2

4/5/2006 1:14:21 AM

Kris, the prisoners delima is an example of competition, I guess. But perhaps a less abstract example would work better. Perhaps an example from capitalism itself.

4/5/2006 10:22:32 AM

I could make up another example involving to competing corporations or entreprenuers, but it would be the exact same thing as the prisoner's dilemma with with different labels and different made up numbers. Its really the concept I'm trying to show here moreso than providing a literally correct example. I did mention the tragedy of the commons, which is more like the Diner's delimma, but more or less the same thing as the prisoner's.

4/5/2006 1:12:50 PM

But wait, when the two corporations refuse to cooperate and both set prices as low as possible, society benefits! You are right, the corporations don't do too well, but the point of an economy is to serve customers, not make corporations rich.

4/5/2006 5:06:53 PM

plz, think of the corporations

4/5/2006 7:13:55 PM

Kris, the thing you are failing to recognize is that progress and productivity are not universaly defined. What is bad for one may be good for the other. For example, humanity as a whole may progress in terms of knowledge by allowing disabled children to live, but it's certainly not the most productive choice. The most productive avenue would be to kill the disabled children and use the resources that would have been spent on studying their diabilities on advancing the rest of humanity.

Your system relies on everyone having a universaly accepted definition of what is good for humanity.

4/5/2006 8:41:57 PM

Quote :

"But wait, when the two corporations refuse to cooperate and both set prices as low as possible, society benefits!"

Prices are fairly irrelevant, the factor we look at is how many are produced versus the need for them to be produced. Competition only does a reasonable job of addressing this prior to reaching equilibrium and it takes regulation to keep it from reaching equilibrium, at equilibrium it does a poor job of addressing this.

Quote :

"You are right, the corporations don't do too well, but the point of an economy is to serve customers, not make corporations rich."

In order for this assertion to be true, corporations would not be returning huge profits. We can clearly see that this assertion is not true, and only in rare points in history has it ever been even temporarily true.

Quote :

"Kris, the thing you are failing to recognize is that progress and productivity are not universaly defined. What is bad for one may be good for the other."

I suggest we focus on parento optimization first, and then in cases where the options are between two we use the one that raises the overall welfare the most.

Quote :

"For example, humanity as a whole may progress in terms of knowledge by allowing disabled children to live, but it's certainly not the most productive choice. The most productive avenue would be to kill the disabled children and use the resources that would have been spent on studying their diabilities on advancing the rest of humanity."

You seem to be undervaluing human resources. Keeping people alive and increasing the productivity of the disabled is very valueble to society for non-humanitarian reasons as well. We are making these people able enough to help our society, this is a great investment.

Quote :

"Your system relies on everyone having a universaly accepted definition of what is good for humanity."

My definition is fully objective and measurable. You wiegh two outcomes, the one that is more productive is chosen. It's the same way the microcosm of a business works, simply expanded across the whole government.

4/6/2006 1:53:16 PM

Quote :

"In order for this assertion to be true, corporations would not be returning huge profits. We can clearly see that this assertion is not true, and only in rare points in history has it ever been even temporarily true."

Right, cause there isn't a single corporation in the world that is losing money right now (negative profits)

4/6/2006 3:25:24 PM

Your assertion implys that most companies shouldn't be turning large profits. Obviously this isn't true.

4/6/2006 4:38:18 PM

Well yes, I guess that might have been interpretted that way.

On the whole, a sumation of all profits everywhere are going to be tremendously positive, winners out-beating losers by 50 to 1, thanks to various elements in the system <uncertainty discount, costs of capital, the tax system, etc>.

4/6/2006 5:25:55 PM

You said "You are right, the corporations don't do too well"

There aren't a lot of ways to interpret that.

Regardless, the corporations do well, in fact they do exceedingly well.

Quote :

"On the whole, a sumation of all profits everywhere are going to be tremendously positive, winners out-beating losers by 50 to 1, thanks to various elements in the system <uncertainty discount, costs of capital, the tax system, etc>."

The reason corporations do so well is because their internal structure is based around cooperation. They gain the benifits of synergy, and the larger they are, the better they do as they have a greater amount of synergy.

4/6/2006 6:09:36 PM

Quote :

"You seem to be undervaluing human resources. Keeping people alive and increasing the productivity of the disabled is very valueble to society for non-humanitarian reasons as well. We are making these people able enough to help our society, this is a great investment. "

You seem to be overvaluing human resources. Keeping a defective person alive does not nececarily amount to being the most productive option. Many defective humans can and do consume more resources than they contribute. Your assumption is that every defective human will produce more output than they take in, which assumes that a defective human will generate more output than a normal human as a defective human will consume more resources than a normal human.

The most productive course of action is to eliminate all humans that would consume more resources than they contribute.

Quote :

"My definition is fully objective and measurable. You wiegh two outcomes, the one that is more productive is chosen. It's the same way the microcosm of a business works, simply expanded across the whole government."

Define "more productive" on a universal scope. Again what is more productive for one person may not be more productive for another. Furthermore, what do you do in a situation where neither option is "more productive". For example, let's say it takes 2 of resource X to produce 1 of product A or 1 of product B. When both A and B are equaly needed, what do you do with resource X if you only have 2 to use?

4/6/2006 6:58:20 PM

Quote :

"Your assumption is that every defective human will produce more output than they take in, which assumes that a defective human will generate more output than a normal human as a defective human will consume more resources than a normal human."

Where did I specify "every"?

On average, they will be more than productive enough to justify their cost. There will obviously be a statistical distribution of them up and down.

Quote :

"The most productive course of action is to eliminate all humans that would consume more resources than they contribute."

No, that's a very silly solution. The most productive course of action is to get every human to be productive.

Quote :

"Define "more productive" on a universal scope."

Given two choices if

Outcome of choice A > Outcome of choice B

then A is more productive.

Quote :

"Again what is more productive for one person may not be more productive for another."

You must have missed the whole prisoner's dilemma thing. I just explained all this.

Quote :

"Furthermore, what do you do in a situation where neither option is "more productive". For example, let's say it takes 2 of resource X to produce 1 of product A or 1 of product B. When both A and B are equaly needed, what do you do with resource X if you only have 2 to use?"

The chances of two outcomes being EXACTLY equal is so small this could just as well be ignored. But let's say that one-in-a-million thing happens, you could flip a coin or whatever, it wouldn't make a difference, if it DID make a difference then they were NOT equal.

4/6/2006 7:19:45 PM

Quote :

"On average, they will be more than productive enough to justify their cost. There will obviously be a statistical distribution of them up and down. "

Can you prove this? You're saying that the agregate of all the defective humans will produce more than they use which is a pretty large assumption given that most of the defective humans will consume more than a nin defective human and likewise will be able to output less than a non defective human.

Quote :

"No, that's a very silly solution. The most productive course of action is to get every human to be productive. "

Only if their productive output is greater than their consumption. That is a pretty substantial hurdle to overcome, especialy if you don't allow for arbitrary values like love, companionship and the like.

Quote :

"Given two choices if Outcome of choice A > Outcome of choice B then A is more productive."

Ok so if I can show that your continued existance consumes more than you produce, then the most productive course of action is to kill you no? After all, once you die, the resources you consume will fall to zero, and the resources you contribute could actualy increase or at least be temporarily >0.

Quote :

"You must have missed the whole prisoner's dilemma thing. I just explained all this. "

Prisoner's dilemma assumes all other factors being equal or at the very least a common point of reference for all individuals. I'm sure that radical religious people would find it far more productive to have you killed than to allow you to live. Recall that to their minds, no amount of physical output from you can offset the evil you introduce in this world by existing.

Quote :

"The chances of two outcomes being EXACTLY equal is so small this could just as well be ignored. But let's say that one-in-a-million thing happens, you could flip a coin or whatever, it wouldn't make a difference, if it DID make a difference then they were NOT equal."

So humans have no vested interest in their own existance in your world? If two people were equaly likely to have to starve given a certain amount of availible food either one of them would happily give their lives over to a coin flip? And if not are you saying that they are not equal people? Or if one is and one is not, is the one willing to die less productive? That being that case doesn't that make the competative one the most productive? Are you really suggesting a world with no self interest? It will be awful hard to bring about a world were people are mere autonomous machines willing to die for the sake of the other machines merely because the other machines will continue to exist. In your world what purpose is there to live and die if everyone and everything is mere automated machine? Progress towards what?

4/7/2006 1:38:39 AM

Quote :

"Can you prove this?"

I can't and neither can you, and seeing as you made the original claim, this is a question better asked in a mirror.

Quote :

"You're saying that the agregate of all the defective humans will produce more than they use which is a pretty large assumption given that most of the defective humans will consume more than a nin defective human and likewise will be able to output less than a non defective human."

For every 5 that don't produce their own weight, there's one that more than produces for all of them. When you look at someone like steven hawking and such, their value more than carries for thousands. Not to mention the value the research has as groundwork for other research, a factor which you have completely ignored. Rarely is investing in humanity a poor investment.

Quote :

"Only if their productive output is greater than their consumption."

No, everyone. It is good to get everyone to be productive.

Quote :

"That is a pretty substantial hurdle to overcome, especialy if you don't allow for arbitrary values like love, companionship and the like."

What do those have to do with anything? Basically what you've done is purpose a strawman-like solution, which by all means is silly. Almost all humans, with very few exceptions, are worth more to society alive than dead, simply for their potential.

Quote :

"Ok so if I can show that your continued existance consumes more than you produce, then the most productive course of action is to kill you no?"

No, that's just plain silly, it ignores so many other factors it's difficult for me to even find somewhere to start. First off the best solution is for you to produce more. Secondly, the next year you could invent something that completely revolutionizes our entire species. As I've said before, humans are the greatest resource our planet has to offer, to kill them would be silly. You are building a strawman here by ignoring all other factors and looking at things in an extremely small scale.

Quote :

"Prisoner's dilemma assumes all other factors being equal or at the very least a common point of reference for all individuals."

No. It looks at two peoples choices. One has choice A, the other has choice B. When one choses choice A it can adversely effect him or the other prisoner. Both prisoners will reach the same equilibrium, which if looked at globally produces the lowest possible output.

Quote :

"So humans have no vested interest in their own existance in your world?"

Where did I say anything that even remotely could be interpreted as that?

Quote :

"If two people were equaly likely to have to starve given a certain amount of availible food"

First off this statement assumes some large impossibilities. There has been enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet several times over for a number of years. Secondly, most likely you could feed both of them with that amount of food spread more wisely. Then assuming we live in some universe where those impossibilities don't exist, we choose the more productive one.

But really this is just another example of a strawman. You know that given the same situation, capitalism would result in the same decision, yet you try to demonize this idea although it comes up with the same answer. Any system put in a situation that shitty isn't going to have a pretty answer.

Quote :

"That being that case doesn't that make the competative one the most productive?"

You've confused competition with comparison. The most productive is simply the most productive. I can be more productive than someone else without competiting with them.

Quote :

"It will be awful hard to bring about a world were people are mere autonomous machines willing to die for the sake of the other machines merely because the other machines will continue to exist. In your world what purpose is there to live and die if everyone and everything is mere automated machine?"

Strawman agian. You've really taken to this fallacy of painting a false picture of my idea, haven't you?

Quote :

"Progress towards what?"

Progress is the meaning of life. It is the only observable trend throughout life on earth. Now obviously in order to call it progress I've set up a starting point and arbitrarily considered movement away from that point as forward, but that's not really that relevant.

4/7/2006 2:32:04 AM

i'm doing a paper tonight and one of the topics is capitalism

all i want to say is just remember that eventually profits decline and new superpowers come about

we can change if we work hard to not become less than #1, it all starts with communism

a strong government is key to stability in the global market...

4/7/2006 2:51:27 AM

No. Having smart people is the key. Having people with a good education that stresses preparing students for a changing world. But guess what

You can't fix stupid.

4/7/2006 2:53:41 AM

no

we need a government that tells their citizens what to do, and tells them exactly whats in their best interests to do

thats how you get shit done, do it in masses of people all striving for the same goal

4/7/2006 3:00:10 AM

No. That's how you get your shit done. Not how you get general shit done.

Communism is for fucktards who can't understand that shit doesn't get done unless people have the ability to dream and chase that dream. If a man can't dream of one day being rich, doing the same faggity job day in and day out without hope of a better life is a real downer.

Government doesn't know what is best and it never will.

Quote :

"do it in masses of people all striving for the same goal"

That only happens when they rally around the single starting individual force.

Without the initial dreamer, the shit can't work, and you can't say government is the individual driving force. Government can't drive shit.

4/7/2006 3:08:39 AM

ok i'll concede that i honestly have no idea what communism really is, i just go off what i think it sounds like when i'm reading about it

i just know that capitalism is like the thing that scares me the most about living in the US

4/7/2006 4:23:52 AM

......................................wtf...

4/7/2006 4:41:34 AM

^^ No, you're right. Freedom is often freightening. It would certainly be much easier for you if you didn't have to make all these decisions day in day out.

What food to eat, what movie to watch, what music to like, what car to buy, what place to live, what job to take, what to invest in... It never ends here in the US.

If only you lived in a nice communist country that didn't waste productive resources making non-political movies, more than one type of car, different types of food, etc. A nice government to pick an employer for you, assign you housing, pick your investments, etc. Not that it matters much, you'll only get paid enough to live and couldn't afford them anyway. You see, only a system of economic freedom throws off surplus wealth for you to spend on such luxeries.

Nevertheless, if you take it one day at a time I think you can get through all the effort required to live in a free country. And you never know, one day you may come to appreciate all the choices offered and the right to pick the ones you like, not the ones some government beurocrat likes.

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 9:28 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/7/2006 9:25:06 AM

Quote :

"Having people with a good education that stresses preparing students for a changing world."

Guess who provides most of that in the US? Yep, socialized education.

Quote :

"Communism is for fucktards who can't understand that shit doesn't get done unless people have the ability to dream and chase that dream."

No communism is for realists who understand that dream was given to him and conditioned for by his environment.

Quote :

"Freedom is often freightening. It would certainly be much easier for you if you didn't have to make all these decisions day in day out."

Freedom might be frightening, just like the boogeyman and all sorts of other make-believe. But the reality is, "you" don't make any decisions. Those decisions were determined by environmental factors long ago You have no more control over your life than a ball does when it rolls down a hill. You simply roll.

Quote :

"Not that it matters much, you'll only get paid enough to live and couldn't afford them anyway."

You wouldn't really have any money, and you could "afford" anything.

4/7/2006 10:37:29 AM

Quote :

"I can't and neither can you, and seeing as you made the original claim, this is a question better asked in a mirror."

You are the one who made the claim. You suggested a world where the everyone functions on the principal of always chosing the option which creates the greatest "progress" and "productivity" for humanity. You then suggest that the process of consuming more resources for a specific subset of humans (defective humans) is a more productive outcome than simply killing those humans and applying the resources to others.

Quote :

"For every 5 that don't produce their own weight, there's one that more than produces for all of them. When you look at someone like steven hawking and such, their value more than carries for thousands. Not to mention the value the research has as groundwork for other research, a factor which you have completely ignored. Rarely is investing in humanity a poor investment. "

You assume that Steven Hawking was/is the only human capable of doing what he did. Furthermore you assume that the resources consumed to keep Steven Hawking alive and make him productive would not have helped any other humans to do just as much. For every thousands spent on Steven Hawking, poor children starved and died. Assuming that everyone is equal and there is no starving and dieing, for every thousand spent on Steven Hawking is a thousand that could not have been distributed amongst everyone else. Why is it that Steven Hawking is more deserving of resources than anyone else? And what of the ones that don't produce more than they input? Why are they not only deserving of the same resources that everyone else has but even more resources?

Quote :

"No, everyone. It is good to get everyone to be productive."

"Only if their productive output is greater than their consumption." A net loss is not productive or progress.

Quote :

"What do those have to do with anything? Basically what you've done is purpose a strawman-like solution, which by all means is silly. Almost all humans, with very few exceptions, are worth more to society alive than dead, simply for their potential."

Potential is an abstract concept. While Steven Hawking is indeed brilliant was the resources spent on him and all the people like him worth it for just one pay off when those resources could have been spread more evenly? Does everyone have the same potential as Steven Hawking? Who decides who has potential and who doesn't? You your self state that there are exceptions that aren't worth being alive to society, who decides who those people are? Furthermore, how can you have "potential" when people are just programmed machines? There is no potential there and any one human can be reprogrammed to fill the role of a defective human. Any new human can be programmed to fill the role of a dead defective human, and since we all obtain programming by default, then killing a defective human and replacing them with a non defective new human adds no additional costs other than the resource cost of eliminating the defective human.

Quote :

"No, that's just plain silly, it ignores so many other factors it's difficult for me to even find somewhere to start. First off the best solution is for you to produce more. Secondly, the next year you could invent something that completely revolutionizes our entire species. As I've said before, humans are the greatest resource our planet has to offer, to kill them would be silly. You are building a strawman here by ignoring all other factors and looking at things in an extremely small scale."

Oddly enough, your prisoners dilemma which you trot out to prove your point does the same thing, ignores all factors and looks at a small scale. Then you expand that outcome to the world at large. Why is it more productive for me to produce more if I am under producing rather than killing me? In order for me to produce more, I wil need some way of producing more. Training or some other thing. This is a consumption of resources, which then further takes from the collective pool. Killing me and using the resources spent on me for more humans is clearly the most productive course of action. Humans are a dime a dozen, any one is worthless in your society when they consume more resources than any other human because they are then using 1+N humans worth of resources when those resources could be applied to 1+N humans with at least equal "potential"

Quote :

"No. It looks at two peoples choices. One has choice A, the other has choice B. When one choses choice A it can adversely effect him or the other prisoner. Both prisoners will reach the same equilibrium, which if looked at globally produces the lowest possible output. "

Only assuming both people have equal potential, equal productivity and equal outputs. If any of those changes, then the net result is not always the lowest possible output. Furthermore, you are assuming that they will always choose the option to both compete when clearly the world has shown that that is not always the case.

Quote :

"Where did I say anything that even remotely could be interpreted as that?"

Shall I quote you?

But let's say that one-in-a-million thing happens, you could flip a coin or whatever, it wouldn't make a difference, if it DID make a difference then they were NOT equal.

"you" don't make any decisions. Those decisions were determined by environmental factors long ago You have no more control over your life than a ball does when it rolls down a hill. You simply roll.

If humans are mere autonoma that are all equal, then they have no vested interest in their own existance. It's mere programmed reactions that makes for any concern over death.

Quote :

"First off this statement assumes some large impossibilities. There has been enough food produced to feed everyone on the planet several times over for a number of years. Secondly, most likely you could feed both of them with that amount of food spread more wisely. Then assuming we live in some universe where those impossibilities don't exist, we choose the more productive one."

The question is, which is the most productive one? In your world, you posit all humans to be equal and all to have potential. Who is going to make the judgement to say that human A has less potential or is less worth while than human B?

4/7/2006 12:26:43 PM

Quote :

"You know that given the same situation, capitalism would result in the same decision, yet you try to demonize this idea although it comes up with the same answer. Any system put in a situation that shitty isn't going to have a pretty answer."

The difference is, capitalism doesn't pretend that all humans are worthwhile. It doesn't pretend that all people are equal and it doesn't pretend that are resources should or deserve to be equaly divided. In otherwords, capitalism is all about making such ugly decisions and making those decisions so that it still works out. In your system however such a decision breaks the system because you are now making the determination that one human is more deserving of a resource than another. They are no longer equal. What factors you make than decision on is irellevant you have simply chosen to invest in one human life over the other positing that not all humans have the same potential, and not all humans are equaly or can be equaly productive and therefore, no all humans deserve the same access to resources. In otherwords, capitalism all over again.

Quote :

"You've confused competition with comparison. The most productive is simply the most productive. I can be more productive than someone else without competiting with them. "

Yes but when it comes down to allotication of resources, if you are more productive, than you are more likely to gain resources to use in a situation where there are limited resources. In otherwords both of you are going to strive to be more productive than the other in order to ensure you are the one not left without resources. In otherwords competition.

Quote :

"Strawman agian. You've really taken to this fallacy of painting a false picture of my idea, haven't you?"

I don't paint it, you do:

No communism is for realists who understand that dream was given to him and conditioned for by his environment.

"you" don't make any decisions. Those decisions were determined by environmental factors long ago You have no more control over your life than a ball does when it rolls down a hill. You simply roll.

Quote :

"Progress is the meaning of life. It is the only observable trend throughout life on earth. Now obviously in order to call it progress I've set up a starting point and arbitrarily considered movement away from that point as forward, but that's not really that relevant."

It's entirely relevant. Your system relies on everyone chosing the same starting point and the same direction of movement.

Quote :

"Guess who provides most of that in the US? Yep, socialized education."

The US education system is hardly the poster child for succesful socialism.

Quote :

"No communism is for realists who understand that dream was given to him and conditioned for by his environment."

And you wonder where people get the idea that you see all humans as mere machines.

Quote :

"Freedom might be frightening, just like the boogeyman and all sorts of other make-believe. But the reality is, "you" don't make any decisions. Those decisions were determined by environmental factors long ago You have no more control over your life than a ball does when it rolls down a hill. You simply roll. "

But you don't think people are mere machines. No we have some sort of magical potential that makes us different from machines and balls and animals.

Quote :

"You wouldn't really have any money, and you could "afford" anything."

Money is just another resource like any other. Not everyone has the same ammount of resources. In order to aquire resources you don't have, you must expend resources you do have. Therefore you do afford things and therefore even under your system it is possible to be unable to afford something.

4/7/2006 12:27:05 PM

Quote :

"You are the one who made the claim."

No, you made the claim. You stated they produce more than they consume. You can't prove this. I contested that you are ignoring far too many factors.

Quote :

"You assume that Steven Hawking was/is the only human capable of doing what he did."

No, I've assumed there are a statistical distrobution of people how can do something similar. I used him as an example.

Quote :

"Why is it that Steven Hawking is more deserving of resources than anyone else?"

Because most likely investing them into keeping people alive like him is going to produce larger returns in the long run than giving healthy people money that they don't really need.

Quote :

""Only if their productive output is greater than their consumption." A net loss is not productive or progress."

This is your main problem right here. You are only examining their short term productive output. There are FAR more factors to look at here. It's not simply productive output.

Quote :

"Does everyone have the same potential as Steven Hawking? Who decides who has potential and who doesn't?"

No one needs to decide, everyone has potential. So the system should invest resources into keeping as many people alive for as long as possible. This invests in everyone's potnetial as there is a huge gain from this.

Quote :

"You your self state that there are exceptions that aren't worth being alive to society, who decides who those people are?"

A judical system. These are people like murderers and such.

Quote :

"Furthermore, how can you have "potential" when people are just programmed machines?"

Right now people have potential in a system in which people have a choatic conditioning system, in a system without this none of these are concerns as everyone would produce exponentially more than what is required to substain them.

Quote :

"Oddly enough, your prisoners dilemma which you trot out to prove your point does the same thing, ignores all factors and looks at a small scale."

These are idiotic assertions in the the prisoner's delimma is completely theoretical. There are no other factors, there is no scale. It is used to illustrate a concept, this being that the equilibrium for competition is the least productive one for all.

Quote :

"In order for me to produce more, I wil need some way of producing more. Training or some other thing. This is a consumption of resources, which then further takes from the collective pool."

Have you ever heard of investing? It's a rather simple concept.

Quote :

"Killing me and using the resources spent on me for more humans is clearly the most productive course of action. Humans are a dime a dozen, any one is worthless in your society when they consume more resources than any other human because they are then using 1+N humans worth of resources when those resources could be applied to 1+N humans with at least equal "potential""

The mistake you have made here is looking at humans far to linearly. Suppose I give a man 1 pea. This is not enough to substain him, so I get zero return from that pea. Now suppose I give him enough to keep him alive and healthy, 5 units. I now get a return of 100 units. I say, wow, look at that, I went from 0 to 100 units for such a small price, I'll give him double, so I give him 10 units. Unfortunately I don't get 200 units back. I still only get 100. We can see now that above 5 units we get highly diminishing returns. The point here is to invest in everyone to the point of diminishing returns. You will get different rates of returns from different people, and certainly there will be scttered outliers that produce nothing. But on average you'll get an EXTREMELY high rate of returns. That's more of what I was refering to with "potential".

Quote :

"Only assuming both people have equal potential, equal productivity and equal outputs."

The prisoner's dillema has nothing to do with productivity. It has to do with one concept.

Quote :

"If humans are mere autonoma that are all equal, then they have no vested interest in their own existance. It's mere programmed reactions that makes for any concern over death."

You seem to believe that vested interests must be innate. This is incorrect. Vested interests are learned, but they are still vested interests.

Quote :

"The question is, which is the most productive one?"

I've answered this question already.

Quote :

"The difference is, capitalism doesn't pretend that all humans are worthwhile."

Then it makes a mistake.

Quote :

"It doesn't pretend that all people are equal and it doesn't pretend that are resources should or deserve to be equaly divided."

Then once agian, it makes a mistake. I've explained with my marginal returns example that investing in everyone is going to be the most profitable.

Quote :

"What factors you make than decision on is irellevant you have simply chosen to invest in one human life over the other positing that not all humans have the same potential, and not all humans are equaly or can be equaly productive and therefore, no all humans deserve the same access to resources. In otherwords, capitalism all over again."

We invest in the most productive one first, but we understand that there is a level of diminishing returns in which capitalism does not account for, thus why it is so poor in resource allocation.

Quote :

"I don't paint it, you do"

And where did I state that men would have to die for one another. Death is a part of your system moreso than mine.

Quote :

"Your system relies on everyone chosing the same starting point and the same direction of movement."

You seem to have misunderstood that. The starting point was when life began, and the direction of movement has only two possible directions, "this way", and "that way". Life has always moved "this way" and for this reason I have arbitrarily considered "this way" forward.

Quote :

"And you wonder where people get the idea that you see all humans as mere machines."

I don't wonder that, I've clearly stated it. What I do wonder is why you keep associating death my system as a strawman, although it is an impossibility.

Quote :

"But you don't think people are mere machines."

No, I do. I've clearly stated that at least 5,000 times on this message board.

Quote :

"Money is just another resource like any other."

No, it's more of a scale that can be used to represent any kind of resource.

4/7/2006 1:46:28 PM

Quote :

"Freedom might be frightening, just like the boogeyman and all sorts of other make-believe. But the reality is, "you" don't make any decisions. Those decisions were determined by environmental factors long ago You have no more control over your life than a ball does when it rolls down a hill. You simply roll."

Again, Kris, you are completely ignoring the fact that WE (on this board here today) have already been programmed to what certain things. No one is lining up to reprogram us just yet. Therefore, telling us we cannot have what we are programmed to want will make us discontent, potentially violent. I was merely pointing out to ShortnSlim that his fears of capitalism threatened to undermind his pre-programmed desires.

4/7/2006 2:19:01 PM

Quote :

"Guess who provides most of that in the US? Yep, socialized education."

One good apple does not make the entire tree good. When are you people going to learn, that one system isn't the right choice, the right choice is a combination.

But FYI, the education system, you know the socialized one, isn't that great.

4/7/2006 3:06:29 PM

Kris, you still believe in forced cooperation and trying to perfectly condition people? I would've thought you'd have gotten past those ideas by now.

4/7/2006 3:52:22 PM

Kris, brainwash a friend of yours to believe something utterly rediculous (which they didn't believe before) and we'll test them. If they pass the test one day, then again a few years later without any refreshers from you, then we might conceed to your coercive brainwashing theories.

4/7/2006 5:04:11 PM

Quote :

"Again, Kris, you are completely ignoring the fact that WE (on this board here today) have already been programmed to what certain things. No one is lining up to reprogram us just yet."

You're being programmed and reprogrammed everyday. Everything you see and hear helps to change you.

Quote :

"Therefore, telling us we cannot have what we are programmed to want will make us discontent, potentially violent."

No one suggested that. I am suggesting we reprogram what you want.

Quote :

"I was merely pointing out to ShortnSlim that his fears of capitalism threatened to undermind his pre-programmed desires."

Most likely he like most of us have programming in both ways, self-servicing and not. This explains why most people consider charity good and many people give to charity expecting nothing in return. We aren't soley self-serving, no one could believe that.

Quote :

"But FYI, the education system, you know the socialized one, isn't that great."

It's produced some of the greatest minds in history. I'd say it's working fairly well.

Quote :

"Kris, you still believe in forced cooperation and trying to perfectly condition people? I would've thought you'd have gotten past those ideas by now."

I'll start believing in free will the day I start believing that some white bearded man in the sky does everything.

Quote :

"Kris, brainwash a friend of yours to believe something utterly rediculous (which they didn't believe before) and we'll test them. If they pass the test one day, then again a few years later without any refreshers from you, then we might conceed to your coercive brainwashing theories."

That's an idiotic test. It's similar to if I made the claim "I don't believe we could land on the moon, if you do, then you build a rocket and land there, and then I'll believe you".

The fact is that we are manipulated and we manipulate others everyday in much the same fashion as I am descibing.

4/10/2006 7:26:42 PM

Quote :

"It's produced some of the greatest minds in history. I'd say it's working fairly well."

The fact that smart people went to school doesn't mean your socalist school system made them smart.

4/10/2006 7:35:09 PM

so people are born smart?

4/10/2006 9:06:47 PM

Quote :

"I'll start believing in free will the day I start believing that some white bearded man in the sky does everything."

I don't believe in free will either. What I do believe is that you severely overestimate the efficacy of your proposed systems of control.

4/10/2006 9:18:38 PM

that's because it's difficult to see that far in the future

the only thing we should be doing now is continuing our march towards socialism

it will seem much more feasible in our children's children's children's eyes

4/10/2006 11:26:45 PM

Naa, we should be continuing our march towards libertarianism.

it will seem much more feasible in our children's children's children's eyes

4/10/2006 11:38:41 PM

Quote :

"the only thing we should be doing now is continuing our march towards socialism "

Quote :

"Naa, we should be continuing our march towards libertarianism. "

omg which one is correct!!!

4/10/2006 11:47:00 PM

There's nothing wrong with my eyes, and they see that human nature stands out more than you think. It's not very convincing to say we should march towards a long-term goal because it'll look feasible eventually.

[Edited on April 11, 2006 at 12:48 AM. Reason : I]

4/11/2006 12:47:24 AM

Quote :

"omg which one is correct!!!"

The one that doesn't put its sole emphasis on free will aka make-believe

Quote :

"and they see that human nature stands out more than you think"

And what exactly is human nature? Human's evolved millions of year in order not to have any nature. Do you plan on de-evolving? If so you'll still need a few million years to gain any sort of nature.

Quote :

"It's not very convincing to say we should march towards a long-term goal because it'll look feasible eventually."

I want to march towards a short term goal, socialism. I only mention the long term goal because people bring it up.

4/11/2006 1:23:28 AM

you cant argue against free will. you are a communist. communists reject god. if there is no god there can not be predestination, since such a concept presupposes a creator.

4/11/2006 8:52:19 AM

Quote :

"The one that doesn't put its sole emphasis on free will aka make-believe"

I don't see why a free market requires a belief in free-will. Like you have said, we are just as programmed as ever, and even it isn't perfect. We could make this whole freedom thing work so much better with better programmed individuals.

Imagine how awesome the world would be if everyone was programmed to enjoy running their own business and just working for someone else felt wrong/boring/etc.

As it is, what free markets we have are all operating under the 10% rule. Only 10% of us are actually working the market by shopping around. 90% of us just shop wherever is closer (A gas station is South Carolina was charging almost 60 cents more than the stations on either side of it, yet people were still filling up!). As such, 90% of us are subsisting on the efforts of the 10% which are solely providing all the impetus for businesses to compete.

Not to mention the fringe benefits: we could eliminate, unions, socialists, and criminals! Imagine how small we could get the government if all it had to do was maintain the programming, no need for a police force, no need for social programs, etc. Everyone will have been programmed to take care of themselves and keep the government out of their business (education would, for the purpose of programming, be the sole exception, rationalized as maintaining opportunity).

4/11/2006 9:16:55 AM

Quote :

"you cant argue against free will. you are a communist. communists reject god. if there is no god there can not be predestination, since such a concept presupposes a creator."

You don't seem to understand to difference between predestination and determinism.

Quote :

"I don't see why a free market requires a belief in free-will."

I suppose it isn't required to, but its difficult to "let you do whatever you want" when "whatever you want" is determined by environmental factors. Freedom itself tends to only be valued by people who value personal responsibility, which obviously requires a belief in free-will.

Quote :

"Imagine how awesome the world would be if everyone was programmed to enjoy running their own business and just working for someone else felt wrong/boring/etc."

That would royally suck.

Quote :

"Imagine how small we could get the government if all it had to do was maintain the programming, no need for a police force, no need for social programs, etc. Everyone will have been programmed to take care of themselves and keep the government out of their business (education would, for the purpose of programming, be the sole exception, rationalized as maintaining opportunity)."

There's much much more to the programming than education alone. Your everyday life programs you. Your job, where you live, they all help to program you. The government can't really control your program without having absolute control over where you are and what you do, thus these two systems are mutually exclusive.

4/11/2006 11:20:42 AM

Quote :

"I suppose it isn't required to, but its difficult to "let you do whatever you want" when "whatever you want" is determined by environmental factors."

^ Not really. In a free system you are free to do whatever you want. Your wants are determined by your programming. As such, the system would not be letting you do truely random things, it would merely be letting you execute your given program. Imagine a fully automated factory. However, all the robots have their own computer and their own programming. In effect, all the robots are just doing whatever they want. Luckily for us, what they want to do (thanks to their programming) is wait for a part to come by and then perform their assigned task.

Therefore, by choosing what you want and tuning what you believe, I have determined what you will do, where you will be, and how you will do it. Yes, the finer points in life will be determined by circumstance, but how people respond to those circumstances will be entirely predictable (set up a company and maximize profits).

4/11/2006 1:21:09 PM

Quote :

"And what exactly is human nature? Human's evolved millions of year in order not to have any nature."

Human nature is how we act according to our biology; we are not entirely programmed socially. You've already admitted that sexuality is pretty instinctual. I see human nature shining through social influences all the time, like when people are constantly given religious messages to help others, but they usually act for themselves instead. You could say they were influenced to be that way too, but it seems to me they act that way because they're inherently more egoistic than society tells them to be.

Quote :

"I want to march towards a short term goal, socialism."

Remind me your rationale for that?

4/11/2006 1:30:35 PM

all this discussion of consumption of resources versus output in terms of societal benefits makes me think that you folks are missing one of the primary points of consumer capitalism

certainly, the worker is supposed to defer pleasure in favor of MAXIMUM productivity

however, the worker (as consumer) is supposed to consume the maximum amount and, by doing so, also contributes to the consumer capitalist society

so, if an individual consumes a disproportionate amount compared to his or her output this person is still valuable to consumer capitalism

the problems arise when we recognize that these two principles are dialectically opposed
this is what has been described as the "capitalist double bind"

4/11/2006 2:22:12 PM

Quote :

"the worker (as consumer) is supposed to consume the maximum amount and, by doing so, also contributes to the consumer capitalist society"

Whaa? A worker (as consumer) should consume as much as he feels safe consuming. Keynes was both right and wrong in this respect. During an economic downturn, yes, more consuming can lessen the strain on the financial system. However, outside of a downturn, spendthrift behavior is counter-productive and down-right dangerous. If consumers have no savings then consumption will halt when an economic downturn occurs, making the down-turn even worse. And in times of economic boom extra consumer spending is unnecessary as business investment is driving the economy, not individual consumption.

So, logically, the best behavior a consumer can have is to save during times of plenty and then draw upon it during economic recessions. Such behavior will temper the booms and lessen the slumps, while at the same time maximizing individual utility.

4/11/2006 2:59:33 PM

I'm not exactly talking about economic principle here

I'm talking about the social body of consumer culture as described by Robert Crawford
he discusses the "correct" management of desire which requires "a contradictory double-bind construction of personality"

Crawford argues, and Bordo supports this argument in "Unbearable Weight", that:

"In advanced consumer capitalism... an unstable, agonistic construction of personality is produced by the contradictory structure of economic life. On the one hand, as producers of goods and services we must sublimate, delay repress desires for immediate gratification; we must cultivate the work ethic. [Both Freud and Marx talk about this] On the other hand, as consumers we must display a boundless capacity to capitulate to desire and indulge on impulse; we must hunger for constant and immediate satisfaction. The regulation of desire thus becomes an ongoing problem, as we find ourselves continually beseiged by temptation, while socially condemning overindulgence." (Bordo p. 199)

4/11/2006 3:11:43 PM

^ Yea, those guys are nuts. Of course, they may just be saying it like it is, I'm not saying many people living today are not mentally deranged, but they don't have to be.

Quote :

"as we find ourselves continually beseiged by temptation, while socially condemning overindulgence."

The problem I see here is not that we, as humans, find it difficult to manage to two impulses. The problem is that we have the impulse to socially condemn overindulgence. If I have a lot and spend a lot it has nothing to do with anyone else, so why do they condemn me? I earned the money, you should be happy for my success (in the same light you should be sad for my failures).

I agree that freedom drives us to temptation. What I don't see is the idea that capitalism drives us to condemn indulgence. If anything, your overindulgence should make it easier for me to make money off of you.

I am assuming that by overindulgence you mean conspicuous consumption, or consuming more than one needs, not what an economist would call overindulgence, spending more than you can reasonably afford. If you are talking about the latter, then I see your point and conceed that it is both true and unavoidable, a tiny price to pay, mental anguish, for a lot of benefit, ever higher productivity and technological development.

4/11/2006 4:09:24 PM

Quote :

"This may seem theoretical, but the logic applies. It is essentially the same idea behind the tragedy of the commons, and other well known errors in capitalism."

Ummm, where are the "commons" in capitalism? Capitalists are all about some private property, either individual or cooperative ownership under contract, so what "commons" could/would exist under pure capitalism that would succumb to this tragedy?

4/11/2006 4:42:59 PM

^^ Bordo is talking about it specifically in terms of eating disorders

but also in reference to substance abuse and other forms of addiction

4/11/2006 4:50:15 PM