If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I also seem to remember the British govt lying about BSE not being in beef herds.
The more laws get scrapped the better.
Probably....unless there are rules involved.......
I am simple. I don't like force or attacking people.
Therefore I think that all laws that aren't physically protecting people are completely immoral.
That's all employment law, all health and safety law, all competition laws etc etc.
The law has one legitimate sphere as far as I am concerned - doing things like sorting out murders, rapes and other violent crimes. It's got no business telling people how to run their businesses or homes.
This is totally aside to the fact that governments achieves everything inefficiently, and always creates yet more problems that it also can't solve.
He's not an anarchist. He's a free market libertarian. The two are very different.
I ain't a free market libertarian ol hoss. You however, are a collectivist/statist advocate of violence, and hence quite evil.
Anarcho-capitalist is closest to me or possibly volunatryist. Big fan of Spooner. :yes:
Thanks for playing.
In your opinion.
Newsflash Dis, from an American who has firsthand expereince with this brand-America PR bullshit you so unquestionable absorb from your television screen. my nation is on a slide of debt (both federal and state) which has:
1. reduced its education base to the lowest common denominator for all but the wealthiest percentile;
2. set its industrial base on a path of continual decline leaving the vast majority either unemployed (even for ever increasing numbers of degree-holding white collar workers) or forced to see whatever McJobs (often 2 or 3) they can find to make ends meet;
3. Stripped state support mechanisms driving increasing numbers into bankruptcy and complete dispossession, even entire former "middle income" families.
You think you'll waltz in from the UK and get yourself a nice job, especially you who rants about Britain letting in too many foreigners? You won't find many Americans too welcoming either.
Time to shake off the illusions, oh naive one. Life has some seriously rude awakenings in store for you.
[edited to add: As for bullying, the "EU" hasn't launched unilateralist attacks against two weaker sovereign nations to impose its will and secure uncontested market domination for yet further elite enrichment.]
I'd love an explanation of this bizarre statement.
How can it be contradictory? The only way to get people to share things "equally" (accoridng to some loony somewhere) is by using massive amounts of force.
Capitalism is the base state if nature. Even trees are capitalists.
Oh no, the trees as well?! :eek:
I agree completely, the French have been showing us the right way to go about things ever since 1789 when they showed us what to do with a monarchy...
We can get into arguments about what happens if you do some gene-freakery and try to make trees store energy as fat like humans do and equate it to only having a single currency if you like, but generally, meh!
.....and fucked up by replacing it with another set of parasites......
I'll be *amazed* if you get anyone to bite with that one...:D
I ain't trolling, it's accurate.
If anything, organic models demonstrate anarcho-socialistic behaviour even down to cell level. With cells organised into "systems" whose functions and processes are interdependent and co-operative, you do not find the capitalistic necessity for exploitation by any one system or even cell (save for those deemed "cancerous" and thus not indicative of healthy or natural behaviour) of any other(s) for pre-eminence.
Further, regardless of specialisation, each system is designed to act not in its own interest but in the interest of the entire organism.
The self contradiction inherent to capitalism, increasingly accelerated by "globalist"/"corporatist" practices, is its false promise of perpetual growth within a finite system. Add to this its demonstrable reliance upon the use of force - economic, militaristic, et al., its flagrant overconsumption of resources, as well as disregard for long term consequences in the pursuit of short term gain, and its cancerous nature becomes all the more obvious.
Capitalism elevates the individual's aspirations over the needs of the group within which those aspirations seek to take root. This is antithetical to the organic model.
PERFECT and succinct :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Well thought out reply (as usual
Does an individual cell not act in self interest BECAUSE the interest of the entire organism is in the individual cell`s self-interest ? :chin:
I think youll find, though that I've already factored "self interest" into my analogy. For a cell to seek "self interest" would be tantamount to a delusional break from its natural function as part of an interdependent and co-operative "system". Does the cancer cell consider that it will ultimately generate the conditions of its own demise? Does it do so anyway?
Hmm that is a description of how state capitalism operates, not capitalism.
It also leaves the perhaps interesting question of those groups of cells that while not actively harmful are no longer relevent - the appendix doesn't get much use any more now we stopped eating grass but almost all people are born with one.
Due to a looooong process of evolution that came about from arrangements of mutual benefit. It looks like that from a perspective of now. I don't think you advocate intelligunt desine though, or do you?
What group? The cells in a liver are part of the thing that makes up "liver." They cannot exist without all the other cells and stay alive for very long. Humans can, being individual and not physically connected to each other.
it's not a great existence admittedly but it is possible. Humans are far far away from being a single organism. The benefit to an individual of voluntary trade (as opposed to coercive and dangerous relations) makes capitalism the way to go.
As it exists, notions of voluntary trade are overriden by systemic structures designed to inevitably foster monopoly. Monopolu leads to lowest common denominator output, enormous waste, flagrant overconsumption and ultimately an exhaustion of the larger global "body" (i.e. biosphere, human society, etc.) within which it pursues its insatiable course.
As for intelligent design, I do not "advocate" it in the sense you seem to imply. I do happen to believe in a creator, yes. But that is not something for the classroom as I understand you to mean. Neither though, do I believe that evolution, aka Darwinism, has any business being taught as absolute fact, as it certainly was when i was a schoolboy, when it remains to this day nothing more than a theory.
And in so many words, you validate my rebuttal to your faulty comparison. The man-made system of "capitalism" does not find corollary in organic systems.
If I call Jim "Nancy" does his sex change?
Nope. So calling a collectivist system that most closely resembles feudalism "capitalist" doesn't make it so either. Capitalism does actually exist in the world, it is what the system you are talking about feeds off.
You can only create monopolies if you use a gun.
It's usually called the black or grey market.
Fairy muff.
Ive never experienced fairy muff so I'll leave that one to you.
No, I made a statement I am certain is factual. Some facts for any argument against would be good.
Do cells store energy or resources for later?
Yes.
Is capital the storing of energy or resources for later?
Yes.
Some fault with this would be great.
klintock's disdain of book learning in favour of "real life" (whatever he means by that :eek: ) leads him to these bizarre statements.
I have no such disdain for book learning. Only for those idiots like yourself who when the real world contradicts what they read, carry on believing in their books.
I'll say this. If there was anything wrong with what I say, as opposed to it merely sounding strange, then answers would centre around factual argument.
If I am spouting such rubbish, it would be easily dismissed by refernce to facts - instead i garner personal attacks etc because people like blagsta can't cope with the knowledge they have been wrong and have been lied to and !oh dear!, they have swallowed the lies they have been told.