I see that it is beginning to eat at you to know you are wrong.
Ryan is under the strange impression that the more we prove his ideas wrong, the more right they become; and the more we mock him, the smarter he becomes . . . it’s the highest form of self-delusion I have ever seen . . .
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Or are you denying the obvious transformation of society during the Industrial Revolution now? To be consistent, you have to treat ancient, incidental markets exactly the same as you treat modern markets.
[/quote]
Not to nitpick, or argue semantics, but what do you mean by “incidental” markets?
Isn’t that kind of an oxymoron?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ryan is under the strange impression that the more we prove his ideas wrong, the more right they become; and the more we mock him, the smarter he becomes . . . it’s the highest form of self-delusion I have ever seen . . . [/quote]
Oh on the contrary–I BEG you to address what I have wrote, but you refuse, and then claim victory.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Or are you denying the obvious transformation of society during the Industrial Revolution now? To be consistent, you have to treat ancient, incidental markets exactly the same as you treat modern markets.
[/quote]
Not to nitpick, or argue semantics, but what do you mean by “incidental” markets?
Isn’t that kind of an oxymoron?[/quote]
Small, local exchanges. His entire thesis rests on the concept of exchange, but he seeks to prove things about markets, which are not the same. To be sure, markets involve exchange, but exchange does not necessarily involve markets. However, he attempts to deduce that markets (in the modern, self-regulating sense) are natural from the premise that exchange is natural. In the process, he confuses old markets with modern markets, because they are denoted by the same word.
To give an example, if, many centuries ago, a man needed a new tool, he might exchange something he had for the tool, from someone who made tools. However, that does not mean that there is a “market” for tools, the supply of which is regulated by profitability. There were simply local, incidental exchanges. Does that make it clear?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ryan is under the strange impression that the more we prove his ideas wrong, the more right they become; and the more we mock him, the smarter he becomes . . . it’s the highest form of self-delusion I have ever seen . . . [/quote]
Oh on the contrary–I BEG you to address what I have wrote, but you refuse, and then claim victory.[/quote]
stop avoiding your required explanation for your own comments - you know what i am talking about . . . come one - man up and own your claims . . . stop hiding from your statements
You say less and less with each post. Quite a feat. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a single question that you have asked that I have not answered in some fashion. On the other hand, I can think of about six questions off the top of my head that you have ignored for weeks now.
Dodging questions is all you know how to do, I suppose. The sad part is, you know you’re wrong, but you’re too much of a coward to face up to it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Ryan is under the strange impression that the more we prove his ideas wrong, the more right they become; and the more we mock him, the smarter he becomes . . . it’s the highest form of self-delusion I have ever seen . . . [/quote]
Oh on the contrary–I BEG you to address what I have wrote, but you refuse, and then claim victory.[/quote]
The very sad, yet quite hilarious reality, is that this is exactly what you do every time.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see that it is beginning to eat at you to know you are wrong.[/quote]
Classic ryan, right here. LOL You remind me of the Iraqi Information Minister when US forces were rolling through Iraq. “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”…“We have them surrounded in their tanks”
You back yourself into a corner, ignore the substance of your counterpoints arguments, and claim victory. Sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and proclaiming to the world that you’re right and I’m wrong will not work. You’re an embarassment to this forum, and you look like a bigger clown with every post.
Government can never direct the immense complexity of human interactions.
The search for a suitable partner.
ANARCHHHHYYYYYYYYY!!!
There is no state intervention in everyone’s quest for a nice woman or man.
One guy that has something, wants to put it in a good woman, who, in her turn, wants a good man to put something in her.
Voluntary association. (at least in our parts of the world)
I bet Ryan is going to argue that the lovemarket is doomed to fail and needs regulating to ensure our happiness and the most efficient reproduction of our species.
Why, o why doesn’t won’t the economy work with voluntary association?
But to get back on the original topic.
I watched the movie about half of it and I couldn’t go on anymore because Micheal Moore completely misses the point.
I think he should have named his movie: State-runned capitalism: a love story.
He thinks capitalism is the cause of all these peoples troubles, and to some extent, maybe yes.
But it is the monopoly maintained by the government and the government acting out of the interest of big business.
Thats why with elections nothing will change. Both candidates get a lot of money for their campaign from businesses and will return that favor in the form of regulations, … Basically acting out of their own financial inscentive, like peolple get different rates (VIP-rates as seen in the movie) for their loans and stuff. It’s naive to think they do nothing in return.
Big business and goverment are entangled in a massive web of favors and self-enriching. That’s human nature.
[quote]Erasmus wrote:
But to get back on the original topic.
I watched the movie about half of it and I couldn’t go on anymore because Micheal Moore completely misses the point.
I think he should have named his movie: State-runned capitalism: a love story.
He thinks capitalism is the cause of all these peoples troubles, and to some extent, maybe yes.
But it is the monopoly maintained by the government and the government acting out of the interest of big business.
Thats why with elections nothing will change. Both candidates get a lot of money for their campaign from businesses and will return that favor in the form of regulations, … Basically acting out of their own financial inscentive, like peolple get different rates (VIP-rates as seen in the movie) for their loans and stuff. It’s naive to think they do nothing in return.
Big business and goverment are entangled in a massive web of favors and self-enriching. That’s human nature.
[/quote]
under capitalism a government is necessary to protect the interest of the capitalists. government functions as their army and their law making aparatus. capitalism does not imply “free market”. capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production.
capitalism is only possible because of unjust and undemocratic ownership. everything necessary to produce any product had to come from some natural resource. this means that some person has to claim ownership over those natural resources and turn them into a product. but how can any man claim ownership over something he did not create. because obviously no person created the earth. thus the best way to distribute the earths goods is democratically. in addition, this is why capitalism is by nature undemocratic.
think back to the time when no person owned the land you live on. at some point someone claimed ownership of that land. what gave him the right to do so? obviously he did not create it.
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
capitalism is only possible because of unjust and undemocratic ownership. everything necessary to produce any product had to come from some natural resource. this means that some person has to claim ownership over those natural resources and turn them into a product. but how can any man claim ownership over something he did not create. because obviously no person created the earth. thus the best way to distribute the earths goods is democratically. in addition, this is why capitalism is by nature undemocratic.
think back to the time when no person owned the land you live on. at some point someone claimed ownership of that land. what gave him the right to do so? obviously he did not create it. [/quote]
LoL
I love it when people who are obviously high get online and ramble. puff puff pass…cough
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see that it is beginning to eat at you to know you are wrong.[/quote]
Classic ryan, right here. LOL You remind me of the Iraqi Information Minister when US forces were rolling through Iraq. “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”…“We have them surrounded in their tanks”
You back yourself into a corner, ignore the substance of your counterpoints arguments, and claim victory. Sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and proclaiming to the world that you’re right and I’m wrong will not work. You’re an embarassment to this forum, and you look like a bigger clown with every post. [/quote]
ONCE AGAIN you step right by the question, while once agian projecting your deficiencies onto me.
I know it pisses you off that you have nothing to say to the arguments of a communist, but unless you actually say something in a post, you need to own up to your buffoonery. Until you can explain your premise, how the expansion of the money supply CAUSED the 1929 crash you have lost this argument.
But even though you won’t be able to do it, because you’re obviously wrong, I fully expect you to cling to your fantasies. Just don’t bother me with them.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
capitalism is only possible because of unjust and undemocratic ownership. everything necessary to produce any product had to come from some natural resource. this means that some person has to claim ownership over those natural resources and turn them into a product. but how can any man claim ownership over something he did not create. because obviously no person created the earth. thus the best way to distribute the earths goods is democratically. in addition, this is why capitalism is by nature undemocratic.
think back to the time when no person owned the land you live on. at some point someone claimed ownership of that land. what gave him the right to do so? obviously he did not create it. [/quote]
LoL
I love it when people who are obviously high get online and ramble. puff puff pass…cough
[/quote]
So this really IS how you respond to every argument. And somehow you expect people to take you seriously.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
LoL
I love it when people who are obviously high get online and ramble. puff puff pass…cough
[/quote]
So this really IS how you respond to every argument. And somehow you expect people to take you seriously.[/quote]
really? and you are the paragon of intellectual discourse? you can’t even back up your own claims and yet you feel like you have the intellectual weight to criticize someone else’s comments?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I see that it is beginning to eat at you to know you are wrong.[/quote]
Classic ryan, right here. LOL You remind me of the Iraqi Information Minister when US forces were rolling through Iraq. “There are no American infidels in Baghdad. Never!”…“We have them surrounded in their tanks”
You back yourself into a corner, ignore the substance of your counterpoints arguments, and claim victory. Sticking your fingers in your ears, shutting your eyes and proclaiming to the world that you’re right and I’m wrong will not work. You’re an embarassment to this forum, and you look like a bigger clown with every post. [/quote]
ONCE AGAIN you step right by the question, while once agian projecting your deficiencies onto me.
I know it pisses you off that you have nothing to say to the arguments of a communist, but unless you actually say something in a post, you need to own up to your buffoonery. Until you can explain your premise, how the expansion of the money supply CAUSED the 1929 crash you have lost this argument.
But even though you won’t be able to do it, because you’re obviously wrong, I fully expect you to cling to your fantasies. Just don’t bother me with them.[/quote]
You ryan, are a glimmering nugget of colossal douchebagery. On several occasions I have backed up my premises with links as well. You’re a turd, what else is left to say? How long will you continue this charade? Personally, I don’t mind pointing out your inability to at the very least acknowledge the fact that I HAVE BACKED UP AND EXPLAINED MY PREMISE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
I’ll repeat this again: I have explained and backed up my premise on several occasions. Man up and acknowledge at least that, and stop being such a vagina.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]gladiatorsteer wrote:
capitalism is only possible because of unjust and undemocratic ownership. everything necessary to produce any product had to come from some natural resource. this means that some person has to claim ownership over those natural resources and turn them into a product. but how can any man claim ownership over something he did not create. because obviously no person created the earth. thus the best way to distribute the earths goods is democratically. in addition, this is why capitalism is by nature undemocratic.
think back to the time when no person owned the land you live on. at some point someone claimed ownership of that land. what gave him the right to do so? obviously he did not create it. [/quote]
LoL
I love it when people who are obviously high get online and ramble. puff puff pass…cough
[/quote]
So this really IS how you respond to every argument. And somehow you expect people to take you seriously.[/quote]
Well, excuse me if this sounded like the stoned ramblings of every hippie I’ve ever known. What’s truly amusing, is you calling someone out on their ability to be taken seriously. You’re a gem.