Mark Carolus

Lol. On another note, what about deflation? what do you think of that?

Perhaps it is me that needs to learn some new form of understanding, that might be, i will not deny this. BUT... and here is the big but, how come you cannot or will not agree, that the earth can only have x amount of resources, no matter what resource we start using next? It is like living inside a bulb with a finite amount of gold, silver, oil, gas and copper. If any of these things runs out, i could switch to a technique using the other resources i have at my disposal, but that will also run out eventually.

I have a question. Why do you accept reductionism exactly? Stefan's daughter's lemonade stand: the entire economy is 100% (obviously). Stefan's daughter's lemonade stand is 0.00000000001% of that economy. How can you accept 0.00000000001% as a good explanation for the other 99.99999999999%? Pencil for a dollar. the dollar is only 0.00000000001% of the economy. How can you accept 0.00000000001% as a good explanation for the other 99.99999999999%? I am inclined to call this phenomenon "the glass ceiling", because many people aren't able to see past the reductionist example, but..... seeing as feminazi's already use that term, i'm gonna need a better term.....

I never stated that it was the political regime that did the invention, i merely pointed out, that even under this political regime, innovation still occurs and in fact, it was even higher than it is now (if we factor in the fact that most current innovations, are merely updates of older innovations and or the mixing of older innovations into a single new innovation). whether Nazi Germany came up with the first workable form of genetic manipulation, is not that big a deal, even is this information is not correct, it is only one out of many, disproving one does not disprove them all.

Good argument. I can, because growth. Capitalism, free-market or not, is based on growth and i can easily simulate growth in just a few lines of code, in fact, as I've demonstrated that it can even simulate recessions and it will still ultimately lead to unsustainable growth.

I am pushing an agenda huh? ok, and you aren't? you're a hypocrite if you say no. by referring only to whales you are using a reductionist example (just like Stefan always does) which does not represent the whole and can never represent the whole, there is x amount of resources on the planet in all forms combined, whether we use resource y or z does not matter, because y and z are part of x. It is the same as Stefan's examples of his daughters lemonade stand or a pencil for a dollar, it is just.... man.... so me voluntarily exchanging a pencil for a dollar, means that the whole economy is just fine and dandy.... you seriously don't have a problem with an explanation that simple? On another note, using your daughter to represent an economic example, is completely missing the point, since your daughter IS NOT economically dependent on herself, that's kinda what being a kid means....... but maybe I'm the idiot, who knows. Libertarians are the "gotcha" type of people, always looking for something tiny you did wrong and then trying to blow the entire argument up using just that tiny thing. My friend, the world is not that simple, the economy is not that simple, emotions are not that simple, thoughts are not that simple and people overall are not that simple. One tiny thing wrong, does not make the whole argument wrong. btw, here's another small change you could introduce to it. <?php function baseit(){ $base = 0.001; $compound[] = array(1.03, 1.02, 1.01, 1, 0.99, 0.98); for ($year = 0; $year < 5000; $year++){ if($year > 10){ $x = rand(0, 5); } else{ $x = 0; } $base = $base * $compound[0][$x]; if($base > 100){ return $year; } }}$averageYears = 0;for ($c = 0; $c < 100; $c++){ echo baseit(); $averageYears += baseit(); echo " years before depleted </br>";}$averageYears = $averageYears / $c;echo "the average amount of years before depletion: ";echo $averageYears;?> In this version, it randomly chooses the amount of growth or shrinkage each year, assuming only growth for the first 10 years.

</php $base = 0.001;$compound = 1.03;for ($year = 0; $year < 10000; $year++){ $base = $base * $compound; echo $base; echo "% global resource usage after year: "; echo $year; echo "</br>";}?> How it works. $base is the amount of resources the global society uses in year 0(zero), represented by a percentage of the total available amount of resources on the planet or the total amount of resources the planet can supply each year. $compound, is the compound rate of growth capitalism "requires" to work (3 percent). $year is the current year in the for loop and this for loop will run for 10.000 (ten thousand) loops (years). Even though the initial amount is only 0.001%, we are already over 100% after 389 years (101.51205858519% to be exact and 101.5% rounded). After 1323 years, the percentage can not even be represented by a 32 bit number anymore, at this point the value of $base is 99194024233445% (ninety-nine-thousand-billion percent roughly). Now, we could of course factor in a recession here and there, make some "market-corrections" here and there and do all sorts of small things, but overall growth will be sustained. Perhaps by doing these small adjustments, we could get it to last a little bit longer, but it would still run over 100% eventually. Now... there are some arguments that this does not matter, cause the market will come up with ways to live on more than one planet (just an example), but even if we do this the rate of growth will still continue and we will eventually need 2 whole galaxies to sustain it, so the big question is, when is it gonna be enough? You can argue with every little detail in this post, I don't mind at all, but know this, any% compound rate of growth forever, is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE.

I don't mean to offend you, but if you need me to supply you with evidence of this, something is very wrong and you need to study your history. Here's a few examples. jet engine. nuclear fission. the flying wing body air plane. artificial oil. artificial rubber (this used to be made from rubber tress). color film. rockets. Fanta. computer, invented by Konrad Zuse (even though there are still enough dicks, who claim ir was first made by the British). first to link smoking with cancer. stealth technology. audio technology using magnetic tape. Wankel rotary engine. freeways. radar guidance. night vision goggles. modern sewage treatment. the Englishman, Farnsworth, gets credit for the invention of a very rudimentary television, it was the Third Reich that perfected television and conducted the first broadcasting. seismic wave detection. the rail gun (which led to the invention of maglev-trains). synthetic fuels. genetics.

How come you are trying to mix up central planning of an economy, with central planning of how one should behave? I don't believe i ever said anything about central planning of our collective behavior. Am i missing something here, or are you unable or unwilling to detach economic "control" from behavioral "control".

90% of prisoners coming from abusive homes, is not the same as: 90% of all of the abusive homes produce a prisoner (not that i agree with any form of abuse) 90% of millionaires came from families that practiced peaceful parenting and pro capitalism values, is not the same as: 90% of all people raised in families practicing peaceful parenting and pro capitalism values, become millionaires. Lovely stats btw and they are indeed correct, but i do believe that what i just stated is more true than what you stated.

Ok, let's step it up a notch. I see innovation as i see revolution and improvement as i see evolution. In other words, an innovation is a revolutionary idea and an improvement is the evolution of an idea. The smart-phone was not an innovation, but rather an improvement upon the mobile phone (the mobile phone is an innovation). Here's an even more painful truth for you. Stefan's claim that central planning will never ever ever work.... While i do agree, that it has never been proven to work (in the long run), without severe "side-effects", i have to say that this statement is false. Why do i say this? The fact that most innovations and improvements upon those innovations, were made by nazi Germany and the fact that most if not everything we take for granted today, comes from those nazi German developments or is made possible because of nazi German technology. Nazi Germany, held and filed an absolutely insane amount of groundbreaking patents. While it is true that the nazi's also stole quite a lot of patents, taking those into account we still see a record number of patents filed. I don't think you can get much more centrally planed than nazi Germany. One other thing. Before you go pointing out how many patents the USA files per year these days (which is the same amount of patents the Japanese file per capita btw). Let us have a look at what kind of patents are being filed these days...... BULLSHIT patents mostly, Apple being the most notorious bullshit patent filer. A patent on a specific color scheme, is a bullshit patent. A patent on a swipy bullshit unlock method, is a bullshit patent. A patent on a square shape with rounded corners, is a bulshit patent. I hope you get the idea.

Hmmm, I did not know that, good to know. Doesn't disprove the point though, but you acknowledged that already

Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google: "Innovation never comes from the established institutions. It's always a graduate student, or a crazy person, or somebody with a great vision." Google itself was once an innovation, developed by people without the intent to profit. Since the success of Google, it has been unable to make new innovations and instead they bought things like Youtube. Youtube, was a project someone did for a hobby, which became larger than expected by the creator of it. The Apple 1, was created by a hobbyist ( Steve "the Woz" Wozniak), without the intention to make a profit, it was Steve Jobs who saw the profit potential and went with it, once again, we can clearly state, that the innovation itself, was NOT intended for profit and/or created with a profit motive. Myspace, was created by someone, without the profit motive in mind, once the concept seemed to be successful, someone who DID have a profit incentive ran with it and made Facebook. Facebook was made with the profit motive in mind, but the innovation itself was not. The Wright brothers, wanted to make a flying machine, because they had a passion for flying, they never had a profit motive . I could go on and on and on if i wanted to, but i think the point has been made. NO, money most definitely DOES NOT cause innovation and therefore libertarian and capitalist "incentive philosophy" is incorrect. Also, please take a look at Dan Pink's TED talk, that will further back these claims up. I feel like we all (me included) have blinders on, that prevents us from seeing things that are not in our usual pattern of thinking and i also think, that exactly for this reason, we can/will never "create/ live in" a world in which we all agree.

What's this i keep reading over and over here, who said anything about violence? i certainly didn't. Look, here is how the FACTS work out. 5 people work in a company that installs toilets. 4 of the workers install 5 toilets a day, but the 5th can do 8 toilets a day. In any form of capitalism, the boss of the 5 toilet installers, will be happiest with the 5th toilet installer and therefore less happy with the other 4. This creates pressure on the other 4 toilet installers, which will get them to work harder (or be replaced by someone else who will). Now we have 5 toilet installers, installing 8 toilets a day. But then one day, a 6th toilet installer is hired and this toilet installer wants to prove himself towards his boss. The new toilet installer can install 11 toilets per day, YAY says the boss, and we are back where we started. While i do agree that technology has made work less demanding on a physical level, the amount of pressure on workers on every other conceivable level, has always increased. Next to this, we are now living in a world where 80 to 90% of EVERYTHING we buy, is utter crap (Yes i agree, this is an opinion). Infinite wants are a creation of the market, not the other way around. Don't believe this? well, do you want something you haven't even thought of yet? i didn't think so, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to want something you've never even thought of.

If someone, ANYONE, could explain to me, how an anarchist free market philosophy, will solve this issue, i will officially declare myself one of you. But i don't think you can really, cause "free" or not, people WILL keep competing and working harder and harder, ultimately forcing everybody else to compete and work harder and harder AND FOR WHAT?

a. Outward and historical conditions imposed upon Philosophy. It must be remarked in the first place, that a certain stage is requisite in the intellectual culture of a people in order that it may have a Philosophy at all. Aristotle says, "Man first begins to philosophize when the necessities of life are supplied" (Metaphysics, I. 2); because since Philosophy is a free and not self-seeking activity, cravings of want must have disappeared, a strength, elevation and inward fortitude of mind must have appeared, passions must be subdued and consciousness set far advanced, before what is universal can be thought of. Philosophy may thus be called a kind of luxury, in so far as luxury signifies those enjoyments and pursuits which do not belong to external necessity as such. Philosophy in this respect seems more capable of being dispensed with than anything else; but that depends on what is called indispensable. From the point of view of mind, Philosophy may even be said to be that which is most essential. I quite agree with this.

Rebuttle, debate, do whatever you want, i just wanted to post this here and see what you guys think of it. As i listen to this, it makes a lot of sense to me, are there any counter-arguments you guys could make?

Education. There is no equal opportunity.

This completely misses the point. ok, take Paris Hilton then. Her father is rich and can allow his daughter to fail as long as he will allow it, meaning she will have more opportunities then the average person. If i have 100 million, then i can try to start a 1 million dollar project 100 times ( as in 100 different projects ), significantly increasing my odds of success. I can also choose to enjoy my life untill the age of say 40-45 and only then decide to do something with which i hope to make a few bucks, a poor/poorer person most certainly does not have that luxury and even more certainly does not have those odds of success.

starting at 3:25 up to 4:18 When you're poor, you get only 1 chance. when you're rich ( like george bush ) you get chance after chance after chance after chance. Equal opportunity vs equal outcome, something Stefan and many others have been talking about before. How would this be different in a "real" capitalist free market society? Wouldn't it still be true that the rich can have chance after chance after chance after chance, while the poor get only 1 up to few chances?

There we go again, your argument is 100% correct, if it weren't for the fact that you are circumventing the main point, that point being "fair price" I literally stated ( and there can't be much confusion here ) "allowing them to live equal or at least comparative lifestyles to those of the 1st world". Example of this point: Iraq switched to trading oil in Euro's, which many speculate was the real reason for invading that country ( i believe including Stefan himself ), which would allow them to get a better value for their oil. Also, "If the price of oil is too expensive for one party, then obviously it isn't a fair price." you serious? so what if that is the only resource you have and therefore the only thing you can use to gain capital?

If the people in oil-rich countries got a fair price for that oil, allowing them to live equal or at least comparative lifestyles to those of the 1st world, oil would be to expensive.

This is an excerpt of a conversation I had with my older brother recently. Me: You won't believe how sexy an intelligent woman can be ( the conversation was about women and dating and stuff ). Brother: What do i care, as long as she fucks good ( excuse the language, but this is what he actually said ). Me: Sure, you don't care about other things much ( he actually doesn't ) and that is why everything in the world is going to shit. Brother: Nah, it's not that bad. Me: Exactly, if you're not interested in what's going on in the world, it doesn't look that bad indeed. I love my brother and all, but MAN he is SO DUMB!!!! and besides being hella dumb, he's ( very much like the majority of people ) very ignorant ( ignorance after all, is bliss ). It is for this reason, that i don't really see people changing in order to change the system, like people like Stefan and other libertarians are trying to do. Changing the system in order to change the people however, has a much better chance of success, if you'd ask me. In the current system, it is the things that people don't see immediately that is killing it. As long as everything is going along just fine for someone, that someone is highly unlikely to want to change anything. This is another thing if have strong doubts about, as it requires the current system to fully collapse, in order to get enough people willing to change things. Usually when things collapse, societies tend to go to other "extremes" and i don;t think free-market capitalism is gonna be one of them, as most people will actually blame the market for the collapse in the first place, therefore in their mind --> "making it even more free?? well that is just ridiculous". Once again, i do believe in the free market, but i also much more strongly believe in weighing the odds. The odds of a free market system coming to fruition - 17 to 32% at best. The odds of an RBE coming to fruition - at least 40% but much likely more. The odds of both coming to fruition - about 20 to 30%, but it will most likely end in another war. Also, another pretty important point. We have the technology to feed clothe and house every person on earth, the free market system might be able to do that, but not in the shortest amount of time ( it will most likely take many years/decades ), the RBE, without a doubt, WILL do that in the shortest amount of time possible. What do you think the people will choose? EDIT: I am merely trying to point out, that what Stefan and others are doing ( trying to wake people up to get us towards a UPB/NAP society, while at the same time literally laughing at another alternative ) might be futile.

Can you guarantee that people will keep raising their children philosophically in the future, say, a hundred years from now? I know i will try to do my very best to raise mine that way, but how can i guarantee my grand-children that they will also be raised that way?