Capitalism is...Slavery; Democracy is Not

[bripat9643]

Let's see you make a computer without using nature.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!

You are a million laughs, Georgie. How does the fact that you can't build a computer without using natural resources prove that nature is fair?

You have a special talent for non sequiturs, Georgie.

When the lion eats the Zebra she's performing a service to nature.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's even funnier!

No, the lion does not eat the zebra because it wants to provide a service to nature. It eats the zebra because it's hungry. Having a taste for meat is the way nature made the lion, which only goes to show how truly unfair nature is. nature created zebras simply to become food for lions. What's fair about that? I'd say it's far less fair than the theory that god created black people to be slaves for white people.

When capitalists poison a river and externalize the cost onto taxpayers they're not.

True, capitalists don't make products for the benefit of nature. They make them for the benefit of their customers. The question under discussion here is whether your claim that nature is fair is true. It's not whether capitalists are good environmentalists.

There's nothing natural about compound interest.

Or capitalism.

Again, that's another non-sequitur.

A string of non-sequiturs is the sure sign of a drone who simply parrots propaganda and has no real understanding of the theories he is spewing

 

[daveman]

So...you're a gutless punk who wore a uniform.

Thanks for your service, Punk.

Still flapping the tiny shreds of your honor about, I see.

You seriously lack the horsepower to compete in this, george. I suggest you stop trying. You'll just look even stupider than you do.

Why would you think your opinion means anything to me?

I don't. But you keep stamping your feet and insisting your opinion matters to me. It's amusing, in a little-yappy-dog kind of way.

 

[bripat9643]

The service the lion performs is called natural selection, and the capitalist does NOT get sued, his corporation does which exempts the capitalist from criminal prosecution.

Natural selection is not a "service" any more than gravity is a service. The laws of nature are not some kind of sentient beings.

This conversation is getting too ridiculous for words when simple concepts like that have to be explained to you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Says the yellow bitch generator mechanic from behind his keyboard.

I had the courage to put on the uniform. You chickened out.

Remember that, Revolution Boi.

And if you're thinking the real revolutionaries are going to give you power or authority when they've taken over (snerk!), you're an idiot. You'll sit down and shut up and do as you're told, and you'll like it.

And you'll STILL be a failure.

So...you're a gutless punk who wore a uniform.

Thanks for your service, Punk.

Eh??

You wanna talk economics or fuck light bulbs???

 

[georgephillip]

Let's see you make a computer without using nature.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!

You are a million laughs, Georgie. How does the fact that you can't build a computer without using natural resources prove that nature is fair?

You have a special talent for non sequiturs, Georgie.

When the lion eats the Zebra she's performing a service to nature.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's even funnier!

No, the lion does not eat the zebra because it wants to provide a service to nature. It eats the zebra because it's hungry. Having a taste for meat is the way nature made the lion, which only goes to show how truly unfair nature is. nature created zebras simply to become food for lions. What's fair about that? I'd say it's far less fair than the theory that god created black people to be slaves for white people.

When capitalists poison a river and externalize the cost onto taxpayers they're not.

True, capitalists don't make products for the benefit of nature. They make them for the benefit of their customers. The question under discussion here is whether your claim that nature is fair is true. It's not whether capitalists are good environmentalists.

There's nothing natural about compound interest.

Or capitalism.

Again, that's another non-sequitur.

A string of non-sequiturs is the sure sign of a drone who simply parrots propaganda and has no real understanding of the theories he is spewing

Does it follow the lion serves natural selection by eating the zebra?

I'm really impressed anyone as brain dead as you can spell non sequitur.

Maybe you should try pre-school next?

 

[georgephillip]

Still flapping the tiny shreds of your honor about, I see.

You seriously lack the horsepower to compete in this, george. I suggest you stop trying. You'll just look even stupider than you do.

Why would you think your opinion means anything to me?

I don't. But you keep stamping your feet and insisting your opinion matters to me. It's amusing, in a little-yappy-dog kind of way.

Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.

How many children are dead because of your work?

 

[bripat9643]

Does it follow the lion serves natural selection by eating the zebra?

I'm really impressed anyone as brain dead as you can spell non sequitur.

Maybe you should try pre-school next?

That's like saying a pebble "serves" geology by rolling across a stream bed. A lion has no conscience intent to "serve" natural selection anymore than the zebra does. The lion simply does what his genes compel him to do. A lion is the result of natural selection, not the cause of it.

Again, what does any of this have to do with your theory that nature is fair? The evidence that nature is grossly unfair couldn't be more obvious. All you have to do to understand that is consider a child born with a birth defect. How fair is that?

 

[georgephillip]

The service the lion performs is called natural selection, and the capitalist does NOT get sued, his corporation does which exempts the capitalist from criminal prosecution.

Natural selection is not a "service" any more than gravity is a service. The laws of nature are not some kind of sentient beings.

This conversation is getting too ridiculous for words when simple concepts like that have to be explained to you.

Can't quite see the difference between natural selection and gravity?

Better hold off on pre-school.

As if you had the intelligence to explain anything to anyone.

 

[westwall]

Nature says you deserve everything.
Capitalism says you deserve nothing, and it guarantees life isn't fair.

Farmers share the same cultural inheritance you and I do.
If you think there's an element of redistribution involved in Social Credit, I agree.
And it's thousands of years overdue.

Where did you get your education? What exactly does nature provide you if you don't work? You are treading very close to looneydom if you truly believe that. More importantly I challenge you to go out for a walk in the desert somewhere with no water. I wonder how long it will take for Nature to swt you like a bug for your impudence.

Did you find your religion on a desert?

Nature's abundance sustained this specie for millions of years before primitive desert capitalists invented a bronze-age psychopath and called it "god."

Capitalism enhances scarcity in order to maximize profit.

When technology evolves to the point where workers are no longer necessary for profit, the capitalist tells them to take a walk in the desert without water and pray to their slave god.

No thanks.

Yes in point of fact I have spent many years out in the deserts of the world. Try leaving your socialist theories at home and go get your own food. You my good man will starve to death. It takes work to find food to eat. Nature is very abundant but only if you can catch it. Lazy people starve.

Which gets back to the point that you dodged. What do you do when the workers have had enough of your lazy ass and they tell you to go screw yourself and stop providing you with your welfare check/food?

 

[westwall]

...says the would-be revolutionary who's too chickenshit to pick up a weapon.

Like I said: Bring it. Or quit yer damn whining.

Says the yellow bitch generator mechanic from behind his keyboard.

I had the courage to put on the uniform. You chickened out.

Remember that, Revolution Boi.

And if you're thinking the real revolutionaries are going to give you power or authority when they've taken over (snerk!), you're an idiot. You'll sit down and shut up and do as you're told, and you'll like it.

And you'll STILL be a failure.

That's if they let him live. Real revolutionaries don't have much use for poseurs like our dear boy. He would be toast because he lacks courage and won't work hard for the new masters.

 

[westwall]

I had the courage to put on the uniform. You chickened out.

Remember that, Revolution Boi.

And if you're thinking the real revolutionaries are going to give you power or authority when they've taken over (snerk!), you're an idiot. You'll sit down and shut up and do as you're told, and you'll like it.

And you'll STILL be a failure.

So...you're a gutless punk who wore a uniform.

Thanks for your service, Punk.

Still flapping the tiny shreds of your honor about, I see.

You seriously lack the horsepower to compete in this, george. I suggest you stop trying. You'll just look even stupider than you do.

That's impossible.

 

[georgephillip]

Does it follow the lion serves natural selection by eating the zebra?

I'm really impressed anyone as brain dead as you can spell non sequitur.

Maybe you should try pre-school next?

That's like saying a pebble "serves" geology by rolling across a stream bed. A lion has no conscience intent to "serve" natural selection anymore than the zebra does. The lion simply does what his genes compel him to do. A lion is the result of natural selection, not the cause of it.

Again, what does any of this have to do with your theory that nature is fair? The evidence that nature is grossly unfair couldn't be more obvious. All you have to do to understand that is consider a child born with a birth defect. How fair is that?

I never said "nature is fair."
I said "nature says you deserve everything"
You twisted that into "you have to be a moron to believe nature is fair." (Post 304)

Nature is often random; hence birth defects.
And I still say while the lion may not be conscious of Charles Darwin, by culling the old and weak and young from the zebra herd, she is serving natural selection.

 

[westwall]

Let's see you make a computer without using nature.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!!

You are a million laughs, Georgie. How does the fact that you can't build a computer without using natural resources prove that nature is fair?

You have a special talent for non sequiturs, Georgie.



BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's even funnier!

No, the lion does not eat the zebra because it wants to provide a service to nature. It eats the zebra because it's hungry. Having a taste for meat is the way nature made the lion, which only goes to show how truly unfair nature is. nature created zebras simply to become food for lions. What's fair about that? I'd say it's far less fair than the theory that god created black people to be slaves for white people.



True, capitalists don't make products for the benefit of nature. They make them for the benefit of their customers. The question under discussion here is whether your claim that nature is fair is true. It's not whether capitalists are good environmentalists.

There's nothing natural about compound interest.

Or capitalism.

Again, that's another non-sequitur.

A string of non-sequiturs is the sure sign of a drone who simply parrots propaganda and has no real understanding of the theories he is spewing

Does it follow the lion serves natural selection by eating the zebra?

I'm really impressed anyone as brain dead as you can spell non sequitur.

Maybe you should try pre-school next?

You need to take a biology class. Natural selection is a process that alters the fundamental nature of a creature to make it more competitive in the world thereby giving it enough of an advantage to propogate itself. To use your example Zebras have been around for around 4 million years now and I don't see much of a change.

Lions kill the old, the young, the sick and injured. There is no natural selection going on, there is only the culling of the herd. When do you matriculate into Middle School?

 

[Contumacious]

[
Capitalism:"From French capitalisme ('the condition of one who is rich'). First used in English by novelist William Thackeray in 1854."

Mental retardation (MR) from french dumb ass .....ia generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70.

.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Does it follow the lion serves natural selection by eating the zebra?

I'm really impressed anyone as brain dead as you can spell non sequitur.

Maybe you should try pre-school next?

That's like saying a pebble "serves" geology by rolling across a stream bed. A lion has no conscience intent to "serve" natural selection anymore than the zebra does. The lion simply does what his genes compel him to do. A lion is the result of natural selection, not the cause of it.

Again, what does any of this have to do with your theory that nature is fair? The evidence that nature is grossly unfair couldn't be more obvious. All you have to do to understand that is consider a child born with a birth defect. How fair is that?

I never said "nature is fair."
I said "nature says you deserve everything"
You twisted that into "you have to be a moron to believe nature is fair." (Post 304)

Nature is often random; hence birth defects.

And I still say while the lion may not be conscious of Charles Darwin, by culling the old and weak and young from the zebra herd, she is serving natural selection.

Yet you don't get it.

You almost knock it out the park...

So why you a demofuck if you believe in natural selection, why do you believe in social welfare?....

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure that limiting the capitalist influence on state violence in any way inhibits your freedom of voluntary exchange?

Or maybe I'm missing your point???

Well, the devil's in the details, I guess. So I suppose I'd need to know how you propose to do that. But, as I've said, I don't really see a problem with capitalists influencing government. In a free market, we're all capitalists of one form or another, so I'm wondering where you'd draw the line between those who should be allowed political expression and those who shouldn't.

Anyway, I still don't think limiting people's influence over government (whether they're rich or not) is the right answer. The most important thing is to limit what that influence can do. It's our steady drift away from the principle of limited government that's allowed the state to be used as a tool for 'redistributing' wealth. And THAT's what we need eliminate.

The irony is, I think you're correct to point out that state redistribution of wealth favors the rich far more than it does the poor. But to use that fact as justification for even more state control over the distribution of wealth seems to me particularly foolish. It's like drinking to relieve a hangover. The more control we give the state over who succeeds in the market place, the more ambitious people will be motived to control the state.

The solution is to do the opposite - get the state out of economics and keep it out. Government has no more business telling us how to make a living than it does telling us how to worship, or what to think.

 

[bripat9643]

I never said "nature is fair."
I said "nature says you deserve everything"
You twisted that into "you have to be a moron to believe nature is fair." (Post 304)

Allow me to quote your full remarks in context:

Nature says you deserve everything.
Capitalism says you deserve nothing, and it guarantees life isn't fair.

If your talking about capitalism vs. nature, and complaining that capitalism isn't fair, then you are implying that nature is fair. Furthermore, you didn't complain about my characterization of your remarks until just now.

Nature is often random; hence birth defects.

Randomness is the essence of unfairness. If I was a teacher and I went around my classroom taking a strap to randomly chosen children, would that be fair? What if I randomly handed out candy? Fairness means that you deserve what you get, that your actions have justified it in some way.

And I still say while the lion may not be conscious of Charles Darwin, by culling the old and weak and young from the zebra herd, she is serving natural selection.

You're just playing word games. Natural selection has no plan. It's simply what is. The lion no more "serves" natural selection by eating a zebra than it "serves" the law of gravity by falling off a cliff.

 

[georgephillip]

Where did you get your education? What exactly does nature provide you if you don't work? You are treading very close to looneydom if you truly believe that. More importantly I challenge you to go out for a walk in the desert somewhere with no water. I wonder how long it will take for Nature to swt you like a bug for your impudence.

Did you find your religion on a desert?

Nature's abundance sustained this specie for millions of years before primitive desert capitalists invented a bronze-age psychopath and called it "god."

Capitalism enhances scarcity in order to maximize profit.

When technology evolves to the point where workers are no longer necessary for profit, the capitalist tells them to take a walk in the desert without water and pray to their slave god.

No thanks.

Yes in point of fact I have spent many years out in the deserts of the world. Try leaving your socialist theories at home and go get your own food. You my good man will starve to death. It takes work to find food to eat. Nature is very abundant but only if you can catch it. Lazy people starve.

Which gets back to the point that you dodged. What do you do when the workers have had enough of your lazy ass and they tell you to go screw yourself and stop providing you with your welfare check/food?

"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital.

"While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the 'cultural inheritance of society' was the primary factor.

"Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization.

"Consequently, mankind does not have to keep 'reinventing the wheel'. 'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.'"

In our current economic system only those who own the means of production benefit from our collective cultural inheritance. Social Credit would amend that by providing each citizen an annual dividend on their collective inheritance that would be independent of any other sources of income.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Did you find your religion on a desert?

Nature's abundance sustained this specie for millions of years before primitive desert capitalists invented a bronze-age psychopath and called it "god."

Capitalism enhances scarcity in order to maximize profit.

When technology evolves to the point where workers are no longer necessary for profit, the capitalist tells them to take a walk in the desert without water and pray to their slave god.

No thanks.

Yes in point of fact I have spent many years out in the deserts of the world. Try leaving your socialist theories at home and go get your own food. You my good man will starve to death. It takes work to find food to eat. Nature is very abundant but only if you can catch it. Lazy people starve.

Which gets back to the point that you dodged. What do you do when the workers have had enough of your lazy ass and they tell you to go screw yourself and stop providing you with your welfare check/food?

"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital.

"While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the 'cultural inheritance of society' was the primary factor.

"Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization.

"Consequently, mankind does not have to keep 'reinventing the wheel'. 'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.'"

In our current economic system only those who own the means of production benefit from our collective cultural inheritance. Social Credit would amend that by providing each citizen an annual dividend on their collective inheritance that would be independent of any other sources of income.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're still dodging the question bucko. What do you do when the workers stop supporting your lazy ass?

 

[daveman]

Why would you think your opinion means anything to me?

I don't. But you keep stamping your feet and insisting your opinion matters to me. It's amusing, in a little-yappy-dog kind of way.

Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance.

How many children are dead because of your work?

Not nearly as many as are dead because you chickened out and didn't protect them.

You lose yet again, Georgie. As always. It's your default mode.