The Everlasting CCCP !

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Maniac
I am still amazed for instance when you said christianity has changed human nature over the period of 1000 years. Heck, I don't think you even need to follow one sociology class to have serious doubts about such a statement.

Ah, and the discussion finally brings up something interesting! ... only briefly, alas (but probably for the better).

[Pandemoniak]

General Tacticus, I have aquestion for you as well : How can someone be not totally free but freer ?

Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it. This little part you are curtailing is the very essence of my liberty; it is all of it. Through a natural, necessary, and irresistible movement, all of my liberty is concentrated precisely in the part, small as it may be, which you curtail. It is the story of Bluebeard's wife, who had an entire palace at her disposal, with full and complete liberty to enter everywhere, to see and to touch everything, except for one dreadful little chamber which her terrible husband's sovereign will had forbidden her to open on pain of death. Well, she turned away from all the splendours of the palace, and her entire being concentrated on the dreadful little chamber. She opened that forbidden door, for good reason, since her liberty depended on her doing so, while the prohibition to enter was a flagrant violation of precisely that liberty. It is also the story of Adam and Eve's fall. The prohibition to taste the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for no other reason than that such was the will of the Lord, was an act of atrocious despotism on the part of the good Lord. Had our first parents obeyed it, the entire human race would have remained plunged in the most humiliating slavery. Their disobedience has emancipated and saved us. Theirs, in the language of mythology, was the first act of human liberty.

[GeneralTacticus]

How can someone be not totally free but freer ?

Dammit, we need a :dumstruck: smiley.

Are you really so dense that you would argue one is not more free if one lives under a system where you are forbidden from spraying graffiti on Thursdays with green paint, than under one where you cannot speak to a foreigner without permission, but less free than under one where you can spray graffiti as much as you like? Total freedom is anarchy; no freedom is despotism. Most societies lie somewhere in the middle.

Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it. This little part you are curtailing is the very essence of my liberty; it is all of it.

I'll ask you to repeat that statemnt when the KGB break down your door and carry you off into the night for complaining about the price of bread. You may not be as free as you could be now, but you're a damn sight freer than those who lived under Hitler and Stalin.

It is the story of Bluebeard's wife, who had an entire palace at her disposal, with full and complete liberty to enter everywhere, to see and to touch everything, except for one dreadful little chamber which her terrible husband's sovereign will had forbidden her to open on pain of death. Well, she turned away from all the splendours of the palace, and her entire being concentrated on the dreadful little chamber. She opened that forbidden door, for good reason,

You obviosuly have a rather strange idea of 'good reason' if you think it entails doing exactly what you have been forbidden to do, for whatever reason.

since her liberty depended on her doing so, while the prohibition to enter was a flagrant violation of precisely that liberty.

Hardly. The palace was not hers; being allowed to make any use of it at all was a privilege, not a right. If the person to whom it belonged did not wish her to enter a certain part of it, she had no right to disobey him.

Tell me, do you consider it a violaton of your liberty that you are prohibited to enter female toilets? Surely, by your logic, this is a grave affront to your liberty and must be erased by doing precisely what you should not do.

The prohibition to taste the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for no other reason than that such was the will of the Lord, was an act of atrocious despotism on the part of the good Lord. Had our first parents obeyed it, the entire human race would have remained plunged in the most humiliating slavery. Their disobedience has emancipated and saved us. Theirs, in the language of mythology, was the first act of human liberty.

Given that, as far as the Bible was concerned, God had given the human race everything, including existence, it was hardly unreasonable that He place certain restrictions on what His creations chose to so with one another, if such was His will.

[Main_Brain]

When you are in a store, and have to choose between two similar products, same price etcetera: will you choose the one that has a familiar name, or one you haven't heard of ever before

The one with the Shiny cover.



//Based on Marketing thesis :=) and regarding the newer theorie that Brandloyality only goes so far

[GeneralTacticus]

Just something that needs to be pointed out:

Which European? British, owned by that Rupert Murdoch character?

Murdoch does not have a monpoly on the British media. He has an xcessive amount of power over it, as he owns quite a lot of it, along with media outlets in various other countries (something like 70% of the capital city newspapers in Australia are owned by him), he does not contorl the entire British media.

Besides, this would have to be the first case I've seen of anyone identifying the British media as part of the 'European media'.

[Jamski]

Re: Main_Brain's comment

Actually I have heard a theory that, when faced with this kind of decision, the sub-consience favors the product that you saw first. This is because the brain takes the first products as the "model" and compares it against the "other" in order to make a decision. If one product is clearly better than the other, for whatever reason, then this decision is easy, and often automatic. If, however, the products are very similar to each other, then this process can be confused, and the instinctive response is to choose what is familiar. (ie. BigName product) When there is no real familiar product, then the brain takes the next best option : the product that was seen first. Of course this happens much faster than we realise, and when questioned people often produce "false" justifications, but tests involving blind tasting of "a branded cola drink" where both cups contained the same drink, showed that in a large majority of cases, the first drink was found to be the preferred product, even when both we actually the same. Upon being questioned the consumers claimed that the second was "more sweet" etc, not realising that both cups were poured from the same bottle. This sub-concious desire to take the first product in preference to the second can be seen to be used in supermarkets, where the premuim products (ie. the ones that make the most profit for the supermarket) are placed at eye-level, and slightly below. The cheaper produts are often placed either on the top or bottom shelf, ensuring that they are seen second. Main_Brain's claim that he would buy the most shiny product is an example of companies using reflective packaging to literally "catch the eye" If it's shinier, then you'll see it first. Just another way of brainwashing the consumer...

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

Are you really so dense that you would argue one is not more free if one lives under a system where you are forbidden from spraying graffiti on Thursdays with green paint, than under one where you cannot speak to a foreigner without permission, but less free than under one where you can spray graffiti as much as you like? Total freedom is anarchy; no freedom is despotism. Most societies lie somewhere in the middle.

Indeed total freedom is anarchy. But I guess you have much things to learn about Anarchism. Congratulations for recognizing Bakunin's "God and the State", by the way.

Quote:

Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it. This little part you are curtailing is the very essence of my liberty; it is all of it.

I'll ask you to repeat that statemnt when the KGB break down your door and carry you off into the night for complaining about the price of bread. You may not be as free as you could be now, but you're a damn sight freer than those who lived under Hitler and Stalin.

Quote:

It is the story of Bluebeard's wife, who had an entire palace at her disposal, with full and complete liberty to enter everywhere, to see and to touch everything, except for one dreadful little chamber which her terrible husband's sovereign will had forbidden her to open on pain of death. Well, she turned away from all the splendours of the palace, and her entire being concentrated on the dreadful little chamber. She opened that forbidden door, for good reason,

You obviosuly have a rather strange idea of 'good reason' if you think it entails doing exactly what you have been forbidden to do, for whatever reason.

With good reasons : as an act of human liberty, liberty motivating the act.

Quote:

since her liberty depended on her doing so, while the prohibition to enter was a flagrant violation of precisely that liberty.

Hardly. The palace was not hers; being allowed to make any use of it at all was a privilege, not a right. If the person to whom it belonged did not wish her to enter a certain part of it, she had no right to disobey him.

Funny, I thought they were married and thus shared their property. You're talking like she, Bluebeard's wife, was also his property.

Tell me, do you consider it a violaton of your liberty that you are prohibited to enter female toilets? Surely, by your logic, this is a grave affront to your liberty and must be erased by doing precisely what you should not do.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."

Indeed, it is a grave affront that it is forbidden. And guess what, I do not kill people not because it is forbidden, but because I believe this is not good.

Quote:

The prohibition to taste the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for no other reason than that such was the will of the Lord, was an act of atrocious despotism on the part of the good Lord. Had our first parents obeyed it, the entire human race would have remained plunged in the most humiliating slavery. Their disobedience has emancipated and saved us. Theirs, in the language of mythology, was the first act of human liberty.

Given that, as far as the Bible was concerned, God had given the human race everything, including existence, it was hardly unreasonable that He place certain restrictions on what His creations chose to do with one another, if such was His will.

You know God actually doesnt exist. He's talking mythically, so either you missed something, either I missed your point.

[GeneralTacticus]

Indeed total freedom is anarchy.

At least we can agree on something.

But I guess you have much things to learn about Anarchism.

I need learn nothing about Anarchism if it involves no restraints being placed upon anybody (which is what total freedom is). If you think it's a good thing that someone can do what he likes, no matter what it may be (e.g. burning your hourse down), then you're beyond help.

With good reasons : as an act of human liberty, liberty motivating the act.

So one should do something simply because one is forbidden to do it? Nice logic

Funny, I thought they were married and thus shared their property.

Not necessarily. You said 'placed at her disposal'; i.e., she was allowed to use them. the palace was Bluebeard's, and even if he chose to give it to her, he remained within his rights to tell her that she could not enter that little chamber, as a condition of his giving I to her in the first place.

You're talking like she, Bluebeard's wife, was also his property.

She was not his property; the palace was. The palace being his property, he had every right to restrict her use of it if he wished.

"Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it."

Sounds like Bakunin didn't believe that people could do wrong. ever heard of these people called 'criminals'?

Indeed, it is a grave affront that it is forbidden.

Why?

And guess what, I do not kill people not because it is forbidden, but because I believe this is not good.

And thus, if someone else does not believe it is bad, he can?

You know God actually doesnt exist.

Yes, of course I do. That's not the point.

He's talking mythically, so either you missed something, either I missed your point.

He was stating that God prohibiting Adam and Eve from tasting the forbidden fruit was wrong, because his only reason for doing so was that he didn't want them to. I'm point out that, if you accept the story within the context of the Bible, as you have to do if you want to judge whether or not God was 'rgiht' to do something, then you cannot say God was wrong for doing as he did.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

I need learn nothing about Anarchism if it involves no restraints being placed upon anybody (which is what total freedom is). If you think it's a good thing that someone can do what he likes, no matter what it may be (e.g. burning your hourse down), then you're beyond help.

It is not about restraints but about hierarchy. AN-archy --> No hierarchy. Its a good thing that people do what they like, AND, as Bakunin said, do the good not because they are forced to but because they "freely conceive it, want it, and love it." There you may ask the question of education.

So one should do something simply because one is forbidden to do it? Nice logic

Are you simple minded or what ? One shouldnt do something because it is forbidden, but because he wants to. And all who says "curiosity is a bad default" or "you shouldnt do that because it's forbidden", I call them obscurantists and fascists, respectively.

Not necessarily. You said 'placed at her disposal'; i.e., she was allowed to use them. the palace was Bluebeard's, and even if he chose to give it to her, he remained within his rights to tell her that she could not enter that little chamber, as a condition of his giving I to her in the first place.

That raise the question of property. But she is free to dispose of her own body and to move it wherever she likes. Especially in her home.

Sounds like Bakunin didn't believe that people could do wrong. ever heard of these people called 'criminals'?

No one is ever born bad, people are the product of their environment, and it is their environment that determines if they're good or bad. A criminial, like a Drone, is simply an untaught/uneducated and/or ignorant person.

Why?

Because it supposes *I* am not educated enough to know its unrespectful to go to Ladies', which is an affront, an insult.

And thus, if someone else does not believe it is bad, he can?

He can, but he wont, because he know it is not good.

He was stating that God prohibiting Adam and Eve from tasting the forbidden fruit was wrong, because his only reason for doing so was that he didn't want them to. I'm point out that, if you accept the story within the context of the Bible, as you have to do if you want to judge whether or not God was 'rgiht' to do something, then you cannot say God was wrong for doing as he did.

If you accept the story within the context of the Bible, indeed. But I do not accpet the Bible. Anyway, if you want to discuss theology, ok, but lets do it correctly then. Bakunin's point is not to judge God -- an entity that doesnt even exist cannot be judged -- byt to show the natural thrust of liberty, mythically speaking of Adam and Eve and of Bluebeard's wife.

[Pandemoniak]

First post updated with members list and musical feature on the Diderot's Quote, for those who wish, just click the link

[Jamski]

Comrade Pandemoniak, I note the members list is in alphabetical order. Please read my name carefully one more time I think I should be at the bottom

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

All my apologies, I just copied/pasted while I knew you were War Of Art and not Art of War, since I named one my bases in the Challenge against Archaic "War of Art Exhibition".

[Pandemoniak]

Each memeber got his base, anyway :
Lucky's Talent University : Be trained by Lucky and become a Talent, move to this base.
Nueva Concordia : Couldnt think of anything else
Home'O'Drone : For Main Brain's suggestion. I think I gotta name another base "Right here Right there"
Waabsville. Not much original, but I had no other idea.
Among my favourites, also note : The CCCP's Datcha, Chomsky's Heir, Bakuningrad and Good Old Volgograd

[Jamski]

Was it a good exhibition (in both senses) ? Thanks for putting me back where I'm most comfortable - on the bottom of the list.

-Jam

[Main_Brain]

@War of Art:
Perfectly true

@Pandemoniak:
If anyone touches this base I'll have to whack them

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
So do sermons, fi you grow up in a strongly religious society; so do school textbooks, social 'codes of conduct', and so forth. From birth on, one is indoctrinated into what your society does and doesn't find acceptable. This has nothing to do with FM; it will happen in any society. FM simply uses this to promote itself.

That's exactly my point. It will happen in any society, also in free markets. So Archaic's point that people are free under a free market is nonsense.

You *ARE* free to question what you are told, this is objectively true. Whether or not the way your mind has developed makes you less likely to do so is irrelevant.

Well, that's then our different personal opinion. To me that is VERY relevant when dealing with free will and such.

the two aren't synonymous, but they aren't independant of one another either.

I agree.

[GeneralTacticus]

That's exactly my point. It will happen in any society, also in free markets. So Archaic's point that people are free under a free market is nonsense.

Only if you consider yourself to be 'unfree' under any other society. There's nothing different about FM, so there's no special reason to condemn it for this.

[GeneralTacticus]

It is not about restraints but about hierarchy. AN-archy --> No hierarchy. Its a good thing that people do what they like, AND, as Bakunin said, do the good not because they are forced to but because they "freely conceive it, want it, and love it." There you may ask the question of education.

Once again, both you and Bakunin seem to be ignoring the fact that people can and do do things that others consider wrong. Education will not change this fact; it may reduce the numbe rof people whod o it, but it cannot eliminate it.

One shouldnt do something because it is forbidden, but because he wants to.

You stated that "liberty" is a good reason to do soemthing; i.e. the exercise of your liberty is a good thing to do seomthing. Hence, since being foribidden from doing something places a restraint on your liberty, one should do something solely becaus eone is forbidden to do it.

And all who says "curiosity is a bad default" or "you shouldnt do that because it's forbidden", I call them obscurantists and fascists, respectively.

Have you ever considered that soemtimes there are good reasons for things being forbidden? Apparently not.

That raise the question of property.

Oh, yes, I forgot. You don't beleive anyone should own anything.

But she is free to dispose of her own body and to move it wherever she likes. Especially in her home.

In this case, the home was not in fact hers; she was permitted to use it within the constraints set by the actual owner. And her rgiht to dispose of her own body as she wishes does not give her the right to violate somebody else's property rights, unless you consider that right to include punching a person in the face, or pressing a button that will detonate a bomb in a theatre.

No one is ever born bad, people are the product of their environment, and it is their environment that determines if they're good or bad.

Environment is a big factor, but no-one is entirely a product of their environment. Your mind derives from your brain, your brain from your genes (and fro random chance).

A criminial, like a Drone, is simply an untaught/uneducated and/or ignorant person. [/quote]

Or simply someone who doesn't give a f*ck about other people.

Because it supposes *I* am not educated enough to know its unrespectful to go to Ladies', which is an affront, an insult.

And you're assuming that everyone is as polite as you. They aren't.

He can, but he wont, because he know it is not good.

You've just repeated your original calim. Answer the question: If someone does not think killing people is bad, should he be allowed to?

If you accept the story within the context of the Bible, indeed. But I do not accpet the Bible.

Neither do I, but that's beside the point.

Bakunin's point is not to judge God -- an entity that doesnt even exist cannot be judged -- byt to show the natural thrust of liberty, mythically speaking of Adam and Eve and of Bluebeard's wife.

And he hac ompletely failed to make an actual point. I neither of these cases did he show anything about human liberty (except that people are frequently very contrary), as in both cases the restraint on liberty was justified.

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Have you ever considered that soemtimes there are good reasons for things being forbidden? Apparently not.

There is indeed good reasons for forbidding murder, for example, but the good will of such laws ( and generally of the State, which would lead us to a very important point in the Anarchism theory : the eradication of the State, which cannot be RP advocated in SMAC, due to gameplay impossibilities to abolish state) is totally perverted by the way it uses to encourage goodness : interdiction and restrictiction of liberty. Havent you quote enough that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ?". Thats what anarchism is all about : an-arch-ism --> no power, no hierarchy.

Oh, yes, I forgot. You don't beleive anyone should own anything.

Indeed, but thats quite another point.

In this case, the home was not in fact hers; she was permitted to use it within the constraints set by the actual owner. And her rgiht to dispose of her own body as she wishes does not give her the right to violate somebody else's property rights, unless you consider that right to include punching a person in the face, or pressing a button that will detonate a bomb in a theatre.

This example is not about property, but about restriction : "Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it.", and the implications of that idea. I am glad you pointed that property was a restriction of liberty, though.

Environment is a big factor, but no-one is entirely a product of their environment. Your mind derives from your brain, your brain from your genes (and fro random chance).
...
[A drone may] simply [be] someone who doesn't give a f*ck about other people.
...
Once again, both you and Bakunin seem to be ignoring the fact that people can and do do things that others consider wrong. Education will not change this fact; it may reduce the numbe rof people whod o it, but it cannot eliminate it.

[/quote]

This third part mean that you strongly believe that some people, a certain kind of people, or the human kind in general is naturally born bad.
You surely know that this belief is very close to the foundements of all nazis theories, but I doubt you would be supporting an action that will have the exact same scheme, but applied not on a so-called "race", but on a kind of people, kind determined by their actions ?
The question is that : if someone acts really evil, are you gonna "eradicate" him or "educate" him ? If you eradicate them, or just one of them, thast acting like a nazi, for the puricfication fo the kind -- not racially speaking, though, but morally speaking. If you educate them, and not just one of them, but all of them, you're getting much closer to my own ideology.
Or maybe I havent thought of a third "solution".

And you're assuming that everyone is as polite as you. They aren't.

They can be.

You've just repeated your original calim. Answer the question: If someone does not think killing people is bad, should he be allowed to?

Yes. He has to have the free conviction that killing people is wrong. Actually, that's a yes technically, because my answer is not : "he should be allowed to kill people", but "he shouldnt be forbiddent o kill people"

And he hac ompletely failed to make an actual point. I neither of these cases did he show anything about human liberty (except that people are frequently very contrary), as in both cases the restraint on liberty was justified.

Justified ?!!
/me 's jaw fall on the floor.
Justified by what actually ? By an almighty, eternal and good god who just said so and by the property of a slaughter ? And you call that the justification of the restriciton of my liberty ?

[Jamski]

IMHO, the only possible justification for the restriction of an individual's liberty, is when that individual poses a restriction to another's liberty, or to the liberty of society as a whole, for example it would be wise to put _some_ restiction on the liberty of an individual who was psychopathically disturbed, although I would suggest a hospital, and not a prison for such an individual.

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

There is indeed good reasons for forbidding murder, for example, but the good will of such laws ( and generally of the State, which would lead us to a very important point in the Anarchism theory : the eradication of the State, which cannot be RP advocated in SMAC, due to gameplay impossibilities to abolish state) is totally perverted by the way it uses to encourage goodness : interdiction and restrictiction of liberty. Havent you quote enough that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ?". Thats what anarchism is all about : an-arch-ism --> no power, no hierarchy.

And no safety, no roder, no freedom from others killing you. Yes, great idea

This example is not about property, but about restriction : "Liberty is indivisible; one cannot curtail a part of it without killing all of it.", and the implications of that idea.

And the point is that that idea is pure and utter BS. You *CAN* take away part of someon's liberty without taking it all away, and in many cases restricting a certain part of somone's liberty makes others more free - because it prevents them from infringing on their liberty. How free are you if somone has the right to murder you if they feel like it?

I am glad you pointed that property was a restriction of liberty, though.

...? Only in the sense that people are restricted from doing what they like to that which belongs to you.

This third part mean that you strongly believe that some people, a certain kind of people, or the human kind in general is naturally born bad.

No, I don't beleive that, but I think you're ebing hopelessly naive if you think that because you give people an education, they will all be good and nice.

You surely know that this belief is very close to the foundements of all nazis theories, but I doubt you would be supporting an action that will have the exact same scheme, but applied not on a so-called "race", but on a kind of people, kind determined by their actions ?
The question is that : if someone acts really evil, are you gonna "eradicate" him or "educate" him ?

Neither. Prevent them from being evil (that is, preventing them from killing people, for example).

Or maybe I havent thought of a third "solution".

no, you haven't. See above, although I'm astounded that this one never occurred to you.

Or perhaps I shouldn't be given that I'm talking to someone who has stated that one has the right to commit murder if one wishes...

They can be.

They have the capacity to be so. They may not choose to be so, and that's what matters.

Yes. He has to have the free conviction that killing people is wrong.

So you're willing to allow absolutely anyone to be killed, for no reason at all, because you don't think you should interfere with people's convictions!? What planet do you live, Pan???

Actually, that's a yes technically, because my answer is not : "he should be allowed to kill people", but "he shouldnt be forbiddent o kill people"

There's no difference. If you don't rpevent someone fro killing somebody, and he does, then you have allowed him to kill.

Justified by what actually ? By an almighty, eternal and good god who just said so

In the context of the Bible, yes. That's what the story was written in.

by the property of a slaughter ?

So you want toa rgue how he obtained the property, do you? That's an entirely different issue. If he obtained it by doing wrong, then obivously it's not his property, and hence he has no right to restrict anybody from using it.

However, I fial to see what that has to do with what you were claiming: that it was perfectly right for his wife to do what she had been forbidden to do, simply because she had been forbidden to do it.

And you call that the justification of the restriciton of my liberty ?

That the thing you want to do involves the use of someone else's property? Yes.

[GeneralTacticus]

IMHO, the only possible justification for the restriction of an individual's liberty, is when that individual poses a restriction to another's liberty, or to the liberty of society as a whole, for example it would be wise to put _some_ restiction on the liberty of an individual who was psychopathically disturbed, although I would suggest a hospital, and not a prison for such an individual.

Precisely my own position.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Precisely my own position.

Are you sure ? I think you may have a different idea of when someone is opposing your liberty as a individual, or posing a danger to society. Would you put a thief in prison, for example?

-Jam

[GeneralTacticus]

Depends on what he stole and whether he can be expected to refrain from doing so again. If someone is a kleptomaniac, for example, ti would be reasonable to take action to prevent them from stealing again, although, as you suggested, it would probably be better to send them to a mental hospital than to prison.

[Archaic]

You're spoiling my fun GT. All I've got to reply to there is Maniac's post from the previous page. ^^;

Oh, BTW, I have one thing to say to both Pan and Maniac....
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
....oh, wait, my mistake. It already has.

Originally posted by Maniac
Please read my previous posts.

You mean the posts about the media controlling us, which were shown as more of a problem with a Planned economy than a free market? And where you've made a massive generalization that basically tries to claim no one has free will?

Originally posted by Maniac
Oh really? Personally I don't consider that to be a full proof of the incorrectness of what I say:

Then go read your economics textbooks.

Originally posted by Maniac
You are using the same tactics as you say Pandemoniak uses when loosing an argument. You just stop giving arguments. Instead you start doing like this:

Archaic: Blah, blah, [well intentioned unrealistic whimpering], blah, [distortion of socialism], blah.
Maniac: [Structured point by point rebuttal of Archaic].
Archaic: I know everything about Economics, heck I know EVERYTHING - period! So of course I'm right and you're wrong!
Maniac: [Detailed description of why Archaic is wrong].
Archaic: I'm right and you're wrong damnit!
Maniac: [Detailed description of why Archaic is wrong while imitating the debating style of Archaic in the idle hope of getting a point across].
Archaic: You're an idiot. I'm right and you're wrong!
Maniac: [Gives up trying to penetrate the wall of ignorance].
Archaic: Yay, I won! I'm right!

What a lovely Strawman of my position and my arguements, along with an Appeal to Ridicule. Want to try harder?

If you haven't noticed, GT had already slaughtered you on all points. Why I didn't complete the paragraph was obvious. Anyone could infer the rest of the analogy. Which of those two little theories would Occam's Razor support? I don't think I even need to finish this para.....oh, wait, you don't like that. Guess I better finish it. Occam's Razor would support the simplest theory of course. ie. The Economists are right.

Originally posted by Maniac
Whether or not it is the correct system depends on what goals you want to reach. For certain relative goals, pure economic growth falling in the hands of an elite, it's probably the best system. When you have other goals, for example giving as many people as possible a decent life, a social-democratic variant is probably the correct system. Again, don't speak in absolutes...

1) We're speaking in overall terms, not in terms of specific goals (There *IS* a time and a place for Planned economies afterall.) Why shouldn't I speak in absolutes?
2) Prove that a social-democratic varient is better for once

Originally posted by Maniac
...So the brains of a human say, which can see forms and has the tendency to categorize. Reality as one perceives it, is dependent on the observer. A being which could not identify shapes as we do, would not call it a sphere. For us, the absolute truth is the earth is roughly spherical. For another being, the absolute truth would be something else. It all depends on what senses one has. Those create a representation of the universe. You only perceive that representation created by that sense and devise "absolute truths" depending on that information. The universe itself however you do not perceive, only an approximation. You cannot know how close your mental model is to the supposed real thing.
I guess this all sounds gibberish to you, but that's quite normal for someone who presumably has never been into contact with any other philosophical system. I can understand it. I was quite like you some four years back or so...

Ah, philosophy. The ivory tower way of sticking your head in your arse. Quit it with the sophistry already and actually make a point that has relevance to economics.

Originally posted by Maniac
You're using it on people's opinion about economic models, not on the economic models itself.

Economic Models themselves are theories, just as our opinions are. Occan's Razor is valid.

Originally posted by Maniac
It depends. If one is unconscious of what is influencing them, I'd say no: that person doesn't have a free will. If s/he were conscious of it, I'd say the person has a free will on that matter.

And again....this changes outside of a Free Market how? Really, this whole part of the arguement is one big red herring on your part.

Originally posted by Maniac
Yeah so? Does a computer have free will?

And this is relevant how?

Originally posted by Maniac
What on earth are you talking about?? Impartiality about what? I started off as a reaction to your comment one was a free person under free market, and then you kind of gave yourself as an example of a non-determined person, upon which I reacted again. Where did you start about impartiality?

Is this some red herring? Can't you refute my arguments? Do I need to post that picture again?

I was under the impression that you were claiming I was brainwashed into thinking a Free Market is better, which is why I was proving my impartiality. If you're claiming that someone's no more free under a free market than under other economic systems, than GT's already addressed that.

Originally posted by Maniac
I'm right because I'm right because I'm right because. You seem to be in some denial fase. Man you make lousy arguments! I can't think of one time you actually won of me. You usually just stop. (Fun when people tell you such things no?)

How am I in a denial phase? All you've offered as evidence to your red herring bullshit about absolute truths is sophistry. Do I need to educate you on Burden of Proof fallacy?

Oh, and BTW....

Archaic: [Gives up trying to penetrate the wall of ignorance].
Maniac/Pan/Whoever: Yay, I won! I'm right!

Originally posted by Maniac
Evolution theory is a model, an approximation, a map of some part of the universe. In due time it will be refined and it will give a closer approximation, a more refined map. But no logic or scientific breakthrough will ever give you a 1 on 1 scale map so to speak. The observer affects the observed. Depending on the glasses you look through, the measuring instruments you use, you will get a different map.

No **** sherlock. Get to the point already.

Originally posted by Maniac
And do you acknowledge the fact some of your ideas might not be the absolute truth?

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill

He may as well have said that a Free Market is the worst way to run an economy except all the others that have been tried. Does it have its flaws? Yes. May there be flaws to it that we have not yet discovered? Yes. Might my understanding of a Free Market perhaps in some points be flawed? Yes. The ****ing point of this question of yours? I don't see it. I've said all this stuff from the beginning.

Originally posted by Maniac
What? Social & political sciences? As far as I know you were doing economics.

International Business. Economics is a vital component of it, but so is the social and political sciences.

In fact, while we're going on about my degree, I've got a lovely quote here for you from my old Marketing lecturer, after he got asked similar questions to what you're asking.

"If we could make people buy anything we wanted to sell through advertising and marketing.......do you honestly think I'd be here right now, lecturing to all of you, at 9pm on a Friday night? You think I don't have other things I'd rather be doing?"

Originally posted by Maniac
Confer lucky22, among other things. I am still amazed for instance when you said christianity has changed human nature over the period of 1000 years. Heck, I don't think you even need to follow one sociology class to have serious doubts about such a statement.

Why not take one European history class then and take a look at how much influence the church has had on what people have considered moral and immoral. Homosexuality was hardly the boogieman it is today back before the church stuck its nose into everything you realise.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Archaic

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill

He may as well have said that a Free Market is the worst way to run an economy except all the others that have been tried. Does it have its flaws? Yes. May there be flaws to it that we have not yet discovered? Yes. Might my understanding of a Free Market perhaps in some points be flawed? Yes. The ****ing point of this question of yours? I don't see it. I've said all this stuff from the beginning.

A free market is not only the worst way of running an economy, it is also no way to run a economy. The basic principle behind a free market is that the democraticaly elected government hands over control of one of its most important functions to an unelected boby of business men, who are completly disinterested in the health of the state, in as much as they are disinterested in everything except increasing the profitability of their own companies. Only a "brainwashed" citizen would think that their government, that they themself had elected, was making the right decision in handing control of the army, for example, to the directors and shareholders of a number of competing companies. And I would argue that the economy of a country is more important than the army.

We can consider ourselves lucky that none of us yet live in a truely free market, and that even in America, companies have to follow some restrictions still.

-Jam

[Archaic]

Originally posted by War of Art


A free market is not only the worst way of running an economy, it is also no way to run a economy. The basic principle behind a free market is that the democraticaly elected government hands over control of one of its most important functions to an unelected boby of business men, who are completly disinterested in the health of the state, in as much as they are disinterested in everything except increasing the profitability of their own companies. Only a "brainwashed" citizen would think that their government, that they themself had elected, was making the right decision in handing control of the army, for example, to the directors and shareholders of a number of competing companies. And I would argue that the economy of a country is more important than the army.

We can consider ourselves lucky that none of us yet live in a truely free market, and that even in America, companies have to follow some restrictions still.

-Jam

What a load of crock. Can you create a bigger strawman than that?

The responsibilities of a Government in a Free Market economy are to regulate the money supply, regulate inflation, and enact laws to prevent and correct market failures. The government hands over no such control to corperations. Indeed, it could be argued that no one "controls" a Free Market. Not in the manner that you're talking about in any case. That's the whole point of it.

[Jamski]

And that's exactly the point isn't it. Whether you want to say that noone "controls" the economy in a free market, or that the company directors are "controlling" the economy, the power has still been taken away from the people, as represented by their elected officials. This, you must surely agree, is not a good thing, to free the markets at the expense of democracy, or are you advocating this approach?

The responsibilities of a Government in a Free Market economy are to regulate the money supply, regulate inflation, and enact laws to prevent and correct market failures.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the true horror of what a free market really is. In a true free market, the government would do no such thing, as companies complained that they were being forced to be "uncompetitive" by the laws enacted. I trust we are talking about a hypothetical free market as in SMAC, and not what is referred to as a "free" market, that we have today, which I would describe as a mix of all three SMAC economic ideals, with the mix, of course, differing by country and current government.

-Jam

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by WarOfArt
IMHO, the only possible justification for the restriction of an individual's liberty, is when that individual poses a restriction to another's liberty, or to the liberty of society as a whole, for example it would be wise to put _some_ restiction on the liberty of an individual who was psychopathically disturbed, although I would suggest a hospital, and not a prison for such an individual.

-Jam

Precisely my own position.

Being free for man means being acknowledged, considered and treated as such by another man, and by all the men around him. Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection...I myself am human and free only to the extent that I acknowledge the humanity and liberty of all my fellows... I am properly free when all the men and women about me are equally free. Far from being a limitation or a denial of my liberty, the liberty of another is its necessary condition and confirmation.


And no safety, no roder, no freedom from others killing you. Yes, great idea



And the point is that that idea is pure and utter BS. You *CAN* take away part of someon's liberty without taking it all away, and in many cases restricting a certain part of somone's liberty makes others more free - because it prevents them from infringing on their liberty. How free are you if somone has the right to murder you if they feel like it?



...? Only in the sense that people are restricted from doing what they like to that which belongs to you.



No, I don't beleive that, but I think you're ebing hopelessly naive if you think that because you give people an education, they will all be good and nice.



Neither. Prevent them from being evil (that is, preventing them from killing people, for example).



no, you haven't. See above, although I'm astounded that this one never occurred to you.

Or perhaps I shouldn't be given that I'm talking to someone who has stated that one has the right to commit murder if one wishes...



They have the capacity to be so. They may not choose to be so, and that's what matters.



So you're willing to allow absolutely anyone to be killed, for no reason at all, because you don't think you should interfere with people's convictions!? What planet do you live, Pan???



There's no difference. If you don't rpevent someone fro killing somebody, and he does, then you have allowed him to kill.



In the context of the Bible, yes. That's what the story was written in.



So you want toa rgue how he obtained the property, do you? That's an entirely different issue. If he obtained it by doing wrong, then obivously it's not his property, and hence he has no right to restrict anybody from using it.

However, I fial to see what that has to do with what you were claiming: that it was perfectly right for his wife to do what she had been forbidden to do, simply because she had been forbidden to do it.



That the thing you want to do involves the use of someone else's property? Yes. [/QUOTE]

[Archaic]

Originally posted by War of Art
And that's exactly the point isn't it. Whether you want to say that noone "controls" the economy in a free market, or that the company directors are "controlling" the economy, the power has still been taken away from the people, as represented by their elected officials. This, you must surely agree, is not a good thing, to free the markets at the expense of democracy, or are you advocating this approach?

Strawman of Free Market. Again. It amazes me that you can believe this bullshit. Where'd you learn about capitalism? Some socialist rag? Company directors don't control the economy. What *does* is market forces, the so called "Invisible Hand". And how are market forces determined? By the people's wants and needs. We don't have any system of politics or economics that's more democratic than that.

Originally posted by War of Art
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the true horror of what a free market really is. In a true free market, the government would do no such thing, as companies complained that they were being forced to be "uncompetitive" by the laws enacted. I trust we are talking about a hypothetical free market as in SMAC, and not what is referred to as a "free" market, that we have today, which I would describe as a mix of all three SMAC economic ideals, with the mix, of course, differing by country and current government.

-Jam

Bullshit. The government still has those responsibilities under a "true" free market (Which is what I've been talking about all this time). Go read the wealth of nations.