The Everlasting CCCP !

[GeneralTacticus]

Pan, would you mplease clean up your post so that I can actually tell what you've said and what parts you're quoting?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by WarOfArt
IMHO, the only possible justification for the restriction of an individual's liberty, is when that individual poses a restriction to another's liberty, or to the liberty of society as a whole, for example it would be wise to put _some_ restiction on the liberty of an individual who was psychopathically disturbed, although I would suggest a hospital, and not a prison for such an individual.

-Jam

Originally posted by General Tacticus
Precisely my own position.

Being free for man means being acknowledged, considered and treated as such by another man, and by all the men around him. Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection...I myself am human and free only to the extent that I acknowledge the humanity and liberty of all my fellows... I am properly free when all the men and women about me are equally free. Far from being a limitation or a denial of my liberty, the liberty of another is its necessary condition and confirmation.

And no safety, no roder, no freedom from others killing you. Yes, great idea

And that pretends to be a democrat, while whining for more "safety" and "order". By the same means that you call me naive, I call you paranoid.

Orignally posted by GT
And the point is that that idea is pure and utter BS. You *CAN* take away part of someon's liberty without taking it all away, and in many cases restricting a certain part of somone's liberty makes others more free - because it prevents them from infringing on their liberty. How free are you if somone has the right to murder you if they feel like it?

Can you demonstrate this, that you can take away part of sopmeone's liberty without taking it all away, or are you just capable to quote (bad) examples and idiotic proverbs ?
As for your example, the fact that someone can de legomurder you doesnt change anything concerning your freedom, since there will always be someone who can de factomurder you. The possibility of being killed is not a restriction of freedom.

No, I don't beleive that, but I think you're ebing hopelessly naive if you think that because you give people an education, they will all be good and nice.

Maybe you havent realized it yourself, but saying that someone is not only a product of its environment and can, despite his environment, be born, inherently means that there is another cause than its environment for his evilness. What other cause than a person's environment can affect this person, if not its nature ? This is why I think you strongly believe that some people are naturally born bad, but I'm open to any explanations that could let me think you dont.

The question is that : if someone acts really evil, are you gonna "eradicate" him or "educate" him ?

Neither. Prevent them from being evil (that is, preventing them from killing people, for example

Or perhaps I shouldn't be given that I'm talking to someone who has stated that one has the right to commit murder if one wishes...

They have the capacity to be so. They may not choose to be so, and that's what matters.

So you're willing to allow absolutely anyone to be killed, for no reason at all, because you don't think you should interfere with people's convictions!? What planet do you live, Pan???

There's no difference [between "he should be allowed to kill people", and "he shouldnt be forbiddent to kill people"]. If you don't rpevent someone fro killing somebody, and he does, then you have allowed him to kill.

All this jabbering can be sum up in the same idea : prevent people to commit evilnesses.
Scary answer, IMHO. How do you exactly intend to prevent everyone from being evil, without education ?

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Archaic


Strawman of Free Market. Again. It amazes me that you can believe this bull****. Where'd you learn about capitalism? Some socialist rag? Company directors don't control the economy. What *does* is market forces, the so called "Invisible Hand". And how are market forces determined? By the people's wants and needs. We don't have any system of politics or economics that's more democratic than that.

How are market forces really determined? By the people's will? By what people really want? 2xBull****. This is THE big free market carrot.
"Our market research indicates that customers want..."
I'm sitting here typing this at my desk in the marketing and research department of a large office owned by a well known American multinational. I know all about the "Invisble Hand" and how it really works. What happens is this:
1.) We look at which lines are doing well. We increase the price/lower the production cost of these lines. If they still do just as well, then we leave them alone, otherwise they get adjusted again.
2.) We look at the lines that are doing badly, and we think - How can we make people buy this product? How can we get people to buy our crap product instead of a good one? We advertise. We mass-produce. We now control 75% of the market with an inferior, overpriced product. The "Invisible Hand" has given the people what they wanted, and paid my wages.

Think about it, before you wave any more carrots under my nose. I will bite them.

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

Can we have a translation of that ?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Pan, would you mplease clean up your post so that I can actually tell what you've said and what parts you're quoting?

done

[Archaic]

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!

Reply to you in a minute WoA.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Archaic
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
May faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy!

Is that a latine-voodoo curse or something ? Like "May the Force not be with you", "May you rot in hell", "May you... " etc...

[Archaic]

Originally posted by War of Art
How are market forces really determined? By the people's will? By what people really want? 2xBull****. This is THE big free market carrot.

*Yawn* Here we go again...

Originally posted by War of Art
"Our market research indicates that customers want..."
I'm sitting here typing this at my desk in the marketing and research department of a large office owned by a well known American multinational. I know all about the "Invisble Hand" and how it really works.

Which is why you keep going on with these strawmans, hmmmm? While I'd be interested in which company it is, as well as what your actual position is (I've heard this same crap before from people who ended up being the security guards.), I'm more concerned in what your formal education in this actually is.

Originally posted by War of Art
What happens is this:
1.) We look at which lines are doing well. We increase the price/lower the production cost of these lines. If they still do just as well, then we leave them alone, otherwise they get adjusted again.
2.) We look at the lines that are doing badly, and we think - How can we make people buy this product? How can we get people to buy our crap product instead of a good one? We advertise. We mass-produce. We now control 75% of the market with an inferior, overpriced product. The "Invisible Hand" has given the people what they wanted, and paid my wages.

Think about it, before you wave any more carrots under my nose. I will bite them.

-Jam

1) So far, so good.
2) Wow. Nice massive overarching statement, with no actual evidence to go on besides your word. You're also making the assumption that you thus far imaginary product(s) is representative of the entire economy. Extrapolation from rather too few points.

Here's a few other things to consider.....price Vs. quality. Guess what? If you have a **** product, people might still buy more of it than the product that's better quality when
a) You sell it for less than your competition
b) They don't need all the bells and whistles
And guess what again? Your product can still be "overpriced" and fulfill those conditions. I'd love to know in whose opinion it's overpriced BTW. Obviously if you control the market, then the market is willing to bear that price, so it's not overpriced to them.

Basic economic theory. Learn it.

[Archaic]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak


Is that a latine-voodoo curse or something ? Like "May the Force not be with you", "May you rot in hell", "May you... " etc...

It's just a Latin phrase, though I suppose you could call it a curse. And yes, before you ask, that is proper Latin. So's this.

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

And if anyone gets that...

Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.

*Sighs* Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua.

[Jamski]

Come on, I'm not dumb. Lets debate instead of throwing **** about, eh?

For your information, I'm working for Proctor & Gamble in Germany, in the Feminine Hygiene Dept. Right now, between posting, I'm choosing what shade of blue (from 24 that look the same) the new "Always" pads for Western Europe should be. I'll tell you now I have laboratory tests that show these new products are "not so good" on this computer, at least in comparison with the other market products. We are also selling one of the most expensive products in this market. Does this answer 2.) for you?

-Jam

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Archaic

Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua.

Showoff on these forums, sola lingua bona est lingua brittanica.


-Jam

[Archaic]

‚»‚¨‚Å‚·‚©H@‚¨‚ê‚Í‚·‚ׂĂ̌¾—t‚Ì’†‚Å‚É‚Ù‚ñ‚²‚ªˆê ”Ô‚¾‚Á‚Ä‚ÆŽv‚¤B


EDIT: If you don't have Japanese Language display, don't even bother.

[Jamski]

-Jam

[Archaic]

‚¤‚邳‚¢B@

[Maniac]

You mean the posts about the media controlling us, which were shown as more of a problem with a Planned economy than a free market? And where you've made a massive generalization that basically tries to claim no one has free will?

Yes I do. And how was it shown it was more a problem under planned. Both under a planned and extreme free market system you get monopolies. Only under a centrist system with government influence you can prevent market failures and maintain competition.
And you're making a distortion. I'm saying you're heavily influenced by your environment.

What a lovely Strawman of my position and my arguements, along with an Appeal to Ridicule. Want to try harder?

Do you have a gap in your memory? Look into the mirror. This is how you debate. You make short irrelevant replies to some points, and the other ones, to which you simply have no response, you simply don't reply to.

If you haven't noticed, GT had already slaughtered you on all points.

Where did he do that? I'd say we have come to an agreement on certain issues. And on the issue that started it all, your claim that one was free under a FM, he has accepted my point I was trying to make: FM is nothing different or better than the other systems.

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.

Occam's Razor would support the simplest theory of course. ie. The Economists are right.

By which you contradict yourself again. You're turning in circles. You say again: the opinion held by the most people is the correct one.

1) We're speaking in overall terms, not in terms of specific goals (There *IS* a time and a place for Planned economies afterall.) Why shouldn't I speak in absolutes?

By saying there is a time and place for planned, you are admitting FM isn't the absolute best system for all circumstances. You no longer speak in absolutes, which is a good improvement.

2) Prove that a social-democratic varient is better for once

Research the statistics. And btw, the countries in the top of the Human Development Index Ranking are all social-democratic. (At least the European ones - I can't speak about Canada.)

Ah, philosophy. The ivory tower way of sticking your head in your arse. Quit it with the sophistry already and actually make a point that has relevance to economics.

I'm not talking about economics. I'm reacting to your claim there are absolute truths. You are red herring. I then presume you are unable to reply to this and you are just sticking your head into your arse, as in denial? Some four years ago I believed in rationalism, absolute truths, a meaning of the universe, well the whole classical western philosophy myself. But I discovered the flaws into it. So please, attempt to find some arguments for your philosophy. Try me.

And again....this changes outside of a Free Market how? Really, this whole part of the arguement is one big red herring on your part.

It doesn't change under FM. For the last time GT and Archaic: I'm not saying FM is worse than the other systems, I'm sayig it's just the same as the other systems, as opposed to your claims you're more free.

And this is relevant how?

You seemed to imply the fact you have logic and analytical way of thinking means you have free will.

If you're claiming that someone's no more free under a free market than under other economic systems, than GT's already addressed that.

Indeed. And he has admitted my point.

How am I in a denial phase? All you've offered as evidence to your red herring bull**** about absolute truths is sophistry. Do I need to educate you on Burden of Proof fallacy?

You have repeatedly failed to provide arguments for your absolute truth vision. Calling my arguments sophistry just doesn't cut it. (Have you actually studied Latin and the sophists like I did or are you just pretending?) The burden of proof lies on you.

"If we could make people buy anything we wanted to sell through advertising and marketing.......do you honestly think I'd be here right now, lecturing to all of you, at 9pm on a Friday night? You think I don't have other things I'd rather be doing?"

[quote]Why not take one European history class then and take a look at how much influence the church has had on what people have considered moral and immoral. Homosexuality was hardly the boogieman it is today back before the church stuck its nose into everything you realise.[/quote$

You again fail to make the distinction between human nature and morality.