The Everlasting CCCP !

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, I'd say it actually is, unless you also present the evidence as to why one side is right and the other one wrong. it might be unbiased from your PoV if you already know the reasons, but it won't to the person who doesn't.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, I'd say it actually is, unless you also present the evidence as to why one side is right and the other one wrong. it might be unbiased from your PoV if you already know the reasons, but it won't to the person who doesn't.

It does exactly that. I suppose I should've been more clear on that part.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Archaic
Hey, Media still exists in a Planned economy you know, and it's state owned to boot. The problem's nowhere near as pronounced with a free media.

Why sure. Under planned (or at least the Soviet version of it) you are a physical [/i]and[/i] mental slave of the state (if the propaganda works correctly at least...) and under free market you are a mental slave of the corporations.

Let's apply Occam's Razor to this. One arguement says that the global economic community is right. The other says that the global economic community is participating in a grand conspiricy to keep "the truth" hidden. I don't think I even need to finish this paragraph. I'll just laugh instead.

Appeal to Ridicule... I presumed you were an individualist, as most libertarians are. I expected better from you than to say that the opinion holded by the most people is the correct one. According to that argument the earth was flat because people said it's flat. Anyway, I'm digressing.The truth about the form of the earth is more a topic of "relative versus absolute truths".

Btw, isn't Willem van Okham's Razor meant to be applied to scientific models and facts instead of opinions?

I'm a very logical and analytical person as you've probably realised.

Well yes. Though that doesn't mean you're more right than other more illogical people, because your logic might start from questionable axiomas. Anyway, I'm digressing again.

Hey, we've both been influenced by pretty much the exact same things, and we have different ideas!

I disagree. Europe is fundamentally different than America and other ex-Anglosaxon colonies like Australia and New Zealand.

In any case, as I was saying, my thoughts and beliefs can be influenced by information I receive in your regular life and by all sorts of media, but they are not determined by them.

Well "determined" is a too strong work. That gives the impression your thoughts are one hundred percent influenced by your environment. Of course there are other factors... Perhaps we might just be disagreeing over the "percentage" of the environmental determination... But influenced you certainly are! So unless you can become some Buddhist-or-Taoist-or-whatever-there monk which is fully aware of everything in his external surroundings an his internal self, "freedom" is a rather unachievable ideal to me.

Afterall, I'm an Athiest, and western society is very much into indoctrinating Christanity.

Your western society perhaps. Not the West/North-European. Here atheism (or agnosticism would be a better description) is the opinion mostly expressed in the media and schools (Even in the "religion" lessons in catholic schools there is little to no talk about God.)

The fact you are an atheist is merely a sign the determination is not 100%. You say yourself western society (which I interpret as your country's society and those of your ideological neighbours) is into indoctrinating christianity and you seemed to apply you as an atheist are an exception. Apparently it must work then for most others.

Want more proof? How about my social-economic and political beliefs not being influenced by my standing in society, as evidenced by the simple fact that I'm not better off in a Free Market, yet I recognise that the community gains as a whole.

Either you're nuts or enlightened. Anyway, I don't consider a "one case study" (=yourself) as a valid statistical representation of humanity. This line of proof is flawed.

Pan is saying that a Planned economy is better. The majority of economist's the world over (There's always a crackpop fringe) agree that a Free Market is the way to go. Who do you think is right?

As I don't believe in absolute truths, I'd say the one with most power in society at that particular moment in time are "right". In twentieth century USA that would be the economists. In the Soviet Union it would be Pandemoniak (provided that Stalin isn't in power - then nobody except Stalin himself would be right, even if they share the same opinion ;-). And seeing free market is currently controlling most of the earth, it's only logical it is represented as the best economy. Psychological self-inforcement of the own values, no matter whether or not they might be the "absolute truth" or not.

In the European colonial period mercantilism was considered the best system. Then later, especially after the Napoleontic wars, with a Great Britain that wanted to keep its economic superiority, free trade was considered best by all economists. In the imperialist period, protectionism was best again. And now it's again free trade. You see, though you might be utterly convinced free trade is best, and though most of the current economists do, that's just the timespirit and depends on the current needs of the leading economic powers. It's not an "absolute" truth. Some knowledge of history might show you that. Ideas, together with many other things, are a cyclic phenomenon and quite relative.

Someone with no background in economics,

Well he seems to know quite a lot of Marxist economy.

no real understanding of social structures besides what he's created for himself in his head.

And it's any different with you?

Or many many hundreds of thousands of people who make the study of this their life?

Well if you're talking about the social sciences, most of your opinions aren't considered true.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
And how would this achange under Green or Planned?

It wouldn't. i'm just reacting to the claim you're free under a free market.

There's no real difference ebtween media control by the government or by private companies, except that private companies arne't all acting in concert with one another

Well they have the same general interests. But indeed I agree competing private companies (preferably with one public broadcaster to present that opinion as well) is better than one monolithic state company. The problem is again when antitrust measures fail and monopolies arise. Italy is my classic example. Also in Belgium one company controls the second biggest broadcasting company and more than half of the newspapers. Though I don't know his name, wasn't there some media mogul in Great Britain as well?
This situation arisies quite often, so I'm very wary against media centralization, or people who want to decrease the influnce of the government, as that would result in even more market failures.

However, ask yourself *why* there's so few sources preaching anything besides a Free Market.

Because we're in the free market - free trade part of the cycle. Who knows, your grandchildren might be teaching protectionist doctrines in economy courses.

[GeneralTacticus]

It wouldn't. i'm just reacting to the claim you're free under a free market.

Not entirely free, just freeer.

Well they have the same general interests.

Not necessarily; if you have someone whose sole source of income is the media outlet that he owns, his interests aren't very tied to thos eof his fellow capitalists. His interests are simply to get more people to use his media and not other people's.

But indeed I agree competing private companies (preferably with one public broadcaster to present that opinion as well) is better than one monolithic state company. The problem is again when antitrust measures fail and monopolies arise.

Then we are agreed - however, I think I'd rather live in a ystem where monpolies can arise if they can circumvent the law, than in one where monpolies are prescribed by law.

Though I don't know his name, wasn't there some media mogul in Great Britain as well?

Yes. Rupert Murdoch.

This situation arisies quite often, so I'm very wary against media centralization, or people who want to decrease the influnce of the government, as that would result in even more market failures.

Media centraliztion is always a bad thing, no matter who it's being controlled by, but as I said, I'd rather live in a system wher esuch things are illegal than one where they are required.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Maniac
Why sure. Under planned (or at least the Soviet version of it) you are a physical [/i]and[/i] mental slave of the state (if the propaganda works correctly at least...) and under free market you are a mental slave of the corporations.

How are you a mental slave of the corperations? I see a lot of wind here, but no actual evidence.

Originally posted by Maniac
Appeal to Ridicule... I presumed you were an individualist, as most libertarians are. I expected better from you than to say that the opinion holded by the most people is the correct one. According to that argument the earth was flat because people said it's flat. Anyway, I'm digressing.The truth about the form of the earth is more a topic of "relative versus absolute truths".

I'm not using the ridicule to prove my point (ie. "This claim is laughable, so it's false"), I'm just pointing out that it's laughable after the fact that it's completly wrong has already been shown. (ie. "This claim is false. It's also laughable.").

In this case, the opinion held by most people is the correct one. I'm not saying it's correct because it's held by most people (Which would be a logical fallacy). I'm saying that free market is held by that many people to be the corect system because it's been proven to be so.

And quite frankly....what bull**** is that last sentance? The form of the earth is (roughly) spherical.

Originally posted by Maniac
Btw, isn't Willem van Okham's Razor meant to be applied to scientific models and facts instead of opinions?

The study of Economics is based upon the scientific method and scientific models. Occam's Razor's use here is valid.

Originally posted by Maniac
Well yes. Though that doesn't mean you're more right than other more illogical people, because your logic might start from questionable axiomas. Anyway, I'm digressing again.

Got a better chance of being right though.

Originally posted by Maniac
I disagree. Europe is fundamentally different than America and other ex-Anglosaxon colonies like Australia and New Zealand.

Given that I get all my news from European News Services off the internet (I don't watch TV excepting showings of Good Movies, Sci-fi, or Anime. I don't listen to radio. I rarely read anything apart from the comics in Newspapers.), I'd say it's close enough.

Originally posted by Maniac
Well "determined" is a too strong work. That gives the impression your thoughts are one hundred percent influenced by your environment. Of course there are other factors... Perhaps we might just be disagreeing over the "percentage" of the environmental determination... But influenced you certainly are! So unless you can become some Buddhist-or-Taoist-or-whatever-there monk which is fully aware of everything in his external surroundings an his internal self, "freedom" is a rather unachievable ideal to me.

Yes, I'm influenced. So what? I still have free will and a logical and analytical thought process.

Originally posted by Maniac
Your western society perhaps. Not the West/North-European. Here atheism (or agnosticism would be a better description) is the opinion mostly expressed in the media and schools (Even in the "religion" lessons in catholic schools there is little to no talk about God.)

The fact you are an atheist is merely a sign the determination is not 100%. You say yourself western society (which I interpret as your country's society and those of your ideological neighbours) is into indoctrinating christianity and you seemed to apply you as an atheist are an exception. Apparently it must work then for most others.

It working for others is irrelevant. We were arguing about my impartiality.

Originally posted by Maniac
Either you're nuts or enlightened. Anyway, I don't consider a "one case study" (=yourself) as a valid statistical representation of humanity. This line of proof is flawed.

Don't need a representation of humanity. You were attacking my impartality, not the impartality of the general populace.

Originally posted by Maniac
As I don't believe in absolute truths, I'd say the one with most power in society at that particular moment in time are "right". In twentieth century USA that would be the economists. In the Soviet Union it would be Pandemoniak (provided that Stalin isn't in power - then nobody except Stalin himself would be right, even if they share the same opinion ;-). And seeing free market is currently controlling most of the earth, it's only logical it is represented as the best economy. Psychological self-inforcement of the own values, no matter whether or not they might be the "absolute truth" or not.

In the European colonial period mercantilism was considered the best system. Then later, especially after the Napoleontic wars, with a Great Britain that wanted to keep its economic superiority, free trade was considered best by all economists. In the imperialist period, protectionism was best again. And now it's again free trade. You see, though you might be utterly convinced free trade is best, and though most of the current economists do, that's just the timespirit and depends on the current needs of the leading economic powers. It's not an "absolute" truth. Some knowledge of history might show you that. Ideas, together with many other things, are a cyclic phenomenon and quite relative.

That you don't believe in absolute truths is irrelevant. They exist, and no amount of disbelief will void that. (See Christanity Vs. Evolution) You can do the research yourself. The evidence is there for all to see. That one side or another might influence people more than the other is irrelevant to what is actually right. Your statements are pure sophistry.

Originally posted by Maniac
Well he seems to know quite a lot of Marxist economy.

Seems to maybe. But does he actually know and understand it? No. He's already proven that much from his flawed and biased interpretations of Marx's work. He simply can't seem to acknowledge the fact that Marx could be wrong on any points.

And it's any different with you?

I'm the one doing the degree.

Originally posted by Maniac
Well if you're talking about the social sciences, most of your opinions aren't considered true.

Would you like me to open the textbook to the relevant page? If my opinions aren't considered true, which opinions exactly would these be (Hasty Generalization on your part), and which group of people says they're not true?

[Jamski]

Comrades, having read through this thread I hereby respectfully request admittance to the CCCP in order to fight the forces of Capitalism, Free Marketry and other such evils.

In anticipation of being allowed to represent the Party.

-Jam

[Method]

pan, can you have a member's list in the first post? your numbers seem to have swelled recently, and i have a hard time keeping track

[Main_Brain]

Im unsure about some (Cedayon..) but i think I count 6 Members in this
Topic:

lucky22- Friend of the Common Drone
Pandemoniak- Leader of the Peaceful Revolt
Maniac- Observer of the Common Drone
waab- Idealistic Follower
ArtOfWar- Peaceful Cook& Talent
Main_Brain- Common Drone

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Im unsure about some (Cedayon..)

I'm glad that this party exists, as someone needs to bring up the things pointed out by the CCCP... but I'm no member of the party, by a long shot. Just wouldn't work

[Main_Brain]

I'll note that under Sympathies with Party ;=)

[lucky22]

Originally posted by Archaic

If my opinions aren't considered true, which opinions exactly would these be... and which group of people says they're not true?

Your opinions about class and division of labor. The group: virtually all sociologists, many progressive economists and a wide variety of other behavioral scientists. No need for me to quote you, the record stands. For reference, use a given university department's link list or just Google any of the mentioned disciplines.

[lucky22]

Main_Brain: I'm glad you're around!

[Maniac]

General_Tacticus:

Not entirely free, just freeer.

That depends on how you define freedom.
If you are talking about physical-economic freedom, you are right from a certain point of view. From another point of view however one can say people have little economic freedom, because they are indoctrinated in consumerism from birth on. Commercials and all that influence your behaviour. Sometimes that influence is unconscious of course, which leads to common beliefs like: "You're perfectly free to disbleieve any information you're told, Maniac.". But even if it is conscious, when you are fully aware of the indoctrination, it still reduces your freedom. When you are in a store, and have to choose between two similar products, same price etcetera: will you choose the one that has a familiar name, or one you haven't heard of ever before?

Ah yes, I'd say "freedom" - let's call it the ability to determine for yourself by what factors you are influenced (as opposed to someone/something else doing it) - is more determined by the degree of political liberalism, and not the amount of economic liberalism. For instance I wouldn't exactly call the USA, on world scale well in the free market half of it, a country where you have lots of freedom, with all that religious zealotry and such.

His interests are simply to get more people to use his media and not other people's.

They still have the same general interest of wanting extremer free markets. Which company wouldn't want less government influence?

To all persons not Archaic: Sorry for my debate style to follow.

Archaic:

How are you a mental slave of the corperations?

Please read my previous posts.

I'm just pointing out that it's laughable after the fact that it's completly wrong has already been shown.

Oh really? Personally I don't consider that to be a full proof of the incorrectness of what I say:

I don't think I even need to finish this paragraph.

You are using the same tactics as you say Pandemoniak uses when loosing an argument. You just stop giving arguments. Instead you start doing like this:

Archaic: Blah, blah, [well intentioned unrealistic whimpering], blah, [distortion of socialism], blah.
Maniac: [Structured point by point rebuttal of Archaic].
Archaic: I know everything about Economics, heck I know EVERYTHING - period! So of course I'm right and you're wrong!
Maniac: [Detailed description of why Archaic is wrong].
Archaic: I'm right and you're wrong damnit!
Maniac: [Detailed description of why Archaic is wrong while imitating the debating style of Archaic in the idle hope of getting a point across].
Archaic: You're an idiot. I'm right and you're wrong!
Maniac: [Gives up trying to penetrate the wall of ignorance].
Archaic: Yay, I won! I'm right!



How fun...

I'm saying that free market is held by that many people to be the corect system because it's been proven to be so.

Whether or not it is the correct system depends on what goals you want to reach. For certain relative goals, pure economic growth falling in the hands of an elite, it's probably the best system. When you have other goals, for example giving as many people as possible a decent life, a social-democratic variant is probably the correct system. Again, don't speak in absolutes...

The form of the earth is (roughly) spherical.

...So the brains of a human say, which can see forms and has the tendency to categorize. Reality as one perceives it, is dependent on the observer. A being which could not identify shapes as we do, would not call it a sphere. For us, the absolute truth is the earth is roughly spherical. For another being, the absolute truth would be something else. It all depends on what senses one has. Those create a representation of the universe. You only perceive that representation created by that sense and devise "absolute truths" depending on that information. The universe itself however you do not perceive, only an approximation. You cannot know how close your mental model is to the supposed real thing.
I guess this all sounds gibberish to you, but that's quite normal for someone who presumably has never been into contact with any other philosophical system. I can understand it. I was quite like you some four years back or so...

The study of Economics is based upon the scientific method and scientific models.

You're using it on people's opinion about economic models, not on the economic models itself.

Given that I get all my news from European News Services off the internet

Which European? British, owned by that Rupert Murdoch character?

Yes, I'm influenced. So what? I still have free will

It depends. If one is unconscious of what is influencing them, I'd say no: that person doesn't have a free will. If s/he were conscious of it, I'd say the person has a free will on that matter.

and a logical and analytical thought process.

Yeah so? Does a computer have free will?

It working for others is irrelevant. We were arguing about my impartiality.

What on earth are you talking about?? Impartiality about what? I started off as a reaction to your comment one was a free person under free market, and then you kind of gave yourself as an example of a non-determined person, upon which I reacted again. Where did you start about impartiality?

Is this some red herring? Can't you refute my arguments? Do I need to post that picture again?

That you don't believe in absolute truths is irrelevant. They exist, and no amount of disbelief will void that.

I'm right because I'm right because I'm right because. You seem to be in some denial fase. Man you make lousy arguments! I can't think of one time you actually won of me. You usually just stop. (Fun when people tell you such things no?)

(See Christanity Vs. Evolution)

Evolution theory is a model, an approximation, a map of some part of the universe. In due time it will be refined and it will give a closer approximation, a more refined map. But no logic or scientific breakthrough will ever give you a 1 on 1 scale map so to speak. The observer affects the observed. Depending on the glasses you look through, the measuring instruments you use, you will get a different map.

He simply can't seem to acknowledge the fact that Marx could be wrong on any points.

And do you acknowledge the fact some of your ideas might not be the absolute truth?

I'm the one doing the degree.

What? Social & political sciences? As far as I know you were doing economics.

If my opinions aren't considered true, which opinions exactly would these be (Hasty Generalization on your part), and which group of people says they're not true?

Confer lucky22, among other things. I am still amazed for instance when you said christianity has changed human nature over the period of 1000 years. Heck, I don't think you even need to follow one sociology class to have serious doubts about such a statement.

[GeneralTacticus]

That depends on how you define freedom.
If you are talking about physical-economic freedom, you are right from a certain point of view. From another point of view however one can say people have little economic freedom, because they are indoctrinated in consumerism from birth on. Commercials and all that influence your behaviour.

So do sermons, fi you grow up in a strongly religious society; so do school textbooks, social 'codes of conduct', and so forth. From birth on, one is indoctrinated into what your society does and doesn't find acceptable. This has nothing to do with FM; it will happen in any society. FM simply uses this to promote itself.

Sometimes that influence is unconscious of course, which leads to common beliefs like: "You're perfectly free to disbleieve any information you're told, Maniac.".

I fail to see how this is evidence that I have been unconsciously indoctrinated in capitalsit ideology. You *ARE* free to question what you are told, this is objectively true. Whether or not the way your mind has developed makes you less likely to do so is irrelevant.

When you are in a store, and have to choose between two similar products, same price etcetera: will you choose the one that has a familiar name, or one you haven't heard of ever before

If I'd used the big name product before, and found it satisfactory, probably the big name one (unles I was just curious); if not, I have no idea what I would pick. (I may not be the best case to use regarding the effectiveness of advertising, as I find it to be largely an irritant, and rarely pay any attention to it. Perhaps my sister would be a better example)

Ah yes, I'd say "freedom" - let's call it the ability to determine for yourself by what factors you are influenced (as opposed to someone/something else doing it) - is more determined by the degree of political liberalism, and not the amount of economic liberalism.

Oh, certainly, economic freedom without political freedom isn't freedom at all; Chile being a case in point. Thing is, though, they're not incompatible either. And political freedom without economic freedom isn't very attractive either; the two aren't synonymous, but they aren't independant of one another either.

They still have the same general interest of wanting extremer free markets. Which company wouldn't want less government influence?

Any company which wouldn't benefit from it, disregarding any personal agendas their owners might have. Obviously, a media company is likely to be against regulations that reduce their profits (again, ignoring personal agendas), but they don't really have a concrete reason to give a f*ck about how the rest of the economy is run. If advocating greater regulation of the res tof the economy will help them to sell (or if they think it will help them in some other way), then they will advocate it.