Capitalists - you really don't see a problem?

a reply to: Semicollegiate
The fact you commit a strawman after a strawman and act like your own referee proves you have no idea how to debate.

Who said man is not rational?

Man is not rational first. Man must learn to develop his rational mind.


The fact it took hundreds of thousands of years to develop a pedagogy of rational thought proves your wrong.

The fact you have very few rational arguements proves you wrong.

The fact you don't believe in government or laws makes you contradict yourself.

There is no law without the ability to enforce it.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: deadlyhope

Something more like.. The workers collectively have ownership within a company. No shareholders to appease to, no stock market to manipulate - just workers advocating for the company they have an interest in and are dedicating a large amount of their life to.

You mean like employee-owned companies?

They do exist now, and can even in a free market.

Isn't worker owned cooperatives technically both socialism and capitalist?

Mega-corperations should fear worker owned cooperatives.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't have to worry about that I live check to check as best I can.
I'm armed, trained and ready but I doubt I'll ever NEED to actually fight again, I just can.
What the failure here is ,would be the centralized banks.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Maybe printable organs,phasers, and holodeck for entertainment.

Maybe I am getting too carried away.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate
The fact you commit a strawman after a strawman and act like your own referee proves you have no idea how to debate.

Who said man is not rational?

Man is not rational first. Man must learn to develop his rational mind.


The fact it took hundreds of thousands of years to develop a pedagogy of rational thought proves your wrong.

The fact you have very few rational arguements proves you wrong.

The fact you don't believe in government or laws makes you contradict yourself.

There is no law without the ability to enforce it.

No

The law is not about enforcement, it is about deterrence. Deterrence means rationality.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Semicollegiate
The fact you commit a strawman after a strawman and act like your own referee proves you have no idea how to debate.

Who said man is not rational?

Man is not rational first. Man must learn to develop his rational mind.


The fact it took hundreds of thousands of years to develop a pedagogy of rational thought proves your wrong.

The fact you have very few rational arguements proves you wrong.

The fact you don't believe in government or laws makes you contradict yourself.

There is no law without the ability to enforce it.

No

The law is not about enforcement, it is about deterrence. Deterrence means rationality.

No it doesn't.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Still missed the point.

Nobody said that man is not rational no matter what the law is about.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Still missed the point.

Nobody said that man is not rational no matter what the law is about.

That and deterrence means the act of deterring.

a reply to: luthier

To be fair I think he meant that deterrence was a sign of rationality.

Since nobody is saying that man isn't rational then it is neither here nor there. There is one thing though. Man might be rational but not all men are rational.

So what is the incorrect but yet official and power serving definition of man that you enjoy?

First principle -- Man lives for the common good.

Am I right?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

What part didn't you understand?

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
So what is the incorrect but yet official and power serving definition of man that you enjoy?

First principle -- Man lives for the common good.

Am I right?

Not even close.

It's the same one that follows all of nature.

Man is first a product of their enviornment whether it is a rejection of the culture or acceptance.

Reason was an evolutionary process of thought.

Again see Plato's the cave.

Laws can be based on survival. A written aspect of survival traits.

See cultural anthropology and philosophy for an actual understanding of mankind.

Or live in your own universe where you make up everything. It doesn't matter tot me.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
So what is the incorrect but yet official and power serving definition of man that you enjoy?

First principle -- Man lives for the common good.

Am I right?

Not even close.

It's the same one that follows all of nature.

Man is first a product of their enviornment whether it is a rejection of the culture or acceptance.

NO
Man is born with certain organizing factors. Like language and the coordination to walk up right, Man chooses, using reason or ratiocination, naturally and genetically. His environment determines his knowledge base, but his essential process is rational. He constantly predicts the likely future to the best of his ability.

Man constantly chooses. He is creature of his mind.

If a man's environment is socialist he will be socialist until such time as he sees a reason to be otherwise.

But just because a man's environment is collectivist it does not follow that man's nature is collectivist.

Since man has only one mind and cannot read other's minds his essential nature must be individual.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
He constantly predicts the likely future to the best of his ability.

And some choose to seek power and others strong leaders and here we are.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
He constantly predicts the likely future to the best of his ability.

And some choose to seek power and others strong leaders and here we are.

You beg the question that nothing can be done about that.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You beg the question that nothing can be done about that.

I don't know if it can or can't but it isn't being done.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
So what is the incorrect but yet official and power serving definition of man that you enjoy?

First principle -- Man lives for the common good.

Am I right?

Not even close.

It's the same one that follows all of nature.

Man is first a product of their enviornment whether it is a rejection of the culture or acceptance.

NO
Man is born with certain organizing factors. Like language and the coordination to walk up right, Man chooses, using reason or ratiocination, naturally and genetically. His environment determines his knowledge base, but his essential process is rational. He constantly predicts the likely future to the best of his ability.

Man constantly chooses. He is creature of his mind.

If a man's environment is socialist he will be socialist until such time as he sees a reason to be otherwise.

But just because a man's environment is collectivist it does not follow that man's nature is collectivist.

Since man has only one mind and cannot read other's minds his essential nature must be individual.

I take you never read any anthropology?

Almost none of what you said is true.

Unless you are a creationist?


Why do the Yanomami limit the number of woman born and then fight over them from tribe to tribe? Why do they slice their penises open and put a stick through them? Is that rational to you?

If I am mute and my children never go outside will they learn language?

Did homosapien 2 always have language?

Reason was developed over time. It's an evolutionary trait that served as a survival mechanism. It is not man's first instinct or innate gift. It is learned and developed with great variance from time and cultures.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
You beg the question that nothing can be done about that.

I don't know if it can or can't but it isn't being done.

True

Good luck

Look both ways...

a reply to: luthier

Unless you are a creationist?

According to Watzlawick we all're condemned to do so, at least to some degree.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: luthier

Unless you are a creationist?

According to Watzlawick we all're condemned to do so, at least to some degree.

Yeah. Creating our own problems.

This is what I am trying to get across. The market needs to take in account irrational behaviour, fear, greed, etc. You can not simply leave human beings to their own devices and not expect some disasters.

I believe in capitalism. I underatand it's dangerous to regulate. I understand it's dangerous not to regulate.