the neoliberal vision of the future

[TruXta]

did you include the part in your article where you got rumbled on half a dozen falsehoods and even attempted to back yourself up with a false ID?

No?

Don't be daft! He's a CLASSICAL liberal, dontcha understand? He would never ever FORCE falsehoods and LIES on even such a wretched hive of SOCIALIST SCUM such as us.

 

[stethoscope]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Kropotkin stressed that scarcity and hardship were conditions that lead to cooperation and mutual aid.

Ona should read Mutual Aid, then come back and tell us how it's wrong.

Fancy some homework, O?

 

[Dillinger4]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

incredible.

 

[DotCommunist]

Ah, misses out his impassioned defense of Pinochet. Wow, that is butthurt.

 

[onarchy]

You're welcome to have an opinion on whether altruism is just for suckers, but if you want to claim that it also increases societal output, then you will need evidence. Given the Darwinian approach of Randian 'thought', you might want to have a look at the work on the evolution of altruism, which made a major breakthrough in the 1980s. Dawkins added a chapter on it to the 1989 edition of The Selfish Gene (it was not known when the original edition was published in 1976).

Not only have I read The Selfish Gene thouroughly, I am also in the process of writing a book about it. It's called "The religious atheists: modern medievalism and the gates to hell." In this book there is a large section in which I rip apart the socalled "altruism" and shows that there is no such thing in biology, only individual self-interest.

This is an interesting blog post from the IMF, outlining some research into the drivers of growth:
(snip)

Apparently it never dawned on you or the IMF that the causality is misidentified. It is not inequality that causes reduced economic growth, but rather that they have a common cause: lack of economic freedom. Most economies with great inequality are extremely anti-capitalistic. Anti-capitalism causes inequality due to greater market barriers. Large market barriers (caused by regulations and high taxes) favors big business and the rich thereby they are able to outcompete the small and the poor. With no regulation and no taxes the small businesses and the poor become much more able at competition and this reduces inequality. Capitalism is the great equalizer.

 

[TruXta]

incredible.

How incredibly unsurprising. And the whines about bullying... priceless.

 

[onarchy]

did you include the part in your article where you got rumbled on half a dozen falsehoods and even attempted to back yourself up with a false ID?

No?

Look, I am one lonely knight in shiny armor here, up against dozens of up-to-no-good scumbags. I can't answer absolutely everything. I'm good, but I'm not THAT good. Also, I find it amusing that you STILL believe that I attempted to back myself up with a false ID. What paranoia!

 

[TruXta]

Not only have I read The Selfish Gene thouroughly, I am also in the process of writing a book about it. It's called "The religious atheists: modern medievalism and the gates to hell." In this book there is a large section in which I rip apart the socalled "altruism" and shows that there is no such thing in biology, only individual self-interest.

Riiiiight. I bet evolutionary biologists everywhere are dying to read your thoughts. Where are you gonna get it peer-reviewed? What are your professional credentials?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Not only have I read The Selfish Gene thouroughly, I am also in the process of writing a book about it. It's called "The religious atheists: modern medievalism and the gates to hell." In this book there is a large section in which I rip apart the socalled "altruism" and shows that there is no such thing in biology, only individual self-interest.

Apparently it never dawned on you or the IMF that the causality is misidentified. It is not inequality that causes reduced economic growth, but rather that they have a common cause: lack of economic freedom. Most economies with great inequality are extremely anti-capitalistic. Anti-capitalism causes inequality due to greater market barriers. Large market barriers (caused by regulations and high taxes) favors big business and the rich thereby they are able to outcompete the small and the poor. With no regulation and no taxes the small businesses and the poor become much more able at competition and this reduces inequality. Capitalism is the great equalizer.

So, how do you understand the role of the state in primitive accumulation?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Look, I am one lonely knight in shiny armor here, up against dozens of up-to-no-good scumbags.!

I thought your mate 'John Galt' was here too.

How about answering my questions?

While you're at it, you can answer the question about land tenure too if you like.

 

[ymu]

Right, so, let us say that there is an ambulance service. Should everyone who has paid up for this service have to carry a certificate to say so? What if you choose not to pay and are then involved in an accident? Or what if you have paid but your certificate wasn't on you at the time? We wouldn't want to accidentally save the life of someone who had not contributed, now, would we?

And what if you're a rich bastard who is refusing to pay up. PAY UP, rich bastard, or we'll come and take you down.

You see what you don't seem to realise is that your vision of a society is more authoritarian, more restrictive, and more rule-ridden than a society with communal provision. It is communal, universal provision that gives people the space to thrive. In your society there would be no space for dissent or experiments in alternative living because everyone would be furiously conforming in order not to go under.

They did used to do this with the fire service. People had plaques on their houses indicating that they were insured with a particular company and that company would come racing out to tackle the blaze if their house caught fire.

Then people realised that having private fire cover didn't help that much if a neighbour's house caught fire and no one did anything to stop it spreading to yours.

 

[DotCommunist]

Look, I am one lonely knight in shiny armor here, up against dozens of up-to-no-good scumbags. I can't answer absolutely everything. I'm good, but I'm not THAT good. Also, I find it amusing that you STILL believe that I attempted to back myself up with a false ID. What paranoia!

paranoia my arse, you were rumbled by a Moderator who will have IP checked. It's hilarious that you still claim it as one of your blog acolytes.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

paranoia my arse, you were rumbled by a Moderator who will have IP checked. It's hilarious that you still claim it as one of your blog acolytes.

The blog article seems to have quite a lot of replies already. Popular old Onar.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Actually that's not true. First of all it is only fascists that claim that society REQUIRE regulation (apart from the regulation provided by property rights). Regulation is the means by which fascists wield indirect government ownership. Second, even with regulation if we exclude all non-welfare costs law administration costs typically less than 5% of GDP. But as I said, I strongly dispute that regulations beyond property rights are needed in the vast majority of cases.

You dolt, of course capitalism requires regulation. Corporations are legal fictions, they do not exist outside of the law. Neither do stocks, shares, derivatives, futures, bonds, trade marks, copyrights, patents etc. As capitalists look for new ways to make profits they look at new markets to conquer, new resources to commodify. As they do so, more regulations are needed so that they can enforce their property rights. You say yourself that you think regulation is required for property ffs! Though I don't know why you think that property relations are the only forms of social interaction that you think should be regulated. btw did you pluck that 5% figure out of your own arse?

That's not true. If the cost of the night watchman state is only 3% of GDP it can be financed purely by voluntary donations to the state, and that IS qualitatively different than a forced tax.

Another arse pluck stat.

Even if YOU are willing to contribute that does not give you the right to force OTHERS to contribute.

Why not? Why do you think you have the right to get whatever you want all the time, regardless of everybody else. Seriously, libertarians are just thumb sucking two year olds.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I wonder if any of them can debate a topic straight without resorting to argument by relentless assertion that black is white, and similar techniques.

 

[ymu]

So Dawkins (possibly unknowingly) confirmed and added to what Kropotkin had said in Mutual Aid a hundred years previously.
It's a pity people forget that Kropotkin was a scientist as well as an anarchist.

It wasn't Dawkins' work. I think it was Axelrod originally, but I'd have to look it up. Dawkins just added a very well-explained chapter on it because he was (rightly, IMO) excited by the development. And also, I suspect, because it helps him win points in his strawman fight with the species-level selectionists.

 

[butchersapron]

.

In addition to being the world's toughest actor, Charles Bronson was a tail-gunner also during the Second World War. He was therefore with machine gun to shoot down Nazi aircraft Messer Schmidt. Pretty heroic if you ask me. I doubt if any of today's idols, Sean Penn and Bono, would do the same.

 

[TruXta]

@ ymu: Nah, Hamilton based on Haldane, then elaborated by Trivers.

e2a which isn't to say that Axelrod wasn't important.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

 

[TruXta]

.

Well, they wouldn't, would they?

 

[Crispy]

paranoia my arse, you were rumbled by a Moderator who will have IP checked. It's hilarious that you still claim it as one of your blog acolytes.

Dunno what checking was done at the time, but none of my tea leaves point to sockpuppet. Sorry if your hopes were got up.

 

[ymu]

@ ymu: Nah, Hamilton based on Haldane, then elaborated by Trivers.

e2a which isn't to say that Axelrod wasn't important.

Cheers! Saw this when I came back to edit for uncertainty!

 

[Dillinger4]

no dice

 

[DotCommunist]

Dunno what checking was done at the time, but none of my tea leaves point to sockpuppet. Sorry if your hopes were got up.

The John Galts banning was an injustice

 

[Jeff Robinson]

On his blog, Onan says:

Nevertheless, after a while had the "debate" again slipped into the ugly drittslenging, and it ended with a "Jeff Robinson" wrote the following:
“I could easily kick this guy to death. "I Could Easily kick this guy two death. I could really pound my boot into the stupid cunt's face over and over again.” Could I really pound my boot Into the stupid cunt's face over and over again. "

In actual fact that was a remark I made about somebody in a youtube clip before onan entered the thread. See:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...the-future?p=11653046&viewfull=1#post11653046

 

[SpineyNorman]

Onarchy, I'm sorry but you don't get to characterise everyone who disagrees with you randist mentalism as a fascist. It doesn't work like that. Words have meanings and unless we are faithful to those meanings words lose their power. I'd imagine that anyone who has been a victim of real fascism may well want to strangle you until you turn blue for trivialising the true horror of fascism in this way. Grow up, you're not a 15 year old who's been grounded and the state isn't your mum.

 

[Idris2002]

On his blog, Onan says:



In actual fact that was a remark I made about somebody in a youtube clip before onan entered the thread. See:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...the-future?p=11653046&viewfull=1#post11653046

In fairness, you did call him a 'total fucking nobody', which is as cruel as it is true.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

In fairness, you did call him a 'total fucking nobody', which is as cruel as it is true.

Tis true, I probably wouldnt have called him that if I'd known he was gonna read it. He's only a hobbyist for gwards sake. Sorry onan - you are a fucking dick tho!

 

[ymu]

Still, google translate is getting impressively good, eh?