Ableton Forum

Funk wrote:No I'm not, I'm stating basic Marxism, which also happens to coincide with the views, as I said, of a few prominent capitalist economists, Roubini for one.

Well that would be your first mistake. As I've stated before, you can't really consider Marx a real economist. He subscribed to an objective theory of value which has since been shown not only to be wrong, but actually stupid. That's right—most economists are wrong, but Marx was mentally incompetent. If you want to get a better understanding of the world as it stands, I'd highly recommend something a little less juvenile. Anything by Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe should do.

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk wrote:No I'm not, I'm stating basic Marxism, which also happens to coincide with the views, as I said, of a few prominent capitalist economists, Roubini for one.

Well that would be your first mistake. As I've stated before, you can't really consider Marx a real economist. He subscribed to an objective theory of value which has since been shown not only to be wrong, but actually stupid. That's right—most economists are wrong, but Marx was mentally incompetent. If you want to get a better understanding of the world as it stands, I'd highly recommend something a little less juvenile. Anything by Mises, Rothbard or Hoppe should do.

what about Adam Smith?

I don't rate him at all.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Please summarise your understanding of Marx's theory of value, and why it is wrong. No links, no bullshit, go for it. My money says you'll fall flat on your face at the first hurdle.

I'll get to this in a bit. I'm currently sitting on a terrace in the blazing sun and sipping a cool beer, as is the proper fashion.

Steve Ballmer wrote:I'm currently sitting on a terrace in the blazing sun and sipping a cool beer, as is the proper fashion.

REINSTATEMENT HAMMER!

Steve Ballmer wrote: If you actually skip back a few pages, you'll actually see that YOU "fell for it" well before the venerable sausage, when you chose to randomly compare Lao to Hitler.

I said that Lao's quote was ill informed, and that people like Hitler had used it or similar metaphors to back up their world view. There's nothing random about that. You might want to read up on Nazi party philosophy if you think there is.

rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable
rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable rable

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Funk N. Furter wrote:Please summarise your understanding of Marx's theory of value, and why it is wrong. No links, no bullshit, go for it. My money says you'll fall flat on your face at the first hurdle.

I'll get to this in a bit. I'm currently sitting on a terrace in the blazing sun and sipping a cool beer, as is the proper fashion.

Ahhh...I can't wait for summer to return to the southern hemisphere. Not long now!

Funk N. Furter wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:You might want to read up on Nazi party philosophy...

Don't give him ideas!

It's a well established fact that libertarians are larval nazis. Freedom and tyranny are opposites that attract like Tabasco and New York gay assholes.

oh good one... here's one i can sink my teeth into...

posting for View Your Posts link option.

carry on...

Steve Ballmer wrote: It's a well established fact that libertarians are larval nazis. Freedom and tyranny are opposites that attract like Tabasco and New York gay assholes.

While this is true, one thing that both philosophies do have in common is a love of the basic animal level 'survival of the fittest'. This in my opinion is the worst trait of the Libertarian view of government. In a Nazi government the weak are executed, in a Libertarian one, they're left to suffer and/or die, or maybe get help from a church, friends etc.

This is also IMO why you would think quoting Lao on nature was OK and not get why it could be construed as ridiculous. Tell me "Steve", what do you think should happen to quadriplegics with no family that have no money or church to save them? if you're answer is that the government should step in then you're not a true Libertarian, if your answer is nothing, then what is effectively the difference between killing the quadriplegic and just letting them die? <-- This is truly where this philosophy of total "freedom" you espouse breaks down. It's not any mystery that the sick and infirm suffered massively when there was no "safety net", the only one around came in the form of religion. I do not think society should leave the superstitious in charge of the weak.

Machinesworking wrote:Tell me "Steve", what do you think should happen to quadriplegics with no family that have no money or church to save them? if you're answer is that the government should step in then you're not a true Libertarian, if your answer is nothing, then what is effectively the difference between killing the quadriplegic and just letting them die?

I'm assuming that since the wellbeing of famliless quadriplegics is so important to you, you'd play your part in in looking after them. I mean, you wouldn't want to let them to die now, would you? That'd be the same as you killing them, you naughty murderer, you!

Machinesworking wrote:if you're answer is that the government blablabla...

Steve Ballmer wrote:

Machinesworking wrote:Tell me "Steve", what do you think should happen to quadriplegics with no family that have no money or church to save them? if you're answer is that the government should step in then you're not a true Libertarian, if your answer is nothing, then what is effectively the difference between killing the quadriplegic and just letting them die?

I'm assuming that since the wellbeing of famliless quadriplegics is so important to you, you'd play your part in in looking after them. I mean, you wouldn't want to let them to die now, would you? That'd be the same as you killing them, you naughty murderer, you!

Perfectly ridiculous answer. I advocate a society that has some safety nets, you do not. Unless your own definition of Libertarianism includes safety nets. I do not advocate a society that let the infirm find their own way, that, is how your Libertarianism is like the National Socialists, they didn't want to pay for the incapable either.

The grammar nazi routine is hilarious coming from someone who had a little help in that department earlier in this thread, hypocrite much?

@ Machines

Your arguments are ridiculous. Let me explain why, before your brain ragequits:

- You want society to take care of people, yet you are not willing to do this yourself. In other words, you want to force others to do what you are not willing to. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for you to claim any moral highground here. There are currently approx 200'000 spinals in America. If we assume that half are quadriplegic, and maybe 1% of the remainder (1'000 individuals) have no family, friends or church (essentially you're assuming that they're antisocial, godless dipshits?), then it would be very easy for to band together with other overly-caring folk such as yourself and create the Care for Antisocial, Godless Spinal Dipshits Foundation, and buy them pasta.

- Claiming that "letting someone die" is equivalent to the Nazis systematically murdering cripples such as Funk N. is at best dishonest, and at worst retarded. By this metric, you are personally murdering every child in the third world who is currently starving to death. This is very naughty of you.

- Your understanding of the word hypocrite is wrong.

- The Nazis had a plan not only for cripples, but also for people with your level of cognitive ability. You should be happy I don't subscribe to such policies.

Funk N. Furter wrote:Please summarise your understanding of Marx's theory of value, and why it is wrong. No links, no bullshit, go for it. My money says you'll fall flat on your face at the first hurdle.

Here we go.

1. Marx believed that the value of commodities is objective.
2. It's not.
3.