ProfessionalTeabagger

It uses the objective standard you automatically accept when you asked the question and began to debate people. If you're not using an objective standard then everything you say is subjective opinion and we can ignore you.

Okay, so all of this is your opinion, right?

So if it's not just your opinion then you accept there's a valid distinction between stating an opinion and stating a fact ,right?

Is this just your opinion?

You just described a market that is extremely not free. That's a bit silly.

This is definitely a blow agianst the concept of white privilege but that's all. The problem with the concept, like many concepts, is that you can't disprove them. Things like white privilege, racist, misogynist, sexist, etc are claims designed to get people to capitulate to leftist demands or unsound arguments. You just have to ask your self what would actually disprove something like white privilege? There's nothing.

If we program it with these principles don't we remove its free will? Wouldn't we effectively be brain-washing it?

Bit of a coincidence you just happen to be bringing this up now. It's almost like someone in the government is paying you to post these stupid things that never go anywhere. Nice try. We won't be distracted. Charleston Shooting truth NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go ahead and down-vote. That only proves I'm right.

You got Occam's razor wrong. It all things being equal the explanation with the least assumptions is the the most likely. When I viewed your comment I instantaneously saw you were an employee of NASA sent here to make the real conspiracy seem really stupid. Prove me wrong.

I got down-voted by people who want to distract from the truth about the moon-landing. Down-voters can't stop the truth. Show yourselves you cowards.

Trodas is in on the moon landing hoax. Why else is he here? To distract us. Trodas is shill. Stop covering up the truth trodas. The moon landing is fake and you know it but you put this stuff here to make moon landing truthers look like unbelievably retarded cretins.

IOW, is a coercive state necessary?

I would vote for the Gambino's over the Genovese's. Their policy of low protection money is better for business.

It's hilarious that they felt they had to include the less than 1% fraud claim. Can you imagine a private company selling themselves "We will defraud you no more than 1 percent"?

If it "works" then people can chose to voluntarily join socialist institutions. No problem.

No it is not and I just gave you an argument for that and you ignored it. Socialism is social or common control of the means of production. The example you give is not remotely analogous to your original claim which was that getting stuff for free from a robotic workforce is socialism. Socialism does not equal getting stuff for free. You are wrong. My argument was that all our needs being met by a robot workforce is not necessarily utopia. I am responding to your claim about these things being socialism and utopia and telling you why your claims are wrong. Do you understand?

Getting free stuff is not socialism. Socialism is social or common ownership of the means of production. The closest socialism gets to "free stuff" is the economic fallacy of "free at the point of use". A near fully mechanized society does not mean utopia. Maybe a robotic workforce will send us all into a depression. Human desires are practically infinite. New "needs" arise. Human exist on a hedonic treadmill. No matter how many of out problems you solve through mechanization we tend to return to the mean. A robotic workforce could equal hell for all you know.

There are two possibilities. The senses are valid or they are not. If the senses are not valid then the argument that they may not be valid cannot be valid as such an argument relies on the senses. Therefore the senses must be valid.

It would be good if you actually explain why what you describe is utopia or socialism. It's just more mechanized. So what?

A good and cheeky response is to ask them something like "How will government prevent the inevitable nuclear holocaust?. I mean, we've already been to the brink of annihilation many times so how can you guarantee government won't destroy civilization?" or "How will you prevent government from murdering hundreds of millions of people like it did in the past?" Keep asking for exact answers they ask for. Statists give their own institution a pass but suddenly become super-skeptics when it comes to freedom. So hold them to the standards they are hold you to.

Sorry I made a large mistake. I meant to say "If you can't privatize it then you CAN'T communalize it. That means if privatization is not possible then it logically follows that communalization is not possible because individuals need to be able to own things before a group of individuals can. I apologize for the mistake.

I didn't say or imply you claimed I was unconscious. I said if there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate something non-conscious. If there's no basis to claim consciousness is unique then what other known non-terrestrial things have consciousness? Human intelligent conscious is certainly unique as it is one of a kind. I'm not sure why you're arguing that dogs have a degree of self-awareness. No, grass would be non-conscious. It would not be on any consciousness scale as it has none. I don't know why you're telling me this. Conscious means the state of being aware and responding to surroundings. Self aware means one is aware of ones self to some significant degree. There's an animal self-awareness that exists without any intelligence and then there's human self-awareness that is intelligence. Human self-awareness is unique. It's one of a kind so far.

There are animals that seem to lie somewhere between dumb and intelligent. They appear to have the first inklings of abstract intelligence but I see no evidence that they are in the same category as adult humans in that area. If dolphins have free will then they have moral agency. That would mean when they kill one of their own kind or us it is murder. I don't see how we can say a dolphin can be a murderer. What? Intelligent means capable of abstract thinking/reasoning. Conscious means self-aware. Stop bugging me about were the line is and when it can be said animals become intelligent. I get that's there's a grey area but it doesn't mean there isn't a clear distinction between a human and a rock. If there's nothing unique about consciousness then go debate a a patch of grass or a tin can.

If you can't privatize it you can nationalize / communalize it. In other words, if an individual can't own it then a group of individuals can't own it.

That only intelligent conscious beings can achieve.