry.

Correct me If I'm wrong about Africa though.

Oh and the methodology isn't perfect either.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 6:10:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 4:05:55 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 3:31:28 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/5/2011 3:10:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 2:28:45 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:31:06 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/5/2011 12:27:00 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity". A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

I thought most people in Europe and Asia were socialists, my bad.

Compared to Africa and South America, Europe and Asia (not to mention Australia and North America) are much less socialistic and much MORE supportive of economic freedom.

Nationalist and Marxist type movements and ideaologies are much more prevalent in Africa and South America than in Europe, Asia, etc.

In places like Europe and Asia, people are more supportive of bedrocks of economic freedom, like property rights, sound money, free trade, etc.

Wait what? Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment, there are regulations but anyone can get around them due to government incompetence or straight up bribery [except South Africa], and from what I have seen Europe has more regulations upon industries [they even banned GMO's]. As for Asia, most of it is the same as Africa except for Japan, Korea [both halves], and China which have regulations [Japan having the most] and China goes as far as to take land and property by force [more often than the USA where at least you can sue the government and ask for compensation].

"Africa is the most capitalist place on earth at the moment,"

Are you even remotley informed on world affairs?

Africa is by far the LEAST economically free continent... only a retard would deny that


They actually have a ranking of economic freedom by country, and it looks like this:

http://www.google.com...


As you can see, Africa is by far the least free economicallly... South America is the second least free...

Meanwhile, North America and Australia are the most free... with Europe a little bit behind in economic freedom, but far ahead of Africa and South America...

Asia, as you can see, is not that free... that is largely becaue of middle eastern countries and former communist countries...

However, it is only East Asians that are smart.. ANd, as you can see, the two most economically free countries in the world are Singapore and Hong Kong... Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan are not far behind

Anyways, the idea that Africa is the most "capitalistic" is retarded and actually the exact opposite of reality.

I thought regulation by Governing bodies were explicitly anti-capitalist, and lack of regulation was capitalist [Somalia has the least and the rest of Africa have very sporadic government control], and I went over Hong Kong earlier [see my second post] it still has regulation imposed by governing bodies [although minor].

I am for regulation. A free market has plenty of regulations. I am against state controls that are called "Regulations". I am against the state having a monopoly of these controls. Africa is ABUNDANT in state controls...

Somalia is basically a place where the central state collapsed due to extreme instability. They have done fairly well compared to other African countries. Defense agencies and roads have been formed by private individuals in the absence of a state, as anarchists said they would. This may show how things might occur in a free market.

H
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 6:18:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 6:10:19 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Somalia is basically a place where the central state collapsed due to extreme instability. They have done fairly well compared to other African countries. Defense agencies and roads have been formed by private individuals in the absence of a state, as anarchists said they would. This may show how things might occur in a free market.

H

Under what measure is Somalia doing "remarkable" well compared to other nations. African economies fail because their states are failing them. There is essential no real type of government, just civil war in my nations. These failing african economies are basically anarchy.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 6:25:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 6:18:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/5/2011 6:10:19 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Somalia is basically a place where the central state collapsed due to extreme instability. They have done fairly well compared to other African countries. Defense agencies and roads have been formed by private individuals in the absence of a state, as anarchists said they would. This may show how things might occur in a free market.

H

Under what measure is Somalia doing "remarkable" well compared to other nations.
It's certainly an improvement over pre-state-failure Somalia, but that isn't saying much.
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
11/5/2011 6:34:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 6:25:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/5/2011 6:18:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/5/2011 6:10:19 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

Somalia is basically a place where the central state collapsed due to extreme instability. They have done fairly well compared to other African countries. Defense agencies and roads have been formed by private individuals in the absence of a state, as anarchists said they would. This may show how things might occur in a free market.

H

Under what measure is Somalia doing "remarkable" well compared to other nations.
It's certainly an improvement over pre-state-failure Somalia, but that isn't saying much.

It just amazes me that its used as an "anarcho-capitalist" success story. Also list of nations via failed state. One indictator that's partictularly interesting is security apparatus (basically states within a state, a loss of monopoly on violence):

http://www.fundforpeace.org...

Turns out that those nations whose monopoly on violence in weak turn out to usually have bad economies.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 7:35:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 12:40:46 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Charleslb, this is a fairly simple matter. First, we all need to acknowledge that human's "natural state" is tribal communism. For tens of thousands of years, if not more, the human species evolved while living in small communal societies.

First of all, let me just acknowledge that this is a very well-thought-out response, something that I certainly appreciate. Now then, your first point here about the communitarian, or might one dare say "communistic" nature of Homo sapiens is an intelligent concession, as opposed to taking the tack of radically and dogmatically denying this anthropological truth, as it were, in favor of the sort of hard-boiled egoistic individualism that would have it that human beings are more innately inclined to be atomistic libertarian loners.

These societies were about 200 in number. I have talked about Dunbar's number before. Basically, people are able to keep stable social relationships with about 200 people. They call this Dunbar's number. Beyond that, things become quite impersonal.

Well, perhaps you've accepted, for your own intellectual and ideological purposes, the Dunbar number as an absolute, but I'm sorry (not really) to inform you that it's not such an absolute, certainly not the way you attempt to apply it in your argument here against socialism. In fact Dunbar does not assert or conclude that we can't organize large-scale – i.e. communities with a population exceeding 200 – communities based upon communitarian ideals and values, merely that individuals can't sustain close interpersonal relations with more than that number. You're the one extrapolating that we neocortically-limited humans ergo aren't adequately endowed with the evolutionary right stuff to actualize the social vision of "communism".

This is why communities much larger than that are more impersonal. Furthermore, communities larger than Dunbar's number cannot live communally. This is because, beyond Dunbar's number, people stop caring about the community and care more about themselves. And, as somewhat rational individuals, we start seeing a major free rider problem. This is known as the incentive problem with communism.

Yes, communities much larger than 200 in number are, according to Dunbar, likely to be more impersonal. But your furthermore assertion, that communities larger than Dunbar's number can't live communally because their members won't care about one another sufficiently doesn't deductively follow. And you've supplied no data from which this conclusion can be inductively derived. I, however, could cite ample instantiations of human beings demonstrating humanitarian and even self-sacrificing concern for people outside of their Dunbar circle of acquaintances. E.g. citizens of Mississippi who were (misguidedly) willing to enlist in the military after 9/11 to avenge an atrocity perpetrated against New Yorkers for whom they have disdain. Or religious missionaries whose sense of universal human brotherhood is such as to motivate them to brave the dangers of an overseas jungle to bring their brand of spiritual enlightenment to strangers in a strange land. Etc., etc.

Communists and socialists basically say that the state can "mold" a new "Socialist Man" who is beyond tribes and races and will work for the "good of humanity...

I don't say anything as clichéd as that the state can "mold" a new "socialist man". However, I would point out the work of Philip Zimbardo (the Stanford prison experiment) and other social scientists that indicates that human beings are largely creatures of their social context and of social expectations. I.e., that we're conformists who readily toe the line of our social group and its norms and expectations. Ergo, in a capitalist society you're of course going to find plenty of people conforming to and confirming certain expectations and generalizations about human nature. But if you plant human beings in and allow them to grow up in a socialist form of society, well, they'll display more of a caring & sharing nature. (And please, don't cite the Soviet Union as refutation of this last assertion, the USSR was a totalitarian state that employed socialism as its "opiate of the people", not an authentic experiment in socialist living. An Israeli kibbutz would provide a better example of the communitarian spirit produced by a socialist organization of life.)

A lot of this is based on the fact that humans lived communally in the past. However, it is misguided. Humans do have a communal nature, but only in the context of a small and homogenous communities.

I refer you back to my comments about your argument from the Dunbar number above.

Obviously, to maintain our standard of living, we cannot go back to this tribal communist state, as we have a massive division of labor and specialization required to produce the goods we do today.

FYI, I don't advocate primitivism.

Another interesting thing is that more intelligent people are more economically and socially libertarian. On the other hand, less intelligent people are more attracted to nationalism and socialism. Why?

Really, you-all on the right have more brain power on your side of the political spectrum! How nice for you, or for your egos to delude yourselves into thinking that this is the case. Also, I take issue with you lumping socialism together with nationalism. The nationalistic mentality is fundamentally a form of the tribalistic mentality, but socialism can be and is for many on the left a universalistic outlook.

Its actually quite simple. Humans, in a subconcsious emotional way, want to get back the tribal communist state that humans once lived in. That is, after all, human's natural state. It is when humans lived most naturally.

Ah, I see, the aspiration to live in a more socioeconomically just and equalitarian society is a form of primitivism, a primordial and irrational yearning to return to the snugness of the tribal unit. I salute your psychologism here, it's something the libertarians at this site cry foul about when I engage in it, but I think that it's often quite intellectually and forensically legitimate. However, these kudos aside, I think that it's much more prima faciely the case that the conservative's/libertarian's inner troglodyte yearns for a socioeconomic system such as "free-market" capitalism, because it would allow him/her to pursue fulfillment of the primitive and subconscious wish to be the modern equivalent of an alpha male/female, i.e. a boss, CEO, or Wall Street fat cat. Yes, I think that this is much more psychologistically sound than imputing a back-to-the-bosom-of-the-primitive-tribe psychological motive to socialists. Why so, because most socialists don't really promote recreating prehistoric lifestyles , but most wingnut free-marketeers do in fact advocate a kind of social-Darwinian outlook and society.

Nationalism and socialism both tap into this "emotional core" of humans. Nationalism is essentially socialism, except, unlike marxism, it is racialistic and nationalistic. Marxism, on the other hand, is a non racialistic and non nationalistic form of socialism.

Nationalism (which, btw, I deeply oppose) is essentially amplified and glorified tribalism; conversely, socialism at its best is a form of universalism (which of course only makes right-wingers fear it as an international conspiracy!).

Both of these ideaologies take advantage of the fact that humans feel most natural in the tribal communist state. Nationalism is a mix of tribalism and socialism, with races and nations being the tribes.

I reiterate: Nationalism is essentially amplified and glorified tribalism, socialism at its best is a form of universalism (which of course makes right-wingers fear it as an international conspiracy!).

Continued below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 7:37:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 12:40:46 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
Marxism does the same thing. While marxism opposes tribalism, most of the masses that support its ideas do not understand this. When they want communism, they are thinking of the primordial tribal communism, not Marx's international communism.

This is the sort of sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization that your fellow rightists would jump all over moi for making. Turnabout may be fair play, but it doesn't prove your assertion here to be correct.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on logic and not primordial emotions, like nationalism and socialism. This makes it more attractive to smarter people. Smarter people tend more towards "evolutionary novelties", that is things that deviate from our evolutionary tendencies.

Correction, libertarianism is based on aseptic Mr. Spock-like logic and a rejection of ethical sentiments and sensibilities, aka compassion. This makes it more attractive to egoistic individualists who conceitedly view themselves as more intellectually competent than emotionalistic left-wingers.

This means that smarter people are less "trapped" by the illogical and irrational elements of man's evolutionary state, and they are more able to use logic to come to conclusions. This explains why the intelligent are more economically libertartarian.

Another correction, libertarians are willfully ensconced in their own pseudologic, the pseudologic of an ideology that they gravitated to in the first place not because it was the rational thing to do, but because the ideology of libertarianism dresses up their egoistic individualism quite nicely.

I'm going to end there for now, but I may come back for more later.

Please feel free and invited to do so. Thank you again for thoughtful, if ineffective, ripostes to the thesis of my original post.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 7:46:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 9:38:09 AM, sadolite wrote:
capitolism = moral values?

Being a self centered imoral jacka@@ is engrained long before any understanding of how an economic system works

Well, this is a regular ole chicken & egg question, now isn't it. It can of course work in both directions though. That is, one can be a "self-centered immoral jacka@@" and cognitively gravitate to an ideological worldview such as conservatism or right-libertarianism because it's a good fit as ideological disguises for a "self-centered immoral jacka@@" mentality go. Or, one can become ideologically infected with the conservative-libertarian worldview and subsequently turned into a "self-centered immoral jacka@@" by it.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 8:12:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 12:54:54 AM, mongeese wrote:
Were the polled given any statistics, or even estimates, about their chances of survival or finding the child? If every hour, I have a 2% chance of being eaten by zombies and a 2% chance of finding the child, I would not search for the child, as the child would also risk being eaten and probability would suggest that neither of us would come out alive if I dedicated all of my time to finding the child. I would probably take a quick glance around, but unless I'm prepared to take on the zombies, honestly, how much help could I be to the child? It's a zombie apocalypse; we're both doomed in the end.

I believe that viewers participating in the poll were allowed to reach their own estimate of the danger entailed in remaining to search for lost little Sophia – although there was one quite harrowing encounter with a wandering herd of zombies, the level of danger present in the woods where she's gone missing doesn't seem to be that high, certainly no higher than elsewhere, so why not stick around for a bit, unless one is just an unabashed egoistic individualist who doesn't give a humanitarian darn for a child in jeopardy? As for your "It's a zombie apocalypse; we're both doomed in the end" line, that's just facile fatalism, hardly a defense of the self-interested choice to abandon a youngster to potentially be eaten by the "walking dead"!


The fact that you're trying to connect this to capitalism is actually not a surprise to me anymore, despite its ridiculousness. Do you have polling numbers for any other economic systems, or are you just jumping to conclusions?

You don't think that the attitudes of people living in a capitalist society might perhaps reflect on their societal ethos? That would be a sociologically naive position to take.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2011 8:38:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/5/2011 6:09:43 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

In conclusion if it's you and me in a survival situation I am bashing your brains out with a rock, even if we appear to have plentiful rations and relative safety. You are far too stupid and therefore a massive liability. Also conversation with you would be a nightmare.

Well, but if I bashed your brains out how in heaven's name would you even notice the absence of a microgram of gray matter between your ears? Doesn't the wind already whistle through them unimpeded? There, do you see now how jejune such jestful jabs at the intelligence of one's opponent can be? Can we keep it at a higher level and stay on topic?

Me: Hmm should we build some sort of fire so that planes might see us.
You: Aaah well you see you are falling into the selfish capitalist paradignm, trees are a limited resource, what moral have you to destroy them and...
Me: I am going to look for a rock...

With illustrations this would be a comic strip, is that perhaps your speed? Hmmm, writing accompanied by pictures, yes, I begin to see where you're coming from intellectually speaking. "Cerebral Narcissist" indeed! I'd drop the first word and go for a more honest online nom de plume. (Again, do you see how unsophisticated and unproductive such acerbic ad hominems are?)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.