"Rather, the problem with AP is that it is mob rule at its worst. There are no checks and balances. It is the height of folly to suppose that AP would be used only against those whom cypherpunks themselves oppose, like corrupt government agents. AP could be used against anyone who has a high profile. If AP were implemented, there is no question but that Jim Bell would be one of the first targets! All those people who found himself on his list, along with their heirs and successors, would want revenge. Everyone involved with the assassinations would be anonymous except Bell himself, making him the most prominent target of their wrath. Other notable supporters of crypto anarchy would follow soon, such as cypherpunk founders May and Hughes. The people involved with the digital cash would be targets as well, and so on." Extract from 'nomen nescio' There are checks and balances,get a grip.Read the essay.Its self limiting.No one who is anonymous has anything to fear from AP.They do have a lot to fear from the rogue terror state USA. Bell and I are willing to die,maybe even cj.It will be worth it and theoretically no one need die.Would you start paying to have people killed risking the knowledge of that getting out? There is a disgusting lack of belief in peoples common sense and decency on this list,refs to 'sheeple' etc.Tim said its an openly elitist list once.Thats distorted your view of humanity I think.Tim is too fearful of AP as one of the 4 horsemen. I worry more about pedophiles,the end result of turbocharged capitalism.There are pedo brothel owners that need to be nominated for operation soft drill.I need their names.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, mattd wrote:
There are checks and balances,get a grip.Read the essay.
No, there are not.
Its self limiting.No one who is anonymous has anything to fear from AP.
The only way that AP would be harmless to an anonymous person is if they were anonymous to EVERYONE. The entire point of AP is to provide a mechanism to reach ANYONE who might infringe upon your 'rights'. Trying to pitch AP as if only certain classes of people are at risk is simply ignorance (you didn't really read AP now did you) or else you intentionaly misrepresent. Either way, your point isn't valid. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 09:53 AM 12/11/01 +1100, mattd wrote:
Tim said its an openly elitist list once.
Yes, so is an university. A meritocracy is necessarily discriminatory.
Deal with it.
Don't confuse having a high standard of excellence with simple egotism (which is the majority of the cases with both your examples). And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, not what somebody else thinks it's worth. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:16 PM 12/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
Merit is inevitably judged by "somebody else". And discriminating on the basis of merit is tautologically discriminatory. D'oh.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 11:16 PM 12/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
Merit is inevitably judged by "somebody else". And discriminating on the basis of merit is tautologically discriminatory.
Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy of the solution. That's a TECHNICAL measure, not emotional or social. Discrimination is inherently ILLOGICAL (ie emotional), which puts it in direct odds with the concept of 'merit'. Further, a meritocracy makes judgements about worth based on the solution not the source. Source filtering is inherent in discrimination, hence they can't be synonymous or layered.
D'oh.
Doh indeed. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:33 PM 12/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
Merit is inevitably judged by "somebody else". And discriminating on the basis of merit is tautologically discriminatory.
Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy of the solution. That's a TECHNICAL measure, not emotional or social.
But who is the judge of the value of various measures?
Discrimination is inherently ILLOGICAL (ie emotional), which puts it in direct odds with the concept of 'merit'.
No, you're taking the PC distortion of the word. Without discrimination (of food vs. poison, or good vs. bad behavior for instance) you are dead. Keep your immune system up.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy of the solution. That's a TECHNICAL measure, not emotional or social.
Yes, but someone somewhere is in charge of making the decision that something is more or less efficient. How do you measure merit for instance for literature? There can be little technical measures. Sure, you can measure grammer and spelling, and use of vocabulary, but you cannot measure creativity by technical means.
Discrimination is inherently ILLOGICAL (ie emotional), which puts it in direct odds with the concept of 'merit'.
Discrimination is simply the chosing of A over B, C, D, and E. It is not necessarily emotional. When someone choses mates, he/she does so by picking the mate that is most likely to guarantee the sucess of their offspring. When someone has discriminating taste, it means that they aren't likely to eat at McDonalds. Further, discriminating between food and poison is a very good thing and has everything to do with logic. The goal of every being is to survive and to produce offspring. It is therefore a good thing if that being can discriminate between sweet and bitter flavors. Sweet flavors are more likely to provide nutrition whereas bitter flavors may indicate posion. Merit simply discriminates between those who have done the work, and therefore are worthy of the reward, and those who haven't. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
Further, a meritocracy makes judgements about worth based on the solution not the source. Source filtering is inherent in discrimination, hence they can't be synonymous or layered.
D'oh.
Doh indeed.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
Bumper Sticker
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, you mean like the parable of the ants and the grasshopper? Where the ants get the results of the work they put into it, and the grasshopper who didn't do any work starves and freezes in the winter? So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past with because it's capitalism is now a good thing. So are you finally evolving? ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 09:53 AM 12/11/01 +1100, mattd wrote:
Tim said its an openly elitist list once.
Yes, so is an university. A meritocracy is necessarily discriminatory.
Deal with it.
Don't confuse having a high standard of excellence with simple egotism (which is the majority of the cases with both your examples).
And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
Bumper Sticker
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past with because it's capitalism is now a good thing.
I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a problem with, greed <> good. Commerce <> Capitalism (which will come as a shock to a lot of CACL promoters when/if they ever realize it). -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 09:40 PM 12/13/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a problem with, greed <> good.
Is the basic human drive to better one's circumstances bad, Jim?
And your point is? There is a distinction (you apparently don't catch from your querry) between trying to improve yourself and greed, which is the improvement of oneself at the expence of others and common sense. Not birds of the same feather. Someday the CACL contingent might catch the clue...but I ain't holding my breath. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
So from your reply, I'll assume the answer to my "So are you finally evolving?" question is still No. I, and everyone in the world, is aware that commerce != capitalism, and that you are avoiding the question. As there are no CACL promoters (except in Choate') it is not possible for them to suppose otherwise. Even in Choate' CACL promoters are aware that commerce != capitalism. Capitalism is of course the system that allows commerce to happen. Commerce is not legally possible in a communist or fascist system as such a system does not allow private ownership. You still have avoided the question of the ants and the grasshopper. To quote you again:
And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
So by this answer you are stating that the grasshopper merits death and the ants merit survival. There is no amount of twisting you can perform to escape this, other than a retraction of your statements. As such a system (a meritocracy) necessitates the reward of those who perform work and the demise of those who do not, socialism does not fit in here. You don't get a C- and get to pass in a meritocracy. You work and survive, or don't and die. One good example of a meritocratic system is capitalism. You work or you have money, you make money, you get to buy food, you get to buy/rent shelter, you get to attract mates and thus propagate. You don't work and you have no money, you don't get to survive. Therefore by your statement above that you have no problem with a meritocracy, and my statement that capitalism is a meritocracy, you have to agree that you also have no problem with capitalism. Notice, I did not say greed. Nor does Merriam Webster mention greed in the definition of capitalism. See www.m-w.com Main Entry: cap7i7tal7ism Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l- Function: noun Date: 1877 : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past with because it's capitalism is now a good thing. So are you finally evolving?
I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a problem with, greed <> good.
Commerce <> Capitalism (which will come as a shock to a lot of CACL promoters when/if they ever realize it).
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
Bumper Sticker
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
So from your reply, I'll assume the answer to my "So are you finally evolving?" question is still No.
Sorry, you can't imply anything other than what is openly stated in my commentary. Implicatives will bite you in the butt.
I, and everyone in the world, is aware that commerce != capitalism,
Not hardly.
and that you are avoiding the question.
And EXACTLY what question might that be? You ramble so much it gets hard to follow what you're talking about NOW. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
So from your reply, I'll assume the answer to my "So are you finally evolving?" question is still No.
Sorry, you can't imply anything other than what is openly stated in my commentary. Implicatives will bite you in the butt.
I'll take that to still mean "No" :)
I, and everyone in the world, is aware that commerce != capitalism,
Not hardly.
To whom does "Not hardly" refer to exactly? Care to point the individual names of those who are not aware that commerce != capitalism so that we can both ask them?
and that you are avoiding the question.
And EXACTLY what question might that be? You ramble so much it gets hard to follow what you're talking about NOW.
Deja Vue. Now if you'd only see yourself through that lens. The question I asked you was in this quote: On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
Oh, you mean like the parable of the ants and the grasshopper? Where the ants get the results of the work they put into it, and the grasshopper who didn't do any work starves and freezes in the winter?
So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past with because it's capitalism is now a good thing.
Which was in response to this message: On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
Don't confuse having a high standard of excellence with simple egotism (which is the majority of the cases with both your examples).
And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, not what somebody else thinks it's worth.
Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat; Those who don't starve) and you've stated that meritocracies are good, are you at long last saying that capitalism is a good thing? ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat;
That is certainly a good definition of 'commerce', it is not accurate for 'capitalism'. Capitalism represents the belief that $$$ is the primary goal in life. That he who collects the most is the best. That all things can be reduced to a 'price'. It is a faulty assumption and a warped view of humanity. As are yours. Finis. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not worth the effort. It's not worth the effort. It won't make a damn bit of difference. Oh, fuckit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:57:15PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat;
That is certainly a good definition of 'commerce', it is not accurate for 'capitalism'. Capitalism represents the belief that $$$ is the primary goal in life. That he who collects the most is the best. That all things can be reduced to a 'price'.
No. Capitalism is a meritocracy. *Commerce* is simply a label for that class of activities that include all forms of resource transfer from one entity (person, company, nation, world) to another. Some of those are meritocracies, such as capitalism. Others are not - true communism is one example, almost any form of "planned economy", welfare. As for your definition of capitalism - lay the crack pipe *down*, and slowly step away. Capitalism, pure and simple, is the idea that competition and market forces will solve problems. Price of bread too high? Someone will open a cheaper bakery. Too many bakeries for the market? Those with the weakest support and poorest quality will fail. That's all. Everything else is an add-on. It's a meritcracy because emotion and sentiment are not supposed to enter into the equation - either succeed or fail, based on how well you compete. Period. Reality is not that simple, but then, reality seldom is.
It is a faulty assumption and a warped view of humanity. As are yours.
Hello Mr. Pot, and how are you today? What's that? Who's black?
Finis.
I'm beginning to think that Mr. Choate should never, ever, be allowed to declare a discussion finished or claim to have the "last word". -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org
But you must admit it's funny watching him stumble in new and unprecedented ways. :) I can't resist it either. Aw hell, it beats watching the comedy channel and he's at least twice as funny... ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
It's not worth the effort. It's not worth the effort. It won't make a damn bit of difference.
Oh, fuckit.
ROTFL! :)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
Capitalism is a meritocracy. *Commerce* is simply a label for that class of activities that include all forms of resource transfer from one entity (person, company, nation, world) to another. Some of those are meritocracies, such as capitalism. Others are not - true communism is one example, almost any form of "planned economy", welfare.
Communism can't be a form of Capitalism. In fact they are the anti-thesis. Actually capitalism is the belief that it's the ONLY mechanism to solve problems. That IS the problem, that is also the difference between 'commerce' and 'capitalism'. In commerce, trade is the means that people use to protect themselves and provide for themselves. Capitalism is the use of money to manage the society. Not the same thing at all. 'commerce' is a means, 'capitalism' is an end. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 19 December 2001 07:23 pm, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
Capitalism is a meritocracy. *Commerce* is simply a label for that class of activities that include all forms of resource transfer from one entity (person, company, nation, world) to another. Some of those are meritocracies, such as capitalism. Others are not - true communism is one example, almost any form of "planned economy", welfare.
Communism can't be a form of Capitalism. In fact they are the anti-thesis.
Would you mind sticking to the topic? I did not say Communism was a form of Capitalism, I said Capitalism and Communism were both forms of Commerce.
Actually capitalism is the belief that it's the ONLY mechanism to solve problems.
No. The belief that capitalism is the only mechanism to solve problems is philosophy, not commerce, and pretty bad philosophy at that.
That IS the problem, that is also the difference between 'commerce' and 'capitalism'.
Are you learning impaired?
In commerce, trade is the means that people use to protect themselves and provide for themselves. Capitalism is the use of money to manage the society. Not the same thing at all. 'commerce' is a means, 'capitalism' is an end.
- -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8IV0jBxcVTa6Gy5wRAnTBAJ9PNA4DmLixqdZIpdpCs0Xo8c2ypQCgtU+f 6ETkaMBDSqLzIC6PerGHdK8= =dRoC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 07:23 pm, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
Capitalism is a meritocracy. *Commerce* is simply a label for that class of activities that include all forms of resource transfer from one entity (person, company, nation, world) to another. Some of those are meritocracies, such as capitalism. Others are not - true communism is one example, almost any form of "planned economy", welfare.
Communism can't be a form of Capitalism. In fact they are the anti-thesis.
Would you mind sticking to the topic? I did not say Communism was a form of Capitalism, I said Capitalism and Communism were both forms of Commerce.
Just checking. So you recognize a distinction between 'capitalism' and 'commerce' too...
No. The belief that capitalism is the only mechanism to solve problems is philosophy, not commerce, and pretty bad philosophy at that.
And what makes you think capitalism isn't just that, a philosophy. In fact 'capitalism' is just like 'communism' or 'democracy', or even anarcho-capitalism, in that respect. It's nothing more than the prioritization of goals and resources. It's distinction is that it posits that by making lots of money all the other problems somehow take care of themselves. "In the long run it'll all work out". Assuming of course there is still anyone around...God $$$ Fascism is what Capitalism is. "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Anonymous 'Commerce' has two definitions. The first is involving the economic exchange of goods and services. The second is any interchange between individuals. It's worth noting the 1st definition can't exist without the second, the contrary can't be said. It's hard to have a market if there is no individual interaction, this implies of course one of two conclusions. That 'economic commerce' and 'inter-personal' commerce are either equivalent, or 'inter-personal' encompasses at least 'economic commerce' (and I'm speaking from an axiomatic and algorithmic perspective if that's not clear, not philosophical). And this after all brings us right back to the original question. "Does everything have a price or not?" -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I knew this would happen, I just knew it... On Wednesday 19 December 2001 08:02 pm, Jim Choate wrote:
<snip>
Would you mind sticking to the topic? I did not say Communism was a form of Capitalism, I said Capitalism and Communism were both forms of Commerce.
Just checking. So you recognize a distinction between 'capitalism' and 'commerce' too...
<bangs head repeatedly against wall> Of course there's a frigging distinction. I said that the first time around. My problem with your statement is not that you said there was a distinction, it was your definition.
No. The belief that capitalism is the only mechanism to solve problems is philosophy, not commerce, and pretty bad philosophy at that.
And what makes you think capitalism isn't just that, a philosophy.
Capitalism is not philosophy for the same reason that a dog is not cheese. Capitalism is a economic system, a form of commerce, and nothing more. Philosophy is a method of looking at the world around you and attempting to apply a system of rules to it. You can have a philosophy that includes capitalism - either positivly or negatively - but you cannot have capitalism *as* a philosophy. That is quite literally like saying having a nice car is happiness. It's not. Having a nice car might make you happy, but it is not itself happiness. Please go back to third grade and relearn the concept of symbolism.
In fact 'capitalism' is just like 'communism' or 'democracy', or even anarcho-capitalism, in that respect. It's nothing more than the prioritization of goals and resources.
No. "Capitalism" is an economic system. "Democracy" is a form of government, one of the classic forms as a matter of fact. "Communism" is both, but it is not the same thing - Communist government is essentially a form of pure democracy, in that all members of the commune have an equal say in the distribution of the resources of the commune, exactly as a pure democracy does. Communism as an economic system is a model which posits the distribution of resources (output) based purely on need, and the distribution of work (input) purely on ability, with relationship defined between input and output.
It's distinction is that it posits that by making lots of money all the other problems somehow take care of themselves. "In the long run it'll all work out". Assuming of course there is still anyone around...God $$$ Fascism is what Capitalism is.
No. I already defined capitalism. You weren't paying attention. Five demerits. What you have defined is a philosophy, a belief system which incorporates capitalism. The important difference is that your philosophy, in an infantile way, ascribes motives and emotions to the workings of capitalism. This is incorrect.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
Anonymous
You mean: "When all you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails." Samual Clemens a.k.a. Mark Twain Attribution, Iago, attribution!
'Commerce' has two definitions. The first is involving the economic exchange of goods and services. The second is any interchange between individuals.
Your first definition is doublespeak. You just stated that commerce is an "economic" exchange of goods and services. Economics are of course a major portion of commerce - in fact, if you include in "economics" emotional exchanges, it can be said to be equal to commerce. So your statement is semantically true, but valueless, since anything is of course equal to itself. Your second is a limited definition - change "individuals" to "any entity" and you have exactly the same definition I gave when I joined the thread, in contradiction to your own statement about the definition of commerce and capitalism.
commerce' (and I'm speaking from an axiomatic and algorithmic perspective if that's not clear, not philosophical).
You can speak axiomatically, or algorithmically, but you can't do both. Axiomatic is philisophical, algorithmic is mathematical. The two are not synonymous.
And this after all brings us right back to the original question.
"Does everything have a price or not?"
Which is an interesting (if pointless) question, but it's not the original question. The original question is whether or not you were giving the correct definitions of commerce and capitalism, and of course you were not. Raise your hand if you're shocked. - -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8IXobBxcVTa6Gy5wRAvlAAJ9mhJZ8XU+d5e3jpdZPWgnZ4zT/SACeJUTV qD/EtEXHgVYfY8ghCELtxQo= =XtOs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: "Matt Beland" <matt@rearviewmirror.org>
It's not worth the effort. It's not worth the effort. It won't make a damn bit of difference.
Oh, fuckit.
:) Think of it like this: I'm not replying for the sake of convincing the idiot, but for those "close to the edge" who might be influenced by Choate if he's not challenged. Mark
Warped indeed. Maybe inChoate' capitalism means that. As per Merriam-Webster's, in this dimention and in the English language it means the following: Main Entry: cap7i7tal7ism Pronunciation: 'ka-p&-t&l-"iz-&m, 'kap-t&l-, British also k&-'pi-t&l- Function: noun Date: 1877 : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market (As cut and pasted from www.m-w.com) Note the words "private" and "ownership" and "goods" which are not possible in a fascist, communist, or socialist state. Note the lack of the words "greed" or "belief that $$$ is the primary goal in life" or "he who collects the most is the best." All it claims to be is a system that allows private/corporate ownership of goods where decisions are made by private (versus government) decision and of course "free market." ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat;
That is certainly a good definition of 'commerce', it is not accurate for 'capitalism'. Capitalism represents the belief that $$$ is the primary goal in life. That he who collects the most is the best. That all things can be reduced to a 'price'.
It is a faulty assumption and a warped view of humanity. As are yours.
Finis.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
Bumper Sticker
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (7)
-
David Honig -
Jim Choate -
Jim Choate -
Marcel Popescu -
Matt Beland -
mattd -
Sunder