http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036
Truthisnonexistent:Have you guys ever encountered these people? I swear they would go through hell just to save a business owner.. I've gotten into a debate with this one guy who keeps asking "What's wrong with "exploitation"?" "What's wrong with "renting" yourself?" "Please show me a definition of "undesirable working hours"
Mindtoaster: *edit* You know what, just fuck it. All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way
Stephen Forde:I don't know Giles. It's almost like you need to know the price of each factor of production and the price of the final product to figure that out.
I can't even imagine how one might get hold of such elusive information.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Conza88: http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036 Truthisnonexistent:Have you guys ever encountered these people? I swear they would go through hell just to save a business owner.. I've gotten into a debate with this one guy who keeps asking "What's wrong with "exploitation"?" "What's wrong with "renting" yourself?" "Please show me a definition of "undesirable working hours" Mindtoaster: *edit* You know what, just fuck it. All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way
Wow... I'd say it's unbelievable but it really isn't.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lord Shore-Twilly:Quite.Ever get the feeling that we're just making fun of you?
Lord Shore-Twilly:Quite.
Certainly, people without arguments typically respond with a hostile attitude, why should you be any different?
As I said, next.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lord Shore-Twilly:A ridiculous argument. Clearly there must be, and indeed is, a distinction between something that occurs naturally and the artifical constructions of 'natural' creatures.And what's ridiculous is claiming that trade is artificial. For it to be artificial, it must be FORCED.
Lord Shore-Twilly:A ridiculous argument. Clearly there must be, and indeed is, a distinction between something that occurs naturally and the artifical constructions of 'natural' creatures.
A fine display of intellectual incoherence. Please explain: "For [trade] to be artificial, it must be FORCED." Because it seems obvious that for something to be artificial it must be constructed. Trade is a the constructed product of human intelligence, thus it is artifical; just like your computer. But rather than a physical construction, like your computer, trade is an intellectual construction.
Lord Shore-Twilly:A fine
Lord Shore-Twilly:Certainly
Wilmot of Rochester:I hope you're referring to Knight of BAAWA.
They're literally a caricature of teenie commies who think the only reason anyone would oppose their ideology is because they're emotioneless, a corporate shill, republican hack &c. &c.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Sigh, I hate politics.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Arguing with commies is useless. Typically it goes like this:
Communism failed because it wasn't a true communism.
Socialism failed because the people in charge were "bad". Replace Stalin with someone nice and kind, and you'll get a recipe for success (go, Obama).
Capitalism and industrialization hves improved the lives of the millions... but people are not equal! Workers are exploited! Isn't it unfair that poor people can't afford a Lamborgini! Let's appoint some people who will fairly redistribute everything and give Lamborghinis to those who deserve them!
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Conza88: http://www.revleft.com/vb/mises-fucks-t112036/index.html?t=112036 Mindtoaster: *edit* You know what, just fuck it. All but a few of those rich scumbags are getting put against the wall if we get our way
The socialists already tried that shit in my country....... we kicked their collective asses
From what I've seen, reading through this thread, first Markus copy pasted some Communist rambling from another forum, and then selectively ignored posts that countered it succinctly, all the while complaining that "no one can counter this," "I thought a community of libertarians would be better," and "Marx was an anti-Semite? That's all you've got?" Then, apparently Markus disappeared and thetruthisnonexistant took up his mantle, doing the exact same things. Whenever ladyattis, Daniel, etc. make a post that presumably thetruthisnonexistant doesn't understand / doesn't have the means to find a copy-paste communist response, he completely ignores that post and moves on to something simpler. If you can't debate with someone because you are not on their intellectual plane, it isn't fair to only choose the posts they "dumb down" for you to reply to. So far, you have failed to provide any substantial evidence for anything, except for maintaining that since the dictionary states that profit = exploitation, it MUST be true! That is completely ridiculous, and the only way this "debate" will come to fruition is if you begin to understand this.
a fair summary I think...
I think truthisnonexistant did a much better job then Markus. I applaud truth for attempting a debate in this forum, i wish for more of the rev lefters would come in here and do the same. I would strike this thread up to the austrians though... although I am biased :P
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=6
Communism has existed. Don't try to hoodwink the populace into stepping into the memory hole so we can try that which has fail.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Markus: The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong.
The poorest people in russia had a happier and more secure existence under soviet rule than they do today when they can find themselves homeless, counting themselves lucky to work unreasonable hours for little pay for capitalists, and in a society where there is a lot of corruption, crime and sleaze, and the mafia is strong.
Hmm Ayn Rand seemed to paint a different picture. She lived there, I doubt you have. I am inclined to beleive her over you. In fact she wrote a book about what life was like over there.
We The Living
I recently worked with someone who just left Russia also. He doesn't describe things as you do. Suprisingly he's more upset at what our current nation is doing because he left Russia to avoid such rediculousness. He thought that America was the land of the free. He thought wrong.
Anarchist Cain: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8534.aspx?PageIndex=6 Communism has existed. Don't try to hoodwink the populace into stepping into the memory hole so we can try that which has fail.
But I thought praxeology states that human action is too complex and its results too subjective to be measured by observation? I mean, didn't Mises in Human Action argue that we must rely on a priori justifications alone for our economic knowledge, and that because of this any real world application of an economic system is irrelevant?
A new and fair division of the goods and rights of this world should be the main object of those who conduct human affairs.
majorthreat:But I thought praxeology states that human action is too complex and its results too subjective to be measured by observation? I mean, didn't Mises in Human Action argue that we must rely on a priori justifications alone for our economic knowledge, and that because of this any real world application of an economic system is irrelevant?
My point was to prove that Communism has been enacted in the past, one can use Mises Socialism work to show its failures.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Good. After all, we've demolished all your laughable nonsense by using airtight arguments.
You are evidently confused, the 'nature' of an internet message board allows people to read back through old discussions. This allows us to verify assertions made regarding the history of the board. And in this instance read whether you have, as you claim, 'demolished' all of my contributions. Clearly, reading back over older discussions, that is not the case.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lord Shore-Twilly:A fineStart being intellectually honest. Now go back and re-write your post so that it is.
Please explain how my post was intellectually dishonest; or alternatively try to prove it by addressing my position, as opposed to producing these tedious red herrings. Or is asking you to step up and qualify your assertions 'trolling'?
GilesStratton:I can't even imagine how one might get hold of such elusive information.
Why from the Marxian Price Faerie, of course!
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Lord Shore-Twilly:You are evidently confused
Knight_of_BAAWA:Start being intellectually honest. Now go back and re-write your post so that it is.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Please explain
Lol. He gave me a circular argument for exploitation. He could at least have said that it was immoral (although that argument could have also been destroyed). He equated renting to selling then claimed he didn't. Him: "undesireable working hours are hours of work that are undesireable." Lol.
Conza, is there more? I don't want to sign up over there because I don't want them to have my IP.
I'm a rich scumbag!
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Did that guy believe in self-ownership and if not how else do communists base their renting argument on?
Daniel:Conza, is there more? I don't want to sign up over there because I don't want them to have my IP.
Haha, who knows..
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: -
But what did I do? Hey! I guess it's better than being put up against a wall!
:-O
I'm not rich.
existence is elsewhere
Wilmot of Rochester: :-O I'm not rich.
But you're rich with liberty and freedom - I think that qualifies you for the wall!
Neither am I... but that's because I'm an entrepreneur currently assessing future market conditions before I allocate my skilled labour capital*, in order to satisfy customers wants & needs.
*props to LS
Markus:socialism - an ideal of treating people fairly.
Really, so it is fair that if I and a coworker are performing the same task and I double his production I should forever be relegated his same salary?
Equal Shares =/= Equal Rights
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lord Shore-Twilly:You are evidently confusedNope, I'm a hoopy frood who knows where his towel is. Lord Shore-Twilly:A fine Knight_of_BAAWA:Start being intellectually honest. Now go back and re-write your post so that it is. Lord Shore-Twilly:Please explainYou didn't re-write your post yet. Hop to.
Well there is a clandestine admission of inability to address the point if ever there was one.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Well
Ever get the feeling that your pathetic attempt at trolling has been noted? Further, have you gotten the hint that I'm going to treat you like a child until such time as you stop your feeble attempts?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Lord Shore-Twilly:WellA well is a hole in the ground which allows access to water. Now then: re-write the post previously indicated. Ever get the feeling that your pathetic attempt at trolling has been noted? Further, have you gotten the hint that I'm going to treat you like a child until such time as you stop your feeble attempts?
As I said, if you can show how I was 'intellectually-dishonest', I will gladly re-write the post. But until that point, remember your latin: Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit. Or did you fail to get the point being made, and all of this is a elaborate attempt to entice me to re-write it in a more simplistic form? You have also yet to substanciate your assertion that you have taken apart my arguments.
PS. If I am a 'troll', yet another cheap ad-hominen to evade the intellectual obligation of addressing my points, why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?
Harry Felker:Really, so it is fair that if I and a coworker are performing the same task and I double his production I should forever be relegated his same salary?
Ironically, even socialist countries had different salaries for different professions, bonuses for extra work, raises for education, etc. So even they knew they had to provide at least some incentives for the employees.
ladyattis:Again, we've discussed this earlier. The owner isn't exploiting due to profit. You seem to *ignore* my points entirely on the nature of the owner/entrepreneur. *face palms*
Or the fact that the worker profits, or he wouldn't have chosen to work there: he valued the money more than the time and labor.
Lord Shore-Twilly:As
Me: "If I am a 'troll' [...] why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?"
You: "Are you still here? tsk."
I guess that is 15/love to me.
You're arguing semantics and ignoring content. How is that not 'intelectual dishonesty'?
Whether you're willing to admit it or not, scarcity is a natural part of human existance. Costs incurred by persuing ends and desires are entirely natural to human action. Action is a testiment to this truth, as all known action is conducted in a temporal frame; it is limited within time. Through perusing one end over another, you are making payment in terms of lost opportunity. A price is merely the expression of that in terms of a good.
Insisting on calling this 'artificial' in order to claim slavish status to a price-economy is dishonest to say the least.
Lord Shore-Twilly:Me: "If I am a 'troll' [...] why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?" You: "Are you still here? tsk." I guess that is 15/love to me.
Four points, firstly how am I 'ignorining content'? Secondly, I'm not the one who constructed the semantics argument, Jon did. My point is trade is an artifical construct; Jon brought up the issue of language. Pay attention. Thirdly in answer to your question 'How is that not 'intelectual dishonesty'?', this is a complete dodge of your intellectual obligations. You make the charge, thus the onus is upon you to provide proof, not upon me to disprove your delusions. Fourthly, this:
"Whether you're willing to admit it or not, scarcity is a natural part of human existance. Costs incurred by persuing ends and desires are entirely natural to human action. Action is a testiment to this truth, as all known action is conducted in a temporal frame; it is limited within time. Through perusing one end over another, you are making payment in terms of lost opportunity. A price is merely the expression of that in terms of a good."
is based upon unsubstanciated assertions, not proofs. It also doesn't disprove my central thesis.
Next.
Nitroadict: Lord Shore-Twilly: Me: "If I am a 'troll' [...] why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?" You: "Are you still here? tsk." I guess that is 15/love to me. If "sociodecatephology" is an actual -ology, you just might win an internets.
Lord Shore-Twilly: Me: "If I am a 'troll' [...] why do you continue to engage in discussion with me?" You: "Are you still here? tsk." I guess that is 15/love to me.
It is the study of cultists on the internet.
I've gotta say, i'm bemused by notion that members of this board (such as Captain Obvious of BAAWA) think it is some kind of revelation (that they have discovered or noticed through their sharp wits) that my contributions on this board are not all entirely serious. The name in my profile, if read aloud, is Lord 'Rather Short Willy'.
And why pick out 'sociodecatephology', as opposed to Bugry School for Boys tiddlywinks champion? But you're right I should have gone with something real like phallology, parthenology or eccrinology, but I thought you fellows may not notice.