Mister Mister

Again, I think you are confused by the debunked labor-theory of value. A "contribution" doesn't have inherent monetary worth. The only quantifiable value anything has in this world is its opportunity cost. So what is the opportunity cost of owners of capital, or of management? Going back to your idea of "It really is as easy as own capital: profit. Empirical evidence proves it." No it doesn't. Economics/Critical Thinking is all about seeing the unseen. You SEE the successful owners of capital, but you don't see all the failures, which are essential to the market. Think of all the advertising campaigns, like Coke Zero, which were failures. Or all the movies like Waterworld which were flops and cost the studios millions. Also, you never addressed my comment. Are you willing to use force against what you see as hierarchical management schemes? If not, then we have a simple difference of agreement, not over moral/economic philosophy, but business organization. In which case we have no real quarrel

Again, I have to repeat, this kind of communication is not constructive to any kind of dialogue, and doesn't deserve any real consideration on a philosophy forum. Some of it would make good rock lyrics though.

I think you've contradicted yourself. The price is not reflective of the labor, the price is a function of supply and demand. And to your other point, buyers DO have the ability to set prices, if nothing else, by not buying something they don't think is worth what is priced. No that is not the function of the State. The State is a monopoly on violence, its function is whatever who happens to wield that violence wants it to be, mainly to redistribute resources from one group to another. Yes, the general population is robbed to give subsidies and special privileges to Goldmann Sachs, but the average upper-middle class family also has half their income stolen to subsidize a woman who foolishly had 3 kids by 3 different irresponsible men. So describing the State as only protecting the privileged class is wrong. Homesteading/property rights creates artificial scarcity? Well sure, in the sense that property owners don't necessarily want to use all their resources at once. That's like saying a woman who doesn't sleep around is creating artificial scarcity of vaginas. I don't know what you mean about bargaining position. Why would a company hire a CEO at all and pay them millions, if their performance means so little to the company? What kind of worker self-managed companies? If that's the case, then great. I don't even know what you're arguing. I won't initiate force against your "worker" managed companies, and I expect you won't initiate force against "managerial hierarchies". So then we're not even talking moral or economic philosophy, just business decisions.

good for you man, I know that must be a hard decision to make. can I ask what it was that made the difference?

Right, well the event in question doesn't say anything specific about solutions. Just feels like an appeal to "compassion", and shame for having more. But I am recently aware of the phenomenon of pathological altruism, so I am skeptical even of private charities.

A girl I work with invited me to an event put on by this organization. Looking at the website, it is really heartbreaking to read the numbers and see the pictures, but I suspect it is not entirely accurate. Especially when it says "Yet in today’s world, poverty and hunger are not inevitable. They persist, not because we lack the technologies or expertise, but because we lack the collective will, the imagination, and the compassionate intent to bring poverty to an end.", I question if this is true, because of all the billions of dollars poured towards Africa the last century. Does anyone have better info/explanation on this subject?

What do you mean "monopolistic control"? Do factory owners use force to prevent other people from building factories? Scarcity Rent? But scarcity is a fact of reality, right? What am I missing? What do you mean by "abolition of monopoly"? Would you initiate force against a factory owner? I still maintain, that Marxists are just exhibiting the Dunning-Kruger effect. Owning a business is a specialized skill, just like being a doctor or engineer, and profit (in a free market) is reflective of these skills, just like a wage. Marxists talk about this stuff as if it is as simple as "Step 1 - own capital. Step 2 - profit", but this ignores the fact that many business ventures fail, one company is on top one year, and falls the next. I work part-time for a small business that has a great deal of debt. I am perfectly happy collecting a wage, and one day will walk away and move on. The business owner on the other hand, has to live with that debt. So ownership is a two-way street. Hey that's really annoying and insulting, given how he has continuously behaved. When someone says something like "And the spoiled conceited enemies of our democracy want to impose Snob Rule instead. Sex-on-demand with their employees is an example of their economic elitism", yes I will call them a troll. It's not because I'm stupid and can't understand their rehashed Marxist arguments, it's because his communication skills are shitty and unnecessarily hostile. I've always shown you respect and consideration despite our disagreements, and it bothers me that you wouldn't reciprocate.

I actually agree that Einstein and QM are highly problematic, so I don't exactly know what you are getting at. I don't want you disrespecting authorities I agree with? No, I want you to make your case with reason and evidence rather than assertions and slander. Anyway, thanks for completely proving my point that you are shitty at talking to people. I hope you will at least think about this and improve, for your own sake. In the meantime it's not healthy for me to pretend we're having a debate for both our sakes.

Wow. What constitutes excessive drinking? How does the US compare to other countries in this area, I wonder...for example I know Japan and S Korea are really bad.

Hi JaydenS, nice to have you here. Some questions for you, if you care to answer - What does it mean to you to be left wing, and in the center, and what prompted your change from left to center? Also, what issues do you have with libertarianism? What do you think about the broader, non-political issues in the show: parenting, relationships, marriage/family, science/religion, race/gender, and so on? Not interrogating you, just probing for things you might want to chat about. Welcome

the modern left survives on outrage and resentment without clear principles or goals. this ensures that they swell their ranks with as many unintelligent, dissatisfied people as possible, and the "movement" can never end.

I think it is true, that some parents who don't use force on their kids, tend to be overly permissive, or verbally manipulative. And spanking can mean a lot of different things, everything from grabbing a kid by the arm bending him over, taking your belt off, and wailing on him until you leave marks, to explaining to him why what he did was "wrong", and giving a smack with an open hand over his closed butt. And one is by FAR more harmful than the other. But the approach is the same, you are imposing violent consequences on a child rather than explaining right and wrong. It assumes that the parents know the difference between right and wrong in the first place. And it conditions a child to obedience, or avoiding getting caught, rather than internalizing values and understanding real world consequences. Does that make sense? "It doesn't seem to matter what I say on here, I am criticized if I do and criticized if I don't." I don't know what you mean by this. This is a philosophy forum. If you make a claim people disagree with, they will bring criticisms to you. Criticized if you don't what??? I really don't understand.

No, it is hopeless to persuade people when you insult them, and generally don't know how to talk to people. Like I was saying, I would be sympathetic to your "arguments" and engage in a conversation, and I think so would others, but your communication style SUUUUUCCCCKKKSS. Especially in a community of people who listen to, process, and make challenging arguments that 99% of the population finds crazy, to be told the reason we don't immediately agree with everything you say, is because of our intractable closed minds, with no self-reflection of your own words on your part, is incredibly off-putting. For example, when you say "You want to believe what you're told to believe about glorified personalities. Having automatic pre-formed heroes saves the time and effort it takes to think of them as if their opinions and character were analyzed without any conformist confirmation bias." That's REEEEAAALLLY annoying, to be told what you think and feel. Assuming someone's desires, beliefs, and motives is not only irrational but arrogant and obnoxious as well. It doesn't mean you're wrong of course, none of what I'm saying does, but if you really care about convincing people of radical ideas (which some of us might know something about), you really ought to self-reflect on how you talk to people.

Very Ape, I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. Stef and the greater Libertarian/AnCap world regularly cover the problems with the dollar and fiat money in general, and the economic instability sure to be part of all of our future. But you are WAAAAYYY moving the goalposts, have totally hijacked a thread that was about a philosophical definition of money, and just to the point of lecturing. It's not fun to have a conversation this way. I don't even know what you're trying to convince me of.

That's true, the Old Testament is really the best moral philosophy from the last 3000 years. It's a shame, though, they forgot to mention "don't rape" in all those chapters. Also the cutting off foreskins as a sacrifice for Yahweh is a little creepy...

dsayers, don't feed the trolls.

yes that's what I meant thank you

Hey btc, I appreciate you bringing up this topic. And it's good to hear about your overcoming this problem to some degree. Interesting that just being aware of the process has helped you so much. Have you also found that physical health, diet, exercise, and so on, makes a difference? I have heard that men go through a monthly hormonal cycle, though more subtle, and mostly to do with being horny or not. But I think the closest thing men have to deal with, that is similar, is the clouding of our thinking which occurs when in the presence of a woman we are attracted to. In the same way, I've found, just being aware of what's really going on, from a zoom-out perspective, is enormously helpful in avoiding bad decisions.

I'm thinking the policy cost $1000, but insured them for $2 million

Half a century ago, hundreds of thousands of mostly white men, were conscripted against their will, and sent half way around the world to the jungles of Vietnam to die, lose their limbs, or come back traumatized, and be hated by privileged hippies. Just one example of institutionalized violence that affected mostly white men.

This is not a good way to communicate. There's no question that a lot of what you are saying is true. But the compulsion which we are all under is not inherent in money as a broader concept (which was the original topic of this thread), but rather is a function of the coercion in the government system. We are required by law to declare our income in Federal Reserve Notes, and our productivity is leveraged against us as National Debt. No one here I think has a problem condemning that as a disgusting, exploitative, violent system. But I think you are moving the goalposts a little bit. The original question was about what defines money, not about the details of the modern currency system of the US and the world. And your contention, if I understood, was that being dependent on others, by needing goods and services they provide through the division of labor, and exchange of money, is inherently coercive, not voluntary. That's what dsayers was taking issue with I think. I can pretty much guarantee he wasn't disagreeing though, that the modern Federal Reserve system is coercive.

If women are paid 77 cents to the dollar compared to men, why don't companies hire only men?

Yes you are right that money is a technology. I was just pointing out that the "value" of the money is contingent on the belief that people will provide goods and services in exchange for it. In this way, money has value in the same way a formal contract has value, it is only as good as your trust that the other party will fulfill their end. Which is very relevant to Very Ape's argument. What you are talking about has nothing to do inherently with money, but rather the inter-dependence of people as a result of the division of labor. If I understand your argument, it is that being dependent on others is not voluntary? If so, I think you are using a different definition of voluntary. Furthermore, you are using a definition of voluntary that is nearly impossible to fulfill, as we are a social species, with different personalities who specialize in different skills. For example, if I get sick, and need a doctor, and I call one up, and we make an arrangement for him to give me treatment, what is the problem? Is it not voluntary, just because I can't doctor myself? What you're saying doesn't really make sense. I have a guess, that really, the idea of being dependent on others in a voluntary situation makes you uncomfortable because maybe you don't think you have that much value to provide others. Is that close at all?

The biggest problem with economics is constant interference from government, and a lack of core principles. Most economics has to do with trying to calculate how best to manage people, which would be like if psychology were concerned with how to make good slaves.

You realize, you completely ignored what I said and just doubled down. I'm not talking to "scientists", I'm talking to you. And you're not talking to "scientists" you're talking to us here on this board. And if you want to convince us that your argument has merit and is worth consideration, I'm telling you that you have to work on your communication skills. Shaming a whole group of people called "scientists" isn't going to accomplish anything.