Brilliant counter-argument.

[QUOTE=Jon C]Hahahahahahaha. Middle-class white kid who has never worked a day in his life trap sprung. I'll reply in a minute, I almost had a spit-take on my monitor.[/QUOTE]

Your level of immaturity is getting really annoying.



Firstly, if society deemed it wrong, there wouldn't be the debate about copyrights going on on a large scale as there presently is. And something like a law tends to not be "objectively wrong"

Secondly, I've explained that I have reasons for believing what I believe, it's not "oh look I'm a rebel!" at all, I don't see how you get that from this conversation.



The ability to get enough money to do something like own a major company is a privilege only a minority of people have access to. This is of course not true to those who believe in the Myth of Economic Mobility.



Because this "equality of opportunity" to access something like the capital to own a factory is a myth. John Doe likely came from a privileged background, unless he is one of the rare exceptional rags to riches cases.



So basically what you're saying here is "No, I'm right!" without giving an actual reply.



Right, it is based on the free market and private property, so it probably has indeed been discredited.



I don't see the difference between this and what I said. They are still just trying to get a return on their investment. The reason that they pick "you" is because they think that you will get them money.



Another non-reply.



When did I cite a Blog?



Ah, more baseless, childish personal attacks. Makes you look real tough over the internet.



And of course another "no, I'm right and your wrong" reply.

mmhmm.


How can you possibly objectively object to the idea of paying someone for something that they created? The ongoing copyright debates - like, the real ones, and not the fake ones that other like-minded lazy listless selfish people in a fake political party invented - deal with scale and lifespan.

In your case, however, there is no actual sane debate, or any at all. If you really objected to the way these companies conducted themselves you would have nothing to do with the games they created. You wouldn't buy them, you wouldn't pirate them. This is all about your own entertainment and how you feel entitled to get it for free. You're the immature one here, pal.

See above.


Uh huh, yeah that's nice.

Scarcity is a necessary part of any functional economy by the fact that scarcity exists in the real world. If every single person had enough "money" to own a factory, all it would do is devalue the "money." One in every 80,000 people can afford to buy a factory, because we only need one factory for every 80,000 people.

Why do you think it would be any different if we had a socialized investment system? Or any other kind of socialism?

News flash: The human race has always and will always organize itself into a bottom-heavy heirarchical structure. Deal with it.


Uh yeah, actually...
A couple of warning signs for you: few adherents having formal training or education in economics; a "new paradigm". It's just more crackpot heterodox economics which is why I never took it seriously even before you brought it up.

How many times do countries have to try this before you people will realize that it doesn't work?


So what? The reason I pick "them" is because they'll give me money.

At this point it's more fun and just as worthwhile to deride you for your inept attempts to argue your wrong ideas.

Besides, this has already progressed to the stage of "I'm loosing so more than half of my "arguments" now consist of desperate, poorly formed sarcastic comments about the maturity of my opponents."

How the hell did you guys end up in an economic debate?
Also <3 Capitilism.

Actually the pirate party isn't a "fake party" It has surpassed even the Green party in membership (or at least did at a time) in Sweden. They call for copyright reform, not "all entertainment should be free!" and have also inspired other parties to adopt a similar stance.



Great tactic, just keep using empty talking points.



I don't see how this follows.



Again this is just you ignoring my arguments and claiming that you have somehow discovered some secret motive. You have nothing to base this or the previous quote above on.




It doesn't follow from scarcity that wealth needs to be concentrated as much as it does. If you aren't aware of how concentrated it is, I suggest you take a moment to look at all studies and statistics on how much wealth is owned by such a small percent.

Also, from scarcity, it doesn't follow that the model of wealth distribution or ownership of capital needs to be done in the matter it currently is either.



Well by the nature of those two systems being different, I would say that is enough to set them apart as distinct...by definition.



I can make claims too: The human race will not always organize itself into a bottom-heavy hierarchical structure. Deal with it. (See my claim has just as much weight as yours)




Just to clarify, are we talking about the same thing here? I posted a link to something called Binary Economics, which I know little about. All I know is that it is a system that is still based on private property and the free market, yet it seeks to reform the banking system. I don't subscribe to this economic theory because I'm opposed to market economics (although I haven't completely thrown out market socialism) and private property.



What are you talking about?



Right, this is what I've been saying the whole time.



Well when you're ready to contribute more than empty baseless personal attacks feel free.

You first.

It's funny that you should mention it, because the green party isn't real either.








I like how you separate out single arguments and pad them out with individual dismissals so it seems like you have more to say than you actually do.


I'm very well-versed in the statistical distribution of capital ownership.

I think the thing you have a hard time understanding is that the extravagantly wealthy don't keep their money underneath their mattresses. You do know how rich people stay rich, right? Their money works for them. They spend it to finance more business ventures and start new companies, which results in new products and technologies. This works, because the extravagantly wealthy do not need to spend their capital to sustain basic life functions (i.e. they do not skew the market)

This is a case of you not even understanding a basic concept like inflation. But it's awfully hard to argue against you, since you apparently didn't mean to side with "binary economics" (nor do you even know what binary economics is) and have, as a direct consequence, refrained from expressing any of your personal perspectives apart from something as blithe as stating "SOCIALISM IS COOL GUYS" and punctuating it with an Urkel snort. I don't even know why I'm arguing this with you, since you really don't know anything about economics and you obviously have no interest in either becoming educated or adopting any real opinions of your own.



Oh, so what you're saying is that you just posted a random wikipedia link without having any clue about the contents? Are you ****ing kidding me?

I'm not sure what's worse: the fact that you're so stupid that you'd try this, or the fact that you are apparently under the incorrect impression that I'm as ignorant as you are.


Yes, except my claim is obvious and there is a wealth of evidence for it (such as the fact that all governments and organizations throughout recorded history have arranged themselves as such.) In fact, I feel perfectly justified in saying that human beings require a heirarchical structure in order to function properly as a group; this structure taking the form of a large number of 'workers' and a small number of 'leaders/risk-takers'. I am not making random, off-the-cuff statements.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that humans do not require this structure.

In short, I'm going to add two more items to the 'list of things you don't understand':

- Logic
- Sociology


But it's okay. Being ignorant isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as you have the intelligence to admit it when you don't know something.

Jon'C gets points for knowing the difference between ignorance and stupidity. It's pretty rare to see someone who know the difference these days.

It isn't real? News to me, especially since they have seats in government.




You mean how I attack specific things? Isn't that the point of a debate/discussion about an issue?





Just because their ownership of that wealth leads to others having job doesn't make it a necessary or even justified role.



I don't remember discussing inflation so I don't see where you have a clue about my knowledge of it.



The only point of bringing up binary economics was to show that not all criticisms of what I was talking about were from a socialist perspective. It wasn't meant to be presented it as a viable alternative. Again you keep just saying "you don't know anything about X" as if that's some sort of actual point.

You can sit here all night making claims like that and it doesn't do anything than make you look like you have nothing more than baseless personal attacks that add nothing to the discussion.





As I said in the original post and above, the point of it was to show that this type of wealth reform isn't just found from a socialist perspective (And obviously binary economics isn't the only alternative either of course). I don't see what my knowledge of it has to do with what we're discussing.



Are you really so immature that you have to keep resorting to "well you're stupid!" You look like a child when you do that, are you in high school or something? If so I would understand why your maturity level is so embarrassingly low, but if you're even just out of high school, you should be adult enough to know better.




What? That doesn't follow at all. Because they have (only in most cases mind you as there are examples of collective societies in the past) therefore they are required to? This just simple doesn't follow (as basic elementary logic would tell you).

Prior to slavery, it existed for much of (if not most of) human history, so one could make a similar argument of "well it's always been here, so we need it." Obviously a silly argument that is completely unqualified.



Well there are examples of collective societies for one. Also there is the argument that the hierarchical structure is a result of economic systems that exist (Marx's argument for example) so if you devised a non hierarchical economic structure, then you would change that social structure as well.



You're really trying to call me out on logic when it's clear you don't understand basic concepts of how to argue? You continue to embarrass yourself.



I'm getting quite tired of your immature personal attacks. They are making it not worth it to check this thread, so I won't bother responding to them now, grow up.

Yes, I'm sure that's why you're going to avoid this thread.

Well, considering the fact that you never backed up any of your points with proof (apart from a wikipedia link you never read), I'm not too worried about missing out on your compelling refutations.

In the meantime, I guess I'll have to cry myself to sleep because I was called immature by a self-centered kid who thinks "I know you are but what am I?" is the pinnacle of witty banter. Oh no. Whatever will I do with myself.

It's bad when I clicked the thread, read the entire thing, backed out to the main page to browse the other topics, and clicked the thread again forgetting its the one I just read because of how far the topic has strayed from the thread title.

I've done the same

Re-read what you have quoted there. I said I'm not responding to personal attacks anymore, I'm too old to waste time with people who are trapped in a middle-school mind set when it comes to the internet.



Actually I've provided more than you have in terms of "sources". I've also objected to many of your claims (which were barley backed up by any real arguments mind you) where you decided to leave those objections unanswered.



Unlike you, I don't actually think that internet personal attacks are productive. It's quite sad that you continue to use them and I'm guessing that you're also over the age of 16 so I would imagine you would know better, but I'm not too worried about it.

Hey pedosmile guy.

You sort of just did respond to all his "childish attacks"

and PS,

You're wrong.

Jon`C didn't back his thoughts up with arguments, he backed them up with common sense. And no, you aren't too old, because I refuse to believe someone is of age and still believes piracy is somehow a good idea in any respect.

1.) You have provided one source which did not support your argument. You didn't even read the contents of your source.

2.) All of my claims are backed up with an effective argument (and the only time I don't provide an outside source is when I think the argument stands by itself).

3.) I don't believe I left any actual arguments unanswered apart from your "refutation" of my statements that you are ignorant of a given subject, that refutation usually being "no u" rather than providing 'proof' or 'sources' (such as being able to coherently discuss your perspectives on the subject using the language of the science, rather than continually referencing something you seem to call 'socialism' but stubbornly refusing to specify whether you mean capital collectivism or just nationalized small business financing, which already exists in a number of US states)


Here are a few sources for you, since you seem to desire them so much:

Human societies sort themselves into a hierarchical structure.
Video game financing doesn't work like you think it does.
TSM_Bguitar doesn't understand how the game industry works.
TSM_Bguitar doesn't understand economics.
TSM_Bguitar doesn't understand sociology.
TSM_Bguitar is reluctant to post what he actually believes, probably because he doesn't understand the subject matter well enough to articulate what he read on the pirate bay in his own words.
TSM_Bguitar is a petulant man-child who demands his entertainment be free of both cost and guilt.

How did it not support my argument? It showed the low level of social (economic) mobility in the US and how most people remain in the class of their parents and have a low chance of moving up. Quite relevant to my argument.



What arguments? Most of what you have typed are just claims. And when I respond to your arguments, or even claims you simply don't bother to address my responses.



I love how you accuse me here basically of responding with "nope you're just wrong" when that has been the majority of what you have responded to me with.

Also in terms of socialism, I don't see your point here. Most of what we have discussed here in the first place is a critique of Capitalism, not what would replace it. Thus I haven't had the need to discuss this in this thread (not like this thread is even on topic anymore anyway).




Right, and as I said earlier there are examples of former collective societies. Also you haven't provided an argument for how humans are required to form hierarchical societies. This is one of the criticisms of capitalism from the socialist and anarchist perspective, that hierarchical societies are socially constructed. I have a feeling that we aren't going to get far in this debate within the context of an internet message board in general, let alone this particular thread.

Oh, I'm sorry. Two sources, one of which you didn't read and didn't support your argument and the other being a red herring.




Allow me to explain:

"You are a cheap, immature, self-centered person" - Claim
"because you pirate games and then try to justify your actions." - Argument

"You don't understand how the game industry works" - Claim
"because your ideas about game industry financing are incorrect for these reasons:" - Argument

"This doesn't follow." - Lame, witless cop-out.


See above. Name one statement I made where I did not make arguments for it, regardless of the content of those arguments.

You, on the other hand...


Actually most of what "we" have discussed is a critique of your knowledge but I'll bite.

Nothing you have posted so far has been a legitimate critique of capitalism because everything you have decried as flaws are actually capitalism's greatest strengths. You are projecting our culture's need for civil and legal equality with a political and economic equality that does not and never has existed.



I'm confident you wouldn't be able to do it anyway.


Collectivism is not the same thing as anarchy. Humans instinctively develop what biologists refer to as a "dominance heirarchy" but sociologists/anthropologists refer to as a "social heirarchy." Collectivism is about collective ownership, although you're confusing the issue a little because tribal societies and collective communities still maintain concepts of ownership, even if the means of production are considered to be in the public domain.

Tribes still have chiefs. Parishes still have priests. In the context of the society as a whole, in the context of a subdivision of that society, or even in the context of a family, all civilizations have had a strong hierarchical structure.

Incidentally, this is a claim without arguments. Clearly these mythical examples of hierarchy-less collective societies are not self-evident. Provide them.

Well, you could buy the book I linked to but we already established that you aren't particularly interested in expanding your base of knowledge.

Studies have been conducted on leadership. Many of them conclude that there are essentially two types of people: 'conservatives' and 'risk-takers'. Or, if you prefer, the 'worker' and the 'leader' types. I'm sure you know some of both.

The thing is, risk-takers don't really work well together. Business have conducted their own studies to try to determine the optimal arrangement of risk-takers to workers. Interestingly enough, this resembles the statistical distribution of business executives to workers in many corporations. I'll try to find one of the studies, but it's been a couple of years since I've read one.



I have a feeling that we're not going to get very far in this debate because you are you.


Actually I find psychology rather fascinating. I think it's interesting how you keep using the term "immature" as though you consider it the most profoundly deep, cutting insult you could apply to another person.

Do you consider your maturity your best value? Actually probably not, since you are either an anarchist or a socialist and you are seeking for a way to justify your selfishness.

So are you sensitive about how immature you are? It's okay. You can tell me.

serious thread is serious business

LuLz, I bet you didn't even learn how to flash your 360 yet.

GOOD JOB WASTING 9 DAYS

Firstly, to the wiki one, I've already explained why that was posted, perhaps you should go reread that.

As for the source about mobility, you should reread my last post where I address that.



I wasn't referring to your baseless personal attacks.



Actually, given basic elementary logic: arguments should follow. If it's quite clear that you're skipping something or fail to explain something, it's a bad argument.




I'm pretty sure I've addressed this, especially in the individual cases where I replied.




I love how you try again to justify your baseless personal attacks.



News to me.



Of course economic equality doesn't exist, we live in a capitalist system. And yes there have been collective societies before.




Unless of course you're talking about anarchist collectivism, which is often what is referred to when talking about anarchy (the political ideology, not the term that is often equated with chaos).




Like I said before, even if the concept of human nature is indeed what critiques of socialism say it is, collective ownership isn't contrary to that (as you have just noted). That said, there are still arguments that humans can live in totally non-hierarchical societies (although these are indeed usually by anarchists, as opposed to Marxists who believe that there needs to exist some transitional phase)



There's a difference between simple divisions of society and and hierarchical divisions. As for the "tribes still have chiefs, parishes still have priests." You are generalizing, not all collective societies have an ultra-hierarchical structure like you posit.




We have have we?



Well I'd like to look at those studies. If you can find them, send me a link some time.



Excellent point.




I'm just expressing my opinion of your comments. That's how I see them. I'm not expecting you to be hurt or insulting, as I understand this is the internet: not really a place for personal attacks. Generally personal attacks against people you've never met are considered quite immature in my experience. Not really too worried about your opinion of that though.



Nope, just point out how immature your comments are, especially in the context of what we've been talking about how you resort to those types of statements.



I don't see how promoting a less selfish economic system is a sign of selfishness.



Cute.

I actually figured out how to do it before I even made this thread. The point of the thread was to explore some of the implications of flashing it.

I actually got most of the answers, but the thread evolved into something obviously quite unrelated.

Yes, yes. You claimed to have posted it to prove that there are a multitude of heterodox theories that may or may not overlap with your unspecified viewpoints. You also claimed to have little knowledge of binary economics. I, at the same time, have some amount of knowledge, including an awareness that most published and economists reject the theory while most of its adherents are laypeople. Something, of course, socialism has in common.


I have been reading everything you have posted.

In response to my question about whether or not the factory owner's accomplishments are to be ignored simply because he is wealthy, you posted an article about social mobility. It is a red herring: you posted it as a refutation to a statement that I never made.

Whether or not the factory owner gained his money through hard work is irrelevant to my argument. The factory owner organized the construction and management of the factory, or hired competent people to do it for him. Either way it's a lot of hard work, or even greater financial risk if he had chosen to simply throw workers at the problem. You are selling an entire group of people short simply because you have an unrealistic preconception about them.


I wasn't either. You stated that I only make "claims" and not "arguments." On the contrary: by any standard definition of the terms "claim" and "argument" I am providing ample arguments for why my claims about you are correct. Although my arguments are suspect, you shouldn't be using terms you don't understand.


Actually given basic elementary logic, simply stating that someone is drawing an incorrect conclusion without providing a reason for why is exactly what you said: Making a claim without providing an argument. You are a hypocrite.


Condensed because these posts are arguing the same thing. I don't know who you're trying to fool here.

First: Please specify which anarcho-collectivist / communist societies you are referencing.

The reason why the wide disparity between capital ownership is effective is, simply, due to the nature of inflation. Prices are based on supply and demand, but this goes in both directions: if food has a scarcity and capital wealth is relatively plentiful, the prices of food will go up.

The ultra-rich do not have this effect on most markets because the ultra-rich are not generally purchasing more of any given product than a lower-income individual.

This is why wealth redistribution does not work. For a system like binary economics you would literally need a law stating that a certain percentage of your equity would need to be tied up in property ownership, and a certain percentage would need to be tied up in business interests. This is, in fact, why capital gains taxes exist.


Really? There are arguments? So why didn't you post them?

By the way, reputable political scientists, economics and sociologists have rejected Marxism in its entirety. The only reason it's still taught is because Marx had a lot of other ideas and a lot of greater works, and a knowledge of Marxism is required to fully understand it.

Anarcho-collectivism is equally ridiculous. Abolishing the state aside, transferring the ownership of the means of production to the producers does not work because people do not like to cooperate. It's hard enough getting a room of 10 people to agree on what they want to do for an evening, let alone getting a group of three hundred workers to decide if they're going to make cars or open a photography studio.

I mean, I guess the obvious solution would be for all of the workers to elect a leader from within themselves, but... you know... that sounds an awful lot like a government to me.


In fact, they do. The most common communal societies (groups like the Mennonites, Amish and Hutterites) have strong patriarchal leanings. The only completely non-hierarchical communes I'm aware of are those artificial ones the Marxists set up about a hundred years ago which all failed dramatically.

Like I said, there's a lot of evidence for this. Family structures have always placed one or both parents above the children, even into late adulthood. Tribalism and feudalism appeared uniformly and nearly identically in every human population even when contact between populations was prevented. You can't simply dismiss this like you have been doing.

Humans are hardly unique in this aspect either. Even animals like wolves and dogs (which experts consider to socialize in very much the same way as humans) arrange themselves into a hierarchy. Considering the fact that we talk to each other instead of pissing on trees, if we didn't need a social hierarchy we would literally be the only social creature that has ever evolved in this manner.

Jon'C has a lot of time on his hands.

I don't see your point with Binary Economics. I am certainly no adherent to it.




Hence reread



It's not a red herring at all. The point of brining up social mobility is to refute the claim that the factory owner is being unfairly treated in such a system when in fact he unfairly got to the advantaged ownership position he was at in the first place.



I didn't say there's no work involved. Nor did I claim that certain things that the factory owner does would go uncared for in a socialist system. It's just that it would be through a democratic process under a different system, the workers would decide who does these certain necessary tasks, where in this system, they have no say.




I was referring to the fact that you have often just left them at claims. And where you did make arguments, I addressed the arguments.




Again reread my post, it is valid to point out that there is a missing step in someone's argument.





Although it certainly isn't just supply and demand that has created this current food crisis. Even the leader of the World Bank recognizes that: http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/30/top9.htm



Right but I didn't claim that they did. They are still in control of the overwhelming majority of resources and how they are distributed.



Well this point is certainly debatable. Ever since WWII the governments of the West have been engaged in wealth distribution and it has created a much more stable economy for the West than what it was prior to WWII.





This isn't true. They reject aspects of what he wrote but they don't reject it in its entirety. This is actually one of the reasons that Social Democratic parties are still so popular in Europe for example.

As I said, they disagree on certain points of Marx, but his analysis of Capitalism has given them much to build on.



Well if you're referring to Marxist-Leninism, then yes that has for the most part been rejected as it seems to lead to Stalinism. But his analysis of class relations (which is of course at the core of Marxism) has been quite helpful to academia. Now they don't adopt the full Marxist model, but it certainly hasn't been rejected entirely.



I'm also opposed to anarchism.



Yes, even Anarchists don't really call for the abolishment of all government duties, just the state as they make a distinction between the two.




What artificial communes are you referring to here?



Again it doesn't follow from this that a hierarchical economic or social structure is required.



And this is a point that those like Einstein make: we are also evolutionary creatures like other animals and that we will evolve into more nonhierarchical beings.

Now I'm not sure to what extent a nature evolution is required as Einstein posited, but it is something else to take into consideration if we are going to assume a natural hierarchy.

Am I the only one here who thinks that TSM_Bguitar didn't really say much of anything in his post? Ah well


I never claimed you were an adherent.


I have a photographic memory.


How is it unfair?

Business financing is expensive and risky. Rich people who spend their money poorly tend not to remain wealthy for very long. It is by this process that large amounts of capital gravitate towards those who are the most capable of using it effectively. Even in a civilization with nationalized or collective ownership of the means of production, you would still have leaders - elected or appointed - who would be responsible for allocating resources to accomplishing specific objectives.

The only difference between the system you have a stated desire for and the extant is the fact that under a free market system the wealthy have a vested interest in making efficient use of their money, while a civil servant has no personal interest beyond a dubious professional obligation.

Of course, you've changed your mind so many times in this thread that I can't even figure out what I'm arguing against. It's awfully hard to hit a moving target, especially when it's bobbing and weaving around like it's drunk.


People are crushingly stupid. They cannot be trusted to use Lysol as a cleaning supply rather than a refreshing beverage so why, exactly, is it so important to expand their influence?

This is the reason we don't have a referrendum for every bill. There's a huge difference between letting Billy the Mail Boy choose the person he believes will represent his interests best, and expecting Billy the Mail Boy to make an informed and educated decision about what marketing strategy will make his company's product most appealing to the itinerant snakehandler subdemographic.


I knew what you were talking about. I was, since you are apparently unable to understand what I am saying, calling you a liar.


Funnily enough, if you split a person's post into small enough parts it looks like you haven't provided an argument for anything!

See, if you had actually pointed out that there is a missing step in someone's argument (even though there can't be because drawing a conclusion is a fallacy in itself), then it would have been arguably valid.

The fact of the matter is that you didn't. You made the claim that something "doesn't follow" without stating how or why.

I mean, really. You're a tool. Most of your arguments consist of "this doesn't follow" or "I don't see where you're going with this" and most of the time they're made about comments that are extremely well-argumented and logical. And then you simply ignore any future reference to those arguments or the fact that you claim you don't understand them. You do not know how to do this.


Red herring: the hypothetical situation I used as an argument is obviously not intended to be a comment on the current state of things. Added to list: basic reading comprehension.


Wrong, you did imply that capital wealth has the same effect on the market regardless of who is holding it.

You have failed to adequately refute my argument that the redistribution of capital (including the means of production) to society as a whole will result in widespread inflation.


Welfare and income redistribution are distinct from (forced) capital redistribution. You are clouding the issue.


Uh. Yeah. So... what I said? Learn to read. Marx's body of works on economics are not equal to Marxism as a movement.


No, I'm not stupid enough to confuse Marxism and a doctrine that is in opposition to Marxism. So I'm afraid I can't join your organization and I do not want to be subscribed to your newsletter.


Yeah. Keep moving that target.


Right, blissfully ignoring the fact that government duties are intrinsic to the state so they can still drive on well-maintained roads to attend their ratm concerts.

Anarchists are morons too.



I know there were a few, including a couple in Germany, but I don't have any references on hand. I guess the easiest example would be the Waisi communes established in pre-revolution Russia. The repurcussions including the rise of authoritarianism in Libya, but whatever.


I have provided a wealth of evidence that functional human societies have formed hierarchies, often instinctively. Since you have failed to provide evidence for your claim that there are or were communes that did not adopt hierarchical social structures, my argument that this structure is required is prima facie.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that a hierarchical structure is not required. Do you understand what 'burden of proof' means? It means **** or get off the pot. Put your money where your mouth is. You know, actually back up one of your claims one of these days.

I'm not going to let any more arguments slide. You are going to refute every one of my points from now on. I'm not going to let you split up my arguments unnecessarily and I am no longer going to allow you to discard anything simply because you do not feel like refuting it.


I'm sorry, who are you comparing with Einstein? Is it you? Do you think you're like Einstein?

You know you're a little... er... deficient, right? I mean, you did respond to:

"Second, game publishers provide a ton of other services to game companies. Technical document writers, QA services, box art design and advertising services in general."

"You'll have to expand on this point more, I don't see where you're going with it."

I'm sorry, but I've talked to rocks smarter than you. I'm not saying this to be insulting, it's what I really think. Seriously. Your arguments are poor, you're hypocritical and you are obviously arguing from lists of talking points. The fact that you've gone through now two disparate idealogies tells me that you're having a hard time making up your mind which one makes you sound the least like a reprehensible person.



You know Einstein was a physicist, right?

THE

I didn't say that capitalists don't take risks. My point is that we disagree on how that capital is initially required, and for it to be a fair system, there needs to exist a true equality of opportunity, which I don't believe exists under this sytem



Right, in a collective society, all of the workers would have a stake in efficiency, as it is more than just a wage that they have to worry about. Where in this system, they are worried only about getting their pay check and may even work less hard as a result.



What are you on about now?



Well if you adopt the "the masses are just dumb and the few know best" attitude, then you're right. I, however, don't have that attitude.



Right, and within the context of this current system, that works for those reasons. I'm talking about a new type of system though, not reforming one or two things within this one.



That's nice.




Drawing conclusions is a fallacy in itself? News to me. Drawing conclusions without proper argumentation is a fallacy, but having conclusions in general is not, whether they be deductive or inductive arguments.



Fair enough, although I still hold that those specific posts you just jumped to conclusions without any real good argument.



This isn't a red herring, I was pointing to an example that many point to as a problem of scarcity or supply and demand, and showing how that isn't actually the case.



Where did I do this?



I don't recall you making this argument, just making the claim.




Right there is indeed a difference between welfare redistribution and transferring the ownership of the means of production from one class to another.




I know, I made this distinction in my post.





Did I ever claim to be a supporter prior to this comment?



Well maintained roads are a function of the government and not part of the state. In anarchist and Marxist literature, the state is a result of this specific economic system where they use the government to further their own interests. Something like maintaining roads isn't coercive or oppressive obviously.



I wouldn't say that they are morons, but I disagree with their philosophy.




The communes of Spain during the civil war are a good example I would say: http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=276024032&channel=219646953&lineup=234388931

And even Marx points out how humans have often been grouped into hierarchical societies, but that given the progression of economics, that relationship is becoming less and less necessary and that Capitalism is the last stage of hierarchical structures.



Oh **** off.




Easy there strawman. I was using his conception of socialism as it applies to evolution.



Really??



Cute.

dun-dun, dun-dun, DUN-DUN dun-dun da-da-DA-da-DUN dun-dun-dun-dun

So, you remember when this topic talked about the 360? Yeah, that was a long time ago.

Wait, Hold up.
Did he just confuse Einstien with Darwin?

Yeah. It's really hard to tell people not to condemn this dude now.

Hahahaha.

If I was actually interested in reading half of the circle jerk going on here it would probably be even funnier than the bits I skim.

No

Oh? Resorting to the same tactics again? Are you really so inept that you can't respond to someone in the form of a paragraph?

You have failed to refute my argument that the current capitalist system concentrates the wealth in the hands of the people most able to use it effectively. Furthermore, you have simply regurgitated your argument that life isn't fair.

Your argument that workers "may" work less hard under the current system is fallacious. Under the current system you have a hierarchy of bosses and supervisors who are supposed to be preventing this behavior. Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that individual accomplishments in a large corporation are largely insignificant. People would feel no particular need to work hard for exactly the same reason they didn't in the Soviet Union. This is really an unnecessary argument, however, since your point was satisfactorily refuted by addressing the power of a concerned business owner to enforce policies.

The benefits of the concentration of capital in the hands of a few capable people has obvious benefits to the average quality of life. Provide evidence that collectivization of business capital would improve quality of life. You may ignore inflation, if you so choose.


Wrong, it is within the context of human nature and reality in general.

As I said earlier, intelligence has nothing to do with it. If a single human being somewhere in the world is expected to vote on an issue he or she is not competently able to decide then your system is a failure. Referrendums are not held because the average person is not an expert and there is absolutely no sane reason to expect them to be one.

In order for your system to work, every person in the world would need to be educated in every single aspect of every job they ever chose. Where this is not impossible it would be apallingly expensive, and generally futile since people do not retain knowledge they do not exercise almost immediately.

You have failed to refute my argument that this would be impractical. You have failed to support your argument that it would. Define what "context" would create people who are qualified to do this. Furthermore, support your assertation that this system would be better and explain why.


Considering that you have, once again, failed to back up your points with actual arguments, you are still a hypocrite.


Conceded.




You have failed to back up your dismissals of my arguments with arguments of your own. You have failed to address my criticism of your style, such as dividing up single statements in order to address or discard individual arguments from a vaccum of context.


Incorrect. It is a red herring because nobody here ever made the claim that it was, it is irrelevant to the subject matter and nobody here cares.

The original argument was that a large increase in buying power across the board leads to widespread inflation. This phenomenon can be observed in a smaller scale whenever the government raises the minimum wage.

Given this, you have failed to refute my argument that wealth redistribution would lead to widespread inflation.



You are still confused on the difference between a claim and an argument. That there would be widespread inflation is an argument against your point of view, and not a claim. The argument is prima facie - it stands by itself, because anybody who can claim to have even a passing familiarity with the subject matter is aware of the basic causes and effects of inflation.

You have, yet again, failed to refute my argument that capital redistribution will cause widespread inflation.


Concession accepted.

Redundant.

You claim to be a supporter of very little.

Given that we aren't debating the relative merits of socialism versus capitalism (as you seem to think) and instead we're debating how infantile you are for trying to justify software piracy, by implying a personal belief in a social idealogy only to later "dramatically" (retardedly) post your own rejection of that ideaology makes basically everything you've posted in this thread a red herring. Quit being a coward and assert your own beliefs.


Splitting hairs. I am going to assume that you refer to the fact that anarchists and Marxists both endorse the temporary adoption of a philosophically-compatible temporary government, however the two movements are radically different in the limitations placed on that temporary government and shouldn't be confused.

The presence of any involuntary governing body is antithetical to contemporary anarchism. While a limited governing body could potentially hire someone to repair roads, the people are under no obligation to pay taxes in order for this to happen.


Yeah right, I'm really going to watch an hour and a half long video with quotes from civil war survivors.

I'm going to assume you're talking about the forced collectivization of certain agrarian regions. Which sure as hell were hierarchical since they formed council governments.


No, you.

Seriously.


rock

*waits for infuriated TSM_bguitar to counter Jon`C in this long going battle*

All I see is a lock :/

Really you're still at it?



I don't remember you making an actual argument that those who have it are more qualified other than "there are lots of risks involved" in owning capital. And I never said "life isn't fair" I said this economic system is unfair.



But they can only do so much to control the behavior of the entire class.



Actually people worked about as hard in the USSR as the US, they got paychecks just like we do. They didn't even really achieve socialism in my opinion as they were "state capitalists". The state played the role of the capitalist while the workers still had the same relation and didn't have nearly as much say as they were promised by the revolution.



I don't know why you keep brining up inflation. Under this system, yes inflation increases as wealth is redistributed, but I'm talking about a wholly new system of economics. But the point you bring up is valid, capitalism was a great progression after feudalism, but that doesn't mean that we must stop here. Capitalism still has its fundamental flaws, and while standards of living have increased (as they also did under feudalism, Stalinism, etc.) that doesn't mean that the system is justified. Noam Chomsky made a good point about this once (regardless of your opinion) by saying that the quality of living was much better for slaves in the 1700s and 1800s than the 1500s and 1600s, but that doesn't justify the system of slavery (as a broad economic feudal/slave structure).




I love that everyone has this "perfect understanding of human nature, when their exposure to the "selfish human nature" is generally in the context of a capitalist system that is indeed based on personal gain. That hardly constitutes human nature, just the nature of that system.




I don't see how this is contrary to what I've been saying. As I pointed out, there are types of socialism (e.g. Market Socialism) which would be worker owned but it doesn't follow that the workers micromanage all of the aspects of business themselves. Just like if there would be a socialist state as big as the US, it would be literally impossible for a direct democracy about macro issues obviously (which is one of the criticisms by anarchists toward socialists). But that doesn't mean that workers can't own the means of production. Those two are compatible.



You have failed to refute my argument that this would be impractical. You have failed to support your argument that it would. Define what "context" would create people who are qualified to do this. Furthermore, support your assertation that this system would be better and explain why.




I don't see what's wrong with addressing specific points. That's actually the way arguments go, you address specific points to show that a conclusion or argument is weak.




It's called a counter-example.



Well this is a case where I don't recall you making an argument for that, but instead making the claim that wealth redistribution would lead to inflation.



And I have addressed this issue which is the next point you respond to.



You claim to be a supporter of very little.



When exactly did I justify something with one ideology and reject that same ideology.



Right, but anarchists argue for a fully voluntary collective governing body.



If you're referring to Stalinist forced collectivization (that was done in the USSR and else ware) then of course I'm not talking about that. The way in which those policies were carried out was actually harmful, as the party considered itself to be the most important aspect of the revolution and put its own interests above those of the farmers basic interests (e.g. having enough of their own food to survive).

Granted the policy worked to industrialize the USSR, but it seems it would take quite a utilitarian line to justify that.

I'm sure this thread is getting somewhere of course..

It's like two *******s on their first date.

It was amusing at first, but now I must intervene.

JON`C WINS THE ARGUMENT. FIN.

There. Glad that's over with.

...whatdaya mean I don't have that authority?