Cowardly Refugee Running Away From Problems

[re:dream]

I for one, am absolutely happy to have a free market decide for the goods that can easily turn a profit (Say: Cars, Midi-Controlers etc) and have a socialist way of managing the goods and services that don't (schools, roads, health care....).

Ah, but you see, Tom, you live in the middle ground, the world of complicated facts, where sweeping generalizations are confounded by complex realities. Galt and Funken's statements about economic systems refer to abstract, imaginary realities that don't (yet, according to them) exist... As I said, this is why they seem (to me, anyway) so much alike. It looks as if they find it more satisfying lobbing grenades at the flaws in the other guy's absolutist system than dealing with the complications of mere reality...

Possibly. I'd like to get that admission from them though...

I'd say your chances of success are not great.

[TomViolenz]

I may have misunderstood Galt, but I hope he is not trying to argue the Capitalism is truth!

I have bad news for you, sunshine

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

[Mises] presents the case for laissez-faire capitalism based on praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and speculative laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the a foundation of civilization itself.

In other words, if you rationally consider what it is to be human, and what it is to act, then it follows that the only a reasonable way of organizing human action is laissez-faire capitalism.

So says Mises

If he would have said, it can be a foundation of civilization, his whole ideology would be a lot easier to defend. But I guess that's not how you establish a cult...

[TomViolenz]

Ah, but you see, Tom, you live in the middle ground, the world of complicated facts, where sweeping generalizations are confounded by complex realities. Galt and Funken's statements about economic systems refer to abstract, imaginary realities that don't (yet, according to them) exist... As I said, this is why they seem (to me, anyway) so much alike. It looks as if they find it more satisfying lobbing grenades at the flaws in the other guy's absolutist system than dealing with the complications of mere reality...

Possibly. I'd like to get that admission from them though...

I'd say your chances of success are not great.

I know, I'm not that new to the internet

[re:dream]

OK. Humungously long answer coming up.

TL;DR? You betcha

I've noticed some effort on your part to withdraw from trollery so I will address your post. However you have a long way to go and I still classify you as one of the worst on the forum. Even in the above post you are still doing it.

I don't agree that I am trolling. I am interested in debate; I sometimes take provocative positions partly because I am interested in what people would have to say.

From the fount of all objective knowledge:

a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion

I don't think my posts are particularly off-topic - they usually are germane to whatever a previous poster has said, and they are not done with the intent to provoke or annoy. In fact, when I notice that my posts are causing emotional or abusive responses, I withdraw. I am not a goody two shoes and I can post irritated or sarcastic responses, but when I can see that someone has been hurt or offended by something, I usually apologize.

Usually.

OK, sometimes.

This (post above) is complete rubbish.

OK. That's your view and you are entitled to it. I don't really mind when people disagree with me.

But why would you say such a thing? What are your reasons for dismissing my views so completely?

Marx wrote about capitalism. His book was called Capital. All three volumes. Capitalism exists.

I have no disagreement with that. Do you agree with me that his work was (among other things) about formulating a critique of capitalism?

He predicted that the working class created by capitalism would soon cease to have any real need for the capitalists, and would try to run the show themselves. His prediction was soon proved correct while he was still alive with the Paris Commune, and soon after in the Russian Revolution.

In Russia a workers' state, albeit a degenerated one after 1923 due to the isolation of the revolution in a backward country, existed as a planned economy.

Again, I have no disagreement with that either. Although I think he also said and did a whole lot of other things; he was much more than a political pundit.

I keep saying that I don't want to try to describe how a socialist economy might operate in detail, precisely because it would be largely imaginary. Were you one of the people who delighted in taking the piss out of me for that very fact? I'm not sure. Confirm or deny if you wish.

I am saying that the test of any political ideology is (among other things) the questions of how it would work in practice.

So, questions from people who want to know how it is going to work are legitimate, and the refusal to answer that question is a cop out. You need to convince people that the alternatives you espouse are realistic. If they ask you how it would work, and then you say, well, I can't answer that because I don't know how it would work, people are just going to laugh.

SImilarly, if you want to assess such a social and political programme, one is entitled to look at the track record. Sure, there were some isolated moments in history where people tried to implement this imagined society. But they did not last. Why did they not last? Is it because they were betrayed? Or is it because they were based on flawed theories and concepts? I think it is probably a mix of the two. These attempts at creating classless societies clearly had enemies - but I think that they also had fatal flaws on the inside. Many of these flaws related to the weakness and vagueness of the thinking around how resources could be efficiently and justly allocated. Which topic has already been done to death elsewhere on this forum.

as for the second point in that post, it is basically childish trollery rather than anything serious. I will not dignify it with a reply.

I have no idea what point you are referring to.

- that Marx tried to formulate a critique of capitalism?
- that he criticized classical economic accounts of the free market?
- that he argued that capitalism produced inequality?
- that I think his argument of why this is so was crude?
- that better and more nuanced versions of his thought have since been advanced by others working in the marxist tradition?
- that other posters in this forum have said that they don't like it when I go on and on and on and on and on?
- that I have been called a troll?

All the above are either honestly expressed opinions, or verifiable facts. The last two points are a direct answer to Galt's invitation to me to say what aspects of Marx's though I find useful. Where am I trolling?

If you can't differentiate between trolling, banter, and serious debate, stay out of all three.

I think I can.

As a general indication, I would say that for the most part my posts thrash about somewhere in the wetlands and marshes that exist between the frolicsome waters of banter, and the dry hinterlands of serious debate. They are made with the hope that they either inform or entertain, or both.

[Galt]

If you want other examples, how about the outrageous thread you started about me and Galt? "viewtopic.php?f=40&t=199640&start=0&hilit=funken"

This is trolling. This is "sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion"

And please don't post a disgusting attempt to justify your trolling with even more lies and personal attacks.

[tries to imagine Finn as a troll]

[fails]

[tries to imagine Funken using accusations of trolling to disguise the fragility of his views...]

[TomViolenz]

Watching mental illness in real live is just sad...

[TomViolenz]

If the forum had a proper moderator, stuff like that would get pulled and you would get your arse kicked.

You would think that of course...
It's one of those "be careful what you wish for" situations for you though

[crofter]

Watching mental illness in real live is just sad...

I rather enjoy watching the sad fuck making a twat of himself.

[TomViolenz]

Watching mental illness in real live is just sad...

Moderator, please note this post is:

1. Taking the piss out of mentally ill people.
2. Saying that I am mentally ill for mischievous purposes only.
3. Taking the piss out of me for my alleged mental illness.
4. Also I would like to note that this poster celebrated the banning of Myrnova, who was banned for god knows what, and did post in a way that suggested at least mild OCD to me.
5. Said that he wants me banned, even though there is no reason to ban me and plenty of reason to ban him.

Didn't you just the other day point out to me that NO ONE is reading these forums?! Well, good luck with that wait for the moderator
Btw, do you not find it sad to watch mental illness in real life?
Because I do, and I just wanted to share that with all my good friends in the Lounge

[Machinesworking]

Eh, back to politics briefly. On the subject of Hope, this has to be one of the single dumbest things I've ever read:

Hoppe: In a monarchist state everyone knows who the ruler is and who the ruled are, and accordingly there is resistance against any attempt to increase state power.

Here (for those inclined)--> http://archive.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe31.1.html
Up until that point he had a few good points, but he completely and utterly lost my interest after this idiotic claim. Plus it's the single best argument that Hope, while maybe himself not being a fascist personally, is in favor of ideas that basically beg the fascists into power. Essentially a small state government that has a dictatorial level of rule is easily converted to a fascist state, all it takes is an Oceania or Eurasia to prop up as a threat. Hope has no concern for historical precedent = dangerous ideas.

[re:dream]

It's kind of like Milton Friedman meets Mad Max.

[stringtapper]

Exactly, and well put. This was the sort of post I was hoping to spark with my "Sieg Heil!" comment, (which I got a bollocking for).

And you understand why, right?

This is a German website. They take mentions of Nazisim and the holocaust (see Galt's recent mod encounter) very seriously. I think there are actually censorship laws of some sort in place with regard to such subjects.

A little over the top IMO, but understandable nonetheless.

[scott nathaniel]

I may have misunderstood Galt, but I hope he is not trying to argue the Capitalism is truth!

I have bad news for you, sunshine

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

[Mises] presents the case for laissez-faire capitalism based on praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and speculative laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the foundation of civilization itself.

In other words, if you rationally consider what it is to be human, and what it is to act, then it follows that the only reasonable way of organizing human action is laissez-faire capitalism.

So says Mises

I think this addresses an important point: The current social sphere is not reflecting Capitalism as a theory or even Capitalism as a named and pre-conceived entity; Capitalism is simply the name we've given to the current and predominant human approach to their envirnoment. 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.

[scott nathaniel]

Capitalism is a reflection of the (human social)world and not the other way around.

I disagree. Capitalism is a specific economic form. It arose in the 12th century and in the 1600s it took over via the English Civil War which was the capitalists' revolution to remove feudalism. Our culture is very much shaped by our material world. Our material world is shaped by the economic system. Your material world for example might be to go to work for an employer, get a wage at the end of the month, try to pay most of the bills, many people have no job and some of them starve. Our laws, the state, everything operates to protect the capitalists from being expropriated by the masses. The newspapers pump out the capitalists' propaganda, and the police wield their batons.

I disagree on your approach in conceptualizing the world. I'm not saying with any sort of authority that it is wrong, just that I disagree with the approach. I will tell you my approach to conceptualizing the current state of affairs.

I don't believe in the concept of human nature as it is usually applied. I don't believe humans are naturally lazy or naturally industrious. I believe there are primal functions such as respiration, metabolism, etc. That being said I think the majority of people are selfish, inconsiderate, obnoxious, useless, and utterly expendable-myself included. I like this approach because it explains why the world is a cess-poopl of all the traits I just enumerated. This means there is hope. We don't have to be this way--they are not a part of our nature-- they are just habits.
Now, if the majority of us are not those traits above, and are instead hard-working, industrious, resourceful and self-less, then we're fucked. There is no hope because this means that given all these strengths, the world still remains a cesspool.

So, that is why I view we the people as self-centered schmucks. So, for me, capitalism is not a preconceived concept effecting the world. Capitalism is an explanation, a description, and a means to continue and maintian a habit. A very bad and nasty habit.

[TomViolenz]

Exactly, and well put. This was the sort of post I was hoping to spark with my "Sieg Heil!" comment, (which I got a bollocking for).

And you understand why, right?

This is a German website. They take mentions of Nazisim and the holocaust (see Galt's recent mod encounter) very seriously. I think there are actually censorship laws of some sort in place with regard to such subjects.

A little over the top IMO, but understandable nonetheless.

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?