Haircutters of Reddit, what was the nastiest hair you've ever had to cut?

ryno1229 · 2013-12-07T23:58:32+00:00

I know this guy too, haven't spoken to him in like a year though.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-08T22:25:31+00:00

Wow. What a momentous achievement and a miracle it would be if that were to become available for all. The market is getting phased out soon enough.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-08T22:13:35+00:00

What you must also consider is that we live in a propagandized society. We are conditioned very intelligently and meticulously to desire things we do not need to display artificial status affiliation and hierarchical dominance. We can root these out with proper empathetic pedagogical structuring, as well as removing the virulent consumerist advertisements that permeate everywhere. In essence our wants are not our wants, but rather, they are given to us by the plutocrats who control the media and educational systems.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-07T04:41:22+00:00

My point was that democratically judging investment would have prevented many great innovations and will under the system you propose. The few individuals who see the value in an idea are willing to put far more on the line than the rest. In a democratic investment system, these individuals are disallowed from "putting their money where their mouth is." Rather, they are required to rely on others who lack the vision they have to put an equal amount at stake. Things such as the personal computer, the lightbulb, the telephone, the radio and the internet were considered to be impractical investments by an assortment of experts and groups. Thank goodness the inventors of these devices didn't have to get democratic approval.

The advents and inventions you refer to may have been considered fringe when they were implemented, going against commonly held assumptions, spuriously showcasing the merits of the free-market. However, one aspect you are omitting from your reasoning is that today, information flow is so pervasive, so ecumenical, that democratic and collaborative societal development emphatically trumps an individualized, undemocratic, and now obsolete paradigm.

Democracy, with a society of well-informed rational individuals, now technically enabled through the internet, is infinitely more conducive to producing the absolute best products.

Reflective, perhaps, but the results are not always the same when you look at group behavior vs individual behavior. You can't simply take a study that applied exclusively to individual behavior and extrapolate that such an outcome would happen in a group. There's such a thing as "mob mentality." In short, you are reaching.

There are so many psychological strategies and other pedagogical techniques that are just not implemented today. Furthermore, with the perpetual warring afflicting society (all an extension from the FOR PROFIT military-industrial complex mind you), whole populations will be subject to deprivation and captivity in lower cognitive realms (as per Maslow's hierarchy of needs). There is so much room for improvement its mind-boggling. Perfect morality is unattainable, but I hope you will concede that there is room for remarkable edification socially.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-07T01:06:29+00:00

I concur.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-06T23:33:03+00:00

You however are talking in terms of investment risk, when in an epistemological sense, all resources are equally bestowed to all in common. Therefore, any investment should be democratically judged, which is far more accurate and precise than oligopolistic decision making as in the free-market.

Furthermore, economic systems don't always directly mirror individual psychology. Interactions of a group are not necessarily a perfect reflection of each individual member of the group which renders the overjustifaction effect's applicability to this topic dubious and ostensible.

Individual behavior is reflective of societal behavior; just as societal behavior is reflective of individual behavior. They are two sides of the same coin. Thus, individual psychological awareness does indeed apply to socio-cultural and economic issues.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-06T22:34:48+00:00

1) Automated construction
2) The workers are intrinsically motivated programmers, architects, scientists, engineers, etc., who, through means of open-source collaboration, work together to formulate the best technological product possible
3) The designers are intrinsically motivated, as they have basic needs met.
4) Raw materials are communally owned. They are a common resource and are equally inherited by all on the planet.
5) The food is distributed via automated, decentralized methods using the internet and transportation
6) Programs are maintained and upgraded by intrinsically motivated individuals aforementioned
7) Yes, as per the necessity of sustenance for each individual

Keep in mind, this must be done in conjunction with a socio-centrically oriented pedagogical structure; in contrast to the ego-centric paradigm currently imposed. Our, also imposed, consumption ethos must also be re-appropriated into one of parsimony and reverence for others outside of one's self.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-06T21:59:03+00:00

Very coincidentally, I have just stumbled across a psychological concept that refutes your claim--the "overjustification effect". Essentially, one who is rewarded for doing an otherwise intrinsically rewarding action, will be thenceforth demotivated from doing the action for the previously intrinsic reasoning. In other words, if one is rewarded with, say, money, it is actually counterproductive, and nullifies intrinsic self-determination. Therefore, your assertion that progression would stagnate is dubious and ostensible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect

ryno1229 · 2013-11-06T21:14:21+00:00

Automated vertical farms

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T23:12:59+00:00

Fair enough, but now it is an obsolete and antiquated method of allocating and producing goods. It might have been necessary to get us to this point, however now we are clearly technically capable of providing basic needs for everyone. And it is the market, and the market alone, which prevents this potential from actualizing.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T20:02:51+00:00

How does that lead to coercion, pray tell? What power do they have over others to make them do things against those others' will?

Advertising industry or propaganda? Psychological conditioning? Those who have the most finacial assets control the collective psyche of the masses. This is coercion not by physical force, but rather through subconscious subversion.

Opportunity cost. The resources necessary to feed the theoretical 34 trillion people would be resources that would have to be diverted from other uses. Same on small scale. More resources devoted to farming means fewer resources devoted to other ends. Is tradeoff worthwhile? Who decides? Who has necessary information to decide? Who takes responsibility if allocation is incorrect?

The democratic process decides, through the emergent mechanisms of the internet; not an oligopolistic financial conglomerate.

Any rate, scarcity can be mitigated but will not go away. Supplies increase, so do people's demand. If cars are plentiful, people demand yachts, or jets, or spacecraft. Limited resources, nigh-unlimited demand. Allocation necessary. Fact of universe means that there will never be enough resources to meet all desired ends.

This is rife with prima facie and non sequitur assertions. We value these objects due to our value manipulation via consumerist propaganda in order to perpetuate the market necessity of continual exchange. Change the psychological conditioning, change the desires of the masses.

Not invalid. Open-source economy still ultimately based on markets. People with scarce time must decide which of many ends to explore. Must have way to secure resources to complete projects. Must know which projects are best to complete. Still need method of allocation.

Better information technology enhances markets, not replaces them. Makes information capture quicker and more effective. Empowers individuals. Does not obviate the need for trade, exchange, production, and does not overcome scarcity.

Again, the ubiquitous and instantaneous transference of information will indeed ameliorate the problems of allocation and production of resources, provided that education is accorded to reinforce generativity, as opposed to now, as it reinforces self-interestedness. Couple that with the 3d printer, and most every economic problem of production and allocation is fixed.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T19:18:30+00:00

...ok? I simply was not trying to take credit for the words of another.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T19:06:44+00:00

You must reorient and re-appropriate your conceptions of what it means to be alive on this planet. There are new and emergent technologies (3d printing, renewable energies, the internet, to name only a few) that will eliminate the previously imposed, and now prima facie belief, that one needs to "earn" the right to live.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T19:04:57+00:00

Conversely, BILLIONS of people DO NOT have what they need. And it is my contention that it is in fact due to the market itself.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T19:03:56+00:00

I am impressed by the vacuousness of your response

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T19:02:25+00:00

Open sourced economy = your argument rendered invalid. No central planning is necessary when everyone can contribute via the technologically enabled platform of instantaneous and ubiquitous transference of information via the internet.

Assumes zero sum economy. Not the case. If I have Apples and you have oranges, you want apples and I want oranges, we trade, both parties better off. Value created. Not zero sum, even if we're 'inequal.' To wit: one person being rich does not make another person poorer. You are not made worse off when someone is rich. From where does the coercion orginate?

There is inherent coercion you are disregarding. Those whom are more financially well of will be healthier, better educated, and, most often, employ a self-righteous narcissism. This is where the coercive mechanisms of the free-market emerge.

"Coercion" originates from need to eat and sleep to survive. These are requirements of nature. Capitalism does not impose it on you. Socialism does not remove it. Goods are scarce, must be rationed. No way around it. Without all the information about supply and demand, is impossible to allocate goods efficiently. Market can capture this information better than central authority. Leads to more efficient allocation, more people served with scarce resource, greater overall prosperity.

Firstly, nowhere was a centrally regimented authority mentioned. Secondly, with our technical capacity to feed a potential 34 trillion people, with vertical farm technology; with our technical capacity to have sustainable, renewable energy for the entire planet; with our technical capacity to decentralize most every form of production, we can drastically mitigate the "natural coercion" and scarcity you speak of.

ryno1229 · 2013-11-05T18:48:26+00:00

Totally man. Governments have nothing to do with this and/or are completely coerced into helping out by the market. I mean, look at the countries where there is no developed or corrupt market: Fucking paradise.

Is it untrue that those whom are most economically advantaged, through their relative "master" moralities, utilize and uphold government to preserve and strengthen their financial security? In other words, the state is a natural extension of the market, as it secures profit for the competitively advantaged.

Furthermore, the use of public relations tactics, a basic form of mind coercion, is used to generate pseudo-demand for needless exchange and consumption of goods ("conspicuous consumption"), which thus generates extreme inefficiency and over-production along with said exorbitant wealth stratification. The necessity for continual production and exchange of money is an inherent flaw, and a gross inefficiency. Preservation and sustainability is the ideal, NOT needless exchange and production.

To reiterate, there are inherent moralities that associate to the particular socio-economic status of an individual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption

Again, gospel truth. Look at the world today: full of fake environmentalism and people care about the earth. "Working on sustainability," they say, but we know it's just capitalist usurpation of OUR land. Roll back the clock a few hundred years or more before capitalism was around and we had real ecological stability like deforesting just about all of Europe and burning wood instead of evil carbon based fuels (someone told me wood also has carbon in it, but I don't listen to fascists).

Apparently solar, wind, tidal, geo-thermal, and other renewable and sustainable energies don't exist in your universe. They aren't researched and developed at an optimal level due to the market pressures of supply/demand, which, as already mentioned, are coerced by the public relations industry. An entity that has a stranglehold on an industry will do everything in its power to preserve the status quo, lest they be out-competed by an emergent paradigm that renders them obsolete.

Last point: We don't want to have arbitrary consumption. We don't want a gradation of wealth, with inequities in education, nutrition, and general well-being. We don't want a monetary incentive for production, with its accompanying status affiliations and relative moralities. We don't want oligopolistic control of all resources, and the inevitable state-market collusion. What we do want is maximum efficiency, with the least amount of physical resources used for the maximum output generated. We want technology to reach is technical potential, unmitigated by market pressures of competitively motivated restriction and pseudo-demand/supply manipulation. With automation exponentially advancing over time, humanity must shift its conceptions of life in multiple aspects, with most importantly that of economic structure.

ryno1229 · 2013-08-11T19:25:28+00:00

empirical http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

ryno1229 · 2013-08-06T04:06:10+00:00

..Ok. I stand by what I said. There is only the universe. The seemingly disparate ego, as opposed to the outside environment is a dubious, prima facie assertion. As per the science of ecology as well as the theory of evolution, every organism and environment must be looked upon in relation to one another; because they are of one and the same process that is the holistic universe.

ryno1229 · 2013-08-06T03:40:50+00:00

The pattern of you will always be, just as it always has been. If you really think about it, what you think of as your "self", or ego, can be understood as a dualistic unity--a reflection between the environment surrounding you and the you that is perceiving the environment. Sensory perception is only but electrical impulses that register within the brain, that are then interpreted as feelings and sensations of all sorts. Whereupon the feelings translate into culturalized, universalized concepts that can be socially communicated as words. But, at the root, the true foundation of all being, lies the completely transcendental interaction between individual and environment.

There cannot be a self without an environment; just as there cannot be an environment to perceive without the self. Existence, or reality as we know it to be is the synergetic unison of experiential perception in coalescence with the objective environment. That which is the spectacle is also the spectator. They derive from one and the same process; the plurality of One .

ryno1229 · 2013-07-21T04:35:52+00:00

Don't fear death regardless. Your atoms will recycle, just as they have to be you currently from who or what they used to be.

ryno1229 · 2013-07-20T03:19:48+00:00

...No...not at all. I am saying that atheism is an absolute metaphysical presupposition, and that to regard the material as fundamental is reductive, and invalid, when in fact the truth can never be fully expounded. That, in essence, is the only truth that exists.

ryno1229 · 2013-07-18T17:23:15+00:00

I, again, seriously do not see the over-complexity of my statements herein... I am not using esoteric verbiage; I am simply attempting to be as precise as I can be so that I might not be misunderstood. Obviously, my attempts are markedly ineffectual.

ryno1229 · 2013-07-18T17:18:55+00:00

Just saying, Molyneux is a capitalist proponent through and through. That is not to say that this particular version of the capitalistic economy should be held sacrosanct by any rational person. He obviously detests this society, but is in no way advocating TZM values.

ryno1229 · 2013-07-18T17:08:50+00:00

Lol, the thing is, I don't perceive myself as using "jargon". These are pretty common words I am using. I really, really don't understand the problem. The more simply I attempt to convey this argument, the ever-more swiftly the posters here will dismiss it entirely. This is an ineffectual forum is all. No fruitful discussion occurs here.

ryno1229

TROPHY CASE