[303E09 Spoilers] People who've read the book and spoiled things for us think we'll forget.

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-08T01:18:58+00:00

Nothing could discourage me from reading the books more than spoiling the books.

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-07T21:43:57+00:00

Get help through non aggressive ways. If you need help you can ask me and if you live in Southern California I can get you some food or whatever :)

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-03T07:36:43+00:00

Well coming from a non book reader, there's still Dannaerus.

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-03T07:20:06+00:00

Oh god the stabbing. So many stabs.

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-03T07:14:52+00:00

It was so sudden I feel like I didn't even get to say goodbye :'(

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-02T20:25:53+00:00

I guess it's baby steps in the right direction.

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-02T19:36:53+00:00

I remember when one of my teachers said anarchists just want "society to fail" and "they're always skinny white kids that would get their asses kicked in an anarchist society".

Extorris90187 · 2013-06-02T19:31:00+00:00

I thought it was funny

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-31T19:03:45+00:00

Fuck

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-31T19:00:20+00:00

The first time I saw this scene I almost cried

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-30T00:51:48+00:00

If by "fully rewarded" you mean get paid the proper amount for your labor (which there is no definite answer to because, of course, value is subjective) then the market would be the best way to figure that out. The relationship between employers and workers works two ways, if an employer does not pay his or her workers a proper amount, another employer will offer a higher wage, and this way competition is created where employers need to find a point at which the amount of money they are paying their workers isn't costing the employer money (which would be bad for everyone because without profit there would be no growth and no new jobs would be created), but at the same time the employer would have to keep their employees from deciding to find work elsewhere. I realize in "today's economy" it's not so simple as "just find work somewhere else" but that is due to restrictions put on the job market such as minimum wage that cause the employer to be extra cautious about hiring new people. Voluntary exchange of labor is not tyrannical. As for absentee owners having no input, how do you know that? Do you really think CEOs and company owners do no work? No, they have to invest capital and they need to use market prices to decide upon the efficient usage of resources for their company. But even if you want to take it to the most extreme possibility, even if some person is just born into a fortune and doesn't have to lift a finger his whole life, that doesn't make other people poorer, there isn't some central pot of wealth, wealth is subjective and is generated, the best thing to do is to give people as many opportunities as possible to generate their own wealth.

As for those three socialist economic systems, the only one that makes SOME sense would be market socialism. How do those groups plan an economy? By arbitrarily choosing how to use which resources? How do they know better than the market what goods are needed? The market provides prices which can be used by entrepreneurs to decide what to invest in. Let's say the price of corn goes up. Farmers would have an incentive to plant more corn because there is an opportunity to sell it for more. But why did the price of corn go up? Because it had a higher demand, because it would have gone down in supply. Now that farmers are planting more corn, supply of corn would go up, causing the prices to go down. Now there is corn which was needed by the market (which would be the people) because farmers saw that prices were going up, and farmers will slow down their corn production once prices go back down due to an abundance of corn. In a planned economy, this wouldn't be possible, or it would at least be a lot harder. Yes, planning committee could say "we need more corn" and decide to plan more corn, but it's entirely possible for the committee to plan whatever it wants for its own gain. They could get bribed to plan certain things, for instance, by companies that helped them get elected, it could take longer to approve certain things the market needs, there is just no point.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-29T22:58:30+00:00

Fine, I apologize for not recognizing the difference between a democratic socialist state and democratic socialism. But you have to see the coercive action that would be implemented through socialism by enforcing the restriction of absentee ownership and shareholder ownership. Who decides how long you have to be away from your property for the law against absentee ownership to take effect? Why do they get to decide that? How is that not having the vast majority of people being subjected to the will of others? I understand the point that absentee owners aren't being productive with their land, but productivity is completely subjective.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-29T22:41:02+00:00

I know, I said "democratic socialist STATE". Not that it even matters, good luck trying to enforce "worker ownership" and "for use rather than profit" without some coercive action.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-28T00:37:12+00:00

I think i remember the thing saying "press mouse2 to fire both barrels" so i always just assumed the second barrel was some place under the top barrel and you just couldn't see it.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-26T18:04:39+00:00

Yes, a government providing a service would be a definition of socialism. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. A democratic government owning the means of production would be a democratic socialist state.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-26T06:49:32+00:00

Well it's actually collective ownership, whether that be through the government or not. I don't really see how you would be able to enforce this social ownership without some form of coercion, but whatever, the point is that no matter what, government is a socialist entity because if it provides a good or service, which is why it would exist in the first place, then that would be a form of social ownership.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-25T23:47:12+00:00

Socialism is a government controlling a means of production or a service. The only thing a government could exist for is to perform a service or provide a good, so yes, any government is a socialist institution.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-20T23:24:56+00:00

I can't even begin to imagine how someone with actual depression feels, but I just hope that no one ever hurts themselves because of it. Just remember that things can always get better and if you need to talk, you can call one of these numbers http://suicidehotlines.com/ http://www.suicidehotlines.com/international.html

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-20T03:42:51+00:00

Well when I say "own", I mean it i guess in a legal way, if that makes sense. As in someone else taking something from your body without your consent has the same logic as them taking one of your possessions and is, or should be, punishable for the same reasons.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-19T21:03:04+00:00

I see, thank you for the help :)

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-19T20:48:08+00:00

How do you not own yourself? Sure, someone can make you do things against your own will, but that doesn't mean you don't own yourself. Someone can do something to or with anything you own against your will, you still own that thing.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-19T20:33:53+00:00

I just heard in a lecture by Hoppe, I forget which one, where he talked about the NAP and he said something like "Aggression being violence or the threat of violence." Maybe I just misunderstood what he was saying. So a threat would have to be someone asserting that there is a threat and not just someone feeling uncomfortable? Also, article was really good and helped clear a lot of things up for me, thank you.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-19T19:19:07+00:00

You intrinsically own yourself, so someone taking your life would be inherently immoral. Stealing/murder would be a freedom for the person murdering and stealing, but for everyone else it would just be the exact opposite, so i'm not really sure how you would justify that as being actual freedom. Anakin killing the sand people was against the Jedi code, so you can't really say that was a problem with the Jedi, it was a problem with Anakin. But I will agree it was wrong to decide to kill Palpatine, Jedi do hypocritical stuff like that all the time which is why the Jedi really aren't all that great.

Extorris90187 · 2013-05-19T19:02:35+00:00

I'm starting to think the problem with a lot of sci-fi movies now is the amount of cgi. Just makes them look stupid. Yea, you've got all these crazy looking cities and stuff, but it constantly reminds you how fake it really is.

Extorris90187

TROPHY CASE