This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Dustin
91
« on: February 22, 2015, 02:15:41 PM »
Shut the fuck up Deci.
92
« on: February 22, 2015, 02:13:48 PM »
How would you say the government can increase competitiveness while not interfering through regulations?
The first thing it can do is stop shielding business from competition. I know you'll disagree how that could be done, but I'd like to think getting rid of congress would eliminate the majority of the selling out. I guess you could also just make it 'more illegal' for businesses to bribe congressmen to vote a certain way. And yeah know... all the other ways businesses are shielded. As far as regulations go, I'm more undecided. I guess you kind of need to look at it at a case-by-case basis. I'm sure there are some regulations that are ineffective and inefficient and I'm sure there are some that actually help. If you're asking about corporate taxes, I can see a strong argument how they could done away with. I'm only concerned about how the government will be able to afford its expenses without corporate taxes. You also have to consider the shielding of the people from competition, which ought to be done away with as well. But I wouldn't confuse that with eliminating welfare for the poor. It's my personal bias that helping raise poor children can help the economy. There are certainly plenty of examples of poor children who grow up to be a valuable member to society and the economy. I think the majority of questions dealing with whether or not a law helps promote competition or drags it down are generally black and white (probably wrong there but whatever). I'd say that bail outs for large banks and corporations are the biggest gray areas for whether they increase or decrease competition.
93
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:40:57 PM »
I've been reading Adam Smith lately who was the first person to popularize the theory back before the American and French revolutions. I just found it interesting how so much of what he theorized had absolutely nothing to do with our modern economy. My favorite example is human labor. Smith said that as demand for labor increased, wages increased, and that allowed people to raise more children into adulthood, due to the very high mortality rate back ~250 years ago. As more children would survive until adulthood, the supply of labor would increase and wages would fall down again. Capitalism originally relied on the mass deaths of children, pretty spooky stuff if you ask me.
And there are many other processes that Smith wasn't aware of at his time, processes that haven't let capitalism become dysfunctional, but rather highly inefficient. Letting the market function as naturally as possible isn't the best way to bring about competition, and thus human flourishing. Rather, letting the market run as competitively as possible is the best way. The government should function as the independent variable, and ultimately take responsibility for the well being of the economy. But unfortunately the government doesn't work to increase competition wherever possible. And that's because businesses essentially run the government, and use it to shield themselves from competition. And alas, the natural route isn't the most competitive route. And if the founding fathers were aware of this distinction, we would live in a much better world today.
Disagreements on the distinction between a natural market and a competitively-endorsed market?
94
« on: February 22, 2015, 01:15:21 PM »
You can be a climate scientist and legitimately be unconvinced to anthropogenic global warming. It isn't bribery for 100% of all cases. Scientists are generally some of the most logically minded people, but that doesn't mean they'll perfectly apply it all the time. And of course, nothing in science is ever an absolute guarantee. Weather and climate patterns are especially unpredictable and misleading. I'm not a climate change denier apologist, but I can understand how intelligent people deviate from the scientific consensus.
95
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:15:28 PM »
The answer is obvious: if you don't get to see her again, move on. A fucking internet forum isn't going to get you passed the stage of grief. For fucks sake, do you really consider anyone here comforting?
It was more of a case of getting shit out there. My real friends weren't going to do anything. At least on here people would acknowledge me.
That's what females are for. Biologically speaking, women tend to be more nurturing and emotionally-friendly, that's at least what I learned in my anthro class. Most guys are power-hungry, tough-loving dicks. Just the way it is.
96
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:12:01 PM »
Is this you or someone else?
97
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:09:59 PM »
The answer is obvious: if you don't get to see her again, move on. A fucking internet forum isn't going to get you passed the stage of grief. For fucks sake, do you really consider anyone here comforting?
98
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:07:44 PM »
I'm fine.
99
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:03:55 PM »
That's not even expensive compared to college, get over yourself.
>2015
>paying for college
lol i bet you made below a 900 on your SAT
I don't plan on living in the woods
100
« on: February 21, 2015, 11:00:16 PM »
That's not even expensive compared to college, get over yourself.
101
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:42:10 PM »
I only dislike the notion of property in the sense that I think it's bullshit that some people aren't living with the bare necessities. Everyone should have a house, everyone should have access to clean water, electricity, heating, and everyone should have a computer with a connection to the Internet. Everyone.
So, if "property" is implied to mean "stuff that you own that other people do not," then yeah, fuck that notion of property.
I don't get the point; because this change you want to happen is impossible, our species should willingly die out. You don't think that isn't also an impossible change? If you really cared about human suffering you'd become a scientist or an engineer, not a fucking English major.
102
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:38:41 PM »
I'm not even really talking about capitalism specifically, but I didn't really make clear there was a built in assumption that people complaining about the notion of money weren't opposed to the idea of personal property in general.
If you are opposed to the existence of personal property in general, then okay. But if you're not, then money is just shorthand for property, there's really nothing to demonize it for there.
Rarely do I read some complaint about money controlling people's lives and get the impression they don't think people should own property.
If they're not advocating something like a resource-based economy, they're probably just emotionally-triggered by the idea of money running people's lives--probably some pseudo-liberal ideal they were instilled into when they were a kid. The only problem with a resource-based economy is that it implies that the people who add to an economy (e.g. engineers, miners, movie producers, etc.) will still continue to innovate, invent, and make things more efficient without the benefit of money or some other kind of reward. It's essentially the old socialist logical fallacy that rejects human nature in favor of fantasy.
103
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:28:30 PM »
Ultimately everything you post here is, scratch that, everything you post here can be for the betterment of yourself, even if that betterment is just flushing away boredom with nonsensical shitposting (and hey, I have a different idea of shitposting than the rest of you guys, big woop). I'm not emotionally unstable if that's what you think my occasional spam is about.
Any other questions you'd like to ask?
Oh transgenders maybe? Yeah I'm not actually anti-trans, that's just shitposting. Please quit caring about anyone's supposed opinions, it's fucking irrelevant.
104
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:17:55 PM »
my inclination is not to take people seriously when they decry the evils of money because money is just an abstraction and the existence of the abstraction doesn't change the fact that goods and services have value and there is a finite amount of them to go around
someone is welcome to try to convince me I'm missing something
I highly doubt capitalism is the best economic system there is, maybe just the best one put into practice and conceived of.
105
« on: February 21, 2015, 09:15:46 PM »
Nah, Psychology is interesting as well as Neuroscience. Learn the brain, and the person.
Neuroscience will get you maybe $40-50k a year... if you're a doctor. Hope you can manage the pay cut, rich boy.
106
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:56:33 PM »
No. I feel happy that they've found something that they're passionate in.
Are you stupid? How the fuck do you plan on living without money?
107
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:41:54 PM »
Oh my god, who the hell cares?
108
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:41:02 PM »
109
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:35:27 PM »
Fuck these faggoty attention whore threads.
> A10SHIN WHORING > ANONYMOUS LOL
110
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:33:20 PM »
HAHAHHA IT'S LIKE WE'VE ONLY USED THIS JOKE LIKE TWICE NOW RIGHT? LOL IM SO FUNNY HAHAHA
111
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:21:05 PM »
IT DOESN'T HAVE A FUCKING SUM IT'S A FUCKING INFINITE NUMBER YOU DUMB FUCKS EVERYONE KNOWS THEY JUST MAKE THIS BULLSHIT UP TO SOUND COOL AND CATCHY FOR THE KIDS BUT IT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE YOU STUPID FUCKING RETARDS THE Y INTERCEPT IS -1/12, NOT THE FUCKING SUM, STUPID JEWISH NIGGERS 
112
« on: February 21, 2015, 06:13:59 PM »
I'm a (mostly) straight A college student (engineering major) with lots of friends so I'm not a loser like the philosophy faggots on this forum. But these ignorant little cunts actually think philosophy isn't a bunch of bullshit. Everything to know about 'what there is' can be answered with science, not a bunch of language rhetorical bullshit pseudo science aka philosophy. Fuck you faggots, you know who you are.
113
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:59:22 PM »
I was/am Rose
Not the original, but the one that came to Septagon.
114
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:56:35 PM »
115
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:51:52 PM »
Dustin we should set up an insurance company to scam max
Aren't you still a dumb democrat
LOL NOT GONNA HAPPEN YALL BITCHES HATE CAPITALISM AND BUSINESS
What does political affiliation have to do with scamming max?
You don't get to handle the business side of things
116
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:50:22 PM »
Dustin we should set up an insurance company to scam max
Aren't you still a dumb democrat LOL NOT GONNA HAPPEN YALL BITCHES HATE CAPITALISM AND BUSINESS
117
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:49:15 PM »
Step 1: Convert to Islam
Step 2: Move to Britbongistan
Step 3: Rape children
Step 4: Tell cops they're racist if they tell you to stop
Step 5: Watch as the cops won't arrest you
118
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:46:40 PM »
Please just...go.
It's just sad at this point.
Nobody's laughing. Nobody's making jokes. It's just you doing this stupid shit all the time.
BITCH BITCH BITCH
Insurance is a scam, you save no money. That's a fucking fact bitch nigger jew homosexual tranny cunt boy fucker.
Is this entertaining for you?
Watching you lose money to the jews? Yes, I find it absolutely hilarious. That's why I'm putting up no effort to convince you that insurance is a fucking scam.
119
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:44:14 PM »
Please just...go.
It's just sad at this point.
Nobody's laughing. Nobody's making jokes. It's just you doing this stupid shit all the time.
BITCH BITCH BITCH Insurance is a scam, you save no money. That's a fucking fact bitch nigger jew homosexual tranny cunt boy fucker.
120
« on: February 21, 2015, 05:42:36 PM »
I think I get the point that you're trying to get across, however I don't understand how that might be more consistent than the other of way of conceiving them. For example laws like the conservation of energy can be reformulated in this negative way and still say the same thing. In fact according to David Deutsch(which some people may call a kook, but is nevertheless one of the god fathers of quantum computing) all laws are essentially statements that tell us what is impossible.
You also may want to look into Charles Sanders Pierce who hypothesized that natural laws may change according to a type of selection effect similar to biology.
I get that it pretty much makes no difference 99.99% of the time, but there are times when it does make a difference.
|
Show Posts
