What is the future of social, political and economical struc

[Divergedwoods]

I heard a lecture by Slavoj Zizek were he said that is was odd how we have come to assume capitalism as a reality, and haven't considered that it might not "be here to stay"
So, in what system does the future of human society lie, in universalized capitalism and democracy? Reinvigorated socialism? Reborn communism? Anarchism? libertarianism?...
Although I am a strong believer in capitalism and democracy as a system(at least for the moment), its impossible to ignore the deep flaws they present, so it's easy to wonder about new systems, but it's quite harder to come up with something that would work better

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

I heard a lecture by Slavoj Zizek were he said that is was odd how we have come to assume capitalism as a reality, and haven't considered that it might not "be here to stay"
So, in what system does the future of human society lie, in universalized capitalism and democracy? Reinvigorated socialism? Reborn communism? Anarchism? libertarianism?...
Although I am a strong believer in capitalism and democracy as a system(at least for the moment), its impossible to ignore the deep flaws they present, so it's easy to wonder about new systems, but it's quite harder to come up with something that would work better

People don't learn how to work cooperatively, it will probably look something like this:

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

More relevant to your topic, this might interest you:

 

[PAB]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

I heard a lecture by Slavoj Zizek were he said that is was odd how we have come to assume capitalism as a reality, and haven't considered that it might not "be here to stay"
So, in what system does the future of human society lie, in universalized capitalism and democracy? Reinvigorated socialism? Reborn communism? Anarchism? libertarianism?...
Although I am a strong believer in capitalism and democracy as a system(at least for the moment), its impossible to ignore the deep flaws they present, so it's easy to wonder about new systems, but it's quite harder to come up with something that would work better

I attended a lecture by Zizek early this month, the problem is that capitalism is a reality and the problem is that it might be here to stay, Zizek is a little optimistic but maybe his optimism is slightly diminishing his new book is titled 'living in the end times'. Capitalism will not just keel over or burn out , it has feedback systems hence the recent economic downturn and the economic 'recovery'. its all apart of the mechanics of capitalism.

Zizek's basic line in his defence on communism (In Defence of Lost Causes) is not that it needs to be realised proper or for real, but its failure (in which its realisations certainly have failed ) in the 20th century , is part of its development, e.g Stalin betraying Marx in order to actualize Marxist ideas. That it is a case of ''try again. fail again. fail better. in which i hope its obvious that we shouldn't be looking at any final solutions, in which the liberal democratic-capitalist model at the moment seems to imply. with the Fukuyaman: end of history, that this capitalist model is the height of human achievement , the end of ideologies and grand narratives , and that all we need to do is iron out and perfect the system. (when the flaws which you mention are inherent in the system-apart of its system operation).

If anyone is familiar with the H.G Wells novel or film , 'Of Things to Come' : this provides a basic backdrop to this, that final solutions and living in peace and harmony is not an option for humanity, that continual development is in a sense a tautological humanitarian duty.


A follow on from the clip; to paraphrase Zizek, we are thinking in terms of cosmology and space exploration of sending robots to planets and moons and developing space travel, visiting nearby stars. but......a little bit of social change away from capitalism..no...apparently that's impossible , its to much.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

Well, capitalism is built on a few assumptions. Capitalism will fail when one of those assumptions becomes untrue. If private property is forcibly outlawed as per communist dogma, for example. The one assumption that seems most vulnerable is the assumption of continual growth. In this way capitalism is linked to science; when science stops allowing for new resources and greater efficiency to be realized, capitalism becomes obsolete.

I guess it becomes a question of if you're a pessimist or an optimist about future technology. If, a thousand years from now, you foresee humans living on Mars and mining asteroids, capitalism will still be a viable and desirable system. If you foresee humanity trapped on a rapidly filling earth, eventually either draconian government control or a period of collapse becomes inevitable.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

Well, capitalism is built on a few assumptions. Capitalism will fail when one of those assumptions becomes untrue. If private property is forcibly outlawed as per communist dogma, for example.

How do you define private property? How did it become property in the first place? Are there any limits to privatization, or is everything up for grabs?





I sure hope I have enough wealth when they privatize air :?

The one assumption that seems most vulnerable is the assumption of continual growth. In this way capitalism is linked to science; when science stops allowing for new resources and greater efficiency to be realized, capitalism becomes obsolete.

Jesus Christ! Did you just try to link science and capitalism together. Science may serve as a fuel source for capitalism, but inquiry will do just fucking fine without it :!:

I guess it becomes a question of if you're a pessimist or an optimist about future technology. If, a thousand years from now, you foresee humans living on Mars and mining asteroids, capitalism will still be a viable and desirable system. If you foresee humanity trapped on a rapidly filling earth, eventually either draconian government control or a period of collapse becomes inevitable.

What are you implying with any of this? The paragraph doesn't even make sense and it's obvious you're going for some kind of false dichotomy/emotional appeal. Forget the Mars hypothesis - who are these "draconians" you speak of? Are they related to "reptilians"? I don't follow David Icke...

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

Someone funnier than me once said that capitalists are just antisocialists. I lol'd, although it was called sniggering in those days. Many forums don't like the word snigger for some reason. Glad I can use it here

 

[PAB]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

in terms of private property the newest fad in capitalist ideology is natural capital, where everything is a commodity thus placing a price on , for example, natural oxygen production -in the billions$.

 

[borrofburi]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

in terms of private property the newest fad in capitalist ideology is natural capital, where everything is a commodity thus placing a price on , for example, natural oxygen production -in the billions$.

That's simply a natural effect of limited resources. We've forgotten that in these past 100 years of growth and in our "isolated from the real world" "first world" countries. But before we had all this, before we had oil, before we invented haber-bosch, staying a live was a struggle. Couldn't afford to buy food? Too bad, not enough to go around for me to share with you without getting something in return, can't feed everyone.

Any situation in which resources are limited, those resources, and by extension their derivatives, will have a price, or at least a cost.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

"[Capitalism] is the worst form of [economics], except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
~ Winston Churchill, with minor alterations

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

How do you define private property? How did it become property in the first place? Are there any limits to privatization, or is everything up for grabs?

Strawman...

Jesus Christ! Did you just try to link science and capitalism together. Science may serve as a fuel source for capitalism, but inquiry will do just fucking fine without it :!:

Capitalism and science are inextricably linked. Science makes capitalism possible, capitalism makes some branches of science profitable. A non-capitalist system would slow some branches of research, and there would be less resources overall available for research. Whether or not you think this is a good thing; that some things should not be researched; is up to you.

What are you implying with any of this?

I'm not implying, I'm stating something in terms of uncertainty. Personally I doubt the claim that eventually more people will live off Earth then on it, but science surprises us all.

The paragraph doesn't even make sense and it's obvious you're going for some kind of false dichotomy/emotional appeal. Forget the Mars hypothesis - who are these "draconians" you speak of? Are they related to "reptilians"? I don't follow David Icke...

You really should relax on your crazy conspiracy theories. Those things will make you lose your hair.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=draconian+definition

in terms of private property the newest fad in socialist ideology is natural capital, where everything is a commodity thus placing a price on , for example, natural oxygen production -in the billions$.

Fix'd. Very few people would say that natural resources such as clean air and water are not valuable; the questions come in regarding the value and diminishing returns. Is it worth the extra billions of dollars to have water that is 0.00000001% purer? That sort of thing.

 

[RichardMNixon]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

Capitalism and science are inextricably linked. Science makes capitalism possible, capitalism makes some branches of science profitable. A non-capitalist system would slow some branches of research, and there would be less resources overall available for research. Whether or not you think this is a good thing; that some things should not be researched; is up to you.

Don't think I can see you here: the NSF is a decidedly non-capitalistic organization; very few of their funded projects turn a profit. You still haven't explained why capitalism needs science or what science gains from capitalism. Sure a firm that makes new discoveries has an advantage over a firm that only ever sells the same product, but that would also apply to a socialist government with a research program having advantage over a socialist government that doesn't. There's nothing special there for capitalism.

Ever read Atlas Shrugged? John Galt severed ties with his physics professor when the latter began working for a government research agency, but that's how science works in the modern world. Modern research labs don't run on capitalism, they run on grants from the ebul socialist gubmint.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

How do you define private property? How did it become property in the first place? Are there any limits to privatization, or is everything up for grabs?

Strawman...

I'm still waiting for one answer from you that doesn't try to divert the conversation in some way or another. These are not strawman statements, they're QUESTIONS!!! I'm sorry, but privatization happens to be a major sticking point for your ideology. Capitalism demands more and spends a lot of money lobbying for it, I want less and have nothing but an internet voice to speak out against it... So, what do you consider the limits of privatization?

Jesus Christ! Did you just try to link science and capitalism together. Science may serve as a fuel source for capitalism, but inquiry will do just fucking fine without it :!:

Capitalism and science are inextricably linked. Science makes capitalism possible, capitalism makes some branches of science profitable. A non-capitalist system would slow some branches of research, and there would be less resources overall available for research. Whether or not you think this is a good thing; that some things should not be researched; is up to you.

As RMNixon said, whats your point? One day, corporate interests in propagating consumerism might have to take a back seat to more pressing concerns...

What are you implying with any of this?

I'm not implying, I'm stating something in terms of uncertainty. Personally I doubt the claim that eventually more people will live off Earth then on it, but science surprises us all.

Are you a gambler? Personally, I avoid it myself. I'm too good at math for that kind of tom foolery. Likewise, I'm not going to bank my great great grand children's well being on some gamble that science will save us all... Especially science driven by corporate profit motive!

Better cautiously pessimistic than foolishly optimistic :geek:

The paragraph doesn't even make sense and it's obvious you're going for some kind of false dichotomy/emotional appeal. Forget the Mars hypothesis - who are these "draconians" you speak of? Are they related to "reptilians"? I don't follow David Icke...

You really should relax on your crazy conspiracy theories. Those things will make you lose your hair.

http://www.google.ca/search?q=draconian+definition

Again, what are you implying? If we don't support your brand of cowboy capitalism, we'll never colonize space plus we'll live in a police state? Try the other way around :evil:

Before you go screaming "Strawman" again, just elaborate on your point so that its clear what you're saying. As it stands, it sounds like a pretty blatent false dichotomy based on fallacious alternatives.

in terms of private property the newest fad in socialist ideology is natural capital, where everything is a commodity thus placing a price on , for example, natural oxygen production -in the billions$.

Fix'd. Very few people would say that natural resources such as clean air and water are not valuable; the questions come in regarding the value and diminishing returns. Is it worth the extra billions of dollars to have water that is 0.00000001% purer? That sort of thing.

I LoL'd :lol:

So you know at least one economics term... I wonder if you know how to apply that rule to an opportunity cost graph though.

Seems to me, the longer we avoid preserving our water sources, the more it's going to be contaminated. Rather than offsetting costs into the future (remember we discussed externalities), why not implement measures to prevent it from being contaminated in the first place? I could name you a couple places around the world that would back me up on that, including my own country. The Alberta Tar Sands project is a serious concern for a lot of people and cancer rates seem to back that up.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

@ ArthurWilborn :geek:

Our whole conversation goes further to my point that certain people just aren't qualified to make political decisions. You've done enough to demonstrate that your knowledge about economics is seriously lacking. But don't worry :arrow: I don't expect you to be an expert in economics if its outside of your profession. The average person doesn't get enough education on the to make even simplistic decisions with regards to something as complex as our modern economy. Especially since transportation and communication have facilitated Globalization, which makes things incredibly more complicated...

And in many ways, I don't think you can expect a population full of economics experts either. The average person thinks he knows how the economy works, but the truth is, people are expected to be experts in their own professions. Thats how things work in an efficient economy. What's inefficient, are all the self proclaimed experts who go around screaming conservative talking points in order to muddle the debate.

In my opinion, conservatives are just a bunch of GREEDY NAGGERS!!!

Think about it... Since you arrived at the forums, we haven't been able to have a single adult conversation about Normative Economics, all because you still haven't figured out Positive Economics. But again, don't worry. You're no different than any other conservative that I've ever dealt with :cry:

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

I'm still waiting for one answer from you that doesn't try to divert the conversation in some way or another. These are not strawman statements, they're QUESTIONS!!! I'm sorry, but privatization happens to be a major sticking point for your ideology. Capitalism demands more and spends a lot of money lobbying for it, I want less and have nothing but an internet voice to speak out against it... So, what do you consider the limits of privatization?

I talked about communism outlawing private property. You posted something about privatizing water and air to oppress poor people, and asked me to respond. Now, I could have gone into detailed denial, but why bother? Your "question" was so loaded it was in effectively rhetorical. If you assume I'm crazy and ask me to respond to crazy things, I'll rightly point out you're straw-manning me and refuse.

Since you ask nicely, I'll answer. Private property should have relatively few limits; not allowing humans as property, major water sources should be handled by consortium established by all affected parties, some land can be set aside for national parks. There shouldn't be a limit on how much property a person can obtain or hold, provided they do so with voluntary exchanges.

Ah, an excellent video! I agree with this guy.

But... did you listen to him? Climate change rated in the bottom of problems that the world should tackle; promoting free trade was considered the third best thing to do. If anything I should be using him to support my position.

Are you a gambler? Personally, I avoid it myself. I'm too good at math for that kind of tom foolery.

You can make good money as a gambler; unfortunately, I'm not observant enough.

Likewise, I'm not going to bank my great great grand children's well being on some gamble that science will save us all... Especially science driven by corporate profit motive!

Better cautiously pessimistic than foolishly optimistic :geek:

Fallacy of argument from consequence. It's not enough that you're worried about what might happen; you have to show it's probable.

Again, what are you implying? If we don't support your brand of cowboy capitalism, we'll never colonize space plus we'll live in a police state? Try the other way around :evil:

Before you go screaming "Strawman" again, just elaborate on your point so that its clear what you're saying. As it stands, it sounds like a pretty blatent false dichotomy based on fallacious alternatives.

Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehension skills. To be clearer:

Case 1:
Humans are able to expand into space, gaining new land and resources. In this case, capitalism is still a viable system and would be of value.

Case 2:
Humans are on earth with a continually growing population. Either government or disaster cause a population reduction.

In both cases, the economic system is a consequence of the results of scientific progress (or its lack), not the antecedent.

Well, there is the UN estimate which suggests the population might simply stop growing on its own; however, this goes against what we know of history. Nations that had declining birth rates were most frequently replaced by those with higher growth rates. It's happening in Spain right now; family-oriented Muslim immigrants are growing more quickly then the non-reproducing natives. (No, I'm not advancing some crazy conspiracy.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain#Immigration_and_Demographic_Issues

Seems to me, the longer we avoid preserving our water sources, the more it's going to be contaminated. Rather than offsetting costs into the future (remember we discussed externalities), why not implement measures to prevent it from being contaminated in the first place? I could name you a couple places around the world that would back me up on that, including my own country. The Alberta Tar Sands project is a serious concern for a lot of people and cancer rates seem to back that up.

ORLY?

http://www.cancer.ca/ontario/about%20cancer/cancer%20statistics/~/media/CCS/Canada%20wide/Files%20List/English%20files%20heading/PDF%20-%20Policy%20-%20Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics%20-%20English/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics%202010%20-%20English.ashx

Alberta doesn't have the highest incidence rates, and in fact their mortality rates for cancer are near the bottom of the country. In fact, the fact that their death rate for cancer in 35-64 year olds is the single highest cause is paradoxically a good thing; it means that less people are dying of other causes. (Did I just contradict myself? No! These numbers measure different things.)

But, really, I suspect we broadly agree here. Some environmental regulations are necessary and warranted.

Don't think I can see you here: the NSF is a decidedly non-capitalistic organization; very few of their funded projects turn a profit. You still haven't explained why capitalism needs science or what science gains from capitalism. Sure a firm that makes new discoveries has an advantage over a firm that only ever sells the same product, but that would also apply to a socialist government with a research program having advantage over a socialist government that doesn't. There's nothing special there for capitalism..

.

The NSF had a budget of about $6 billion in 2009. Pfizer had a research budget of $7 billion, and that was down from $10 billion the year before. Pfizer is just one company in one industry.

The difference is, if a private company makes a discovery, they get to realize profit off it. A socialist government research project, by definition, doesn't. The products don't pay for themselves, they're paid for by taxing other people and industries.

If it helps you, think of it this way; each $5 Viagra pill is a "horniness tax" that helps to fund research into life-saving medicine.

 

[Aught3]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

JustBusiness17, we don't really need the snide comments on a particular user's lack of intelligence or lack of education. Thanks.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

I'm still waiting for one answer from you that doesn't try to divert the conversation in some way or another. These are not strawman statements, they're QUESTIONS!!! I'm sorry, but privatization happens to be a major sticking point for your ideology. Capitalism demands more and spends a lot of money lobbying for it, I want less and have nothing but an internet voice to speak out against it... So, what do you consider the limits of privatization?

I talked about communism outlawing private property. You posted something about privatizing water and air to oppress poor people, and asked me to respond. Now, I could have gone into detailed denial, but why bother? Your "question" was so loaded it was in effectively rhetorical. If you assume I'm crazy and ask me to respond to crazy things, I'll rightly point out you're straw-manning me and refuse.

It's not a straw man... It's pointing out a flaw in your polarized support for capitalism. You said :arrow: "If private property is forcibly outlawed as per communist dogma, for example". My question was "what is property?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Since you ask nicely, I'll answer. Private property should have relatively few limits; not allowing humans as property, major water sources should be handled by consortium established by all affected parties, some land can be set aside for national parks. There shouldn't be a limit on how much property a person can obtain or hold, provided they do so with voluntary exchanges.

Only the major water sources? What about dirt?

<Bjorn Lomborg TEDtalk>

Ah, an excellent video! I agree with this guy.

But... did you listen to him? Climate change rated in the bottom of problems that the world should tackle; promoting free trade was considered the third best thing to do. If anything I should be using him to support my position.

I don't think you understand what he's suggesting. Free trade combined with Fare trade would put the rest of the world on the same playing field as America. You think your Nike shoes made themselves? Wage slavery was used to make half the stuff you own. You're so insulated from the rest of the world that you don't even realize what makes Capitalist tick...

I agree, these things should be implemented to give everyone else a fighting chance! In fact, in addition to free trade, the world should abolish all borders as well. That way there is a free flow of people everywhere. If someone wants to escape a nation with an astronomical relative cost of living, they should have the right to do so. Beyond some of the impracticalities of free global movement for everyone, it would help to create a truly free market labour market!

Are you a gambler? Personally, I avoid it myself. I'm too good at math for that kind of tom foolery.

You can make good money as a gambler; unfortunately, I'm not observant enough.

"The house always wins". It's an expression used to illuminate the fact that statistical probability is a central function of the Casino business.

What is the probability that we'll terraform mars before ruining the Earth with capitalist motivations?

Likewise, I'm not going to bank my great great grand children's well being on some gamble that science will save us all... Especially science driven by corporate profit motive!

Better cautiously pessimistic than foolishly optimistic :geek:

Fallacy of argument from consequence. It's not enough that you're worried about what might happen; you have to show it's probable.

Like you did with Mars?

Again, what are you implying? If we don't support your brand of cowboy capitalism, we'll never colonize space plus we'll live in a police state? Try the other way around :evil:

Before you go screaming "Strawman" again, just elaborate on your point so that its clear what you're saying. As it stands, it sounds like a pretty blatent false dichotomy based on fallacious alternatives.

Don't blame me for your poor reading comprehension skills. To be clearer:

Case 1:
Humans are able to expand into space, gaining new land and resources. In this case, capitalism is still a viable system and would be of value.

Case 2:
Humans are on earth with a continually growing population. Either government or disaster cause a population reduction.

Case 1: Give me all your money and you'll go to heaven

Case 2: Be a greedy sinner and go to hell

The quality of argumentation is about the same...

In both cases, the economic system is a consequence of the results of scientific progress (or its lack), not the antecedent.

Dude... Science has been woefully under served by capitalist interests. In fact, global warming and a host of other problems are simply byproducts of capitalism. EXTERNALITIES!!!

Going back to the Bjorn Lomborg video, if you paid attention, Global Warming is the last priority because it's expensive to fix. He also said we could better allocate our resources from wasteful things like War, and redirect them towards beneficial endeavors. I think a bigger tax on the people causing global warming is actually a great way to deal with the problem.

Well, there is the UN estimate which suggests the population might simply stop growing on its own; however, this goes against what we know of history. Nations that had declining birth rates were most frequently replaced by those with higher growth rates. It's happening in Spain right now; family-oriented Muslim immigrants are growing more quickly then the non-reproducing natives. (No, I'm not advancing some crazy conspiracy.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Spain#Immigration_and_Demographic_Issues

:? Ummm.... Growth is only measured in up and down... :lol:

Population growth is tied to "prosperity" among other things. People pretty much plan their family on their ability to raise a family. In some of the poorer nations, population growth goes out of control because sex is one of the few great pass times. Procreation is also one of the primary driving forces in subconscious behavior. Sex education with an added component of planned parenthood along with easily accessible contraceptives is the ideal scenario, but that's a little tough in the third world as it stands...

Seems to me, the longer we avoid preserving our water sources, the more it's going to be contaminated. Rather than offsetting costs into the future (remember we discussed externalities), why not implement measures to prevent it from being contaminated in the first place? I could name you a couple places around the world that would back me up on that, including my own country. The Alberta Tar Sands project is a serious concern for a lot of people and cancer rates seem to back that up.

ORLY?

http://www.cancer.ca/ontario/about%20cancer/cancer%20statistics/~/media/CCS/Canada%20wide/Files%20List/English%20files%20heading/PDF%20-%20Policy%20-%20Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics%20-%20English/Canadian%20Cancer%20Statistics%202010%20-%20English.ashx

Alberta doesn't have the highest incidence rates, and in fact their mortality rates for cancer are near the bottom of the country. In fact, the fact that their death rate for cancer in 35-64 year olds is the single highest cause is paradoxically a good thing; it means that less people are dying of other causes. (Did I just contradict myself? No! These numbers measure different things.)

YA RLY!

http://tinyurl.com/2fvj3l7

Any idea how large Alberta is? The Tar Sands projects are way up in Northern Alberta. It's about a 14 hour drive away from Edmonton if I'm not mistaken. But your cherry picked statistics were good for LuLz.

But, really, I suspect we broadly agree here. Some environmental regulations are necessary and warranted.

I think you meant to say warranted and necessary... Order matters when it comes to this type of discussion

Don't think I can see you here: the NSF is a decidedly non-capitalistic organization; very few of their funded projects turn a profit. You still haven't explained why capitalism needs science or what science gains from capitalism. Sure a firm that makes new discoveries has an advantage over a firm that only ever sells the same product, but that would also apply to a socialist government with a research program having advantage over a socialist government that doesn't. There's nothing special there for capitalism..

.

The NSF had a budget of about $6 billion in 2009. Pfizer had a research budget of $7 billion, and that was down from $10 billion the year before. Pfizer is just one company in one industry.

The difference is, if a private company makes a discovery, they get to realize profit off it. A socialist government research project, by definition, doesn't. The products don't pay for themselves, they're paid for by taxing other people and industries.

If it helps you, think of it this way; each $5 Viagra pill is a "horniness tax" that helps to fund research into life-saving medicine.

So you think it's good that a private company has more capital to work with than all of NSF?

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

JustBusiness17, we don't really need the snide comments on a particular user's lack of intelligence or lack of education. Thanks.

You're right... This conversation is anything but productive.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

It's not a straw man... It's pointing out a flaw in your polarized support for capitalism. You said :arrow: "If private property is forcibly outlawed as per communist dogma, for example". My question was "what is property?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Absurdum is only valid if your absurd statement follows logically. Private property is a well established legal principle that's been around in various forms for thousands of years; I don't think you could find one case where it applied to air.

If the statement doesn't follow logically, you know what it is? A strawman. This is mentioned in the wiki article; again, are you reading what you cite?

Only the major water sources? What about dirt?

Well, if you're taking dirt from someone else's land, that's a problem. But yes, people can do with their land what they see best.

I don't think you understand what he's suggesting. Free trade combined with Fare trade would put the rest of the world on the same playing field as America.

If by "Fare trade" you mean lowering trader barriers and removing subsidies, then yes, that's what I'm advocating.

You think your Nike shoes made themselves? Wage slavery was used to make half the stuff you own. You're so insulated from the rest of the world that you don't even realize what makes Capitalist tick...

Well, slavery is an ongoing problem in many parts of the world. However, you're stretching it to mean "someone making less then I think they should". I can only contend that you've never known desperation. Many people who work in these factories do so because their alternatives are even worse.

I agree, these things should be implemented to give everyone else a fighting chance! In fact, in addition to free trade, the world should abolish all borders as well. That way there is a free flow of people everywhere. If someone wants to escape a nation with an astronomical relative cost of living, they should have the right to do so. Beyond some of the impracticalities of free global movement for everyone, it would help to create a truly free market labour market!

I wouldn't go quite as far as this, but yes, freedom of mobility is a great thing. Nations are still useful, since many cultures have different traditions that wouldn't mesh well under a planetary government.

What is the probability that we'll terraform mars before ruining the Earth with capitalist motivations?

What's the probability that government officials with great powers will be angelic enough not to abuse them?

Case 1:
Humans are able to expand into space, gaining new land and resources. In this case, capitalism is still a viable system and would be of value.

Case 2:
Humans are on earth with a continually growing population. Either government or disaster cause a population reduction.

Case 1: Give me all your money and you'll go to heaven

Case 2: Be a greedy sinner and go to hell

The quality of argumentation is about the same...[/quote]

My argument is:
If A then B

You are reading it as:
If B then A

... I don't even remember what logical fallacy that is, but it's a darn basic one.

Going back to the Bjorn Lomborg video, if you paid attention, Global Warming is the last priority because it's expensive to fix. He also said we could better allocate our resources from wasteful things like War, and redirect them towards beneficial endeavors. I think a bigger tax on the people causing global warming is actually a great way to deal with the problem.

... Are you reading your sources while standing on your head? He argued exactly why that was a bad idea; the cost will be huge and the benefits minimal. How is that a "great idea"?

:? Ummm.... Growth is only measured in up and down... :lol:

Unless you're measuring two variables and comparing them.

Population growth is tied to "prosperity" among other things. People pretty much plan their family on their ability to raise a family. In some of the poorer nations, population growth goes out of control because sex is one of the few great pass times. Procreation is also one of the primary driving forces in subconscious behavior. Sex education with an added component of planned parenthood along with easily accessible contraceptives is the ideal scenario, but that's a little tough in the third world as it stands...

One of those "other things" is culture, and it's a giant influence. Islam, probably due to its emphasis on controlling women, causes a higher population growth rate. They do have sex education (don't do it unless you're married or we'll kill you), and it's pretty darn effective. With other groups, I would agree. Not sure what this has to do with Spain, though...

YA RLY!

http://tinyurl.com/2fvj3l7

Any idea how large Alberta is? The Tar Sands projects are way up in Northern Alberta. It's about a 14 hour drive away from Edmonton if I'm not mistaken. But your cherry picked statistics were good for LuLz.

How am I "cherry picking" the results for an entire country? If it's not causing a noticeable rise for the population, then what's the problem?

So you think it's good that a private company has more capital to work with than all of NSF?

It's inevitable. Capitalism is funding the science that Pfizer and many other companies are doing.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Re: What is the future of social, political and economical s

This makes so much more sense now...



Pro... Somebody... I don't want to leave nonsense on the forums but I can't handle it by myself :evil: