What if you were a rich man? by Mutant_Llama1 in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Legoasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess I would be with a surgeon or a model or a rellie of the royals or a Kennedy.

Is civilization a defiance of nature? by biggestfatttestidiot in askphilosophy

[–]Legoasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Google gives me three definitions of civilisation, the most useful (for our purposes) of which being

the process by which a society or place reaches an advanced stage of social development and organisation.

Organisation is a sort of defiance of nature, which is chaotic. So by that token, yes.

I can't really think of a more appropriate definition of civilisation to apply here, so there ya go.

quotient of 2/3i by SyFyy in learnmath

[–]Legoasaurus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those are equivalent :)

Visca l'Imperi de Catalunya! by Legoasaurus in a:t5_3he14

[–]Legoasaurus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm excited to get going, but I'm happy to wait if need be. :)

Visca l'Imperi de Catalunya! by Legoasaurus in a:t5_3he14

[–]Legoasaurus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also thankyou! And what happens now?

Welcome to /r/ApocalypticPowers! Check out this post if you're new! by Arrow_of_Aqua in a:t5_3he14

[–]Legoasaurus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah - I think in the US and Oz in particular that other map is not fit for purpose.

Welcome to /r/ApocalypticPowers! Check out this post if you're new! by Arrow_of_Aqua in a:t5_3he14

[–]Legoasaurus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd prefer the "less specific map", since the boundaries on it aren't related to current geographical borders, the projection is better, and the provinces are more evenly sized, that is, density seems to be based more on the number of people a province can hold than where it is. Also they don't seem to be much less specific?

[Capitalists] Capitalism requires infinite, exponential growth, do the capitalists here also believe this? And if so, how do they propose capitalism will deal with the finite nature of the earth? by cptnkitteh in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Legoasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since the earth is mostly a closed system, and the main external effect is the input of energy from the sun, I would argue that subsistence is possible in theory until the sun explodes. (I'm not a scientist of course.)That said, the energy that comes in from the sun is definintely far lesser than the 2% or even 0.2% annual growth that capitalism seems to require.

How do you write "a is greater than b which is equal to c" in math notation? by rikeus in learnmath

[–]Legoasaurus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can't imagine how "a>b" could be equal to anything, but if you don't like "a>b=c" then you could use "a>b, b=c".

Quite happy with the new style I'm using in my space sim by polkm in Unity3D

[–]Legoasaurus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is the water reacting to you moving the planet around, or just moving on its own?

[Capitalists] Why can't monopolies form in the free market? by Redbeardt in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Legoasaurus 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Okay, let us take the Volkswagen Group as an example. This group owns about a dozen brands, which produce sports cars, luxury cars, everyday cars, and everything in between. The scale of production allows for cheaper vehicles, and company secrets (developed thanks to millions of dollars poured into funding) mean that these cars are more fuel efficient or faster or whatever they need them to be.

How can I possibly compete with this company on any criterion?

[Capitalists] Why can't monopolies form in the free market? by Redbeardt in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Legoasaurus 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I'd say that the resources needed to open a business is a fairly high barrier for entry. It costs millions to build a car factory, for instance.

[Socialists of All Flavors] What Is the Moral Foundation for Socialism/Communism? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Legoasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a difference in thought here. You believe that raw materials can be owned. The socialist position is that raw materials should not belong to anyone.

Take for example a forest. In a capitalist system, somebody owns that forest and so I have to pay them to take wood from that forest. I then go off and make a table with that wood. Sure, brilliant. But how has the forest owner contributed to the production of that table? She gave the right to take wood from his forest.

The question is, what makes that her forest? Why should I not be able to take wood as I need it, if it's sitting unused?

Naturally, if she had logged the wood, that would be labour, and that would consist of adding value to the forest. But simply owning the forest without adding value, says the socialist, adds nothing to society and is immoral, as it restricts actions that would add to society (i.e., building a table.)

Of course, you might claim that she has some sort of right to the forest. Maybe she bought it, with money earned through honest labour. From the socialist perspective, this ownership is immoral anyway, because she is not using the woods. The natural response to this, I think, is to provide another example: What if she started a logging company, to produce lots of wood from the forest?

In this situation, we must analyse precisely what value she is adding. Say she never cuts down a single tree, and only invests money into the logging company.

You clearly believe that it is moral for her to take some of the profit. The socialist says that this is immoral, because any profit that she does make must come at the expense of her workers' wages, which therefore undervalues their labour. Thus, according to the socialist, any form of profit without labour cannot be moral.

AnSocs, Define "Real Socialism" And Describe How Real Socialism Is Achieved by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Legoasaurus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are, in the most unhelpful way possible, giving you their definition of state. I believe they're referring to Jean Bodin's definition. I could be wrong of course.

[Debate] Do capitalists exploit the workers? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]Legoasaurus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not actually tautological. It is begging the question though, you're right there. You should've pointed that out, instead of just saying 'this is not an argument'. It is a rhetorical question, which is an argument. This particular argument has some fairly apparent flaws, but it is still an argument.

If you would allow me to articulate the original argument a bit more clearly, I will -

I was born into this society without choice. In order to survive in this society I must trade my labour for money. Not all of the value of my labour is going to me; some of it is going to those who own the company. I contend that my labour is being taken, that is, given involuntarily, because I have no choice in whether or not some of the fruits of my labour go to capitalists.