| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
23 Sep 2005 04:14:10 PM |
| Object: |
Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
The scientists found emotions led some of the group to avoid risks even
when the potential benefits far outweighed the losses, a phenomenon
known as myopic loss aversion.
One of the researchers, Antione Bechara, an associate professor of
neurology at the University of Iowa, said the best stock market
investors might plausibly be called "functional psychopaths."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050919/od_nm/traders_dc
---
Robert Hare is the creator of the Psychopathy Checklist. The 20-item
personality evaluation has exerted enormous influence in its
quarter-century history. It's the standard tool for making clinical
diagnoses of psychopaths -- the 1% of the general population that isn't
burdened by conscience. Psychopaths have a profound lack of empathy.
They use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends.
They seduce victims with a hypnotic charm that masks their true nature
as pathological liars, master con artists, and heartless manipulators.
Easily bored, they crave constant stimulation, so they seek thrills
from real-life "games" they can win -- and take pleasure from their
power over other people.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
.
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
23 Sep 2005 06:44:25 PM |
|
|
< The scientists found emotions led some of the
< group to avoid risks even when the potential
< benefits far outweighed the losses, a phenomenon
< known as myopic loss aversion.
Sounds like our GOP Congress cutting fusion funding.
Sounds like the feds cutting funding to the New Orleans district levee
system.
< One of the researchers, Antione Bechara, an
< associate professor of neurology at the University
< of Iowa, said the best stock market investors might
< plausibly be called "functional psychopaths."
I'm a high tax big social safety net Democrat but that's just crazy.
Buffet makes his money by evaluating the virtues and vices of
management.
As deTocqueville wrote, financiers level wealth.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
23 Sep 2005 09:55:02 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1127519065.169862.297170
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
I'm a high tax big social safety net Democrat but that's just crazy.
You said it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Volks" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
29 Sep 2005 12:27:15 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The scientists found emotions led some of the group to avoid risks even
when the potential benefits far outweighed the losses, a phenomenon
known as myopic loss aversion.
One of the researchers, Antione Bechara, an associate professor of
neurology at the University of Iowa, said the best stock market
investors might plausibly be called "functional psychopaths."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050919/od_nm/traders_dc
---
Robert Hare is the creator of the Psychopathy Checklist. The 20-item
personality evaluation has exerted enormous influence in its
quarter-century history. It's the standard tool for making clinical
diagnoses of psychopaths -- the 1% of the general population that isn't
burdened by conscience. Psychopaths have a profound lack of empathy.
They use other people callously and remorselessly for their own ends.
They seduce victims with a hypnotic charm that masks their true nature
as pathological liars, master con artists, and heartless manipulators.
Easily bored, they crave constant stimulation, so they seek thrills
from real-life "games" they can win -- and take pleasure from their
power over other people.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/96/open_boss.html
Communism is No better.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AE" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
24 Sep 2005 05:30:13 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The scientists found emotions led some of the group to avoid risks even
when the potential benefits far outweighed the losses, a phenomenon
known as myopic loss aversion.
One of the researchers, Antione Bechara, an associate professor of
neurology at the University of Iowa, said the best stock market
investors might plausibly be called "functional psychopaths."
That's nor surprising. To be perfect in one special area requires mental
properties that are useless if not damaging in some or all other areas.
As a result anybody that is perfect in one area is likely to be a
functional psychopath.
...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
25 Sep 2005 11:17:02 AM |
|
|
1. Good might not mean perfect here.
2. If someone is competent in one area, he is often OK and sometimes
even more useful in other areas. I'm doing everything I can to get
scientists and engineers to look at problems OUTSIDE their fields. DOE
needs to be offering cash awards to encourage this.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
30 Sep 2005 07:19:54 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The scientists found emotions led some of the group to avoid risks even
when the potential benefits far outweighed the losses, a phenomenon
known as myopic loss aversion.
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual
rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately
owned.
The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical
force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only
by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may
initiate the use of force against others. The only function of the
government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's
rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force."
"Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom;
political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind
and a free market are corollaries."
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
30 Sep 2005 08:40:05 AM |
|
|
Are you quoting yourself? Whomever you are quoting is confused.
In a capitalist society force favors the owers of capital and owership
is the application of force. Freedom would entail unimpeded access
to capital (as opposed to consumables.) Since capital doesn't
magically
appear, freedom cannot be atained. Freedom is maximized by tuning
the socialization of capital to the particulars of the social and
individual
motivations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
30 Sep 2005 02:59:34 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1128087605.162712.39250
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Freedom would entail unimpeded access
to capital (as opposed to consumables.) Since capital doesn't
magically appear, freedom cannot be atained.
Non sequiter. That it does not appear magically does not imply that it
cannot appear at all. Hence it doesn't follow that freedom is unattainable
(even if you accept the premise that freedom depends upon capital, which is
quite clearly false).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 01:34:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Are you quoting yourself? Whomever you are quoting is confused.
In a capitalist society force favors the owers of capital and owership
is the application of force.
Capitalism is all about choice, trading lessor for greator value, eg
you trade an hour of your labour for say 20kgs of apples, ten tonne of
horse *****, or $30, because YOU and the other party believe that is a
fair trade for your labour, the person who buys your labour feels he's
getting good value because he can recoup that cost in the goods he
sells, there is no *force* involved.
There is a thing called *crony capitalism* that is where so called
businessmen do deals with government and the governemt introduces
import duty or such like on the mistaken belief that it protects jobs
at the crony capitalist's factory.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 07:09:21 AM |
|
|
wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
Are you quoting yourself? Whomever you are quoting is confused.
In a capitalist society force favors the owers of capital and owership
is the application of force.
Capitalism is all about choice, trading lessor for greator value, eg
you trade an hour of your labour for say 20kgs of apples, ten tonne of
horse *****, or $30, because YOU and the other party believe that is a
fair trade for your labour,
given the forces that have come to bear on the situation. My watch is
a
fair trade for my life when a gun is pointed at me. That doesn't make
it a fair trade in general.
the person who buys your labour feels he's
getting good value because he can recoup that cost in the goods he
sells, there is no *force* involved.
There is absolutely force involved. Why would I trade my labor for
for goods when my labor has more value if not for the force coming
to bear on the situation? Most laborers spend them wages buying
goods produce by their labor. Few trade directly with each other.
The capitalist is just economic friction brought about by the gun.
Sure, once the system is in place the gun can be hidden but that
doesn't make subsequent trades fair.
There is a thing called *crony capitalism* that is where so called
businessmen do deals with government and the governemt introduces
import duty or such like on the mistaken belief that it protects jobs
at the crony capitalist's factory.
It's interesting to see the capitalists' labor lap dogs bark for
protection of their right to have their masters' profits from
their labor protected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 02:18:11 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1128168561.251940.220130
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
the person who buys your labour feels he's
getting good value because he can recoup that cost in the goods he
sells, there is no *force* involved.
There is absolutely force involved. Why would I trade my labor for
for goods when my labor has more value if not for the force coming
to bear on the situation?
I'm mystified why this leftist ploy is so common, given that it has been
refuted so often, and the refutation is so easy to grasp.
To say a trade, whether of goods for goods, goods for money, labor for
goods, labor for money, or labor for labor, is "free" is to say that it
is unforced. But the force excluded is force exerted by one of the
traders upon the other, or by a third party on one of them. It is not
force or pressure or threats imposed upon them by biological necessity,
other forces of nature, internal drives, cosmic accident, or the Will of
God.
Hence, you are not being "forced" to pay a farmer for food he has
produced, if he demands it, even though without it you will die. The
biological factors that require you to obtain food periodically are not
of his doing, nor are they the doing of any other moral agent involved.
He is not responsible for your plight (I mean "responsible" in the strict
sense --- your plight is not a consequence of any act of his).
You, like everyone else, are subject to numerous natural forces and
threats. You are driven by various desires and imperatives. That is the
hand you've been dealt, and it is yours to play as you see fit.
I said I was mystified that this ploy remains so popular. But I'm really
not. It seems a natural move to the left because they subscibe to the
organic fallacy --- the notion that humans in a social setting are bound
together in a collective enterprise, with *a priori* mutual obligations.
Hence if you will die without food, and the farmer refuses to provide it,
or attaches conditions to providing it, then he is "forcing" you, because
he is not performing his *a priori* duty.
But there is no collective enterprise, and there is no *a priori* duty.
That is an incoherent concept. All duties are *a posteriori*; they arise
from agreements between agents. Nor have humans in a social setting
agreed to "share their fate," as Rawls claimed. There are no "implicit"
agreements; an agreement exists, and can create obligations, only when
one is actually struck.
You and the farmer came into the world separately. Neither is responsible
for the other's presence in it; neither dealt the other's hand. Your hand
is yours to play, as is his. Until you reach an agreement with the
farmer, his duties to you are nil, as are yours to him. None of the
forces impelling you to deal with the farmer were imposed by him, and he
is not obliged help you solve a problem of yours he had no role in
creating.
The organic fallacy is often expressed as, "We're all in this together."
That is false. We are all in it separately, unless and until we reach
some concrete agreements.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 09:39:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
There is absolutely force involved. Why would I trade my labor for
for goods when my labor has more value if not for the force coming
to bear on the situation? Most laborers spend them wages buying
goods produce by their labor. Few trade directly with each other.
The capitalist is just economic friction brought about by the gun.
Sure, once the system is in place the gun can be hidden but that
doesn't make subsequent trades fair.
It's interesting to see the capitalists' labor lap dogs bark for
protection of their right to have their masters' profits from
their labor protected.
Well said, and absolutely correct.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 07:18:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
given the forces that have come to bear on the situation. My watch is
a
fair trade for my life when a gun is pointed at me. That doesn't make
it a fair trade in general.
Yes, that's an excellent example of socialism, thuggery, robbery,
however this is a thread about capitalism.
The capitalist is *NOT holding the gun* there is NO physical FORCE, no
violent threat, you can choose to deal or not deal with a capitalist.
The thug with the gun, the socialist government (same thing) give you
no choice, other than live or die.
There is absolutely force involved.
OK so name the capialist who has held a gun at your head and I will
name a thug by the same name.
Why would I trade my labor for
for goods when my labor has more value if not for the force coming
to bear on the situation?
WHERE is that FORCE coming from?
WHAT FORCES you to exchange your labor for MONEY?
The capitalist is just economic friction brought about by the gun.
Only when he has done a deal with the government and the government
make it a crime to procure the same goods at a lessor price eg from
importing.
It's interesting to see the capitalists' labor lap dogs bark for
protection of their right to have their masters' profits from
their labor protected.
Yes but that comes about because there are fuckwits armed with guns, eg
socialist governments, in the world who do not like the idea of
peaceful individuals being left free to trade with whom ever they alone
choose ANYWHERE on the face of the earth.
I see the NZ government have done a deal whereby *individuals* in NZ
can exchange goods and services with *individuals* living in China,
because Helen Klark NZ's Socialist Governemnt Prime Minister reckons
*free trade* is moral, but the stupid ***** wont let *individuals* in
her own country trade *freely*
Are you one of those by any chance? Are you a fuckwit who doesn't like
the idea of peaceful individuals being left free to trade with other
peaceful individuals of their own choosing?
Mchael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 10:26:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
given the forces that have come to bear on the situation. My watch is
a
fair trade for my life when a gun is pointed at me. That doesn't make
it a fair trade in general.
Yes, that's an excellent example of socialism, thuggery, robbery,
however this is a thread about capitalism.
That is what I'm discussing.
The capitalist is *NOT holding the gun* there is NO physical FORCE, no
violent threat, you can choose to deal or not deal with a capitalist.
No I cannot choose not to deal with a capitalist. Capitalists have
stollen my property and my labor or paid others to do it for them.
When I try to recover what is mine a gun is pointed at me.
The thug with the gun, the socialist government (same thing) give you
no choice, other than live or die.
That is all any govermnet give you. All goverments use guns to
enforce their standards of behavior.
There is absolutely force involved.
OK so name the capialist who has held a gun at your head and I will
name a thug by the same name.
The commons have been stollen and the commons are part of my birth
right. The earth has been sectioned up and claims laid upon it.
No one has labored to produce the earth. If those who claim it
by mixing it with their labor would kindly removed the fruits of
their labor from the earth I will be satisfied and walk freely
where I will. Many claim unemproved property. By definition
unemproved property has not been mixed with anyone's labor so
even the falicious argument fails to justify the claim. I will
accept my share of the land rents if removing the improvements
is too onerous. Once land rents are handled then we can freely
trade as equals.
Why would I trade my labor for
for goods when my labor has more value if not for the force coming
to bear on the situation?
WHERE is that FORCE coming from?
WHAT FORCES you to exchange your labor for MONEY?
The capitalistic society where the commons have been stollen without
compensation.
The capitalist is just economic friction brought about by the gun.
Only when he has done a deal with the government and the government
make it a crime to procure the same goods at a lessor price eg from
importing.
There is no way for capitalism to survive without the force of
government or direct force.
It's interesting to see the capitalists' labor lap dogs bark for
protection of their right to have their masters' profits from
their labor protected.
Yes but that comes about because there are fuckwits armed with guns, eg
socialist governments, in the world who do not like the idea of
peaceful individuals being left free to trade with whom ever they alone
choose ANYWHERE on the face of the earth.
No, it is because captialist trade what is not theirs to trade in the
frist place. Force must be met with force.
I see the NZ government have done a deal whereby *individuals* in NZ
can exchange goods and services with *individuals* living in China,
because Helen Klark NZ's Socialist Governemnt Prime Minister reckons
*free trade* is moral, but the stupid ***** wont let *individuals* in
her own country trade *freely*
Sure, all govenments control trade. They assign ownership and they
mediate transfer of ownership.
Are you one of those by any chance? Are you a fuckwit who doesn't like
the idea of peaceful individuals being left free to trade with other
peaceful individuals of their own choosing?
I wan't my share of the commons as is my birthright. I don't want to
buy what is already mine and have to give up a portion of my labor
in the unequal trade for the right to acquire the funds to purchase
what was stollen from me. Once retributions have been made we can
trade as equals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
02 Oct 2005 01:35:51 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1128223575.063786.250120
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The commons have been stollen and the commons are part of my birth
right.
What is the basis for that claim? Your "birthright" is limited to whatever
you brought with you into the world. E.g., your life, your body, your
various talents and natural powers. Anything else to which you claim a
right must be acquired after you arrive, by first possession.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
02 Oct 2005 01:02:56 AM |
|
|
wrote:
No I cannot choose not to deal with a capitalist. Capitalists have
stollen my property
Once again that is a perfect example of a socialist, eg taxation,
however this is a thread about capitalism.
You dont have to deal with a capitalist if you dont want to.
That is all any govermnet give you. All goverments use guns to
enforce their standards of behavior.
The role of a MORAL government is NOT to *enforce behaviour* but rather
to uphold the rights of peaceful human beings to live and behave in
whatever manner they alone choose.
OK so name the capialist who has held a gun at your head and I will
name a thug by the same name.
The commons have been stollen and the commons are part of my birth
right.
The commons was fucked 800 years ago, that is where Private Property
Rights had its birth.
When everyone owns the commons that means no one does, WHO cares?
Do a Google *Tragedy of The Commons*
There is no way for capitalism to survive without the force of
government or direct force.
The ONLY role of a moral government is as I said above.
I wan't my share of the commons as is my birthright.
Really?
The only right in reality you have is a right to life, everything else
you must earn or produce. She's a tough old world out there mate and
the only way you will survive is by the help of other man, best you
think of ways to act in a voluntary manner with him, or you will be
eaten or at best treated with the same contempt and disgust as, moral
acting people have for fucken scummy socialist.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
03 Oct 2005 12:13:34 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The commons was fucked 800 years ago, that is where Private Property
Rights had its birth.
My rights cannot be assigned away by anyone at any time. That is
what rights are. Anything else is a privilege.
When everyone owns the commons that means no one does, WHO cares?
Commons mean they are owned in common, not that they are unowned.
Do a Google *Tragedy of The Commons*
I read Harding many years ago. Why do you think I suggest private
stewardship with land rent apportionment?
There is no way for capitalism to survive without the force of
government or direct force.
The ONLY role of a moral government is as I said above.
I wan't my share of the commons as is my birthright.
Really?
The only right in reality you have is a right to life, everything else
you must earn or produce.
Who are you to say who has what rights? There is no valid theory
in support of private ownership of the commons. A right to life
is meaningless when the means to support it has been stollen. I
don't own my life but must rent it from the thieves.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
03 Oct 2005 01:38:36 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1128316414.107101.265890
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Who are you to say who has what rights? There is no valid theory
in support of private ownership of the commons.
That is a question for you to answer. You are claiming a right to "the
commons." Once you specify what you are counting as "commons," then it will
be up to you to justify your claim to it.
BTW, if you construe "commons" to mean a priomordial, common ownership of
everything, you will find providing that justification to be a very tough
row to *****.
A right to life
is meaningless when the means to support it has been stollen.
Perhaps. Now all you need to do is show that something has been stolen from
you. And to do that, you'll have to show you had a valid title to begin
with.
Good luck.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
08 Oct 2005 06:46:27 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Who are you to say who has what rights?
Not *who* - WHAT - what is my philosophy of human life based on to say
that, *you* in reality only have a *right* to life?
Of course life *to live* must therefore also have a definition, what's
your definition of life?
What do YOU mean when YOU claim you are *living*?
Do you prioritise your values, indeed do you have values?
What are YOUR primary values?
Do ANY of YOUR values require FORCE to be *INITIATED* or threatened
against peaceful human beings who dont conform to YOUR values?
There is no valid theory
in support of private ownership of the commons.
That's an oxymoron.
Look, if you see a *value* in a mob of you owing a bit of dirt, then
knock yourself out go for it, just so long as those who choose
otherwise are being left FREE to pursue their values as well.
OR is it TRUE that YOUR values require others (even peaceful human
beings causing nor threatening you nor any other human being, no harm)
to be FORCED, against THEIR will to conform to YOUR values?
A right to life
is meaningless when the means to support it has been stollen.
Yes thats right.
I
don't own my life but must rent it from the thieves.
Yes that certainly is the most evil and repugnant aspect of ANY form of
socialism.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 11:43:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
Who are you to say who has what rights?
Not *who* - WHAT - what is my philosophy of human life based on to say
that, *you* in reality only have a *right* to life?
Not what but who. Your philosophy is yours to own but it carries
no more weight than you. Your philosophy can only affect me if
you affect me. It is your basis for action not mine. If you say
I only have a "right" to life I will take this into consdieration
when I act because your beliefs affect your actions. It is your
threat of force that affects me, otherwise I would just do as
I please.
Of course life *to live* must therefore also have a definition, what's
your definition of life?
I'll not be pinned down by definitions. I'll accept examples. I
am alive. You are alive. That is sufficient for our purposes.
If you wish more then state your proposal.
What do YOU mean when YOU claim you are *living*?
I mean I will act in a way that will sustain my life. You had
better take this into consideration when you react with me.
I don't take threats lightly. I will negotiate with those of the
living who are interested and pose sufficient threat. I don't
negotiate with bug; I step on them without paying them much attention.
I cut my grass and I weed my yard. I set out mouse traps.
Do you prioritise your values, indeed do you have values?
I have values. We can get to them in due course. I've
stated them many times. I'm more interested in your values
right now. You've stated them many times as well. Your
values are inconsistent with mine.
What are YOUR primary values?
If you're looking for an absolute ordered set you won't get
one. I value life, liberty, happiness. I have other values
but these are pervasive in my thoughts of action.
Do ANY of YOUR values require FORCE to be *INITIATED* or threatened
against peaceful human beings who dont conform to YOUR values?
You know nothing of peace. You threaten others who are merely
trying to maintain their life without your hinderance. You
know full well nature compels life sustaining action. You are
trying to harness this force for you own ends. You spit in others'
faces saying they have no right to their life except by way of
your pleasure and you call yourself "peaceful" because you will
do what you want to maintain your hold on their life by way of
your claim to what they need.
If you were peaceful you would negotiate with your eyes open.
If you were peaceful you would find ways where others could
meet their needs without benefitting you or where doing so
came naturally from their natural actions.
There is no valid theory
in support of private ownership of the commons.
That's an oxymoron.
How so?
Look, if you see a *value* in a mob of you owing a bit of dirt, then
knock yourself out go for it, just so long as those who choose
otherwise are being left FREE to pursue their values as well.
That is my position. What is yours? Ownership is a social construct.
If you lay claim to anything you are not leaving others free but
instead are requiring them to limit their freedom with respect to
that which you claim as you own.
OR is it TRUE that YOUR values require others (even peaceful human
beings causing nor threatening you nor any other human being, no harm)
to be FORCED, against THEIR will to conform to YOUR values?
If they are causing me no harm and are not threatening me then they
do not affect my actions except to the extent they are acting to
sustain their lives. I will not interfere with their actions except
in ways that will help them provided they are doing the same.
A right to life
is meaningless when the means to support it has been stollen.
Yes thats right.
If you see this then you should open your eyes and see your theft.
I
don't own my life but must rent it from the thieves.
Yes that certainly is the most evil and repugnant aspect of ANY form of
socialism.
Of captialism as well. Open you eyes to reality. No one should
be compelled, excpet by one's morals, to support another. Nature
compels us to act to maintain our lives. If one relies upon
nature's force in conjunction with one's claim to that which is
not produced to extract wealth from others' actions one is using
force against them immorally.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 04:35:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I have values. We can get to them in due course. I've
stated them many times. I'm more interested in your values
right now. You've stated them many times as well. Your
values are inconsistent with mine.
I suggest, your values are inconsistent within themselves. Besides if
you cant clearly and precisely identify your values, then how the *****
do you *know* how to act.
I hold *human life as the standard of moral values* therefore my
primary values are - Reason Purpose and Self-esteem
My virtues (actions to acheive values) MUST therefore be consistent
with my stated values.
My virtues being rationality, productiveness, pride, independence,
integrity, honesty and justice.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 09:59:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
forbisgaryg@msn.com wrote:
I have values. We can get to them in due course. I've
stated them many times. I'm more interested in your values
right now. You've stated them many times as well. Your
values are inconsistent with mine.
I suggest, your values are inconsistent within themselves. Besides if
you cant clearly and precisely identify your values, then how the *****
do you *know* how to act.
I hold *human life as the standard of moral values* therefore my
primary values are - Reason Purpose and Self-esteem
There can be no reason, purpose, or self-esteem without life.
Liberty lets one apply reason to achieve one's purpose and thereby
establish well deserved self-esteem. Can there be greater happiness?
My virtues (actions to acheive values) MUST therefore be consistent
with my stated values.
My virtues being rationality, productiveness, pride, independence,
integrity, honesty and justice.
Then why do you not try to maximize all these virtues? Production
isn't my favorite. In fact I think gluttony is a vice. Rationality,
integrity, honesty, and justice are fine virtues. I would place
humility before pride. Independence is neutral but undue dependence
is bad but interdependence of equals lets one minimize effort to
achieve production. (If you really meant productivity by
productiveness rather than production then how do you square this
with independence?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
10 Oct 2005 03:11:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
There can be no reason, purpose, or self-esteem without life.
Yes thats correct that is why I hold *human life as the standard of
moral value*
Liberty lets one apply reason to achieve one's purpose and thereby
establish well deserved self-esteem. Can there be greater happiness?
One can only pursue their happiness, happiness is not a right, the
pursuit of happiness is. Happiness is an emotion, an emotion is a
response of your value judgements, judging the result of an action
against your values or goals.
My virtues (actions to acheive values) MUST therefore be consistent
with my stated values.
My virtues being rationality, productiveness, pride, independence,
integrity, honesty and justice.
Then why do you not try to maximize all these virtues?
No idea what you mean.
Production
isn't my favorite.
Production I agree with Rand's definition as meaning:
*The application of reason to the problems of human survival.*
In fact I think gluttony is a vice.
For an excellent example of *gluttony* you need look no further than
*they* who claim bogus rights to the results of the production of
another human beings' energy. eg fucken scummy socialists.
Rationality,
integrity, honesty, and justice are fine virtues. I would place
humility before pride.
Oh you mean like sacrifice myself for the greater good? *****.
As the Air Hostess says on the plane before departure, *In the unlikely
event of an emergency an oxygen mask will fall from the panel above,
place this mask on YOURSELF FIRST ***before*** attending to others*
The MORAL,? HOW the ***** can you help anyone, unless you are in a
position to?
achieve production. (If you really meant productivity by
productiveness rather than production then how do you square this
with independence?)
Answered already. However to expand, either you desire to be dependent
or independent, either you believe in the sick parasitical culture of
the socialist OR you believe in a free market.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 04:58:33 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I don't own my life but must rent it from the thieves.
Yes that certainly is the most evil and repugnant aspect of ANY form of
socialism.
We are talking about capitalism, stupid.
Capitalism means that a few violent and ruthless persons have taken
control of the land and all resources. They had the right of the jungle
to do that, the right of might, without any kind of consent from all
the other people.
Communism or socialism means that we the people take control of these
resources.
We have both the right in democratic meaning, and, of course the right
of might, because they didn't give it to us voluntarily.
Our grandfathers did this, they put all resources under democratic
control, they decided that democracy rules.
We have not totally abolished capitalism yet, because we have not yet
decided how to organize our world after capitalism, but we have the
power to do it legally whenever we find it appropriate.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 05:29:01 AM |
|
|
"Roger Johansson" <roger4911@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1128851913.610603.275260@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Capitalism means that a few violent and ruthless persons have taken
control of the land and all resources.
Funny --- I thought that was what Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., did.
The only resources controlled by any capitalists I know of are those they
discovered or invented.
They had the right of the jungle
to do that, the right of might, without any kind of consent from all
the other people.
No "might" --- I assume you mean violence --- is required to discover or
invent something. It is only required to steal it afterwards. Bill Gates
did not employ any "might" (violence) to write Microsoft Basic, or MS-DOS.
And he is certainly a major "capitalist."
He did not obtain the consent of "all the people" before writing his
software, however. That is probably because the opinions of "all of the
people" are irrelevant, and their approval is not necessary. Mr. Gates is
not the slave of "all the people." They have no veto over how he spends his
time or employs his energies, unless he is using violence against them.
Which he didn't.
Communism or socialism means that we the people take control of these
resources.
Correct. By violence. Because you want goodies other people have produced,
and are too stupid or lazy to produce them yourself. All thieves are
similarly motivated.
We have both the right in democratic meaning, and, of course the right
of might, because they didn't give it to us voluntarily.
"Right" has no "democratic meaning." Rights do not depend upon opinions.
We have not totally abolished capitalism yet, because we have not yet
decided how to organize our world after capitalism,
Oh? I thought you were planning to rely on Manna from Heaven.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 06:40:01 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
Capitalism means that a few violent and ruthless persons have taken
control of the land and all resources.
Oh, so the Resource Managment Act in New Zealand, for example, which
forbids YOU developing YOUR land the way YOU want to, (even though what
you want to do will not cause your neighbour any harm) is a capitalist
idea because it gives the authority over YOUR land to your neighbours
and a bunch of sewer rats?
They had the right of the jungle
to do that, the right of might, without any kind of consent from all
the other people.
Did you read that before you posted it?
here try www.importanceofphilosophy.com
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
09 Oct 2005 06:57:55 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Capitalism means that a few violent and ruthless persons have taken
control of the land and all resources.
Maybe you can understand it better if I explain how
capitalism is a tool of the creationist system.
Religion is a justification for the creationist lifestyle and culture,
built on secrets, symbolic language, lies, misunderstandings which take
on their own life when those misunderstandings are taken seriously and
becomes belief.
When we reduce religion to what remains after all faulty arguments have
been thrown out we get a residue which looks like this.
Creationism is not primarily a belief, it is a practical recipe for
social life, organized in a stone age manner.
The creationist lifestyle includes concepts as the eternal love, the
holy matrimony, the holy spirit, the holy wrath, initiation rites, the
religious community which helps married people and harass all the
non-initiated.
Young girls are forced, helped, manipulated to develop a grownup mind.
They get magic powers because their will is much stronger than most
boys minds.
Boys are forced to become angry, they get an adrenaline-based mind.
When the boy is prepared and ready he is allowed to marry.
He gets a concussion from love, after having been mistreated for mny
years.
The community, the friends, often have to help those newly married
until their expanded minds have become hardened and strong.
In this way the religious community can dominate the social life,and in
many countries a lot more, and that is the main reason for creationism,
to control the society. People can actually become very happy all on
their own, if they are left in peace by the religious. We can organize
our society too, even when creationism and capitalism atre doing all
they can to sabotage the democratic system.
We have been trying to abolish the creationist system for thousands of
years.
Humanism which appeared around the year 1500 has now developed into our
modern world of thought, with democracy, equality, womens liberation,
with secularized laws and separation of the church and the state.
We have officially abolished religion, including the creationist
lifestyle, but creationism is still very strong in the social life.
Mobbing in the schools and workplaces is organised by creationist
terrorists, like pedophile actions against young boys, and the world
trade towers attacks.
Practically all big problems we have in the world are the result of
creationism and the strong convictions it creates.
A lot of negative social processes are needed in a creationist society,
like mobbing, lying, secrets, taboos, misunderstandings, confusion,
fear, anger, hysteria, drug use, psychosomatic illnesses, wars,
terrorism, etc..
This influence over thousands of years has made our planet into a
stressful and violent world.
Creationism is a lifestyle and a social system based on traditions.
Crerationists create men out of boys, create women out of girls, create
the eternal love, create the holy matrimony, create a dualistic world,
divided socially into heaven and hell, or heaven and earth, create a
deterministic world, where we need a lot of determinism to survive and
prosper.
Creationism is built on an initiation rite, which makes the boy into a
man.
The initiation rite often involves fear, pain, anger, hate,
hallucinations, and other extreme states of mind.
Creationists create the holy spirit in the mind of young men.
But first they need to create the holy wrath, so the man becomes strong
and fearless in social life.
This terminology is from the old testament in the Bible,
but it fits well into our modern world too.
We can study thousands of creation myths from all over the world, and
see how similar they are. Most of them talk about the creation of man,
of men, most creation myths contains a dividing of the social world
into two sections, one for the initiated, one for the uninitiated
people.
Creationism as a social system builds on violence and secrets.
Violence make other men respect you and it makes women admire you.
It was like that before we learned to talk and lived like apes.
It is still like that in most parts of the world.
Only in the most advanced cultures have we started to respect
intelligence, knowledge and rational thinking and want our society to
be ruled by wisdom instead of violence. We have abolished the religious
laws and it is illegal to harass, threaten or mistreat people.
But in real life mobbing is still a big problem, and the creationist
culture is inherited socially to each new generation. The youngsters
learn why some people should be mistreated, and they engage in mobbing
"weaker" and less ruthless youngsters. Later they learn to administrate
and take responsibility for the secret creationist social system. They
arrange marriages, they develop the personality of nice young men, so
they become dangerous.
Creationism is justified and supported by many religions and churches,
and they all have their own view of the world and their own holy
scriptures.
Theoretical smokescreens to hide what the religion is really about,
more about such theoretical views of religion below.
Today most young people do not listen to priests and profets, they
listen to rock stars and rap artists. But the messages are the same,
the creationist religion they teach is the same. The violence it
inspires is the same.
The music and the movies gives the bullies self-confidence, and
reinforces the creationist tradition.
For historic reasons our current media channels in the world are
heavily dominated by US-american movies, music, tv programs, and this
means that the most violent and creationistic culture in the world is
spreading its views to the rest of the world. In other words, the
global situation is very much identical to the situation on every
school yard in the western world.
The violent bullies are still in power, using their muscle power, and
they spread the creationist views which justify their rule.
In the background the nerds are thinking and discussing how to handle
this delicate situation, when mankind is being born as an intelligent
species, as we finally shake off the stone age traditions and stupid
ideas we have suffered from for so long.
Democracy means "rule by the people".
It was developed in opposition of earlier power structures which
existed for the benefit of a single ruler, or a small elite.
The concept "democracy" was invented by the greeks, but was largely
forgotten during the dark ages, when the church ruled Europe.
It was reborn by Humanism which set out to find better ways to rule a
world than rule by the church or rule by the pope.
From the year 1500 Humanism has developed into our modern views on
democracy, equality, human rights, individual freedom, scientific
thinking, rationality, etc..
The advantages of democracy over dictatorship, plutocracy, and other
forms of "rule by the few":
More people are involved in the ruling, more discussions gives better
decisions, the country is ruled for the benefit of the whole people,
not just for the benefit of the upper class or the leader, the king,
the high priest, etc..
Sometimes the word democracy is used to fool people. Like in the 30-ies
when the nazi's used the word socialist in their party name, just
because socialism was very popular then. So they needed to have that
word in their party name to attract voters, hiding the fact that they
were actually enemies of socialism, and soon killed millions of
socialists, communists, democrats, workers union people, and
intellectuals in general (many of them jews) who did not agree with
their ideas.
Democracy has been used in the same way, as a nice label, to fool
people. To make people believe that the religious or capitalist elite
is actually working for the people. Plutocracy, rule by the rich, often
disguises as "democracy", with elections every four years, but the
people only get to choose one of two candidates, and both of them
represent financial interests.
In such plutocracies the people have nothing to say between the
elections.
Democracy has been developed further, beyond voting once every 4 years.
The workers movement and the reformist socialist parties, together with
some liberals, have during the 20th century developed a democracy in
Europe which builds on a continous participation of the people.
Everywhere decisions are made the people should have a say, and
possibilities to get involved in the decision process.
Workers unions demanded, and got, their own representants on the board
of every big company.
Workplace democracy has been developed very far in some countries.
Schools and hospitals now use democratic procedures to make decisions,
instead of earlier systems where somebody was elected or hired to
handle a certain task, and he handled it like a dictator, making his
own decisions all by himself.
Today there are public discussions and democratic decision making at
all levels and in all kinds of issues in the society.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
10 Oct 2005 03:19:24 AM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:
Capitalism means that a few violent and ruthless persons have taken
control of the land and all resources.
Maybe you can understand it better if I explain how
capitalism is a tool of the creationist system.
I have no desire to read 6,000 word essays of your imagination.
I am no creationist and I am ALSO an advocate of unfeterred capitalism
totally FREE TRADE, trade restricted by neither guns nor invented
***** laws eg import duties, tariffs, invented licenses, WHY?
Simple, *consider the alternative* People do not trade with people
shooting at them.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
23 Sep 2005 04:24:38 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The scientists found emotions led some of the group to avoid risks even
when the potential benefits far outweighed the losses, a phenomenon
known as myopic loss aversion.
Scientists? pigs' arse.
Emotions cant do anything you *****, emotions are a response they
are not a cause.
There HAS to be SOMETHING to have an emotion over you dopey fuckhead.
Capitalism IS the ONLY MORAL political philosophy.
WHY is that TRUE?
Because capitalism means people trading.
People who take what they have not *earned* are NOT trading, they are
stealing what others have earned, in a word *socialism*
Capitalism = peaceful = trading = morality
Socialism = force = stealing = immorality
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Logician" |
|
| Title: Re: Capitalism breeds psychotic losers |
01 Oct 2005 04:54:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
infoter...@gmail.com wrote:
WHY is that TRUE?
Because capitalism means people trading.
People who take what they have not *earned* are NOT trading, they are
stealing what others have earned, in a word *socialism*
Capitalism = peaceful = trading = morality
YES, someone gets it - Capitalism is completely moral.
The people talking about death through hunger, homelessness, public
lawyers sleeping in trials, and all similar things are all lying.
Capitalism always provides.
Socialism = force = stealing = immorality
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
