Cowardly Refugee Running Away From Problems

[Galt]

Capitalism is a reflection of the (human social)world and not the other way around. Capitalism as is an a posteriori (not a priori) item.

This should be obvious.

Laissez-faire literally means "let do"—humans just being humans, doing as we are naturally inclined. The employee is naturally inclined to earn a salary in order to buy a Wii U; the socialist seeks to deny him this basic right to free association and then attempts to give free Wii Us to everybody; and when nobody never receives their free Wii U, socialism fails.

This is the folly of socialism—it denies people their most basic rights in exchange for a promise that it can never make good on.

And this is crystal clear, be your approach theoretical or historical.

Which is why I'd classify socialism as a form of insanity.

[Galt]

I think that thread was locked because we discussed racism. This is more a US sensibility and I also came to the impression that the forum is not run by the German part of the company.
Or are you talking about a different incedent?

No, he's talking about the Obamacare thread which is neither locked not deleted. I pushed Nathannn a little too far, at which point we must assume that he told on me.

[TomViolenz]

I think that thread was locked because we discussed racism. This is more a US sensibility and I also came to the impression that the forum is not run by the German part of the company.
Or are you talking about a different incedent?

No, he's talking about the Obamacare thread which is neither locked not deleted. I pushed Nathannn a little too far, at which point we must assume that he told on me.

Ah I see.
I don't care for that thread. If the Americans don't want affordable healthcare, that's their business.

[Galt]

See my post about what actually happened in the real world above.

You mean this: "Class society began when we discovered agriculture at the start of the Neolithic".?

This is obvious. Before then, we were hunter gathers, which meant that for the most part, we weren't tied down to one place, and thus the potential for wealth accumulation was very limited. As for those very few pre-agricultural settlements that did crop up (lolzololz), they were clearly not large enough to monopolise a significant territory, and thus if people weren't content with their lot (lolzololz), they could simply take off.

10'000 years ago, the world's population was only 5 million. That's the same as that of the Republic of Ireland.

Also note that before humans existed, there were no classes.

[Galt]

The way we think, act, and organise society, depends on the material world around us. Marx showed how it was developments in technology that were generally behind the evolution of social structures.

Wow. What a genius he must have been! It wasn't until I had a go at 8 player MicroMachines on the Sega Genesis that I realised this.

Seriously though, to claim that paleolithic man lived in proto-marxist societies is to not understand marxism. The absence of civilisation does not a marxist utopia make, rather marxism is a very specific form of decivilisation.

[Galt]

You treat human labour like a good, that the worker can either sell or not. But labour can not be put aside, to sell at a later date, because the price is not fair! Labour can not be easily here today and there tomorrow. If you only have labour to sell, that gets a shit price, you can certainly call that consensual. But it's about as consensual as the sex that the hooker gets on a daily basis.

No, I don't treat labour like a good. It can be sold or not, this much is true, as you can indeed choose to not work. But some people sell their labour for a fuck load. For example, I know university professors who are making $500 an hour, yet very few of them own factories. As for hookers, I'm sure many of them would take exception to your claim that they don't consent. Rape is a serious matter and shouldn't be trivialised like this.

[Galt]

I don't care for that thread. If the Americans don't want affordable healthcare, that's their business.

I suppose you also think that the Patriot Act is patriotic?

[TomViolenz]

You treat human labour like a good, that the worker can either sell or not. But labour can not be put aside, to sell at a later date, because the price is not fair! Labour can not be easily here today and there tomorrow. If you only have labour to sell, that gets a shit price, you can certainly call that consensual. But it's about as consensual as the sex that the hooker gets on a daily basis.

No, I don't treat labour like a good. It can be sold or not, this much is true, as you can indeed choose to not work. But some people sell their labour for a fuck load. For example, I know university professors who are making $500 an hour, yet very few of them own factories. As for hookers, I'm sure many of them would take exception to your claim that they don't consent. Rape is a serious matter and shouldn't be trivialised like this.

You have used quite a lot of words to effectively say nothing. Bravo!

[TomViolenz]

I don't care for that thread. If the Americans don't want affordable healthcare, that's their business.

I suppose you also think that the Patriot Act is patriotic?

I wasn't refering to the title of the act.
And as stated before: I don't care what the Yanks do regarding healthcare, I have not visited that thread for a reason.
So please leave me alone with this.

[Galt]

I wasn't refering to the title of the act.
And as stated before: I don't care what the Yanks do regarding healthcare, I have not visited that thread for a reason.
So please leave me alone with this.

I'll leave you alone with this, so long as you refrain in future from sneaking in snarky comments like this. Passive aggression is still aggression.

[re:dream]

I wasn't refering to the title of the act.
And as stated before: I don't care what the Yanks do regarding healthcare, I have not visited that thread for a reason.
So please leave me alone with this.

I'll leave you alone with this, so long as you refrain in future from sneaking in snarky comments like this. Passive aggression is still aggression.

And so is impersonating other Forum members

[Galt]

Me, I am an empiricist. I like facts. They are complicated.

Empiricism is great... for certain things, like physics, that require testing. Other things, like maths are a priori. We cannot make sense our reality purely through observation.

As for economics, unless we consider people as economic actors, with subjective values, ends, etc., we fail to understand what drives them, and thus cannot predict their future economic behaviour.

Consider this: Whenever an exchange is not voluntary but coerced, one party profits at the expense of the other.

Clearly, no empirical testing is required to prove this statement, hence economics cannot an empirical science.

QEDizzle

[TomViolenz]

I wasn't refering to the title of the act.
And as stated before: I don't care what the Yanks do regarding healthcare, I have not visited that thread for a reason.
So please leave me alone with this.

I'll leave you alone with this, so long as you refrain in future from sneaking in snarky comments like this. Passive aggression is still aggression.

I feel neither passive or agressive and I did not intend my post to be snarky at all...
What is so difficult to understand about me not being interested in how other countries handle healthcare?
Would you care about a discussion of new road laws in Germany for example?!

[Galt]

I wasn't refering to the title of the act.
And as stated before: I don't care what the Yanks do regarding healthcare, I have not visited that thread for a reason.
So please leave me alone with this.

I'll leave you alone with this, so long as you refrain in future from sneaking in snarky comments like this. Passive aggression is still aggression.

I feel neither passive or agressive and I did not intend my post to be snarky at all...
What is so difficult to understand about me not being interested in how other countries handle healthcare?
Would you care about a discussion of new road laws in Germany for example?!

It's simple: if you have no views on the matter, and don't wish to discuss it further, then don't use terms like "affordable" in your comments, as these clearly imply a judgement on your part.

And yes, if those road laws were controversial/interesting, then I certain wouldn't shy from a discussion. But perhaps on another thread. This thread is about refugees.

[TomViolenz]

I'll leave you alone with this, so long as you refrain in future from sneaking in snarky comments like this. Passive aggression is still aggression.

I feel neither passive or agressive and I did not intend my post to be snarky at all...
What is so difficult to understand about me not being interested in how other countries handle healthcare?
Would you care about a discussion of new road laws in Germany for example?!

It's simple: if you have no views on the matter, and don't wish to discuss it further, then don't use terms like "affordable" in your comments, as these clearly imply a judgement on your part.

And yes, if those road laws were controversial/interesting, then I certain wouldn't shy from a discussion. But perhaps on another thread. This thread is about refugees.

I get labeled passive agressive because I used the word affordable? This is your angle? Don't be surprised if your opinion becomes less and less interesting to me...

And how did you get to: "shy away from a discussion"?! I didn't "shy" away, I was already beyond bored when I finished reading the thread title (slight exageration )... This is not what I understand as "shy away from..."
Why do you care so much what I think of healthcare anyways?