Recent Statuses

12 mos ago
"You have no friends". Thanks, but I already knew that, RPG.


catchamber (noun): Peculiar cybernetic sapient primate from a hypersonic lavaball.

Most Recent Posts

Keep in mind that it's also the holidays, which means a lot of folks that're usually online aren't here to see your interest checks. Also, roleplays dying is just a part of life around here. The most you can do is take up the Game Master mantle, or just hope someone else will.
In ... 10 days ago Forum: 1x1 Interest Checks
In Archive 1 mo ago Forum: Test Forum
In ... 4 mos ago Forum: The Gallery
Legalize weed. Ban campaign contributions. Buy gold now.

Here's a wikipedia article I googled.…

Issues with decentralized, antiestablishment systems are: maintenance of harmonious protocols, designing infrastructure that can sustain operation without the need for officary oversight, and effectively dismantling states without causing harm. Beyond adhocracies, cliques, and some religious groups, each of which can experience conflict due to misunderstandings alone, I don't know of many functional real world examples of massive libertarian socialist groups, and even they are likely to perpetuate authoritarianism by following certain social rules (i.e. using the currency of tyrannical states). I'm also not much of a fan of antiestablishmentism, as prohibiting states as a cultural concept would violate the right to voluntary association.
A question for all who frequent this thread, as I'm curious to see varied PoV on this topic:

What are your perspectives on 'libertarian-socialism'?

Can you define it?
No, you don't seem to get it. You're addressing my point about the article being a failure to prove instants where a place is better by being outdated, but that was all you had when I asked my original question. You haven't provided any other examples, so it no longer applies...if there is a different aspects that proves otherwise, it has yet to be provided. I also don't agree that freedom even has to equate to 'has the best everything', so this entire line of argument won't likely go anywhere.

You've selectively focused on aspects of the articles that suit your point, and incorrectly claimed that I think "freedom = best of everything". Of course this discussion isn't going anywhere, especially if you think that the US recently lowering certain tax rates suddenly makes all those articles outdated.

Capitalism doesn't do this. Also, 'believers' of capitalism are anyone who has ever been in a supermarket. I swear this line reads like something you could actually say about socialism or its counterparts and it would prove far more accurate...

Miss me with that horseshit.

Without actually clarifying, I honestly question if even you knew exactly what all that word salad was supposed to be saying...

I know what it means. It's not my fault you don't.

I've asked (several times now) for a real-world (or at this point, any) example of what you're talking about. Which I've yet to receive, and I don't take "lul, giving a shit" as an example of this ideal in practice.

Well, if "giving a shit" isn't an adequate example of ensuring others can improve their productivity without harming anyone else's productivity in your view, perhaps you should look up "Pareto efficiency".

Disregarding that there is two options presented, and the idea of their being more options is redundant. Because the two options are broad. So, are speaking about isolationism and globalism being 'useful in conditions and context'? Because that seems to be what is being answered, though specifically some of it had to do with free trading. If so, it's absurd to say "Sometimes, having no/next to no free trade will prove great for a nation's economy." It's a middle ground you're presenting that shouldn't even exist...

I imagine you're asking for my view on if the US should be economically isolationist or engage in free trade. I think neither option alone is optimal, and both should be pursued to maximize the economic security of the US and its trading partners.

I refuse to take anything said seriously, because of arguments like this. (I also kind-of refuse to believe you're actually that misinformed on such a thoroughly dismantled talking point...)…

"The probability of collateral damage, i.e. infringing the rights of others, is too high. This is how we define “arms.”"

This also applies to guns in cities, because stray bullets will come down unless your gun happens to fire rounds at escape velocities.

"Thus, “arms” refers to those a militiaman might be expected to use with proficiency."

I can proficiently use nuclear weapons.

"So, we can reasonably infer that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that private citizens could, if they chose, possess the “arms” that a footsoldier would."

I guess anyone that privately owns an M2 Browning better give theirs to the state.
I mean it doesn't apply. If something is more free because it has less tax that means it isn't more free if there was more tax. That was the base of the article.

Are you saying that national debt can be a major contribute to things like the creation of terrorism? I suppose I just don't see the connection between having debt and not having a free people as a nation. I'm sure there are people with less national debt than the United States but they are nowhere near as free as we are. That's not getting into wealth either, but a wealthy man in Canada has less freedom than a poor man in America because of poor man in America cannot get jailed for speech.

I don't know how much those numbers will particularly help with the foregone conclusion. At least as far as I'm concerned.

It still applies, because not all aspects of the economy are as free as their international counterparts.

I'm saying national debt can be an excuse for nations to foolishly abandon the well being of their people.

You can see relative amounts of exploitation by corrupt officials by measuring the economic losses they generate.

I don't think capitalism particularly relates to any of those three things you mentioned. Nor do I think those equate or even that similar.

Advocating a philosophy that advocates for exploiting people will likely cause exploitation, making the idea as dangerous as its believers.

"The situation's mimetic and neurochemical effects" I'm just going to assume that this is relating to people kick-starting potato salad, because that was a bit of a word salad...

Such is interdisciplinary debate.

Elaborate on the sentence in question. I don't think that has much with care or lack thereof.

"The aim should be to ensure all have the opportunity to succeed at optimizing their trades without reducing productivity across the board."

Which part of this doesn't make sense?

So - A or B is better than A or B...(I can only assume that was meant both is better than one?) Which one of those things would that be? Isolation or Free Trade?

[A and/or B] is better than [A], [B], [A and B], or [A or B], because you have more options. Which choice is useful in which condition depends on the context. In terms of economics, I think societies should be integrated but independent of each other. It's safer that way for individual societies and the ensemble.

Short answer: Irrelevant Long answer: Read The Federalist Papers.

Analysis: Cop out.

Rebuttal: Can you quote the relevant section to prove your point?

I do not believe that word is an accurate representation of why it is a failure. My comments were regarded to how the healthcare system is not a free-market system. And how it is a horrible hybrid of systems, Obamacare being my example. You said there are many things that could improve. Do you have any particular examples of this? Mixed market systems that are not capitalist systems that just happened to have some social elements. An actual mixed political economy?

The internet?
© 2007-2017
BBCode Cheatsheet