DaVinci

If that is what he means, then what do you say to people who are wary of the free market considering we do have government interference and don't have a free market. Isn't it hurting moving away from government and towards a free market for people who are putting others out of business to say "That's the free market" when it isn't a free market and they might be putting someone else out of business because of some benefit that is only derived from state power?

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we should tell people the free market is for the "greater benefit"? Can you clarify this for me please.

I would argue that a lot of the anti-capitalistic sentiment is a reaction to the business owners who shrug their shoulders at putting other people out of business. Saying "Oh, well, that's the free market" is actually driving people to socialism

I'm an artist, and would love to do that as my full time job, though I'm not sure in what direction it could go that would advance philosophy. That having been said I have a ton of ideas about projects that aren't related to philosophy but could make some money, and some that are related to spreading philosophy that could potentially be a game changer and completely disrupt an entire market.

Competition for the sake of competition, while not morally wrong, doesn't seem preferable to competition with an end goal of improvement in a specific skill as the primary motivator. For example, we both learn to bake cookies and are judged on who did the best job. Only one person wins, but the loser can take their skills and continue to progress and might even end up surpassing the person who beat them. That's not really what happens in the market. If I make horse carriages and you make the car, well then, you put me out of business and because the world runs on money I have to give up my dream, close down my shop, and my skills making horse carriages don't quite transfer anywhere else. I have to accept something less now to scrape by because I need money. I think you could look at it as being very similar to a man being divorced by his wife because she is "unhappy" or "found someone better". In effect he was driven out by competition. Is that wrong? Well, I suppose not. Does it suck for the guy? I would say yeah, it does. Men who lose their position as husband and/or dad often spiral into depression. I think the same is true of people who find themselves ousted from their business as an artisan cheese maker because someone else pumps out blocks of velveeta. Sure, velveeta blocks are way less expensive than artisan cheese, and all the people now buying the automated cheese are now saving money. But isn't the world down one awesome craftsman? Granted some people are much more flexible and adaptable and they will turn their car dealership into a restaurant or something like that to stay afloat, but other people have their morale totally shredded by losing their business. I don't see how anyone can just shrug their shoulders at someone losing this thing they were so passionate about and go "Oh, well, that's capitalism" In fact, I would argue that most of the crap hindering a truly free market is a blow back to that kind of attitude.

I think in some cases in the past you have someone who starts a business that they love doing who sees their business go under because someone supplants it. So they go from running their own business to losing it, to working for the guy who supplanted them. I think that is why people oppose automation. I don't think people like regressing in their careers.

LOL! Are we talking about fiction or non-fiction? You can find a ton of people to talk to about the fiction industry at writing "cons".

I've approached your posts with curiosity several times recently only to be ignored.

It's okay to say, "I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Tell me more." No one needs your permission to ask you questions, and they don't specifically need your validation either. I've asked you several questions recently in several different threads and you ignore me. I'm here to learn. Maybe my questions don't make sense. Maybe I can ask things in a better way. But if you have the answers to my questions and you refuse to give them, then how you can complain about anyone dropping their principals and expect to be taken seriously?

I'm not making excuses for people here. I'm not even really talking about the people here. I'm talking about society in general. I think you have some good points, but I know from my own experience the second I walk outside that almost no one else thinks the things we talk about here. To me that seems to be the main point of contention in this thread. That everyone else seems to recognize that there is a world full of dangerous people outside the realm of the internet and you don't. You might be right that they are not following their values but at the same time you aren't being realistic.

I think everyone here would snap their fingers and change things if they could but that's not reality. Neither is thinking that people will suddenly reject the use of violent force when they have been brined in it their whole lives.

I took it as a theoretical, though I think many theoretical threads on this board aren't indulged in. As for hearing voices, I think it would have to be established where are those "voices" coming from. External audible voices? Internal thoughts? If they are internal thoughts are they controllable? If not, that's when there could be a problem.

I'll look into that. Thank you for the suggestion. I guess I have my homework cut out for me.

That makes sense. I appreciate the response.

Light refracting? Just because light refracting changes the view of something doesn't mean it isn't there.

That sounds good, but do PC's even come with burners anymore and is burning updates to a disc something that you can actually do? It's been a while since I built my own computer or bought one. Yeah, I don't need everyone to have a backdoor to my computer, but I also grew up during a time period where if you had a computer it was offline. You used it to do work, and not get online. I had a computer for about 3 or 4 years before it was ever hooked to the internet, and I've worked on computers in the past for things like music and video editing that were built just for that purpose with no internet access. It's nice to just do work on a computer.

I'm not convinced philosophy alone can make you happy. Maybe if the human brain was a philosophy computer and a happiness center hooked to the processing of philosophy then philosophy would make you happy, but that isn't the case.

I assume you are being sarcastic. I've thought about going the Rasperry Pi route. Aren't those Linux based? Can I run Office on one of those?

If I have to get online to download something like Office and then unplug it forever then I would be okay with that, but yeah, I would prefer a computer that was never online. I certainly see the appeal of getting new features, but I also would like to keep internet browsing/connectivity and work separate. I think this is some of the appeal of the iPad. You can surf the internet but you can't do much work. Except the opposite device isn't available. An all in one computer, plug it in, and get to work. No internet needed.

I wonder how much of that letter is just a computer generated response.

All I really want for an offline computer is to have Office and maybe Photoshop. Of those two Photoshop seems to be the more problematic in terms of needing an always on connection. This seems like a gap in the market, but maybe I'm in a minority of users. I appreciate the response Shirgall

I would like an offline computer that I never have to worry about anything happening to, but that seems to be impossible as no program comes on a disc anymore, or it needs an always on internet connection. Does anyone have a 2016 computer that is entirely offline?

What do you want to get organized for? If you look at any place that produces just about anything there is a mess. A wood working shop has shavings and dust. A researcher has stacks of books, paper, and clutter. An artist has drop cloths covered in paint splatter, jugs full of random paint brushes, boxes of supplies, tubes of paint sitting on every flat surface, etc. Creating usually causes a mess. So what are you creating? Are we just talking about cleaning your house?

It seems to me what he is asking is how you get the data "this is poisonous to humans when consumed in X quantities over Y amount of time". Today we see people die from long term cigarette smoking, excessive drinking, or drugs and so have the data to inform people of the toxicity of these things, but that data came from people who had to consume these things and die from them in order for others to know for certain that they are capable of being killed by them. The data has come post death. People keep mentioning free market solutions, but I'm not sure a growing market for forensics is preferable over a market for preventative measures. But how do you get data for preventative measures before you harm people?

Rosencrantz, is what you are asking "How do you find out what is toxic without killing people"? If so that's a good question. Obviously we know what already kills people because they have died, and I don't think any person who considers themselves rational and compassionate would suggest forcing anyone to be a guinea pig. So how you get to the data without getting the data does seem to be a conundrum.