Who the fuck is Jered?
Anyways I was talking about Capitalism, I'm a libertarian, too. Just a Left Libertarian. Have you read the wikipedia article? Educate yourself.
Printable View
Who the fuck is Jered?
Anyways I was talking about Capitalism, I'm a libertarian, too. Just a Left Libertarian. Have you read the wikipedia article? Educate yourself.
Roderick Long is laughing his ass off, I bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Who the fuck is Roderick Long?
A prominent libertarian. Do yourself a huge favor and look him up on youtube.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Here's another wikipedia article to help you understand my point of view. I don't know what Roderick Long would have to say about this Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You can also look up Noam Chompsky, he's written extensively on the subject.
Syndicalism is wonky imo. Worker guilds form oligarchies yet the negative insinuation toward capitalism is that it allows for a upper elite class (the haves) which is continually oppressing the lower class (have nots). Just seems like Syndicalism has all the problems that Syndalists perceive in capitalism yet it is "public" property rather then private.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
I'm trying to piece together what you said...
The negative implication of Capitalism or Plutocracy is that it allows people who provide nothing to become successful based off the work of the providers.
Syndicalism is rulership by the actual providers. This allows real participation based democracy to exist.
Well already you are having a problem with definition. Anarchism means "without rulers" and here you are talking about rulership...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It appears that you don't understand the definition of anarchy. Just because rules are not dictated by a central command structure does not mean they don't exist. Nature contains all sorts of self-emergent rules.
New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhi, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a-1 + arkhos, ruler; see -archQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
anarchy - definition of anarchy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
I made it bold, italicized it and underlined it for you. Learning is fun.
:facepalm:
I mentioned rulership, when did I mention ruler? Besides, you have to be more specific which type of ruler you are talking about. To assume anarchy would contain no system of order whatsoever is ignorance to a pathetic level.
Rulership | Define Rulership at Dictionary.comQuote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
"the act or fact of ruling or the state of being ruled"
Seriously...do we have to go through the whole English dictionary?
Rulership conflicts with anarchism because rulership cannot happen without a ruler and anarchism cannot happen with a ruler. Order is different from a rulership and is not excluded from anarchism. Anarchism can have order. However, you are under the delusion that "actual contributors," which is wonderfully ambiguous, are allowed to participate (in what you have not said, I also love the fact that you said "allowed" as if you could control who could participate and who could be excluded) through democracy (the type of which you have not stated). So what are these actual contributors participating in?
Remember...anarchism means without rulers so...try not to screw that up.
Ready go!
Well aren't you condescending.
Rules surround every facet of nature. One of the first rules a species develops when it evolves into something multicellular is carrying capacity, a natural regulation to prevent a species from exhausting its resources. Within all cooperative groups of animals, there are very specific rules and rituals which developed for the survival of that species and must be strictly adhered to if each group is to sustain itself.
Within the human species, very similar establishments have emerged. Fishermen have regulated the amount of fish they can catch each season so they don't deplete fish populations. But this is not something they adhere to using the honor system. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_managementQuote:
Fisheries management draws on fisheries science in order to find ways to protect fishery resources so sustainable exploitation is possible. Modern fisheries management is often referred to as a governmental system of appropriate management rules based on defined objectives and a mix of management means to implement the rules, which are put in place by a system of monitoring control and surveillance. The overall goal of fisheries management is to produce sustainable biological, social, and economic benefits from renewable aquatic resources. Fisheries are classified as renewable because the organisms of interest (e.g., fish, shellfish, reptiles, amphibians, and marine mammals) usually produce an annual biological surplus that, with judicious management, can be harvested without reducing future productivity.
No no, I am sardonic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
"characterized by irony, mockery, or derision"
Sardonic | Define Sardonic at Dictionary.com
That's interesting. It says something about order but says absolutely nothing about "actual contributors" who are "participating" in "democracy." I'm still waiting to hear about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
It takes time for OD to make his stuff up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
I'm merely trying to explain the principle of self organization to you. Participatory democracy is the dream, not the reality. You were throwing up dictionary definitions to refute me and I was showing you how baseless your reasoning is. If you'd like to know more, I've posted two links regarding anarcho syndicalism as well as social libertarianism. You can also look up interviews with Noam Chompsky and other advocates of social libertarianism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
On the other hand, you have more fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laughing Man
So we replace perceived value paper with paper backed by perceived value gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcwillis
I don't see any benefit.
Because if there's gold backing each dollar, you can't "create" more out of thin air.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
It's a way to prevent inflation of the money supply, since gold 100 years ago can still buy approximately the same commodities (including oil) now. The value of gold is relatively stable; the value of paper money changes based on how much the Fed creates (and the Fed creates a hell of a lot.)
The price of gold has skyrocketed recently. It's no where near the same as 100 years ago.
They can still stockpile gold and create false worth.
It's not false worth though, there's a difference because if every dollar is backed by actual gold then you cannot surge more bills into the economy, depreciating the value of the bills already in circulation. Inflation is a form of taxation, it is used to protect the economy but in reality it lowers the value of your dollar without proper compensation. Your money loses value, period. They cannot invent gold out of thin air, making it impossible to depreciate.
But they can mine more of it.
Maybe it is slightly better. But I think maybe some simple set amount would be even better.
There needs to be some sort of limit.
Of course it ain't gonna happen, coz then when a company or government runs out of money, they run out of money.
Are you telling me the Treasury is in possession of the Philosopher's Stone?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
Who the fuck is Ron Paul?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
LOL