Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
There you go. The post ain't about political parties, it's a smarmy rant against capitalism.
So you think we should have laws then because we must have a bare minimum to operate a society, right? Do you still think we should not discuss what those bare minimum laws should be or do you want to contradict yourself and say we should discuss what those laws should be. So either we can fully accept the laws as they are and no question them or we can discuss and decide what laws work and benefit us?
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
I'm sorry you think the question of whether you think we should discuss laws or not is putting words in your mouth.
Maybe I'll ask it bluntly so you feel less inclined to take a cheap comment and dodge the obvious question:
Should we discuss laws or not? (Keep in mind about 5 posts ago you affirmed that "there is nothing to discuss" responding to a question when I said we need the discussion about what laws we should have).
Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.
It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.
If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.
In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
There you go. The post ain't about political parties, it's a smarmy rant against capitalism.
This is definitely about political parties and you would be making a joke to assert economic policy is a separate issue from policy.
Do you think American politics listens to you? If so, how? It is clear that voting is not correlated to your interests unless you are funding campaigns. The study I posted sets out to discover if this is true, using data from 1982-2010.
Let me be clear: American politics does not correlate with the voices of the middle class and is negatively correlated to those at the bottom. This makes up the majority of human population in American society. How can Democracy exist when voting does not correlate to the interests of the majority of Americans? This is obviously an issue involving politics and economics.
Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?
I'm sorry you think the question of whether you think we should discuss laws or not is putting words in your mouth.
Maybe I'll ask it bluntly so you feel less inclined to take a cheap comment and dodge the obvious question:
Should we discuss laws or not? (Keep in mind about 5 posts ago you affirmed that "there is nothing to discuss" responding to a question when I said we need the discussion about what laws we should have).
I told you my position on that subject, and you misread it. If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with the guy who can't understand my position, not me.
Wrong.
Economics is not policy, economics just is.
Wrong.
Economics is not policy, economics just is.
If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.
This is precisely the point. We don't have discussions like this. Mainstream media offers few chances for critical questions like yours. We need not just your question, but we need the larger question of what should be a law and what should not be. But that requires discussion. From what I gather, Anti-party is suggesting we do exactly this.
It's a completely different matter to go about answering your specific question properly and in context. My first contextualization is to here what you think of the UN Humans Rights Declaration? Do they make sense to you or do they sound too far fetched. If so, why? I specifically would like you to at least read Aritcle, 4, 6, 11, and 25. They are one sentence declarations or a paragraph at most.
If these declarations make sense to you, as they do to millions of people, nay, billions, then it makes sense we adopt them. It is blindingly obvious the US disregards these Human Rights in many international campaigns it conducts each year as ratified by the US in 1948 before international bodies. We can freely read, assess and discuss these declarations in the hope of coming to a more clear understanding of human relations and ethics.
LMFAO!
4 and 11 are great. I don't like the person under the law thing in 6. Seems like, given the kinda legalistic wordplay politicians use these days coupled with the fact that UN politicians are pretty typical in that respect, I could see 6 being used as justification to force open borders for everyone who signs onto this ridiculous document.
Yes, ridiculous, primarily because of 25. Didn't read anymore after I got to that point.
25 and 4 directly contradict each other. Amendment 25 is the right to food, housing, medical care, etc. These are material things.
In the event that someone is unable or unwilling to provide those things for themselves, that implication in this right is that someone else is to provide these things -for- them. Regardless of their will. It's a right, so these things -must- be provided!
That means it's everyone's right to subjugate the will of those capable of providing them with their material rights, assuming they aren't providing themselves with those things. In article 4, the document outlaws slavery, and then in article 25, the article says that slavery -will- be the norm when it's necessary to provide those things that are deemed necessary.
I oppose the "right" to any material thing. Period. There's also a whole list of other bullshit articles in this list to which I am diametrically opposed, as well as an entire gamete of reasons why I feel that the UN's proposed philosophies are anti-freedom and thus that we shouldn't sign onto -any- of their bullshit social treaties or allow them even a minor foothold of authority in our system.
Sovereignty or bust, bitches. Fuck this international order.
Wrong.
Economics is not policy, economics just is.
If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.
Do you understand the concept of scientific method? Can you show me any data that contradicts the theory behind capitalism, or are you simply going to cry because the world doesn't work the way you want it to? Does the fact that some people make policy decisions based on the erroneous assumption that communism or socialism actually work somehow justify the destruction those decisions cause?
Take my advice, drop it, you got nothing.
If economics is not policy, then what is it? Are they decisions made by human beings (i.e. policy)? Are they physical laws? What are they? I really want to learn from you so please answer the question. I don't like it when you tell me I don't understand you and then withhold the chance for me to understand your position clearly by not explaining your position. I am being sincere and I hope you will choose to explain what economics is if it is not policy decisions made by human beings.
Do you understand the concept of scientific method? Can you show me any data that contradicts the theory behind capitalism, or are you simply going to cry because the world doesn't work the way you want it to? Does the fact that some people make policy decisions based on the erroneous assumption that communism or socialism actually work somehow justify the destruction those decisions cause?
Take my advice, drop it, you got nothing.
I'm not arguing for anything. You keep getting way ahead of our simple discussion. I am just interested in hearing what you have to say. I just want to know why you think economics is not for the affairs of man, the daily lives of human beings? That our policy decisions cannot and will not effect the economic status of human beings.
The answer I gather is you think capitalism is supported by data. Can you help me understand what you mean? I'm new to all this and I don't know what data you mean. What data are you referring to? Computer data? Observational data from society? Are you saying capitalism is the best economic policy because the data supports it? If that's what you're saying, that capitalism is our economic policy because it works the best, then we in fact do make the policy decision to adopt capitalism over other unsupported economic policy. That is presumably why you referred to the scientific method: because the policy that makes the most sense is obviously the one you choose. So let's assume capitalism is best supported by the data. That doesn't mean capitalism is a law of nature that humans must accept. It is a policy decision that happens to work for billions of people. But the real question becomes, since capitalism is a policy decision that we've adopted, does it actually work for the majority of human beings in America (or on this planet)? I will further grant this is true, that capitalism works the best for the most number of people. Can you at least see my point that capitalism is our economic policy because it works so well? That men gathered in a room and decided, "yep, capitalism is our best bet, let's decide to adopt it." Do you agree that capitalism is a type of economic system that is adopted through policy decision?
All I'm asking is you put aside your obvious disgust with me and just talk plainly. I'm glad you feel passionately about your beliefs--which should be all the more reason you explain them with clarity--but please help me understand them. Please just explain yourself plainly. This isn't about me and so please stop including me in your posts. I want to know what you think and in a very clear manner. In order to do that you need to address my questions slowly and precisely so we can come to a mutual understanding. My question is in bold, above.
In the beginning there were no political parties. You will not find them anywhere in the constitution. However, parties appeared on the scene very quickly. At first, they were informal alliance between like minded politicians but grew rapidly into organised groups.Let me get this straight, we know that nobody is required to join a political party but the post recommends that we all join a non-political party. It reminds me of the old Seinfeld joke, "it's a program about nothing".
In France they have a literal "anti-capitalist party." That doesn't mean its a party about nothing, they have made it real clear that they wish for an alternative to the current system.
Similarly, anti-party seems to represent a clear alternative to the obvious gridlock. It is a party that is against normal parliamentary procedures because they have not worked.
I'd say they do work because they were set up in 1776 to keep Democracy from working. The senate was introduced to be the representatives of the "wealthy of the nation" as he called it, and he meant land owners. He=main framer=Madison.
So yeah, why not develop an alternative system that works for the people instead of the wealth of the nation? In fact, a scientific study was done demonstrating this very fact. So I don't know why any idiot who isn't rich would want to participate in meaningless politics that has been shown to not correlate with their interests.
Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy - Business Insider
Capitalism is a theory, or a model, of how economics works. That means it is not a policy, anymore than evolution is.
Capitalism is a theory, or a model, of how economics works. That means it is not a policy, anymore than evolution is.
What is economics? Economics is the study of production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. In other words, it is the study of how humans survive and behave. Capitalism is one particular way of organizing production, consumption and the transfer of wealth. There are many different ways of organizing production, consumption, and transfer of wealth. In fact, countries like Norway, France etc. have less crime, less disease and sickness, less infant mortality, less hunger, less poverty. These countries have adopted a more socialist model and are surviving with less poverty, infant mortality and other things. So why have we adopted capitalism as the way of organizing production, consumption, and transfer of wealth? You do realize we have increasingly serious drug problem among mainstream America, homelessness in every major city, and high infant mortality compared to developed nations.
Evolution is an adopted belief because it explains the data the best. So you're saying we have adopted capitalism as our belief because it best explains our available understanding of human behavior? How then are other countries who have adopted other economics surviving, and in many ways, doing better than millions of Americans? The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries, 2013 - Forbes
I want to be clear I am not arguing for socialism. I am merely asking you to clarify your point on why America adopted capitalism while other societies have chosen different economics and are surviving.
Quantum DiariesThe thesis of this blog is that all three of these are successful due to the superiority of ruthless massively parallel trial-and-error with a feedback cycle to central planning. We go back to Michael Polanyi. In a trip to the Soviet Union in 1936 he was told the distinction between pure and applied science was mistaken, and that in a socialist society all scientific research takes place in accordance with the needs of the latest Five Year Plan. Polanyi, in reaction, showed science behaves much like a free market in ideas with the corollary that central planning is as destructive in science as in the economy. A typical quote from Polanyi: Any attempt at guiding scientific research towards a purpose other than its own is an attempt to deflect it from the advancement of science. ( ) You can kill or mutilate the advance of science, you cannot shape it. For it can advance only by essentially unpredictable steps, pursuing problems of its own, and the practical benefits of these advances will be incidental and hence doubly unpredictable. The essential point is unpredictable. In the long term, science is too unpredictable to control in any useful manner. We do not know in advance which line of inquiry will lead to breakthroughs or whether the breakthroughs will be for good or evil. If we knew, there would be no need for research. The same reason holds for the failure of central planning in the economy: the problem is too complex and unpredictable. Central planning only works when the system under consideration is simple and predictable.
So what do we replace central planning with? Back to Thorvalds ruthless massively parallel trial-and-error with a feedback cycle. The massively parallel process permits many different approaches to be explored simultaneously and results are ,obtained in a timely manner. We do this in science by having different scientists work on different approaches to a given problem. The ruthlessness comes in rejecting or ignoring all the approaches that fail. Most of what is published in science is ignored and only a few papers have a big impact. I have seen the statement that, on average, a published paper is read only twice. This means most published papers are never read at all (perhaps not even by all the authors). There is no way to tell in advance which research will fall into the unread category. You try all approaches and see which ones work.
It is similar in a capitalist society. Companies try many different approaches. The ones that work make their owners rich, while the ones that fail go bankrupt. The examples are legendary: IBM moved with the times and, for a while, was almost synonymous with computers (hence the slogan; no one ever got fired for buying IBM). Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), once a computer heavy weight, faded into oblivion (CEO Ken Olsen: There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.)
The ruthlessness in capitalism comes in by allowing companies to fail. Capitalism breaks down when companies become too big to fail, or with monopolies and oligarchies. Companies that are too big to fail, monopolies, and oligarchies might as well be run by the government since they have lost the attribute (ruthless feedback) that makes the capitalist model work.
Socialism works so well that Venezuela has a toilet paper shortage.
Capitalism is about free markets, it's not evolution. It is just one way to organize society. In fact, it is well known that free markets always break down and so capitalism will never work as it's suppose to. You always have to make adjustments, that is, if you've ever read economics or Keynes or Milton Friedman, market intervention is crucial at certain times. In fact, we are not currently in a capitalist economy as you very well know. There is massive state intervention into the market through bailouts and welfare that I am sure you wish did not exist, being a true champion for free markets like you are.capitalism, like evolution, actually works.
