do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
$Zero
what does it mean to be brainwashed?
to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
usually such certainty has been drilled into the brainwashee's mind by
someone else.
either directly or by others who are either similarly brainwashed or
purposely deceptive.
how brainwashed are you?
do you even care?
-$Zero...
crisp fluffy clouds
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a7a496c763cb7c34
Grand Mal
"$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9842fe95-6e5e-4c01...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On your sixteenth birthday, how many times in your life had you put your
hand over your heart and pledged allegiance to a flag? Recited the 'Lord's
Prayer'? Said a 'Hail Mary'? Sang an anthem?
Hell, I brainwashed my son to watch for and reject attempts at self-serving
influence.
$Zero
> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9842fe95-6e5e-4c01...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>
> > what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
> > to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
>
> > usually such certainty has been drilled into the brainwashee's mind by
> > someone else.
>
> > either directly or by others who are either similarly brainwashed or
> > purposely deceptive.
>
> > how brainwashed are you?
>
> > do you even care?
>
> > -$Zero...
>
> > crisp fluffy clouds
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a7a496c763cb7c34
>
> On your sixteenth birthday, how many times in your life had you put your
> hand over your heart and pledged allegiance to a flag?
five times a week, forty weeks a year, for over ten years...
the thing is, i never gave it any thought.
it was just routine.
i was five years old when they started the indoctrination, and they
didn't bother to explain what a pledge was.
let alone a pledge to a flag, FFS.
and all the years after that they never explained it.
it was just routine.
so while the imagery is rather frighteningly fascist, the reality is
kinda silly.
> Recited the 'Lord's Prayer'? Said a 'Hail Mary'? Sang an anthem?
those things don't brainwash you too much.
mostly they just teach you the words to songs and poems.
even if you never think about what the words actually mean.
there may be some sort of minimal subliminal effect, but it's like all
those songs you knew in your youth where you heard different words
than were actually there.
a lot of it is your own interpretation of the sounds.
and what weight and significance you give it is mostly your own
choice.
> Hell, I brainwashed my son to watch for and reject attempts at
> self-serving influence.
self-serving influence from others or from himself?
-$Zero...
the way words work
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/9f37a3d1b1d8a631
boots
>On Aug 15, 5:30?pm, "Grand Mal" <ironw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On your sixteenth birthday, how many times in your life had you put your
>> hand over your heart and pledged allegiance to a flag?
>
>five times a week, forty weeks a year, for over ten years...
>
>the thing is, i never gave it any thought.
>
>it was just routine.
>
>i was five years old when they started the indoctrination, and they
>didn't bother to explain what a pledge was.
>
>let alone a pledge to a flag, FFS.
>
>and all the years after that they never explained it.
>
>it was just routine.
>
>so while the imagery is rather frighteningly fascist, the reality is
>kinda silly.
Most 5-year-olds think Pledge is a furniture polish and don't have a
clue in hell what "allegiance" is but it's similar to the name of some
foreign car, a Renault maybe.
The trick to successful indoctrination is to begin when the subject is
cowed (by very large adults, waterboarding, etc) and confused. Then
all you need is to apply regular practice and voila, robitica!
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
Pies de Arcilla
Not only did I say the pledge of allegiance in school, but I read the
Narnia books without realizing they were Christian allegory.
There's no way a message will penetrate just because you repeat some
words. I discovered an interesting mental phenomenon as a child; if I
took a common word and repeated it enough times to myself, it would
become a meaningless sound.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
--
live work die
sounds like fun
Ash Wensdee
$Zero
-- Corporate Researcher's Conclusion
[from the movie: "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" ]
On Aug 18, 3:04�am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
>
>
> >do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>
> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
> >to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
obligatory tweak:
what does it mean to be brainwashed?
to be strongly convinced that something is true which is actually
false.
[...]
> I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
perhaps, though i'm much more optimistic than that.
i mean, do we really always have to pay the full suggested retail
price?
shouldn't there be a major discount of some sort for those who do
their best to reject the brainwash?
for correctly pointing out, for instance, that the emperor has no
hats?
-$Zero...
what most formed your character?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/12e5040986cf11d2
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
> "people aren't wearing enough hats"
> -- Corporate Researcher's Conclusion
> [from the movie: "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" ]
>
>
>On Aug 18, 3:04?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>>
>>
>> >do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>>
>> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>>
>> >to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
>
>obligatory tweak:
>
>what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
>to be strongly convinced that something is true which is actually
>false.
>
>
How can I tell what is actually false? If I can't tell, I cannot know
I've been brainwashed.
>[...]
>
>
>> I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
>
>perhaps, though i'm much more optimistic than that.
>
>i mean, do we really always have to pay the full suggested retail
>price?
No, you can live in a cabin on the side of a mountain. With luck, the
system will leave you alone. Without luck, you'll be shot by the FBI
in due course.
>
>shouldn't there be a major discount of some sort for those who do
>their best to reject the brainwash?
No. You get an extra dose.
>
>for correctly pointing out, for instance, that the emperor has no
>hats?
wat
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
>
>
> > "people aren't wearing enough hats"
> > -- Corporate Researcher's Conclusion
> > [from the movie: "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" ]
>
> >On Aug 18, 3:04?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> >do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>
> >> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
> >> >to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
>
> >obligatory tweak:
>
> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
> >to be strongly convinced that something is true which is actually
> >false.
>
> How can I tell what is actually false?
if for some bizarre reason sussing out the true from the false doesn't
come naturally to you, you might want to try a bit of critical
thinking.
i'm saying that IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
then well, what i'm saying is that there's a perfectly logical
mathematical reason for all of that. and because of that logical
reason, 2 + 2 = 5 under those conditions.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7b2f9851a850f65c
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8185f17c55cd605d
in that particular case, take notice of the odd and even numbers and
go from there.
> How can I tell what is actually false?
concentrate on the obvious.
eventually you'll realize that faith is the only certainty.
> How can I tell what is actually false?
> If I can't tell, I cannot know I've been brainwashed.
yes you can.
but if you really can't figure out what is true and what is false, and
because of that you can't tell whether or not you've been brainwashed,
chances are very high that you're quite brainwashed.
whether that matters to you or not is another matter all together.
> >[...]
>
> >> I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
>
> >perhaps, though i'm much more optimistic than that.
>
> >i mean, do we really always have to pay the full suggested retail
> >price?
>
> No, you can live in a cabin on the side of a mountain.
or you can haggle.
better yet, you can become an entrepreneur.
you can become a truth-monger.
it's a free market.
> With luck, the system will leave you alone.
system?
what system?
yikes.
> Without luck, you'll be shot by the FBI in due course.
that's not a system. that would be chaos.
anyway, you seem to think that not being brainwashed is a crime.
that's just another brainwash.
> >shouldn't there be a major discount of some sort for those
> >who do their best to reject the brainwash?
>
> No. You get an extra dose.
LOL.
> >for correctly pointing out, for instance, that the emperor has no
> >hats?
>
> wat
what?
hats?
what hats?
-$Zero...
the greatest thing about freedom is...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 19, 8:53?pm, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>>
>>
>> > "people aren't wearing enough hats"
>> > -- Corporate Researcher's Conclusion
>> > [from the movie: "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" ]
>>
>> >On Aug 18, 3:04?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> >> must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >> >do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>>
>> >> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>>
>> >> >to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
>>
>> >obligatory tweak:
>>
>> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>>
>> >to be strongly convinced that something is true which is actually
>> >false.
>>
>> How can I tell what is actually false?
>
>if for some bizarre reason sussing out the true from the false doesn't
>come naturally to you, you might want to try a bit of critical
>thinking.
>
All that produces are contesting "truths".
> i'm saying that IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
> then well, what i'm saying is that there's a perfectly logical
> mathematical reason for all of that. and because of that logical
> reason, 2 + 2 = 5 under those conditions.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7b2f9851a850f65c
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8185f17c55cd605d
No.
>
>in that particular case, take notice of the odd and even numbers and
>go from there.
No.
>
>> How can I tell what is actually false?
>
>concentrate on the obvious.
The road to hell is paved with the obvious.
>
>eventually you'll realize that faith is the only certainty.
Truth and certainty are strange bedfellows.
>
>> How can I tell what is actually false?
>> If I can't tell, I cannot know I've been brainwashed.
>
>yes you can.
>
>but if you really can't figure out what is true and what is false, and
>because of that you can't tell whether or not you've been brainwashed,
>chances are very high that you're quite brainwashed.
If it's been washed, why do I have such a dirty mind?
>
>whether that matters to you or not is another matter all together.
I told you: I consider it part of the price I pay. Like arthritis.
>
>> >[...]
>>
>> >> I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
>>
>> >perhaps, though i'm much more optimistic than that.
>>
>> >i mean, do we really always have to pay the full suggested retail
>> >price?
>>
>> No, you can live in a cabin on the side of a mountain.
>
>or you can haggle.
I'll let you into a sekrit. When the toothpaste guy gives you 10%
free, he's giving you nothing free. Because the market does not set
the price, the toothpaste guy does.
>
>better yet, you can become an entrepreneur.
Fuck that.
>
>you can become a truth-monger.
Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
>
>it's a free market.
The free market is the curse of our world imo.
>> With luck, the system will leave you alone.
>
>system?
>
>what system?
You don't think there is one?
>
>yikes.
>
>
>> Without luck, you'll be shot by the FBI in due course.
>
>that's not a system. that would be chaos.
It is chaos, bro.
>
>anyway, you seem to think that not being brainwashed is a crime.
Did I say so? Could you point to the place where I said that?
>that's just another brainwash.
>
>
>> >shouldn't there be a major discount of some sort for those
>> >who do their best to reject the brainwash?
>>
>> No. You get an extra dose.
>
>LOL.
>
>
>> >for correctly pointing out, for instance, that the emperor has no
>> >hats?
>>
>> wat
>
>what?
>
>hats?
>
>what hats?
What emperor?
>
>-$Zero...
>
> the greatest thing about freedom is...
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> > "people aren't wearing enough hats"
> >> > -- Corporate Researcher's Conclusion
> >> > [from the movie: "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" ]
>
> >> >On Aug 18, 3:04?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> >> >do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>
> >> >> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
> >> >> >to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
>
> >> >obligatory tweak:
>
> >> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>
> >> >to be strongly convinced that something is true which is actually
> >> >false.
>
> >> How can I tell what is actually false?
>
> >if for some bizarre reason sussing out the true from the false doesn't
> >come naturally to you, you might want to try a bit of critical
> >thinking.
>
> All that produces are contesting "truths".
sometimes, maybe.
but it's more likely that the critical thinking wasn't critical
enough.
either that or perhaps sometimes the existence of competing truths is
a truth in itself.
though certainly not in this case:
> > �i'm saying that IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
> > �then well, what i'm saying is that there's a perfectly logical
> > �mathematical reason for all of that. and because of that logical
> > �reason, 2 + 2 = 5 under those conditions.
> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7b2f9851a850f65c
> > �http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8185f17c55cd605d
>
> No.
wimp.
> >in that particular case, take notice of the odd and even numbers and
> >go from there.
>
> No.
whatever, Dude.
i've proven with absolute precision that it's true.
and you know it.
hence your barrage of lazy and mindless No's.
> >> How can I tell what is actually false?
>
> >concentrate on the obvious.
>
> The road to hell is paved with the obvious.
the road to hell is paved with highly lame non-applicable mixed
metaphors.
> >eventually you'll realize that faith is the only certainty.
>
> Truth and certainty are strange bedfellows.
party on, Dude.
> >> How can I tell what is actually false?
> >> If I can't tell, I cannot know I've been brainwashed.
>
> >yes you can.
>
> >but if you really can't figure out what is true and what is false, and
> >because of that you can't tell whether or not you've been brainwashed,
> >chances are very high that you're quite brainwashed.
>
> If it's been washed, why do I have such a dirty mind?
human nature?
> >whether that matters to you or not is another matter all together.
>
> I told you: I consider it part of the price I pay. Like arthritis.
that's an interesting point of view, but mostly it's lazy thinkins.
> >> >[...]
>
> >> >> I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
>
> >> >perhaps, though i'm much more optimistic than that.
>
> >> >i mean, do we really always have to pay the full suggested retail
> >> >price?
>
> >> No, you can live in a cabin on the side of a mountain.
>
> >or you can haggle.
>
> I'll let you into a sekrit. When the toothpaste guy gives you 10%
> free, he's giving you nothing free. Because the market does not set
> the price, the toothpaste guy does.
if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
getting a way better deal.
in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
caved.
> >better yet, you can become an entrepreneur.
>
> Fuck that.
after your above summary of the marketplace, it's probably very wise
of you not to attempt to become an entrepreneur. you'd be far better
off working for one.
> >you can become a truth-monger.
>
> Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
why?
and who said that you have to be certain all the time?
as long as you fully disclose your uncertainty, you're still trading
in truth.
> >it's a free market.
>
> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
that's just silly.
it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
> >> With luck, the system will leave you alone.
>
> >system?
>
> >what system?
>
> You don't think there is one?
as systems go, it's not much of a system if it's not fully consistent
and honorable.
> >yikes.
>
> >> Without luck, you'll be shot by the FBI in due course.
>
> >that's not a system. that would be chaos.
>
> It is chaos, bro.
nice concession.
> >anyway, you seem to think that not being brainwashed is a crime.
>
> Did I say so? Could you point to the place where I said that?
Dude, you're the one dragging the gun-blazing feds into your
nonsensical arguments.
> >that's just another brainwash.
>
> >> >shouldn't there be a major discount of some sort for those
> >> >who do their best to reject the brainwash?
>
> >> No. You get an extra dose.
>
> >LOL.
>
> >> >for correctly pointing out, for instance, that the emperor has no
> >> >hats?
>
> >> wat
>
> >what?
>
> >hats?
>
> >what hats?
>
> What emperor?
bravo!
well done.
...
> >-$Zero...
>
> > the greatest thing about freedom is...
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
anyway, hats aside, let's assume for the sake of argument that there
actually is an emperor.
so, if a squirrel eats a peach, is he stealing it from both the
Martian AND the Orion emperors?
AND all of their "subjects"?
if so, that would certainly be one fuck of a bizarre peach.
not to mention quite the emperorships and so on.
-$Zero...
i'm a big "why?" person
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/a49e791bb4c5dc10
Pies de Arcilla
>
> if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
> else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
> getting a way better deal.
>
> in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
> caved.
>
Both of you have to agree on a price, and both of you have to choose
between all of the alternatives to a transaction. That's what the
market price is; the price is always a market price, unless someone is
stealing or cheating.
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 24, 1:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Ash Wensdee
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 20, 7:05?pm, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >On Aug 19, 8:53?pm, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> >> must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >> > "people aren't wearing enough hats"
>> >> > -- Corporate Researcher's Conclusion
>> >> > [from the movie: "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" ]
>>
>> >> >On Aug 18, 3:04?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> >> >> must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >> >> >do you know anyone who isn't brainwashed in some major way?
>>
>> >> >> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>>
>> >> >> >to strongly think something is true which is actually false.
>>
>> >> >obligatory tweak:
>>
>> >> >what does it mean to be brainwashed?
>>
>> >> >to be strongly convinced that something is true which is actually
>> >> >false.
>>
>> >> How can I tell what is actually false?
>>
>> >if for some bizarre reason sussing out the true from the false doesn't
>> >come naturally to you, you might want to try a bit of critical
>> >thinking.
>>
>> All that produces are contesting "truths".
>
>sometimes, maybe.
>
Always, in my experience.
>but it's more likely that the critical thinking wasn't critical
>enough.
You can see where critically thinking about critically thinking is
liable to end up.
>either that or perhaps sometimes the existence of competing truths is
>a truth in itself.
Is it? Maybe it's more indicative of the lack of truth to be had.
>
>though certainly not in this case:
>
>> > ?i'm saying that IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
>> > ?then well, what i'm saying is that there's a perfectly logical
>> > ?mathematical reason for all of that. and because of that logical
>> > ?reason, 2 + 2 = 5 under those conditions.
>> > ?http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/7b2f9851a850f65c
>> > ?http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8185f17c55cd605d
>>
>> No.
>
>wimp.
>
>
>
>> >in that particular case, take notice of the odd and even numbers and
>> >go from there.
>>
>> No.
>
>whatever, Dude.
>
>i've proven with absolute precision that it's true.
>
>and you know it.
No.
>
>hence your barrage of lazy and mindless No's.
>
>
>> >> How can I tell what is actually false?
>>
>> >concentrate on the obvious.
>>
>> The road to hell is paved with the obvious.
>
>the road to hell is paved with highly lame non-applicable mixed
>metaphors.
There's nothing mixed in that.
>
>
>> >eventually you'll realize that faith is the only certainty.
>>
>> Truth and certainty are strange bedfellows.
>
>party on, Dude.
>
>
>> >> How can I tell what is actually false?
>> >> If I can't tell, I cannot know I've been brainwashed.
>>
>> >yes you can.
>>
>> >but if you really can't figure out what is true and what is false, and
>> >because of that you can't tell whether or not you've been brainwashed,
>> >chances are very high that you're quite brainwashed.
>>
>> If it's been washed, why do I have such a dirty mind?
>
>human nature?
>
>
>> >whether that matters to you or not is another matter all together.
>>
>> I told you: I consider it part of the price I pay. Like arthritis.
>
>that's an interesting point of view, but mostly it's lazy thinkins.
No. It's the simple truth about how we live.
>
>
>> >> >[...]
>>
>> >> >> I accept it as part of the price we have to pay.
>>
>> >> >perhaps, though i'm much more optimistic than that.
>>
>> >> >i mean, do we really always have to pay the full suggested retail
>> >> >price?
>>
>> >> No, you can live in a cabin on the side of a mountain.
>>
>> >or you can haggle.
>>
>> I'll let you into a sekrit. When the toothpaste guy gives you 10%
>> free, he's giving you nothing free. Because the market does not set
>> the price, the toothpaste guy does.
>
>if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
>else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
>getting a way better deal.
There is more in it for him.
>
>in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
>caved.
No. He allowed you to think that that happened.
>
>
>> >better yet, you can become an entrepreneur.
>>
>> Fuck that.
>
>after your above summary of the marketplace, it's probably very wise
>of you not to attempt to become an entrepreneur. you'd be far better
>off working for one.
I prefer to remain above the fray, as far as possible.
>
>
>> >you can become a truth-monger.
>>
>> Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
>
>why?
It is very tiring.
>
>and who said that you have to be certain all the time?
Truthmongers are obliged to.
>
>as long as you fully disclose your uncertainty, you're still trading
>in truth.
Trading in truth and being a truthmonger are not the same thing.
>
>> >it's a free market.
>>
>> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
>
>that's just silly.
No.
>
>it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
The "free market" is just greed as ideology.
>
>and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
>
>> >> With luck, the system will leave you alone.
>>
>> >system?
>>
>> >what system?
>>
>> You don't think there is one?
>
>as systems go, it's not much of a system if it's not fully consistent
>and honorable.
What?
>
>
>> >yikes.
>>
>> >> Without luck, you'll be shot by the FBI in due course.
>>
>> >that's not a system. that would be chaos.
>>
>> It is chaos, bro.
>
>nice concession.
It can be both.
>
>
>> >anyway, you seem to think that not being brainwashed is a crime.
>>
>> Did I say so? Could you point to the place where I said that?
>
>Dude, you're the one dragging the gun-blazing feds into your
>nonsensical arguments.
You think the FBI shoots you only for committing crimes?
>
>
>> >that's just another brainwash.
>>
>> >> >shouldn't there be a major discount of some sort for those
>> >> >who do their best to reject the brainwash?
>>
>> >> No. You get an extra dose.
>>
>> >LOL.
>>
>> >> >for correctly pointing out, for instance, that the emperor has no
>> >> >hats?
>>
>> >> wat
>>
>> >what?
>>
>> >hats?
>>
>> >what hats?
>>
>> What emperor?
>
>bravo!
>
>well done.
>
>...
>
>> >-$Zero...
>>
>> > the greatest thing about freedom is...
>> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/25b38ce7ca97f1e4
>
>anyway, hats aside, let's assume for the sake of argument that there
>actually is an emperor.
Okay.
>
>so, if a squirrel eats a peach, is he stealing it from both the
>Martian AND the Orion emperors?
Emperors are thieves.
>
>AND all of their "subjects"?
Emperors are tyrants.
>
>if so, that would certainly be one fuck of a bizarre peach.
>
>not to mention quite the emperorships and so on.
>
Emperorship is theft.
Pies de Arcilla
> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> world must suffer, like this:
>
> >On Aug 24, 1:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
> >> else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
> >> getting a way better deal.
>
> >> in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
> >> caved.
>
> >Both of you have to agree on a price, and both of you have to choose
> >between all of the alternatives to a transaction. That's what the
> >market price is; the price is always a market price, unless someone is
> >stealing or cheating.
>
> This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
> reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
I refuse to define consumer/producer surplus as stealing/cheating.
Other than that, I think it's ridiculous to say someone is _always_
stealing/cheating.
$Zero
"Well, I was born
a Hebrew,
but eventually
I converted to
Narcissism"
-- Woody Allen
On Aug 25, 2:31�am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
[...]
> >> >you can become a truth-monger.
>
> >> Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
>
> >why?
>
> It is very tiring.
>
> >and who said that you have to be certain all the time?
>
> Truthmongers are obliged to.
>
> >as long as you fully disclose your uncertainty, you're still trading
> >in truth.
>
> Trading in truth and being a truthmonger are not the same thing.
how do they differ?
-$Zero...
Renowned linguist Steven Pinker speaks at
Google's Mountain View, CA, headquarters...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/8abfc21000a5ba4b
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
[...]
> >> >it's a free market.
>
> >> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
>
> >that's just silly.
>
> No.
yes.
very silly.
> >it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
>
> The "free market" is just greed as ideology.
there is no other thing other than a free market.
if you think there is, go ahead and try to describe an alternative.
there is none.
all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
> >and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
>
> The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
nonsense.
that's like saying that all writers are Raypert.
anyway, try thinking a bit more personally about the free market.
let's say that you spend ten years perfecting your poker skills and
you write a book describing same.
would it be "dishonest" of you to charge someone for skillfully
communicating what you've learned in all of your thousands of hours of
grinding?
of course not.
poof, there goes your argument.
-$Zero...
freedom! (20 percent off)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/09530707e71a0580
boots
Well, perhaps stealing or cheating, or perhaps only coercing, but
maybe there's no difference in the end.
boots
Go live on the moon and refuse to pay the high cost of air.
Pies de Arcilla
> >world must suffer, like this:
>
> >>On Aug 24, 1:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
> >>> else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
> >>> getting a way better deal.
>
> >>> in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
> >>> caved.
>
> >>Both of you have to agree on a price, and both of you have to choose
> >>between all of the alternatives to a transaction. That's what the
> >>market price is; the price is always a market price, unless someone is
> >>stealing or cheating.
>
> >This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
> >reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
>
> Well, perhaps stealing or cheating, or perhaps only coercing, but
> maybe there's no difference in the end.
Well, it's a matter of degree; you always have some choices, and you
never have all the choices you could ask for, so you can say you're
_always_ free or you're _never_ free depending on whether you're a
glass half-empty or half-full kinda guy.
I would say you're almost always pretty free and uncoerced, because
most of the time you have a reasonable number of choices. And even if
you don't, if _somebody_ does, then that will keep the market price at
what it _would_ be if you _did_-I learned that from David Friedman.
Ash Wensdee
I see you haven't learnt a scrap of economics in my absence.
Ash Wensdee
like this:
>Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>
>> Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
>>world must suffer, like this:
>>
>>>On Aug 24, 1:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
>>>> else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
>>>> getting a way better deal.
>>>>
>>>> in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
>>>> caved.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Both of you have to agree on a price, and both of you have to choose
>>>between all of the alternatives to a transaction. That's what the
>>>market price is; the price is always a market price, unless someone is
>>>stealing or cheating.
>>
>>This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
>>reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
>
>Well, perhaps stealing or cheating, or perhaps only coercing, but
>maybe there's no difference in the end.
I consider coercion to be theft, broadly speaking.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> >it's a free market.
>>
>> >> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
>>
>> >that's just silly.
>>
>> No.
>
>yes.
>
>very silly.
>
No.
>
>> >it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
>>
>> The "free market" is just greed as ideology.
>
>there is no other thing other than a free market.
>
>if you think there is, go ahead and try to describe an alternative.
>
>there is none.
>
>all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
No. It's perfectly possible to have no market at all.
>
>> >and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
>>
>> The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
>
>nonsense.
>
>that's like saying that all writers are Raypert.
>
>anyway, try thinking a bit more personally about the free market.
>
>let's say that you spend ten years perfecting your poker skills and
>you write a book describing same.
>
>would it be "dishonest" of you to charge someone for skillfully
>communicating what you've learned in all of your thousands of hours of
>grinding?
>
>of course not.
>
>poof, there goes your argument.
No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
> [asked about what religion he subscribed to]
>
> "Well, I was born
> a Hebrew,
> but eventually
> I converted to
> Narcissism"
> -- Woody Allen
>
>On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>
>[...]
>
>> >> >you can become a truth-monger.
>>
>> >> Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
>>
>> >why?
>>
>> It is very tiring.
>>
>> >and who said that you have to be certain all the time?
>>
>> Truthmongers are obliged to.
>>
>> >as long as you fully disclose your uncertainty, you're still trading
>> >in truth.
>>
>> Trading in truth and being a truthmonger are not the same thing.
>
>how do they differ?
>
>
The former is not interpretive.
Towse
I'm reminded a bit of a book dealer I knew (RIP) who had a book for sale
at a price he thought reasonable. Another book dealer bought the book.
That book dealer walked down to his booth at the same show and offered
for sale (and sold) for something approaching 10* what book dealer #1
had received in payment from him.
Is that stealing?
Is that coercion?
Is that ... that book dealer #1 wasn't up to snuff about the value of
his book stock?
(Oh, my. Am I showing my Republican roots?)
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Ray Haddad
and Towse <se...@towse.com> instead replied:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> boots <n...@no.no> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
>> like this:
>>
>>> Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>
>>>> This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
>>>> reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
>
>>> Well, perhaps stealing or cheating, or perhaps only coercing, but
>>> maybe there's no difference in the end.
>>
>> I consider coercion to be theft, broadly speaking.
>
>I'm reminded a bit of a book dealer I knew (RIP) who had a book for sale
>at a price he thought reasonable. Another book dealer bought the book.
>
>That book dealer walked down to his booth at the same show and offered
>for sale (and sold) for something approaching 10* what book dealer #1
>had received in payment from him.
>
>Is that stealing?
>
>Is that coercion?
>
>Is that ... that book dealer #1 wasn't up to snuff about the value of
>his book stock?
>
>(Oh, my. Am I showing my Republican roots?)
Second-hand book dealers are a unique breed. Ever read any of John
Dunning's books? His hero is an ex cop turned book seller and he
describes the mindset of the bookseller to a tee.
We often buy books by the crateful. That normally makes our cost per
book less than 20c each in most cases when that happens. Almost all
of them can be resold for at least $1.00 to other booksellers. Some
of them, perhaps one out of every 5, will be priced over $25.00 per
book with some going as high as $700.00 from recent buys. When we
sell a book for $500.00 that we paid 50c for, it makes the heart do
a few handsprings.
--
Ray
Ash Wensdee
suffer, like this:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> boots <n...@no.no> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
>> like this:
>>
>>> Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>
>>>> This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
>>>> reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
>
>>> Well, perhaps stealing or cheating, or perhaps only coercing, but
>>> maybe there's no difference in the end.
>>
>> I consider coercion to be theft, broadly speaking.
>
>I'm reminded a bit of a book dealer I knew (RIP) who had a book for sale
>at a price he thought reasonable. Another book dealer bought the book.
>
>That book dealer walked down to his booth at the same show and offered
>for sale (and sold) for something approaching 10* what book dealer #1
>had received in payment from him.
>
>Is that stealing?
>
>Is that coercion?
>
>Is that ... that book dealer #1 wasn't up to snuff about the value of
>his book stock?
>
>(Oh, my. Am I showing my Republican roots?)
I think you know the answer, Sal, and your political philosophy
consists in trying to explain it away so that you can remain greedy.
boots
I would say that you've nothing to lose but your life and you'll lose
that anyway in the end, so you're always totally free. I learned that
from life.
boots
Towse
Wrong answer.
If your editing skills are worth $10/hr and someone offers you $20/hr
... and you take the higher rate. Is that stealing? Is that coercion?
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
> >On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >[...]
>
> >> >> >it's a free market.
>
> >> >> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
>
> >> >that's just silly.
>
> >> No.
>
> >yes.
>
> >very silly.
>
> No.
yes.
very very silly.
> >> >it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
>
> >> The "free market" is just greed as ideology.
>
> >there is no other thing other than a free market.
>
> >if you think there is, go ahead and try to describe an alternative.
>
> >there is none.
>
> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>
> No. It's perfectly possible to have no market at all.
well, genius, why don't you take a crack at trying to describing how
that would actually work?
i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
> >> >and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
>
> >> The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
>
> >nonsense.
>
> >that's like saying that all writers are Raypert.
>
> >anyway, try thinking a bit more personally about the free market.
>
> >let's say that you spend ten years perfecting your poker skills and
> >you write a book describing same.
>
> >would it be "dishonest" of you to charge someone for skillfully
> >communicating what you've learned in all of your thousands of hours
> >of grinding?
>
> >of course not.
>
> >poof, there goes your argument.
>
> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
bwah!
you need to seriously reconsider whether or not your time has a value
greater than none.
recap:
> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
bwah!
"IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
-- Dr. Zen
[paraphrased]
"IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
-- Dr. Zen
[mocked]
"IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
-- Dr. Zen
[owned]
anyway, i look forward to arguing all of these things in this thread
with you in greater depth and humor, but right know i'm quite busy
entrepreneuring.
-$Zero...
"it's not all that mysterious really, it's just non-brainwashed:
IF 2 + 2 = 5
AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
1] True
2] False
3] Unable to Determine
4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
the logical answer is #2.
(with a strong #4 kicker, to boot)
because there are no false premises stated above
(due to the inexorable nature of the relationships
between odd and even numbers)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/e9fdce972e01c245
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
>
> > [asked about what religion he subscribed to]
>
> > "Well, I was born
> > a Hebrew,
> > but eventually
> > I converted to
> > Narcissism"
> > -- Woody Allen
>
> >On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >[...]
>
> >> >> >you can become a truth-monger.
>
> >> >> Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
>
> >> >why?
>
> >> It is very tiring.
>
> >> >and who said that you have to be certain all the time?
>
> >> Truthmongers are obliged to.
>
> >> >as long as you fully disclose your uncertainty, you're still trading
> >> >in truth.
>
> >> Trading in truth and being a truthmonger are not the same thing.
>
> >how do they differ?
>
> The former is not interpretive.
oh well, i guess there goes the whole idea of there being any
absolutes and/or distinctions of truth, huh?
...
so, IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
under those conditions, 2 + 2 = what?
seriously.
under those conditions, what does 2 + 2 add up to?
...
"IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
-- Dr. Zen
[paraphrased]
"IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
-- Dr. Zen
[mocked]
"IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
-- Dr. Zen
[owned]
Ash Wensdee
I think the problem we are having in this discussion is that you keep
talking about what things are "worth" without explaining how you
arrive at a figure.
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com -- bullshit you can trust
Ash Wensdee
Ash Wensdee
Well yes. Murder is only murder if the victim dies.
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 26, 1:55?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
What?
>...
>
>so, IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
>
>under those conditions, 2 + 2 = what?
Anything you like.
>
>seriously.
>
>under those conditions, what does 2 + 2 add up to?
>
Anything you like.
>...
>
>
> "IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
> -- Dr. Zen
> [paraphrased]
>
> "IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
> -- Dr. Zen
> [mocked]
>
> "IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
> -- Dr. Zen
> [owned]
>
>
>-$Zero...
>
> "it's not all that mysterious really, it's just non-brainwashed:
>
> IF 2 + 2 = 5
> AND 3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> AND 3 > 2
> THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
>
> 1] True
> 2] False
> 3] Unable to Determine
> 4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> the logical answer is #2.
1.
>
> (with a strong #4 kicker, to boot)
>
> because there are no false premises stated above
> (due to
zero's insanity.
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 26, 1:57?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>> >On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> >> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> >> must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >[...]
>>
>> >> >> >it's a free market.
>>
>> >> >> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
>>
>> >> >that's just silly.
>>
>> >> No.
>>
>> >yes.
>>
>> >very silly.
>>
>> No.
>
>yes.
>
>very very silly.
>
No no.
>> >> >it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
>>
>> >> The "free market" is just greed as ideology.
>>
>> >there is no other thing other than a free market.
>>
>> >if you think there is, go ahead and try to describe an alternative.
>>
>> >there is none.
>>
>> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>>
>> No. It's perfectly possible to have no market at all.
>
>well, genius, why don't you take a crack at trying to describing how
>that would actually work?
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs."
>
>i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>
>all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
>
>
>> >> >and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
>>
>> >> The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
>>
>> >nonsense.
>>
>> >that's like saying that all writers are Raypert.
>>
>> >anyway, try thinking a bit more personally about the free market.
>>
>> >let's say that you spend ten years perfecting your poker skills and
>> >you write a book describing same.
>>
>> >would it be "dishonest" of you to charge someone for skillfully
>> >communicating what you've learned in all of your thousands of hours
>> >of grinding?
>>
>> >of course not.
>>
>> >poof, there goes your argument.
>>
>> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
>
>bwah!
>
>you need to seriously reconsider whether or not your time has a value
>greater than none.
I think you are suffering from the same problem Towse is: you are
using the word "value" without any idea of what you mean by it.
>
>recap:
>
>> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
>
>bwah!
>
>
> "IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
> -- Dr. Zen
> [paraphrased]
>
> "IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
> -- Dr. Zen
> [mocked]
>
> "IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
> -- Dr. Zen
> [owned]
>
>anyway, i look forward to arguing all of these things in this thread
>with you in greater depth and humor, but right know i'm quite busy
>entrepreneuring.
>
Stealing?
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Towse
> "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
> needs."
Back ten or so years ago a survey found that 45% of American adult
respondents believed this bit was from the U.S. Constitution.
No lie!
Ash Wensdee
suffer, like this:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>
>> "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
>> needs."
>
>Back ten or so years ago a survey found that 45% of American adult
>respondents believed this bit was from the U.S. Constitution.
>
>No lie!
Most Americans are socialists in their hearts. When polled, they say
they want liberal policies. Then the MSM cons them into voting for
corporate shills. Pity.
Pies de Arcilla
I'm not making a vague philosophical statement like that, I'm
referring to something interesting I read about why even though most
of a group of things are not perfectly interchangeable that doesn't
mean economic theory about free markets is inapplicable.
I might have the concept garbled or I could be just being too vague,
so I located what I was remembering reading:
"For many purposes, we can think of land as a single good with a
single price and quantity--not because all land is the same, or even
because any piece of land is a good substitute for any other piece (it
is not), but because there are always some pieces of land that are "on
the margin" between being used for one purpose or another."
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_14/PThy_Chapter_14.html
Pies de Arcilla
> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> world must suffer, like this:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 25, 2:31 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> >> world must suffer, like this:
>
> >> >On Aug 24, 1:42 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> if i haggle with the toothpaste guy and get 50% off while everyone
> >> >> else pays full price, you can call it whatever you want but i call it
> >> >> getting a way better deal.
>
> >> >> in that case, the consumer (moi) set the price and the toothpaste guy
> >> >> caved.
>
> >> >Both of you have to agree on a price, and both of you have to choose
> >> >between all of the alternatives to a transaction. That's what the
> >> >market price is; the price is always a market price, unless someone is
> >> >stealing or cheating.
>
> >> This is only how markets, and prices, work in the abstract. In
> >> reality, someone is stealing or cheating.
>
> >I refuse to define consumer/producer surplus as stealing/cheating.
> >Other than that, I think it's ridiculous to say someone is _always_
> >stealing/cheating.
>
> I see you haven't learnt a scrap of economics in my absence.
I've read this, although I may not have absorbed it all, particularly
the math:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC.html
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> > [asked about what religion he subscribed to]
>
> >> > "Well, I was born
> >> > a Hebrew,
> >> > but eventually
> >> > I converted to
> >> > Narcissism"
> >> > -- Woody Allen
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Judaism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Narcissism
LOL.
what a wit on that dude.
i've forgotten which movie he says that in, but it's one of his newer
ones.
> >> >On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> >[...]
>
> >> >> >> >you can become a truth-monger.
>
> >> >> >> Fuck that too. Having to be certain all the time would wear me out.
>
> >> >> >why?
>
> >> >> It is very tiring.
>
> >> >> >and who said that you have to be certain all the time?
>
> >> >> Truthmongers are obliged to.
>
> >> >> >as long as you fully disclose your uncertainty, you're still trading
> >> >> >in truth.
>
> >> >> Trading in truth and being a truthmonger are not the same thing.
>
> >> >how do they differ?
>
> >> The former is not interpretive.
>
> >oh well, i guess there goes the whole idea of there being any
> >absolutes and/or distinctions of truth, huh?
>
> What?
"interpretive"
it's a very important necessity when considering the actual truth of
stuff.
see also:
> >...
>
> > so, IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
>
> > under those conditions, 2 + 2 = what?
>
> Anything you like.
no.
under those conditions, 2 + 2 = 5
EOFS.
it's an "IF" thing.
it's based on the nature of the inexorable differences between odd and
even numbers.
> >seriously.
>
> >under those conditions, what does 2 + 2 add up to?
>
> Anything you like.
bzzzt.
wrong.
under those conditions, 2 + 2 can ONLY equal 5.
it cannot possibly equal anything else. [a]
see how that works?
because under those conditions, um=0.5.
OTOH, if the "normal" circumstances were in play, then um=0.
so under _those_ conditions:
2 + 2 can ONLY equal 4
AND
3 + 3 can ONLY equal 6
....
OTOH, if um=1, then under _those_ conditions:
2 + 2 can ONLY equal 6
AND
3 + 3 can ONLY equal 4
...
it's called logic.
true logic, not brainwashed logic.
there's an important difference.
the former uses pure reason, the latter merely parrots its own
reckless flaws.
(until enough somebodies concede that the earth is NOT flat).
"oops!"
[a] under those conditions, you cannot rationally and logically show
it equating to anything other than 5.
however, to your irrational dismay, i can _easily_ prove exactly why
and how it equals 5.
see how that works?
it's a case of cold hard evidence triumphing over wishful (obsolete)
thinking.
evidence triumphing over brainwashed thinking, to be more precise.
> >...
>
> > "IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > [paraphrased]
>
> > "IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > [mocked]
>
> > "IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > [owned]
>
> >-$Zero...
>
> > "it's not all that mysterious really, it's just non-brainwashed:
>
> > IF 2 + 2 = 5
> > AND�3 + 3 = 2 + 2
> > AND�3 > 2
> > THEN�2 + 2 = 4 is...
>
> > 1] True
> > 2]�False
> > 3]�Unable to Determine
> > 4]�Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
>
> > the logical answer is #2.
>
> 1.
nope.
under those conditions, 2 + 2 cannot possibly equal 4.
anyway, the better way to pose the question is:
IF 3 + 3 = 5
AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3
AND 3 > 2
THEN 2 + 2 = 4 is...
1] True
2] False
3] Unable to Determine
4] Logical Cognitive Dissonance/y
#2
...
i must have forgotten to adjust the first IF statement when i
initially composed that.
absent-minded creative genius that i am.
> > (with a strong #4 kicker, to boot)
>
> >�because there are no false premises stated above
> >�(due to
>
> zero's insanity.
nope.
it's due to the inexorable nature of the differences between odd and
even numbers. [b]
it's a math thinger.
and a logic thinger.
as pour moi, i'm Uncertifiably Sane.
[b] something which had gone unnoticed in the "traditional" logic
world until i discovered it.
ba' dum, chsh!
> Free Tibet?
> I didn't know I was paying for it.
> http://gollyg.blogspot.com-- bullshit you can trust
i like that slogan.
i may "steal" it for the purebullshit.com project.
ok?
-$Zero...
high tech poetry
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/bad68e1a832a33c1
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
> >On Aug 26, 1:57?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
> >> >On Aug 25, 2:31?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> >> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> >> must suffer, like this:
>
> >> >[...]
>
> >> >> >> >it's a free market.
>
> >> >> >> The free market is the curse of our world imo.
[begin loop]
> >> >> >that's just silly.
>
> >> >> No.
>
> >> >yes.
>
> >> >very silly.
>
> >> No.
>
> >yes.
>
> >very very silly.
>
> No no.
yes.
very very very silly.
[repeat loop]
> >> >> >it's not the free market that curses anything, it's the greed.
>
> >> >> The "free market" is just greed as ideology.
>
> >> >there is no other thing other than a free market.
>
> >> >if you think there is, go ahead and try to describe an alternative.
>
> >> >there is none.
>
> >> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>
> >> No. It's perfectly possible to have no market at all.
>
> >well, genius, why don't you take a crack at trying to describing how
> >that would actually work?
>
> "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
> needs."
in such a world, do squirrels steal peaches from Martians and Orions?
...
you didn't see that coming, did you?
> >i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>
> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>
> No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
so would a squirrel eating a peach be stealing or not?
> >> >> >and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
>
> >> >> The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
>
> >> >nonsense.
>
> >> >that's like saying that all writers are Raypert.
>
> >> >anyway, try thinking a bit more personally about the free market.
>
> >> >let's say that you spend ten years perfecting your poker skills and
> >> >you write a book describing same.
>
> >> >would it be "dishonest" of you to charge someone for skillfully
> >> >communicating what you've learned in all of your thousands of hours
> >> >of grinding?
>
> >> >of course not.
>
> >> >poof, there goes your argument.
>
> >> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
>
> >bwah!
>
> >you need to seriously reconsider whether or not your time has a value
> >greater than none.
>
> I think you are suffering from the same problem Towse is: you are
> using the word "value" without any idea of what you mean by it.
i know the value of my time.
do you know the value of yours?
apparently not.
especially since you think getting 50% off from the toothpaste-monger
is the same as paying the full suggested retail price.
> >recap:
>
> >> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
>
> > bwah!
>
> > "IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > [paraphrased]
>
> > "IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > [mocked]
>
> > "IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
> > -- Dr. Zen
> > [owned]
>
> >anyway, i look forward to arguing all of these things in this thread
> >with you in greater depth and humor, but right know i'm quite busy
> >entrepreneuring.
>
> Stealing?
only from Sal.
but she didn't even know the value of what she said until i told her,
so...
no theft at all.
> Ash Wensdee
when are you gonna tell us the origin and meaning of this new nom?
it's pretty amusing, but it is so not what one would expect you to
call yourself.
it's a different kind of humor than your usual fare.
the accent thing is quite funny, but again, it's so not like you.
it's much more like Geno than anyone else.
-$Zero...
this is hilarious stuff. and useful, too.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f8904b0972f6b630
Pies de Arcilla
I may not be absolutely clear on everything, but I accept
wholeheartedly the idea that value is subjective, and determined by
revealed preference. I mean, it's obviously not _objective_ and it's
obviously not determined by what people _say_ they value.
Pies de Arcilla
> Towse <s...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
I think that people can remain greedy no matter what, so it doesn't
explain why people defend capitalism.
Pies de Arcilla
> Towse <s...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
> suffer, like this:
>
>
>
> >Ash Wensdee wrote:
I was reading an entertaining book that has a little microeconomics in
it: More Joel On Software. Mainly for programmers. But it has an
interesting discussion of surplus value and the ways to capture it and
the drawbacks of doing so. Why your customers will hate your guts for
being greedy.
Towse
> On Aug 26, 10:50�pm, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
>> must suffer, like this:
>>> anyway, i look forward to arguing all of these things in this thread
>>> with you in greater depth and humor, but right know i'm quite busy
>>> entrepreneuring.
>> Stealing?
>
> only from Sal.
>
> but she didn't even know the value of what she said until i told her,
> so...
>
> no theft at all.
Sorta like the guy who sold his book worth $50 to the other book dealer
for $5.
Having any luck making beaucoup bucks off t-shirts?
Ash Wensdee
You can't see why that's a fallacy?
I have a field. I might use it as a recreation ground or I might plant
it with wheat.
That doesn't make your swamp a field.
See it?
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Ash Wensdee
Towse
> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
> suffer, like this:
>> If your editing skills are worth $10/hr and someone offers you $20/hr
>> ... and you take the higher rate. Is that stealing? Is that coercion?
>
> I think the problem we are having in this discussion is that you keep
> talking about what things are "worth" without explaining how you
> arrive at a figure.
Silly you. Your skills are worth $10/hr because that's what you're
peddling them for.
Just as a book is worth $5 because that's what it's being peddled for
and someone is willing to spend for it.
... and then that someone takes the book to their shop and marks it at
$50 and lo' and behold someone comes and is willing to pay $50 for it.
Has the book changed value? or have we just found a willing buyer to pay
the price the seller is asking?
In your case, with the $10/hr editing skills you're offering, if someone
offers to pay $20/hr does that make your skills more valuable or are
they just the same o' skills they've always been?
If you take $20/hr for skills that were valued at $10/hr two minutes
ago, are you thieving or just taking advantage of your new customer's
lack of bargaining skills or severe lack of due diligence?
Are you coercing them?
Are you =really= going to tell them that you're really only worth the
$10/hr that you've been peddling yourself for?
More power to you if you do.
If you'd take the $20 per hour, what does that make you? An
entrepreneur? $Zero meet Ash.
Ash Wensdee
Are we going to do "I pretend not to understand English idiom" this
week?
In this instance, "can" = "feel able to". Thanks for playing though.
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 26, 10:48?pm, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
Not if there is any actual truth, it isn't.
>see also:
>
>> >...
>>
>> > so, IF 3 + 3 = 5 AND 2 + 2 = 3 + 3 AND 3 > 2
>>
>> > under those conditions, 2 + 2 = what?
>>
>> Anything you like.
>
>no.
>
>under those conditions, 2 + 2 = 5
Yes.
>
>EOFS.
No.
>
>it's an "IF" thing.
>
>it's based on the nature of the inexorable differences between odd and
>even numbers.
>
No.
>
>> >seriously.
>>
>> >under those conditions, what does 2 + 2 add up to?
>>
>> Anything you like.
>
>bzzzt.
>
>wrong.
>
>under those conditions, 2 + 2 can ONLY equal 5.
No.
>
>it cannot possibly equal anything else. [a]
>
>see how that works?
No.
>
>because under those conditions, um=0.5.
>
>OTOH, if the "normal" circumstances were in play, then um=0.
>
>so under _those_ conditions:
>
> 2 + 2 can ONLY equal 4
>
>AND
>
> 3 + 3 can ONLY equal 6
>
>....
>
>OTOH, if um=1, then under _those_ conditions:
>
> 2 + 2 can ONLY equal 6
>
>AND
>
> 3 + 3 can ONLY equal 4
>
>...
>
>it's called logic.
No.
>
>true logic, not brainwashed logic.
>
>there's an important difference.
No.
>
>the former uses pure reason
You had better hope Sal has a dictionary that defines "reason" as
"bullshit", but I don't think the Republican Party has written one as
yet.
--
Free Tibet?
I didn't know I was paying for it.
Ash Wensdee
You need to think a bit more about it, because it's perfectly possible
to analyse value both as something objective and as something
subjective. I refer you to Marx's Capital to begin your study of it.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
Not if they need peaches, no.
>...
>
>you didn't see that coming, did you?
Sadly, yes.
>
>
>> >i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>>
>> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>>
>> No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
>
>so would a squirrel eating a peach be stealing or not?
Not if it needed to eat a peach.
>
>
>> >> >> >and the dishonesty which the greed "fosters".
>>
>> >> >> The "free market" is just dishonesty as ideology.
>>
>> >> >nonsense.
>>
>> >> >that's like saying that all writers are Raypert.
>>
>> >> >anyway, try thinking a bit more personally about the free market.
>>
>> >> >let's say that you spend ten years perfecting your poker skills and
>> >> >you write a book describing same.
>>
>> >> >would it be "dishonest" of you to charge someone for skillfully
>> >> >communicating what you've learned in all of your thousands of hours
>> >> >of grinding?
>>
>> >> >of course not.
>>
>> >> >poof, there goes your argument.
>>
>> >> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
>>
>> >bwah!
>>
>> >you need to seriously reconsider whether or not your time has a value
>> >greater than none.
>>
>> I think you are suffering from the same problem Towse is: you are
>> using the word "value" without any idea of what you mean by it.
>
>i know the value of my time.
>
>do you know the value of yours?
You are using the word "value" without any idea of what you mean by
it.
>
>apparently not.
>
>especially since you think getting 50% off from the toothpaste-monger
>is the same as paying the full suggested retail price.
No.
>
>> >recap:
>>
>> >> No. You will need to think a bit more about it.
>>
>> > bwah!
>>
>> > "IF a unicorn is running in the Kentucky derby..."
>> > -- Dr. Zen
>> > [paraphrased]
>>
>> > "IF all brown-haired women have bad tempers..."
>> > -- Dr. Zen
>> > [mocked]
>>
>> > "IF 3 + 3 = 5..."
>> > -- Dr. Zen
>> > [owned]
>>
>> >anyway, i look forward to arguing all of these things in this thread
>> >with you in greater depth and humor, but right know i'm quite busy
>> >entrepreneuring.
>>
>> Stealing?
>
>only from Sal.
>
>but she didn't even know the value of what she said until i told her,
>so...
>
>no theft at all.
>
>> Ash Wensdee
>
>when are you gonna tell us the origin and meaning of this new nom?
It is just the latest in a series.
Golly Gosh, Grace Note, Rose Garden, FR Vessant, Ash Wensdee, Rumen
Bord etc etc etc.
>
>it's pretty amusing, but it is so not what one would expect you to
>call yourself.
>
>it's a different kind of humor than your usual fare.
>
>the accent thing is quite funny, but again, it's so not like you.
>
>it's much more like Geno than anyone else.
It's not meant to be funny as such.
>
>
>-$Zero...
>
> this is hilarious stuff. and useful, too.
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/f8904b0972f6b630
--
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> must suffer, like this:
[...]
wow.
that's quite the backpedal you're taking there, huh?
(be careful you don't lose your balance with such a major reversal).
i mean, either squirrels eating peaches are thieves stealing from the
Martians and the Orions or they're not.
you've always claimed that they _were_ stealing from the Martians and
the Orions.
you've NEVER qualified it in anyway before.
who knew that it was just a theoretical state of mind, aye?
...
and before you stub your toe again with a careless quick reply, ask
yourself how you go about notifying the Martians and the Orions that
the squirrel is no longer stealing from them.
i mean, they ought to be informed of the status of the "theft", no?
> >you didn't see that coming, did you?
>
> Sadly, yes.
well, you're not very prepared for someone who saw it coming.
> >> >i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>
> >> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>
> >> No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
>
> >so would a squirrel eating a peach be stealing or not?
>
> Not if it needed to eat a peach.
welcome home, grasshopper.
and just so you realize how wrong you've been, describe for us how you
go about determining whether the squirrel "needs" to eat a peach.
AND how you go about regulating squirrel dining habits.
take a few days, if you like.
we'll wait.
...
critical thinking... it can be utterly exausting when you do it wrong.
...
-$Zero...
another day, another dollar i didn't pursue
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/3b69d62546871411
$Zero
> $Zero wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 10:50 pm, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
> >> must suffer, like this:
> >>> anyway, i look forward to arguing all of these things in this thread
> >>> with you in greater depth and humor, but right know i'm quite busy
> >>> entrepreneuring.
> >> Stealing?
>
> > only from Sal.
>
> > but she didn't even know the value of what she said until i told her,
> > so...
>
> > no theft at all.
>
> Sorta like the guy who sold his book worth $50 to the other book dealer
> for $5.
>
> Having any luck making beaucoup bucks off t-shirts?
chuggling along.
i should have the shopping cart thinger installed by next Monday or
so.
-$Zero...
an honest day's work in an abstract economy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/32745b9b9d8407fa
Ash Wensdee
suffer, like this:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>> suffer, like this:
>
>>> If your editing skills are worth $10/hr and someone offers you $20/hr
>>> ... and you take the higher rate. Is that stealing? Is that coercion?
>>
>> I think the problem we are having in this discussion is that you keep
>> talking about what things are "worth" without explaining how you
>> arrive at a figure.
>
>Silly you. Your skills are worth $10/hr because that's what you're
>peddling them for.
No. That's the price I get for them. So your misunderstanding is
between "price" and "worth". Pretty common in this day and age.
>
>Just as a book is worth $5 because that's what it's being peddled for
>and someone is willing to spend for it.
You are not aware that this is only one way of defining "worth"? I
mean, clearly you're not, but you can't conceive that there can be
others?
>
>... and then that someone takes the book to their shop and marks it at
>$50 and lo' and behold someone comes and is willing to pay $50 for it.
>Has the book changed value? or have we just found a willing buyer to pay
>the price the seller is asking?
I don't know. You're giving the economics lecture, so you tell me.
>
>In your case, with the $10/hr editing skills you're offering, if someone
>offers to pay $20/hr does that make your skills more valuable or are
>they just the same o' skills they've always been?
Ah, see, if you could answer that question, you'd be able to write a
book about economics. Like, maybe, Capital, which answers exactly that
question.
>
>If you take $20/hr for skills that were valued at $10/hr two minutes
>ago, are you thieving or just taking advantage of your new customer's
>lack of bargaining skills or severe lack of due diligence?
There's no "or" there.
>
>Are you coercing them?
How would you characterise taking advantage of someone else?
>Are you =really= going to tell them that you're really only worth the
>$10/hr that you've been peddling yourself for?
I am *really* of the belief that each should provide what they can,
and each should take what they need. You should *really* try to
remember that when you try to convince me of what I should or should
not believe about economics.
>More power to you if you do.
>
>If you'd take the $20 per hour, what does that make you? An
>entrepreneur? $Zero meet Ash.
It would make me just one more thief among many.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 27, 1:36?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
No.
If you invent positions for me, I'm not "backpedalling" when you
realise I don't actually hold them.
>(be careful you don't lose your balance with such a major reversal).
>
>i mean, either squirrels eating peaches are thieves stealing from the
>Martians and the Orions or they're not.
Are they?
>
>you've always claimed that they _were_ stealing from the Martians and
>the Orions.
No, *you* have claimed I claim it.
>
>you've NEVER qualified it in anyway before.
>
>who knew that it was just a theoretical state of mind, aye?
"theoretical" is certainly one word for it. "imaginary" would be
another.
>
>...
>
>and before you stub your toe again with a careless quick reply, ask
>yourself how you go about notifying the Martians and the Orions that
>the squirrel is no longer stealing from them.
Why would I need to do that?
>
>i mean, they ought to be informed of the status of the "theft", no?
No. They are content to provide peaches because they can.
>
>> >you didn't see that coming, did you?
>>
>> Sadly, yes.
>
>well, you're not very prepared for someone who saw it coming.
>
>
>> >> >i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>>
>> >> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>>
>> >> No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
>>
>> >so would a squirrel eating a peach be stealing or not?
>>
>> Not if it needed to eat a peach.
>
>welcome home, grasshopper.
>
>and just so you realize how wrong you've been, describe for us how you
>go about determining whether the squirrel "needs" to eat a peach.
How do you determine that it doesn't?
>
>AND how you go about regulating squirrel dining habits.
>
>take a few days, if you like.
>
>we'll wait.
>
>...
>
>critical thinking... it can be utterly exausting when you do it wrong.
>
You know, just because you cannot conceive of a world that works
without exploitation doesn't mean it cannot exist. I have far more
faith in us than you do, clearly.
boots
I'm not making vague philosophical statements, but if you are more
comfortable accepting what I say as such, so be it.
> I'm
>referring to something interesting I read about why even though most
>of a group of things are not perfectly interchangeable that doesn't
>mean economic theory about free markets is inapplicable.
Yes, well, I studied economics during the period when I had realized
that a mechanical engineering degree would suit me for a job designing
cheaper boilers, and before I was seduced by computer software, during
a period when becoming a CPA seemed like a good way to make a living.
I have a reasonable grasp of the theory. It is theory and it matches
a theoretical free market which interestingly enough does not exist on
this planet.
>I might have the concept garbled or I could be just being too vague,
>so I located what I was remembering reading:
>
>"For many purposes, we can think of land as a single good with a
>single price and quantity--not because all land is the same, or even
>because any piece of land is a good substitute for any other piece (it
>is not), but because there are always some pieces of land that are "on
>the margin" between being used for one purpose or another."
>
>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_14/PThy_Chapter_14.html
Emminent domain and tax forclosure are two wonderful pieces of
evidence that private ownership of land is a hoax put over on rubes.
Pies, if snuggling up to a good theory makes you more comfortable than
a cup of hot chocolate, I say it's a good thing.
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
boots
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>
>> "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
>> needs."
>
>Back ten or so years ago a survey found that 45% of American adult
>respondents believed this bit was from the U.S. Constitution.
>
>No lie!
Did Karl sue for plagiarism? Oh wait, he's dead isn't he.
Towse
> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
> suffer, like this:
>> Are you coercing them?
>
> How would you characterise taking advantage of someone else?
Not coercion.
Coercion includes, by definition, the use of force or threat.
1) coerce. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth Edition. 2000.
...See synonyms at force. 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts
to coerce agreement. Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- +
arcre, to enclose, confine.co·ercer...
$Zero
> �"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
[obligatory proactive BEGIN LOOP]
> >that's quite the backpedal you're taking there, huh?
>
> No.
yes.
[obligatory proactive REPEAT LOOP]
> If you invent positions for me, I'm not "backpedalling" when you
> realise I don't actually hold them.
when asked dozens of times over the years if a squirrel eating a peach
was stealing it from the Martians and the Orions, you have said "yes".
you never said "unless..."
that is, not until you stubbed your toe recently.
> >(be careful you don't lose your balance with such a major reversal).
>
> >i mean, either squirrels eating peaches are thieves stealing from the
> >Martians and the Orions or they're not.
>
> Are they?
i've always said "no."
> >you've always claimed that they _were_ stealing from the Martians and
> >the Orions.
>
> No, *you* have claimed I claim it.
google is your ondoing.
> >you've NEVER qualified it in anyway before.
>
> >who knew that it was just a theoretical state of mind, aye?
>
> "theoretical" is certainly one word for it. "imaginary" would be
> another.
point mine.
> >...
>
> >and before you stub your toe again with a careless quick reply, ask
> >yourself how you go about notifying the Martians and the Orions that
> >the squirrel is no longer stealing from them.
>
> Why would I need to do that?
beats me.
especially since an earthly squirrel eating a peach is never stealing
it from the Martians and the Orions.
if you'll think back to what the original reason for my creating the
metaphor you'll recall that it was offered as a proof that property
was NOT necessarily theft.
and here you are finally admitting to it.
stubbed toe and all.
> >i mean, they ought to be informed of the status of the "theft", no?
>
> No. They are content to provide peaches because they can.
they aren't even aware of the peaches, therefore they're not
"providing" them to anyone.
compare that to the dudes who designed, manufactured, marketed, and
distributed the new laptop you're using to have this argument.
you think they would have created such a nice product for you if they
had absolutely no incentive to improve upon the last one that they
went to all of the enormous time and trouble to make?
and the latest model is way cheaper and way better than the previous
one.
i mean, would you write a book filled with your hard-won insights on
poker, and then cut down some trees to get the paper to make the book,
set up a printing press to apply the difficult-to-extract inks to each
page, and numerous other efforts just to break out "even" on it all?
IOW: would you go to all that effort and time-spending for nothing
other than the joy of sharing your knowledge if it meant that you
could not possibly afford the laptop you needed to type it all up?
and before you try some strained acrobatics, realize that the
mechanism for it to all work with reasonbable feasible efficiency is
the absolute beauty of the free market.
can there be those who exploit others?
yes. but that is ALWAYS the case, no matter what non-existent
alternate method you propose.
"exploitation" is not a unique possible feature of "capitalism."
it's just part of human nature.
the bad part.
anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
> >> >you didn't see that coming, did you?
>
> >> Sadly, yes.
>
> >well, you're not very prepared for someone who saw it coming.
>
> >> >> >i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>
> >> >> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>
> >> >> No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
>
> >> >so would a squirrel eating a peach be stealing or not?
>
> >> Not if it needed to eat a peach.
>
> >welcome home, grasshopper.
>
> >and just so you realize how wrong you've been, describe for us how you
> >go about determining whether the squirrel "needs" to eat a peach.
>
> How do you determine that it doesn't?
that's not much of an answer, is it?
so you want _me_ to answer the question for you?
i thought you came to this discussion fully prepared.
oh well.
> >AND how you go about regulating squirrel dining habits.
>
> >take a few days, if you like.
>
> >we'll wait.
>
> >...
>
> >critical thinking... it can be utterly exausting when you do it wrong.
>
> You know, just because you cannot conceive of a world that works
> without exploitation doesn't mean it cannot exist. I have far more
> faith in us than you do, clearly.
just because you cannot conceive of a world where there's a win win
effort where nobody is unfairly exploited doesn't mean that it cannot
exist.
i mean, you certainly wouldn't pay me to be a pedantic editor, would
you?
of course not.
i haven't taken the time and effort necessary to study all of the
issues long enough for it to be worth it to you to pay me to provide
such a service for you.
is it all becoming any clearer for you yet?
...
market your knowledge and experience.
without exploiting others.
it CAN be done.
you just have to do it.
if you don't even try to do it, you shouldn't ought to complain that
it doesn't seem to exist in your world.
well, i take that "shouldn't" back.
but the truth is you'd just be completely wasting your time
complaining about it.
which is fine, but... i would guess that, if you're like moi, you
value your time much more than that.
OTOH, if you didn't waste your time arguing the point, i wouldn't have
written these words in response, so...
all is well.
...
-$Zero...
"well, have you ever tried to 'make time'?
i once spent four years trying to make five minutes
and was sorely disappointed that i couldn't even make
half a milli-second.
after that, i was so exhausted for several months in
despair that i've since given up on such time-consuming
experiments."
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/fea5cac88a5e1446
Ash Wensdee
suffer, like this:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>> suffer, like this:
>
>>> Are you coercing them?
>>
>> How would you characterise taking advantage of someone else?
>
>Not coercion.
>
>Coercion includes, by definition, the use of force or threat.
>
>1) coerce. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
>Fourth Edition. 2000.
>...See synonyms at force. 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts
>to coerce agreement. Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- +
>arcre, to enclose, confine.co·ercer...
Well then. How would you characterise it, using the two concepts that
I am offering, if it's not coercion?
Towse
> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
> suffer, like this:
>
>> Ash Wensdee wrote:
>>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>>> suffer, like this:
>>>> Are you coercing them?
>>> How would you characterise taking advantage of someone else?
>> Not coercion.
>>
>> Coercion includes, by definition, the use of force or threat.
>>
>> 1) coerce. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
>> Fourth Edition. 2000.
>> ...See synonyms at force. 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts
>> to coerce agreement. Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- +
>> arcre, to enclose, confine.co·ercer...
>
> Well then. How would you characterise it, using the two concepts that
> I am offering, if it's not coercion?
Define "it"
What two concepts?
Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 27, 3:36?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?"$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the world
Cite.
>you never said "unless..."
>
>that is, not until you stubbed your toe recently.
>
>
>> >(be careful you don't lose your balance with such a major reversal).
>>
>> >i mean, either squirrels eating peaches are thieves stealing from the
>> >Martians and the Orions or they're not.
>>
>> Are they?
>
>i've always said "no."
>
So they are not either stealing peaches or not? I agree.
>
>> >you've always claimed that they _were_ stealing from the Martians and
>> >the Orions.
>>
>> No, *you* have claimed I claim it.
>
>google is your ondoing.
Cite.
>
>
>> >you've NEVER qualified it in anyway before.
>>
>> >who knew that it was just a theoretical state of mind, aye?
>>
>> "theoretical" is certainly one word for it. "imaginary" would be
>> another.
>
>point mine.
>
>
>> >...
>>
>> >and before you stub your toe again with a careless quick reply, ask
>> >yourself how you go about notifying the Martians and the Orions that
>> >the squirrel is no longer stealing from them.
>>
>> Why would I need to do that?
>
>beats me.
>
>especially since an earthly squirrel eating a peach is never stealing
>it from the Martians and the Orions.
He is if they have a claim to it.
>
>if you'll think back to what the original reason for my creating the
>metaphor you'll recall that it was offered as a proof that property
>was NOT necessarily theft.
Property is theft.
You are making the same mistake as Pies. Just because a particular
person isn't stealing it does not mean no one is stealing it.
>
>and here you are finally admitting to it.
>
>stubbed toe and all.
>
>
>> >i mean, they ought to be informed of the status of the "theft", no?
>>
>> No. They are content to provide peaches because they can.
>
>they aren't even aware of the peaches, therefore they're not
>"providing" them to anyone.
Your Orions are entirely imaginary, so I have no idea what capacities
they have.
>
>compare that to the dudes who designed, manufactured, marketed, and
>distributed the new laptop you're using to have this argument.
I'm using the PC.
>
>you think they would have created such a nice product for you if they
>had absolutely no incentive to improve upon the last one that they
>went to all of the enormous time and trouble to make?
It's a great sadness that even thinkers like yourself cannot see any
other incentive to do good things in life than the dollar.
>
>and the latest model is way cheaper and way better than the previous
>one.
>
>i mean, would you write a book filled with your hard-won insights on
>poker, and then cut down some trees to get the paper to make the book,
>set up a printing press to apply the difficult-to-extract inks to each
>page, and numerous other efforts just to break out "even" on it all?
If I lived in the ideal world, of course I would.
>IOW: would you go to all that effort and time-spending for nothing
>other than the joy of sharing your knowledge if it meant that you
>could not possibly afford the laptop you needed to type it all up?
"Afford"? Where was there any notion of affording in my world?
>and before you try some strained acrobatics, realize that the
>mechanism for it to all work with reasonbable feasible efficiency is
>the absolute beauty of the free market.
What?
>
>can there be those who exploit others?
>
>yes. but that is ALWAYS the case, no matter what non-existent
>alternate method you propose.
Oh.
>
>"exploitation" is not a unique possible feature of "capitalism."
It is the essence of capitalism.
>
>it's just part of human nature.
I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>
>the bad part.
>
>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
Yes, it is.
>
>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>
No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
can even suggest that it isn't.
>
>> >> >you didn't see that coming, did you?
>>
>> >> Sadly, yes.
>>
>> >well, you're not very prepared for someone who saw it coming.
>>
>> >> >> >i'll save you the trouble and tell you why you can't:
>>
>> >> >> >all alternatives are pure illusions, if that.
>>
>> >> >> No. They may be impossible at this point, but they are not illusory.
>>
>> >> >so would a squirrel eating a peach be stealing or not?
>>
>> >> Not if it needed to eat a peach.
>>
>> >welcome home, grasshopper.
>>
>> >and just so you realize how wrong you've been, describe for us how you
>> >go about determining whether the squirrel "needs" to eat a peach.
>>
>> How do you determine that it doesn't?
>
>that's not much of an answer, is it?
It's a fine answer.
>
>so you want _me_ to answer the question for you?
>
>i thought you came to this discussion fully prepared.
>
>oh well.
>
>> >AND how you go about regulating squirrel dining habits.
>>
>> >take a few days, if you like.
>>
>> >we'll wait.
>>
>> >...
>>
>> >critical thinking... it can be utterly exausting when you do it wrong.
>>
>> You know, just because you cannot conceive of a world that works
>> without exploitation doesn't mean it cannot exist. I have far more
>> faith in us than you do, clearly.
>
>just because you cannot conceive of a world where there's a win win
>effort where nobody is unfairly exploited doesn't mean that it cannot
>exist.
Of course I can conceive of it. I outlined one to you.
>
>i mean, you certainly wouldn't pay me to be a pedantic editor, would
>you?
In the ideal world, I would not pay you *at all*.
>of course not.
>
>i haven't taken the time and effort necessary to study all of the
>issues long enough for it to be worth it to you to pay me to provide
>such a service for you.
>
>is it all becoming any clearer for you yet?
Do you think all editors provide the same level of service? Do you
think that I am rewarded commensurately with the level of service I
can provide or by some other metric?
The latter is an important question, because in your model of
capitalism, I should be receiving more reward than P, a friend of
mine.
But P won't even work for what I get an hour. Yet he's less skilled
than I am. Go figure.
>
>...
>
>market your knowledge and experience.
>
>without exploiting others.
>
>it CAN be done.
>
Blah blah blah.
Ash Wensdee
suffer, like this:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>> suffer, like this:
>>
>>> Ash Wensdee wrote:
>>>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>>>> suffer, like this:
>>>>> Are you coercing them?
>>>> How would you characterise taking advantage of someone else?
>>> Not coercion.
>>>
>>> Coercion includes, by definition, the use of force or threat.
>>>
>>> 1) coerce. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
>>> Fourth Edition. 2000.
>>> ...See synonyms at force. 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts
>>> to coerce agreement. Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- +
>>> arcre, to enclose, confine.co·ercer...
>>
>> Well then. How would you characterise it, using the two concepts that
>> I am offering, if it's not coercion?
>
>Define "it"
Go back and unsnip what we are talking about. That will help you avoid
making an even bigger fool of yourself.
>What two concepts?
See previous.
>
>Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
Ah. "Necessarily" now? Well, I agree. Now go back and see what I think
it does involve.
Towse
> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
> suffer, like this:
>> Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
>
> Ah. "Necessarily" now? Well, I agree. Now go back and see what I think
> it does involve.
I don't need to. You equated taking advantage of someone with coercion.
You obviously have no idea what coercion means. Find a better word.
Ash Wensdee
suffer, like this:
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>> suffer, like this:
>
>>> Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
>>
>> Ah. "Necessarily" now? Well, I agree. Now go back and see what I think
>> it does involve.
>
>I don't need to. You equated taking advantage of someone with coercion.
No, I didn't. You've tried to make it look like I did with some
creative snipping.
>You obviously have no idea what coercion means. Find a better word.
Cunt.
Like that one better?
Pies de Arcilla
> Pies, if snuggling up to a good theory makes you more comfortable than
> a cup of hot chocolate, I say it's a good thing.
All I'm saying is that part of orthodox economic theory includes
reasoning why it applies to an imperfect world. So people who say "oh
look, the world is imperfect" are not being as clever as they think.
Pies de Arcilla
> >I may not be absolutely clear on everything, but I accept
> >wholeheartedly the idea that value is subjective, and determined by
> >revealed preference. I mean, it's obviously not _objective_ and it's
> >obviously not determined by what people _say_ they value.
>
> You need to think a bit more about it, because it's perfectly possible
> to analyse value both as something objective and as something
> subjective. I refer you to Marx's Capital to begin your study of it.
David Friedman, who I mentioned before, said Das Kapital appears to be
incoherent. And I'm willing to take his word for it, because he's a
lot smarter than me.
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 27, 1:37 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
That's a bit like the scrambled egg complaining about the omelette imo
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 27, 7:58 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
This is mostly wrong. Most orthodox economic theory doesn't care
whether it applies to any world, perfect or otherwise.
boots
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>> suffer, like this:
>>
>>> Ash Wensdee wrote:
>>>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>>>> suffer, like this:
>>>>> Are you coercing them?
>>>> How would you characterise taking advantage of someone else?
>>> Not coercion.
>>>
>>> Coercion includes, by definition, the use of force or threat.
>>>
>>> 1) coerce. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:
>>> Fourth Edition. 2000.
>>> ...See synonyms at force. 3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts
>>> to coerce agreement. Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- +
>>> arcre, to enclose, confine.co·ercer...
>>
>> Well then. How would you characterise it, using the two concepts that
>> I am offering, if it's not coercion?
>
>Define "it"
>What two concepts?
>
>Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
True, sometimes it can be done through simple deception. The best con
artists are even more subtle, they allow the rube to deceive himself
and simply fail to correct since that would be disadvantageous.
boots
>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>> suffer, like this:
>
>>> Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
>>
>> Ah. "Necessarily" now? Well, I agree. Now go back and see what I think
>> it does involve.
>
>I don't need to. You equated taking advantage of someone with coercion.
>You obviously have no idea what coercion means. Find a better word.
You think the threat of starvation is not coercion? Then pay my
exorbitant prices for food. Or should I forcibly restrain you to your
home environs by raising the price of gasoline? No, let me instead
threaten you with being a teenaged social outcast by raising the price
of the latest video game.
boots
I haven't followed most of this discussion because as usual $Zero has
thrown it so far into the abstract that I don't feel it's worth the
effort to decipher it.
But your statement, "property is theft", is one that I cannot agree
with. Neither can I precisely disagree with it. The concept of
property is like jello, it wiggles too much to grasp with pliers.
It's a concept that's off to the side of where it ought to be,
somehow.
If I'm using a tool and you come up and rip it from my hands because,
well, it isn't my property because you disavow the concept of
property, I'm likely to smack you with it for your act of arrogant
aggression. Regardless of whether I have ownership rights I am using
it and your taking it away without permission is theft and fucking
rude on top of that, so careful about getting smacked.
If I've gone to great efforts to find the tool because of its rarity
or whatever and I've left it laying on the workbench, taking it will
get you another smack because by taking it you're forcing me to go
through the effort of finding a replacement and that's coercion and
fucking rude on top of it, not to mention it being a theft of my
efforts in finding the thing.
If I've gone out with an ax and cleared a thousand acres of land
because I intend to plant crops, and you come and take it from me,
again you're forcing me to go through the effort of finding and
clearing another thousand acres of land before I can plant crops and
you should expect a severe smacking for that act of aggression.
On the other hand, if I simply lay claim to a thousand acres of land
and I'm letting it lie fallow, and you want to clear it and plant
crops, it would be wrong for me to deny it to you. If I'd fenced it
or otherwise improved it, I'd expect you to somehow restore the
efforts and resources that I'd put into its improvement, that seems
only fair. If I had traded a pair of oxen for it, you'd need to
restore my oxen or you'd be taking from me. If I was to ask for a
hundred pair of oxen before I'd let you use the land, then I'd
probably deserve a smack myself.
So the way I see it, property isn't theft, but it isn't something that
deserves the treatment people give it for the reasons it's given.
>You are making the same mistake as Pies. Just because a particular
>person isn't stealing it does not mean no one is stealing it.
>
>>
>>and here you are finally admitting to it.
>>
>>stubbed toe and all.
>>
>>
>>> >i mean, they ought to be informed of the status of the "theft", no?
>>>
>>> No. They are content to provide peaches because they can.
>>
>>they aren't even aware of the peaches, therefore they're not
>>"providing" them to anyone.
>
>Your Orions are entirely imaginary, so I have no idea what capacities
>they have.
>
>
>>
>>compare that to the dudes who designed, manufactured, marketed, and
>>distributed the new laptop you're using to have this argument.
>
>I'm using the PC.
>
>>
>>you think they would have created such a nice product for you if they
>>had absolutely no incentive to improve upon the last one that they
>>went to all of the enormous time and trouble to make?
>
>It's a great sadness that even thinkers like yourself cannot see any
>other incentive to do good things in life than the dollar.
The dollar is valueless except for its practical utility. If the only
things one wants are things that cannot be obtained without dollars,
then perhaps dollars are a reasonable incentive.
>>and the latest model is way cheaper and way better than the previous
>>one.
>>
>>i mean, would you write a book filled with your hard-won insights on
>>poker, and then cut down some trees to get the paper to make the book,
>>set up a printing press to apply the difficult-to-extract inks to each
>>page, and numerous other efforts just to break out "even" on it all?
>
>If I lived in the ideal world, of course I would.
>
>>IOW: would you go to all that effort and time-spending for nothing
>>other than the joy of sharing your knowledge if it meant that you
>>could not possibly afford the laptop you needed to type it all up?
>
>"Afford"? Where was there any notion of affording in my world?
>
>>and before you try some strained acrobatics, realize that the
>>mechanism for it to all work with reasonbable feasible efficiency is
>>the absolute beauty of the free market.
>
>What?
>
>>
>>can there be those who exploit others?
>>
>>yes. but that is ALWAYS the case, no matter what non-existent
>>alternate method you propose.
>
>Oh.
>
>>
>>"exploitation" is not a unique possible feature of "capitalism."
>
>It is the essence of capitalism.
I haven't devoted enough thought to capitalism lately to comment on
whether it has any particular single essence, but it occurs to me that
you might be equating the concept of excessive profit with the concept
of exploitation. You know, without realizing it.
>>it's just part of human nature.
>
>
>I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>
>>
>>the bad part.
>>
>>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
>
>Yes, it is.
>
>>
>>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>>
>
>
>No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
>can even suggest that it isn't.
It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without
money, and the idea that risk justifies reward. It's a freaking mess
because the concept of money itself is fallacious.
Perhaps I should go back and read what your ideal world entails, but I
am too lazy. People are, you know. Lazy. Until they are caught up
in a thing and carried away by it. Unfortunately too often the thing
they are caught up in is money and the toys money equates to in our
society. That's why Marx's theories remain theories, because people
are lazy, they don't contribute what they could; they'll take what
they need though, and more.
>>of course not.
>>
>>i haven't taken the time and effort necessary to study all of the
>>issues long enough for it to be worth it to you to pay me to provide
>>such a service for you.
>>
>>is it all becoming any clearer for you yet?
>
>Do you think all editors provide the same level of service? Do you
>think that I am rewarded commensurately with the level of service I
>can provide or by some other metric?
Some other metric. If they could afford to pay you what you're worth
you wouldn't ever need to be pissing about money. You're paid as much
as they guess to be the least they can pay without you walking out.
You might want to consider what a "market maker" does. I'm using that
phrase in the financial sense, as it is used in the trading exchanges.
I'm not sure if that will help you understand why you as an employee
are the helpless pawn of an established market rather than a unique
quantity that makes its own market.
>The latter is an important question, because in your model of
>capitalism, I should be receiving more reward than P, a friend of
>mine.
>
>But P won't even work for what I get an hour. Yet he's less skilled
>than I am. Go figure.
Once you understand precisely how that works you'll be on your way to
realizing a world without money.
Ash Wensdee
like this:
>Towse <se...@towse.com> wrote:
>
>>Ash Wensdee wrote:
>>> Towse <se...@towse.com> was an ugly child, and now the world must
>>> suffer, like this:
>>
>>>> Taking advantage of someone does not necessarily involve force or threat.
>>>
>>> Ah. "Necessarily" now? Well, I agree. Now go back and see what I think
>>> it does involve.
>>
>>I don't need to. You equated taking advantage of someone with coercion.
>>You obviously have no idea what coercion means. Find a better word.
>
>You think the threat of starvation is not coercion?
It's pointless arguing with someone with as little imagination as Sal.
She thinks you settle a discussion about concepts by googling a
definition. Mweh.
> Then pay my
>exorbitant prices for food. Or should I forcibly restrain you to your
>home environs by raising the price of gasoline? No, let me instead
>threaten you with being a teenaged social outcast by raising the price
>of the latest video game.
Yah. You get it, boots.
Ash Wensdee
like this:
>>Property is theft.
>
>I haven't followed most of this discussion because as usual $Zero has
>thrown it so far into the abstract that I don't feel it's worth the
>effort to decipher it.
>
>But your statement, "property is theft", is one that I cannot agree
>with. Neither can I precisely disagree with it. The concept of
>property is like jello, it wiggles too much to grasp with pliers.
No, it's pretty simple actually.
>
>It's a concept that's off to the side of where it ought to be,
>somehow.
>
>If I'm using a tool and you come up and rip it from my hands because,
>well, it isn't my property because you disavow the concept of
>property, I'm likely to smack you with it for your act of arrogant
>aggression. Regardless of whether I have ownership rights I am using
>it and your taking it away without permission is theft and fucking
>rude on top of that, so careful about getting smacked.
Yes.
>
>If I've gone to great efforts to find the tool because of its rarity
>or whatever and I've left it laying on the workbench, taking it will
>get you another smack because by taking it you're forcing me to go
>through the effort of finding a replacement and that's coercion and
>fucking rude on top of it, not to mention it being a theft of my
>efforts in finding the thing.
Yes. But what does this have to do with its being your or my property?
Note that this is ultimately how all property was acquired though.
>
>If I've gone out with an ax and cleared a thousand acres of land
>because I intend to plant crops, and you come and take it from me,
>again you're forcing me to go through the effort of finding and
>clearing another thousand acres of land before I can plant crops and
>you should expect a severe smacking for that act of aggression.
>
>On the other hand, if I simply lay claim to a thousand acres of land
>and I'm letting it lie fallow, and you want to clear it and plant
>crops, it would be wrong for me to deny it to you. If I'd fenced it
>or otherwise improved it, I'd expect you to somehow restore the
>efforts and resources that I'd put into its improvement, that seems
>only fair. If I had traded a pair of oxen for it, you'd need to
>restore my oxen or you'd be taking from me. If I was to ask for a
>hundred pair of oxen before I'd let you use the land, then I'd
>probably deserve a smack myself.
Welcome to economics.
>
>So the way I see it, property isn't theft, but it isn't something that
>deserves the treatment people give it for the reasons it's given.
The concepts you discuss here are not property as such, but to do with
usage.
There's a lot to be said though about the uses of tools.
>>>
>>>compare that to the dudes who designed, manufactured, marketed, and
>>>distributed the new laptop you're using to have this argument.
>>
>>I'm using the PC.
>>
>>>
>>>you think they would have created such a nice product for you if they
>>>had absolutely no incentive to improve upon the last one that they
>>>went to all of the enormous time and trouble to make?
>>
>>It's a great sadness that even thinkers like yourself cannot see any
>>other incentive to do good things in life than the dollar.
>
>The dollar is valueless except for its practical utility.
You can substitute the unit of exchange of your choice, boots.
> If the only
>things one wants are things that cannot be obtained without dollars,
>then perhaps dollars are a reasonable incentive.
>
Ah, well, therein lies the rub, boots. If the things you want can only
be obtained with dollars, then dollars are a useful incentive.
Now, big conceptual leap to a world in which the things you want are
not things that require dollars to acquire (zero seems unaware that it
is even conceivable that humans could want things that do not cost
dollars) or we no longer require dollars for their exchange.
Okay. Just briefly, here it is.
Say you work. You produce something. Your production is valued at x.
Some guy takes your work, packages it and now it's valued at y. The
guy did not produce anything bar the packaging.
The guy has exploited you. You did the work. He just packaged it.
Yes, I know packaging is work. It's an analogy.
Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
coercive.
In fact, I'm quite happy not to say it's coercive. I'd call it theft.
Capitalists systematically steal some of the value of your labour
because they exploit your inability to market it.
Like most exploiters, they abuse an information gap.
>>>it's just part of human nature.
>>
>>
>>I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>>
>>>
>>>the bad part.
>>>
>>>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
>>
>>Yes, it is.
>>
>>>
>>>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>>>
>>
>>
>>No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
>>can even suggest that it isn't.
>
>It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without
>money, and the idea that risk justifies reward. It's a freaking mess
>because the concept of money itself is fallacious.
>
No. Money is just a token, boots.
I have far more faith in people than you do, clearly.
>>>of course not.
>>>
>>>i haven't taken the time and effort necessary to study all of the
>>>issues long enough for it to be worth it to you to pay me to provide
>>>such a service for you.
>>>
>>>is it all becoming any clearer for you yet?
>>
>>Do you think all editors provide the same level of service? Do you
>>think that I am rewarded commensurately with the level of service I
>>can provide or by some other metric?
>
>Some other metric. If they could afford to pay you what you're worth
>you wouldn't ever need to be pissing about money. You're paid as much
>as they guess to be the least they can pay without you walking out.
Yes. Which in my view amounts to stealing the amount more than that
that my labour is worth.
>
>You might want to consider what a "market maker" does. I'm using that
>phrase in the financial sense, as it is used in the trading exchanges.
>I'm not sure if that will help you understand why you as an employee
>are the helpless pawn of an established market rather than a unique
>quantity that makes its own market.
I know what a market maker is and your analogy is fairly good. It's a
pity Zero doesn't grasp that.
But you need to take a step further. Capitalism entrenches that
established market. It's a system designed to do that. It pretends to
free us, but does the opposite. It ensures that we remain enslaved.
>>The latter is an important question, because in your model of
>>capitalism, I should be receiving more reward than P, a friend of
>>mine.
>>
>>But P won't even work for what I get an hour. Yet he's less skilled
>>than I am. Go figure.
>
>Once you understand precisely how that works you'll be on your way to
>realizing a world without money.
I understand precisely how it works but I don't know how to work it.
Isn't that fucked?
boots
> boots <n...@no.no> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
>like this:
>
>
>>>Property is theft.
>>
>>I haven't followed most of this discussion because as usual $Zero has
>>thrown it so far into the abstract that I don't feel it's worth the
>>effort to decipher it.
>>
>>But your statement, "property is theft", is one that I cannot agree
>>with. Neither can I precisely disagree with it. The concept of
>>property is like jello, it wiggles too much to grasp with pliers.
>
>
>No, it's pretty simple actually.
Extremely simple when you've stripped it of the obfuscating trivia.
>>It's a concept that's off to the side of where it ought to be,
>>somehow.
>>
>>If I'm using a tool and you come up and rip it from my hands because,
>>well, it isn't my property because you disavow the concept of
>>property, I'm likely to smack you with it for your act of arrogant
>>aggression. Regardless of whether I have ownership rights I am using
>>it and your taking it away without permission is theft and fucking
>>rude on top of that, so careful about getting smacked.
>
>
>Yes.
>
>>
>>If I've gone to great efforts to find the tool because of its rarity
>>or whatever and I've left it laying on the workbench, taking it will
>>get you another smack because by taking it you're forcing me to go
>>through the effort of finding a replacement and that's coercion and
>>fucking rude on top of it, not to mention it being a theft of my
>>efforts in finding the thing.
>
>Yes. But what does this have to do with its being your or my property?
>
>Note that this is ultimately how all property was acquired though.
You've probably noticed that I'm not "smacking" you for taking my
"property", but rather for acting against me in an aggressive manner.
>>If I've gone out with an ax and cleared a thousand acres of land
>>because I intend to plant crops, and you come and take it from me,
>>again you're forcing me to go through the effort of finding and
>>clearing another thousand acres of land before I can plant crops and
>>you should expect a severe smacking for that act of aggression.
>>
>>On the other hand, if I simply lay claim to a thousand acres of land
>>and I'm letting it lie fallow, and you want to clear it and plant
>>crops, it would be wrong for me to deny it to you. If I'd fenced it
>>or otherwise improved it, I'd expect you to somehow restore the
>>efforts and resources that I'd put into its improvement, that seems
>>only fair. If I had traded a pair of oxen for it, you'd need to
>>restore my oxen or you'd be taking from me. If I was to ask for a
>>hundred pair of oxen before I'd let you use the land, then I'd
>>probably deserve a smack myself.
>
>Welcome to economics.
What would capitalism amount to if you removed profit?
>>So the way I see it, property isn't theft, but it isn't something that
>>deserves the treatment people give it for the reasons it's given.
>
>The concepts you discuss here are not property as such, but to do with
>usage.
>
>There's a lot to be said though about the uses of tools.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>compare that to the dudes who designed, manufactured, marketed, and
>>>>distributed the new laptop you're using to have this argument.
>>>
>>>I'm using the PC.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>you think they would have created such a nice product for you if they
>>>>had absolutely no incentive to improve upon the last one that they
>>>>went to all of the enormous time and trouble to make?
>>>
>>>It's a great sadness that even thinkers like yourself cannot see any
>>>other incentive to do good things in life than the dollar.
>>
>>The dollar is valueless except for its practical utility.
>
>You can substitute the unit of exchange of your choice, boots.
>
>> If the only
>>things one wants are things that cannot be obtained without dollars,
>>then perhaps dollars are a reasonable incentive.
>>
>
>
>Ah, well, therein lies the rub, boots. If the things you want can only
>be obtained with dollars, then dollars are a useful incentive.
>
>Now, big conceptual leap to a world in which the things you want are
>not things that require dollars to acquire (zero seems unaware that it
>is even conceivable that humans could want things that do not cost
>dollars) or we no longer require dollars for their exchange.
As long as you keep it theoretical it remains a big conceptual leap,
but when you make it practical it becomes extremely simple. You don't
need money, you only need the things money can procure.
In order to have the things money can procure you only need to obtain
them. To obtain them you can go out and 'get' them, or you can have
them delivered. To have them delivered you need only hold your mouth
right, metaphorically speaking.
To 'get' something on the other hand you must go through all the
accepted forms for getting things.
To have something you need only be a participant in an event that
causes it to come into your posession.
To be a participant in an event isn't such a difficult thing really,
mostly it consists of a desire coupled with an absence of
disqualification. Of course people do tend to be a self-disqualifying
lot.
I tend to buy on the internet because it removes middlemen. Middlemen
are very much like con artists, they allow the rubes to believe that
they must pay their price. Fuck 'em, I'll take a few minutes to hunt
down the actual source and see if they're enlightened enough to sell
direct. Even if the price is not lower at least it's an effort to
starve out the con-men. If they're one of the fucktarded companies
that only sells through a distribution network, I look elsewhere.
>>>>it's just part of human nature.
>>>
>>>
>>>I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>the bad part.
>>>>
>>>>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
>>>
>>>Yes, it is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
>>>can even suggest that it isn't.
>>
>>It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without
>>money, and the idea that risk justifies reward. It's a freaking mess
>>because the concept of money itself is fallacious.
>>
>
>No. Money is just a token, boots.
Yes money is just a token, and yes the idea that you must have a token
to get where the bus goes is fallacious.
I have complete faith in people, but perhaps a different view of them.
In my view Obama will lose the presidential election because the US
isn't ready for him, too many people "won't vote for a nigger", or
he'll win the election and be assassinated for more or less the same
reason. And McCain will be little different from Dubya except in
degree where I expect him to excel.
"People are morons. People eat blood sausage."
That's fine, I avoid them as much as possible. It isn't that there
are no worthwhile people on the planet, it's that they're still
relatively rare.
>>>>of course not.
>>>>
>>>>i haven't taken the time and effort necessary to study all of the
>>>>issues long enough for it to be worth it to you to pay me to provide
>>>>such a service for you.
>>>>
>>>>is it all becoming any clearer for you yet?
>>>
>>>Do you think all editors provide the same level of service? Do you
>>>think that I am rewarded commensurately with the level of service I
>>>can provide or by some other metric?
>>
>>Some other metric. If they could afford to pay you what you're worth
>>you wouldn't ever need to be pissing about money. You're paid as much
>>as they guess to be the least they can pay without you walking out.
>
>
>Yes. Which in my view amounts to stealing the amount more than that
>that my labour is worth.
>
>>
>>You might want to consider what a "market maker" does. I'm using that
>>phrase in the financial sense, as it is used in the trading exchanges.
>>I'm not sure if that will help you understand why you as an employee
>>are the helpless pawn of an established market rather than a unique
>>quantity that makes its own market.
>
>
>I know what a market maker is and your analogy is fairly good. It's a
>pity Zero doesn't grasp that.
>
>But you need to take a step further. Capitalism entrenches that
>established market. It's a system designed to do that. It pretends to
>free us, but does the opposite. It ensures that we remain enslaved.
The "great experiment" that Ben Franklin referred to consisted, I
conjecture, of finding out just how much shit people will eat if
they're bamboozled into thinking they've chosen it themselves; a
democratic republic is not a democracy at all.
>>>The latter is an important question, because in your model of
>>>capitalism, I should be receiving more reward than P, a friend of
>>>mine.
>>>
>>>But P won't even work for what I get an hour. Yet he's less skilled
>>>than I am. Go figure.
>>
>>Once you understand precisely how that works you'll be on your way to
>>realizing a world without money.
>
>I understand precisely how it works but I don't know how to work it.
>Isn't that fucked?
One of these days we'll be talking about the same 'that' and you'll
understand how it works and things won't be fucked any longer.
Ash Wensdee
How very libertarian of you.
It's always amused me that libertarians take the view that how
property was originally acquired is of no account, but the use of
force to take it in the future is the worst sin imaginable.
>>>If I've gone out with an ax and cleared a thousand acres of land
>>>because I intend to plant crops, and you come and take it from me,
>>>again you're forcing me to go through the effort of finding and
>>>clearing another thousand acres of land before I can plant crops and
>>>you should expect a severe smacking for that act of aggression.
>>>
>>>On the other hand, if I simply lay claim to a thousand acres of land
>>>and I'm letting it lie fallow, and you want to clear it and plant
>>>crops, it would be wrong for me to deny it to you. If I'd fenced it
>>>or otherwise improved it, I'd expect you to somehow restore the
>>>efforts and resources that I'd put into its improvement, that seems
>>>only fair. If I had traded a pair of oxen for it, you'd need to
>>>restore my oxen or you'd be taking from me. If I was to ask for a
>>>hundred pair of oxen before I'd let you use the land, then I'd
>>>probably deserve a smack myself.
>>
>>Welcome to economics.
>
>What would capitalism amount to if you removed profit?
It would wither away, bro.
Yes, quite so.
>
>In order to have the things money can procure you only need to obtain
>them. To obtain them you can go out and 'get' them, or you can have
>them delivered. To have them delivered you need only hold your mouth
>right, metaphorically speaking.
Quite so.
>
>To 'get' something on the other hand you must go through all the
>accepted forms for getting things.
Yah.
>
>To have something you need only be a participant in an event that
>causes it to come into your posession.
>
>To be a participant in an event isn't such a difficult thing really,
>mostly it consists of a desire coupled with an absence of
>disqualification. Of course people do tend to be a self-disqualifying
>lot.
I suppose.
Meh.
> Middlemen
>are very much like con artists, they allow the rubes to believe that
>they must pay their price.
Yes, that's true.
But if you remove them in one way, they'll find another way to insert
themselves.
About twenty years ago, "management scientists" realised that you do
not need any managers if you use teams, because they would simply
manage themselves. Human beings like to cooperate. We have an instinct
for it, almost.
But if you don't need managers, tons of useless twats with "management
science" and "business" degrees would be on the dole. So they invented
"motivation". Now managers "motivate".
It's the scientific way of saying they get on your tits for a living.
> Fuck 'em, I'll take a few minutes to hunt
>down the actual source and see if they're enlightened enough to sell
>direct. Even if the price is not lower at least it's an effort to
>starve out the con-men. If they're one of the fucktarded companies
>that only sells through a distribution network, I look elsewhere.
>
>>>>>it's just part of human nature.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>the bad part.
>>>>>
>>>>>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
>>>>can even suggest that it isn't.
>>>
>>>It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without
>>>money, and the idea that risk justifies reward. It's a freaking mess
>>>because the concept of money itself is fallacious.
>>>
>>
>>No. Money is just a token, boots.
>
>Yes money is just a token, and yes the idea that you must have a token
>to get where the bus goes is fallacious.
Is that not precisely what I'm saying?
I think Obama can lose, but it's hard to call at this point. The
problem is that a Democrat needs to win by *a lot* actually to win. If
it's close, the Republicans will steal it again.
I think you are right that many Americans won't vote for a black. They
don't tend to tell pollsters that, but they use code. He's
"inexperienced", he's a "Marxist", he wants to steal our women.
>
>"People are morons. People eat blood sausage."
>
>That's fine, I avoid them as much as possible. It isn't that there
>are no worthwhile people on the planet, it's that they're still
>relatively rare.
>
I do not agree. Strip away the bullshit and they are mostly fine.
Sadly, people think that voting every four years and being permitted
to read what Rupert Murdoch wants you to are "freedom".
>
>>>>The latter is an important question, because in your model of
>>>>capitalism, I should be receiving more reward than P, a friend of
>>>>mine.
>>>>
>>>>But P won't even work for what I get an hour. Yet he's less skilled
>>>>than I am. Go figure.
>>>
>>>Once you understand precisely how that works you'll be on your way to
>>>realizing a world without money.
>>
>>I understand precisely how it works but I don't know how to work it.
>>Isn't that fucked?
>
>One of these days we'll be talking about the same 'that' and you'll
>understand how it works and things won't be fucked any longer.
Well, let's hope so.
Pies de Arcilla
> Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
> say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
> coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
> coercive.
Everything is packaging. Work is worth nothing in itself. Figuring out
what other people want, and introducing them to each other is the only
thing that enables anything worthwhile to be done.
You could invert your specious argument and say that capitalists are
entitled to _everything_, and that workers are simply stealing some of
the return from capital while not risking any.
Pies de Arcilla
> boots <n...@no.no> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
> like this:
>
> >>Property is theft.
>
> >I haven't followed most of this discussion because as usual $Zero has
> >thrown it so far into the abstract that I don't feel it's worth the
> >effort to decipher it.
>
> >But your statement, "property is theft", is one that I cannot agree
> >with. Neither can I precisely disagree with it. The concept of
> >property is like jello, it wiggles too much to grasp with pliers.
>
> No, it's pretty simple actually.
If you want to say that all of the trillions of dollars worth of
capital in the world has been stolen from its rightful owners, then
fine. But that means that all the billions of workers are thieves too,
because their wages are paid out of the profits on that capital. So
everything boils down to which of the two groups of thieves, which are
not really distinct anyway, should get more of the pie than they are
having at the moment. But calling them thieves means there's no basis
for determining what's legitimate.
Pies de Arcilla
> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> world must suffer, like this:
>
> >On Aug 27, 1:37 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> >I may not be absolutely clear on everything, but I accept
> >> >wholeheartedly the idea that value is subjective, and determined by
> >> >revealed preference. I mean, it's obviously not _objective_ and it's
> >> >obviously not determined by what people _say_ they value.
>
> >> You need to think a bit more about it, because it's perfectly possible
> >> to analyse value both as something objective and as something
> >> subjective. I refer you to Marx's Capital to begin your study of it.
>
> >David Friedman, who I mentioned before, said Das Kapital appears to be
> >incoherent. And I'm willing to take his word for it, because he's a
> >lot smarter than me.
>
> That's a bit like the scrambled egg complaining about the omelette imo
How does it make any sense to say value can be analyzed as something
objective _and_ subjective? If you do that, you've got _two_ values,
and like a man with two clocks, you don't know where you stand.
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 28, 6:28 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> boots <n...@no.no> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
>> like this:
>>
>> >>Property is theft.
>>
>> >I haven't followed most of this discussion because as usual $Zero has
>> >thrown it so far into the abstract that I don't feel it's worth the
>> >effort to decipher it.
>>
>> >But your statement, "property is theft", is one that I cannot agree
>> >with. Neither can I precisely disagree with it. The concept of
>> >property is like jello, it wiggles too much to grasp with pliers.
>>
>> No, it's pretty simple actually.
>
>If you want to say that all of the trillions of dollars worth of
>capital in the world has been stolen from its rightful owners, then
>fine.
Yes, I do. The rest of your argument is specious.
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 28, 6:28 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
>> say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
>> coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
>> coercive.
>
>Everything is packaging. Work is worth nothing in itself.
I'm done discussing economics with you. Either you are saying
something stupid for the sake of it, or you really believe this.
Either way.
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 28, 2:47 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
>> world must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >On Aug 27, 1:37 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> >> >I may not be absolutely clear on everything, but I accept
>> >> >wholeheartedly the idea that value is subjective, and determined by
>> >> >revealed preference. I mean, it's obviously not _objective_ and it's
>> >> >obviously not determined by what people _say_ they value.
>>
>> >> You need to think a bit more about it, because it's perfectly possible
>> >> to analyse value both as something objective and as something
>> >> subjective. I refer you to Marx's Capital to begin your study of it.
>>
>> >David Friedman, who I mentioned before, said Das Kapital appears to be
>> >incoherent. And I'm willing to take his word for it, because he's a
>> >lot smarter than me.
>>
>> That's a bit like the scrambled egg complaining about the omelette imo
>
>How does it make any sense to say value can be analyzed as something
>objective _and_ subjective?
How doesn't it? You are coming across like someone who says "how can
it be a wave and a particle *at the same time*?" Yeah, it's tough, but
you are trying to force it be a wave *or* a particle and that's your
problem.
> If you do that, you've got _two_ values,
>and like a man with two clocks, you don't know where you stand.
You have far more than two values, and if you knew where you stood,
you wouldn't need economists.
Pies de Arcilla
> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> world must suffer, like this:
>
> >On Aug 28, 6:28 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
> >> say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
> >> coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
> >> coercive.
>
> >Everything is packaging. Work is worth nothing in itself.
>
> I'm done discussing economics with you. Either you are saying
> something stupid for the sake of it, or you really believe this.
> Either way.
I don't understand how anyone can say that work, by itself is worth
anything. You need tools, aka capital, and you need a customer.
boots
Some of the noises a crow makes sound like a cat meowing but that does
not make it an electron or even a duck.
>It's always amused me that libertarians take the view that how
>property was originally acquired is of no account, but the use of
>force to take it in the future is the worst sin imaginable.
So now I'm an electron, am I? If I'm staring into space and you come
stand in front of me and demand my attention you'll get hit as hard or
harder than if you take some glittering bauble from my hand, it isn't
about what you're taking it's that you've put upon yourself the airs
to take it.
>>>>If I've gone out with an ax and cleared a thousand acres of land
>>>>because I intend to plant crops, and you come and take it from me,
>>>>again you're forcing me to go through the effort of finding and
>>>>clearing another thousand acres of land before I can plant crops and
>>>>you should expect a severe smacking for that act of aggression.
>>>>
>>>>On the other hand, if I simply lay claim to a thousand acres of land
>>>>and I'm letting it lie fallow, and you want to clear it and plant
>>>>crops, it would be wrong for me to deny it to you. If I'd fenced it
>>>>or otherwise improved it, I'd expect you to somehow restore the
>>>>efforts and resources that I'd put into its improvement, that seems
>>>>only fair. If I had traded a pair of oxen for it, you'd need to
>>>>restore my oxen or you'd be taking from me. If I was to ask for a
>>>>hundred pair of oxen before I'd let you use the land, then I'd
>>>>probably deserve a smack myself.
>>>
>>>Welcome to economics.
>>
>>What would capitalism amount to if you removed profit?
>
>It would wither away, bro.
Maybe, I don't know; certainly it would change a great deal, it might
look like communism with pecuniary markers or some even odder totem
pole. I asked because somewhere, in this post or another, it seemed
that someone said property or theft was the essence of capitalism, and
I'm thinking that if capitalism does in fact have an essence that
essence might be named profit. I'm also thinking that capitalism is
not the only place where the concept of profit occurs, and considering
the difference between profit and gain, and thinking that if in the
end we all die where can either exist except in having emptied our bag
of garbage.
I suppose that "meh" has a meaning that I should know, but I don't.
>> Middlemen
>>are very much like con artists, they allow the rubes to believe that
>>they must pay their price.
>
>Yes, that's true.
>
>But if you remove them in one way, they'll find another way to insert
>themselves.
Priests.
>About twenty years ago, "management scientists" realised that you do
>not need any managers if you use teams, because they would simply
>manage themselves. Human beings like to cooperate. We have an instinct
>for it, almost.
>
>But if you don't need managers, tons of useless twats with "management
>science" and "business" degrees would be on the dole. So they invented
>"motivation". Now managers "motivate".
>
>It's the scientific way of saying they get on your tits for a living.
Priests again innit, this time on about sins instead of quietly taking
their percentage from the poor box.
>> Fuck 'em, I'll take a few minutes to hunt
>>down the actual source and see if they're enlightened enough to sell
>>direct. Even if the price is not lower at least it's an effort to
>>starve out the con-men. If they're one of the fucktarded companies
>>that only sells through a distribution network, I look elsewhere.
>>
>>>>>>it's just part of human nature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>the bad part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
>>>>>can even suggest that it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without
>>>>money, and the idea that risk justifies reward. It's a freaking mess
>>>>because the concept of money itself is fallacious.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No. Money is just a token, boots.
>>
>>Yes money is just a token, and yes the idea that you must have a token
>>to get where the bus goes is fallacious.
>
>
>Is that not precisely what I'm saying?
I'm not certain. You seem to be advocating communism or some other
economic organization that formalizes moneylessness. I'm saying that
money is an unnecessary distraction even in a world that depends upon
money. So perhaps it is precisely what you're saying but I'm reading
it improperly, or perhaps there's a subtle difference. I'm not really
concerned with getting the world to stop its use of money as an
incentive or even a primary organizing principle, let the world do
what it wishes, it can charge as much as it wants for a ride on the
bus without sinning against me. The world is after all no more than
the spray of sparks that results from grinding a piece of steel, it is
the purpose intended for the steel that is important, not the grinding
and certainly not the sparks, but they are ever so fascinating people
think them the be-all and end-all even though they're less than chaff.
In my experience a beautiful woman dressed in many layers of bullshit
most often turns out to be an onion which when fully disrobed pops
into nonexistence. In the rare case what you see is what you get.
The only way Man can lose his freedom is to surrender it, and even
once lost it can be found again.
boots
>On Aug 28, 6:28 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
>> say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
>> coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
>> coercive.
>
>Everything is packaging. Work is worth nothing in itself.
Pillock does not understand the word 'God' and you seem not to
understand the word 'work'.
I do not have a job on purpose. I will not be lied to about what my
work is and on top of that told how to do it. I cannot be coerced by
fear of not having the things money can buy. In fact the only thing
worth having is my work and that cannot be taken away.
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 29, 1:21 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
>> world must suffer, like this:
>>
>> >On Aug 28, 6:28 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> >> Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
>> >> say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
>> >> coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
>> >> coercive.
>>
>> >Everything is packaging. Work is worth nothing in itself.
>>
>> I'm done discussing economics with you. Either you are saying
>> something stupid for the sake of it, or you really believe this.
>> Either way.
>
>I don't understand how anyone can say that work, by itself is worth
>anything. You need tools, aka capital, and you need a customer.
That is akin to saying that you should not have merit for painting
great art because someone else made the paint.
Ash Wensdee
Libertarian is a description of the attitude, not a faction you have
to subscribe to.
Profit is on the whole theft.
> I'm also thinking that capitalism is
>not the only place where the concept of profit occurs, and considering
>the difference between profit and gain, and thinking that if in the
>end we all die where can either exist except in having emptied our bag
>of garbage.
>
Replace profit; approach utopia. Muhammad did not outlaw usury for
nothing.
It means what it sounds like it means.
>
>>> Middlemen
>>>are very much like con artists, they allow the rubes to believe that
>>>they must pay their price.
>>
>>Yes, that's true.
>>
>>But if you remove them in one way, they'll find another way to insert
>>themselves.
>
>Priests.
Yah. Very good.
>
>>About twenty years ago, "management scientists" realised that you do
>>not need any managers if you use teams, because they would simply
>>manage themselves. Human beings like to cooperate. We have an instinct
>>for it, almost.
>>
>>But if you don't need managers, tons of useless twats with "management
>>science" and "business" degrees would be on the dole. So they invented
>>"motivation". Now managers "motivate".
>>
>>It's the scientific way of saying they get on your tits for a living.
>
>Priests again innit, this time on about sins instead of quietly taking
>their percentage from the poor box.
Very true. Leading the congregation is often a lot like motivating.
>
>>> Fuck 'em, I'll take a few minutes to hunt
>>>down the actual source and see if they're enlightened enough to sell
>>>direct. Even if the price is not lower at least it's an effort to
>>>starve out the con-men. If they're one of the fucktarded companies
>>>that only sells through a distribution network, I look elsewhere.
>>>
>>>>>>>it's just part of human nature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I do not agree. I have faith that we are and can be better than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the bad part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>anyway, the point is, capitalism is not inherently bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>it's the people who exploit it that are bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it isn't. It is based on exploitation. It's incredible that you
>>>>>>can even suggest that it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's based on money, the idea that things cannot be obtained without
>>>>>money, and the idea that risk justifies reward. It's a freaking mess
>>>>>because the concept of money itself is fallacious.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No. Money is just a token, boots.
>>>
>>>Yes money is just a token, and yes the idea that you must have a token
>>>to get where the bus goes is fallacious.
>>
>>
>>Is that not precisely what I'm saying?
>
>I'm not certain. You seem to be advocating communism or some other
>economic organization that formalizes moneylessness.
I am advocating self-actualisation.
> I'm saying that
>money is an unnecessary distraction even in a world that depends upon
>money.
I think that a problem the communists had was that they tried it as an
economic method with which to practise capitalism. Also, forcing
people to love each other never works.
> So perhaps it is precisely what you're saying but I'm reading
>it improperly, or perhaps there's a subtle difference. I'm not really
>concerned with getting the world to stop its use of money as an
>incentive or even a primary organizing principle, let the world do
>what it wishes, it can charge as much as it wants for a ride on the
>bus without sinning against me. The world is after all no more than
>the spray of sparks that results from grinding a piece of steel, it is
>the purpose intended for the steel that is important, not the grinding
>and certainly not the sparks, but they are ever so fascinating people
>think them the be-all and end-all even though they're less than chaff.
All that matters is how we are together.
I do not agree.
I do not agree. It can be stolen by inches, even before you are born.
Pies de Arcilla
> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> world must suffer, like this:
>
>
>
> >On Aug 29, 1:21 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> >> world must suffer, like this:
>
> >> >On Aug 28, 6:28 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
> >> >> Capitalism says that packagers deserve greater rewards than workers. I
> >> >> say that's simply rewarding thieves, who steal labour by the very same
> >> >> coercive mechanism you noted and Sal is too blinkered to recognise is
> >> >> coercive.
>
> >> >Everything is packaging. Work is worth nothing in itself.
>
> >> I'm done discussing economics with you. Either you are saying
> >> something stupid for the sake of it, or you really believe this.
> >> Either way.
>
> >I don't understand how anyone can say that work, by itself is worth
> >anything. You need tools, aka capital, and you need a customer.
>
> That is akin to saying that you should not have merit for painting
> great art because someone else made the paint.
Painting "great" art for yourself and yourself alone is not really in
the domain of economics. And talking about merit outside of your
relationship to other people is meaningless.
Ash Wensdee
Dude, I see that you have not changed. Pretending not to understand
analogies as though you are autistic still doesn't win a Uselessnet
debate though. I accept your surrender.
boots
> boots <n...@no.no> was an ugly child, and now the world must suffer,
>like this:
<snippage>
>> I'm also thinking that capitalism is
>>not the only place where the concept of profit occurs, and considering
>>the difference between profit and gain, and thinking that if in the
>>end we all die where can either exist except in having emptied our bag
>>of garbage.
>>
>
>Replace profit; approach utopia. Muhammad did not outlaw usury for
>nothing.
Yes, but where is the line between profit and gain?
>>>Meh.
>>
>>I suppose that "meh" has a meaning that I should know, but I don't.
>
>It means what it sounds like it means.
Then it has no meaning to me.
>I am advocating self-actualisation.
I assume you're talking about the self-actualization level of Maslow's
hierarchy? It's at the top of a pyramid built on what I consider some
misconceptions, for example the existence of a 'safety' level
conflicts with 'acceptance of facts' in the self-actualisation level.
>> So perhaps it is precisely what you're saying but I'm reading
>>it improperly, or perhaps there's a subtle difference. I'm not really
>>concerned with getting the world to stop its use of money as an
>>incentive or even a primary organizing principle, let the world do
>>what it wishes, it can charge as much as it wants for a ride on the
>>bus without sinning against me. The world is after all no more than
>>the spray of sparks that results from grinding a piece of steel, it is
>>the purpose intended for the steel that is important, not the grinding
>>and certainly not the sparks, but they are ever so fascinating people
>>think them the be-all and end-all even though they're less than chaff.
>
>
>All that matters is how we are together.
I would say that I disagree because your statement sounds like a
Jeezusy be-nice-to-each-other advocation, but what I suspect is that I
am not receiving the meaning of "how we are together" that you are
sending.
I don't know how to complete an "all that matters is" statement except
perhaps by saying that if at each moment we do the right thing the
rest works itself out.
>>In my experience a beautiful woman dressed in many layers of bullshit
>>most often turns out to be an onion which when fully disrobed pops
>>into nonexistence. In the rare case what you see is what you get.
>
>I do not agree.
Experience varies.
>>The only way Man can lose his freedom is to surrender it, and even
>>once lost it can be found again.
>
>I do not agree. It can be stolen by inches, even before you are born.
I think I know what you are talking about but cannot find that one
word which describes it at the moment... privilege perhaps. I don't
agree. Circumstances can be easy or hard, exercising freedom can be
risk-free or death-daring, the body can be bound up and the mind
drugged thoughtless by chemicals or indoctrination, but freedom cannot
be taken away. Perhaps you are using 'freedom' in the conventional
sense and I am using it in the 'free-will' sense; regardless of
conditions Man remains free, not free to ride without cost, but free
to choose and free to fight and free to die.
Pies de Arcilla
You seem to have the misconception that you can win an argument or
debate with an analogy. Analogies don't prove anything; they're just a
convenient way to explain your thinking.
And as I frequently don't agree with your thinking, you can't expect
me to do anything else in response but to explore why the analogy is
not appropriate.
You haven't explained your opinion in a manner that allows me to even
consider that you might be right. I think it's self-evident that no
amount of labor can produce value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be
produced by the 6 billion people in the world without all the capital
in the world.
Ash Wensdee
Yes. It's the thinking that does the winning.
>
>And as I frequently don't agree with your thinking, you can't expect
>me to do anything else in response but to explore why the analogy is
>not appropriate.
You are pretending not to understand it. That's different.
>
>You haven't explained your opinion in a manner that allows me to even
>consider that you might be right. I think it's self-evident that no
>amount of labor can produce value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be
>produced by the 6 billion people in the world without all the capital
>in the world.
What?
$Zero
> �Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> world must suffer, like this:
[...]
> > I think it's self-evident that no amount of labor can produce
> > value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be produced by the
> > 6 billion people in the world without all the capital in the world.
>
> What?
i guess Pies has never tended a garden.
he's obviously never grown a flower (or a tomato) from a seed (and
rain and tender loving care).
you, OTOH, have absolutely no concept how difficult and highly
valuable marketing and management are as skills as they pertain to
actually getting products into people's hands.
that's probably because you've never actually attempted to do it from
scratch. [*]
much like Pies has probably never labored in a garden (sans capital).
...
[*] laptops don't appear out of thin air, you know?
...
so let me tell you both something quite true and highly valuable:
theories are no match for reality.
HTH.
-$Zero....
i have business cards printed up
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/c7f74f58e20583a4
[The following year, Young reunited with Stephen Stills
for the album Long May You Run (1976), credited to The
Stills-Young Band; the follow-up tour was ended midway
through by Young, who sent Stills a telegram that read:]
"Funny how some things
that start spontaneously
end that way.
Eat a peach,
Neil."
serenebabe
> On Aug 31, 1:39�am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> �Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now
> the
>> world must suffer, like this:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I think it's self-evident that no amount of labor can produce
>>> value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be produced by the
>>> 6 billion people in the world without all the capital in the world.
>>
>> What?
>
> i guess Pies has never tended a garden.
>
> he's obviously never grown a flower (or a tomato) from a seed (and
> rain and tender loving care).
>
> you, OTOH, have absolutely no concept how difficult and highly
> valuable marketing and management are as skills as they pertain to
> actually getting products into people's hands.
>
> that's probably because you've never actually attempted to do it from
> scratch. [*]
>
> much like Pies has probably never labored in a garden (sans capital).
>
> ...
>
> [*] laptops don't appear out of thin air, you know?
>
> ...
>
> so let me tell you both something quite true and highly valuable:
>
> theories are no match for reality.
<...>
Reality is socially constructed.
--
It's All About We! (the column) -- NEW August 1, "What I did with all
that kale..."
http://www.serenebabe.net/
boots
>On 2008-08-31 03:12:43 -0400, "$Zero" <zero...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Aug 31, 1:39?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>>> ?Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now
>> the
>>> world must suffer, like this:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I think it's self-evident that no amount of labor can produce
>>>> value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be produced by the
>>>> 6 billion people in the world without all the capital in the world.
>>>
>>> What?
>>
>> i guess Pies has never tended a garden.
>>
>> he's obviously never grown a flower (or a tomato) from a seed (and
>> rain and tender loving care).
>>
>> you, OTOH, have absolutely no concept how difficult and highly
>> valuable marketing and management are as skills as they pertain to
>> actually getting products into people's hands.
>>
>> that's probably because you've never actually attempted to do it from
>> scratch. [*]
>>
>> much like Pies has probably never labored in a garden (sans capital).
>>
>> ...
>>
>> [*] laptops don't appear out of thin air, you know?
>>
>> ...
>>
>> so let me tell you both something quite true and highly valuable:
>>
>> theories are no match for reality.
><...>
>
>Reality is socially constructed.
Unless you mean something strange by "socially constructed", I
disagree.
Pies de Arcilla
> On Aug 31, 1:39 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>
> > Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
> > world must suffer, like this:
>
> [...]
>
> > > I think it's self-evident that no amount of labor can produce
> > > value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be produced by the
> > > 6 billion people in the world without all the capital in the world.
>
> > What?
>
> i guess Pies has never tended a garden.
>
> he's obviously never grown a flower (or a tomato) from a seed (and
> rain and tender loving care).
Can't you see the absurdity of claiming the seed and the rain as
_your_ labor? What chutzpah!
Ash Wensdee
world must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 31, 3:12 am, "$Zero" <zeroi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 1:39 am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
>> > world must suffer, like this:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > I think it's self-evident that no amount of labor can produce
>> > > value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be produced by the
>> > > 6 billion people in the world without all the capital in the world.
>>
>> > What?
>>
>> i guess Pies has never tended a garden.
>>
>> he's obviously never grown a flower (or a tomato) from a seed (and
>> rain and tender loving care).
>
>Can't you see the absurdity of claiming the seed and the rain as
>_your_ labor? What chutzpah!
I'd like to know whose capital you think rain is.
Ash Wensdee
must suffer, like this:
>On Aug 31, 1:39?am, Ash Wensdee <a...@wensdee.com> wrote:
>> ?Pies de Arcilla <dearci...@gmail.com> was an ugly child, and now the
>> world must suffer, like this:
>
>[...]
>
>> > I think it's self-evident that no amount of labor can produce
>> > value of itself. Even a pencil couldn't be produced by the
>> > 6 billion people in the world without all the capital in the world.
>>
>> What?
>
>i guess Pies has never tended a garden.
>
>he's obviously never grown a flower (or a tomato) from a seed (and
>rain and tender loving care).
>
>you, OTOH, have absolutely no concept how difficult and highly
>valuable marketing and management are as skills as they pertain to
>actually getting products into people's hands.
>
Of course I do. That's not the point.
>that's probably because you've never actually attempted to do it from
>scratch. [*]
>
>much like Pies has probably never labored in a garden (sans capital).
>
>...
>
>[*] laptops don't appear out of thin air, you know?
>
>...
>
>so let me tell you both something quite true and highly valuable:
>
>theories are no match for reality.
Theories are ways of describing reality, not a replacement for it.