Why "social justice" is bullshit

Mr. Psychologist · May 09, 2015, 05:57:53 PM

FYI for anyone who is confused by the arrival and immediate departure of Pigeon Master, the account was using a VPN and thus shouldn't have been approved, I clicked the wrong button so my bad >_>

Pretty sure it's dustin going by some of the information to hand, so uhh if anyone wants to protest this PM me otherwise ignore and move on ITT >_>

More Than Mortal · May 09, 2015, 06:00:00 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 05:57:00 PM

?

Probably Dustin.

Verbatim · May 09, 2015, 06:01:39 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 05:56:11 PM

The function of an economy cannot be labeled "evil", because there's no intrinsic value of "good" or "evil" about it.

wow that made a lot of sense

yes, letting the public (the bulk of which is made up my fucking dumb shitheads who think anything is worth anything) decide how to run the economy is so intelligent and totally not evil at all

/s

Quote

Oh and it's not dysfunctional.

i like the part where you never explained how it isn't dysfunctional

your economy is broken if value is decided by our perception alone

that is SO
fucking
stupid

More Than Mortal · May 09, 2015, 06:02:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:01:39 PM

(the bulk of which is made up my fucking dumb shitheads who think anything is worth anything)

And intellectuals have the capacity to plan it?

Verbatim · May 09, 2015, 06:09:00 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 09, 2015, 06:02:18 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:01:39 PM
(the bulk of which is made up my fucking dumb shitheads who think anything is worth anything)
And intellectuals have the capacity to plan it?

well, they're intellectuals, aren't they?

i don't think it takes much brilliance to figure out that the basic needs of life (food, clothing, and shelter) shouldn't be commodified, let alone sold for so much, that only the most privileged can have any access to the highest qualities of them

aREALgod · May 09, 2015, 06:09:14 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:01:39 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 05:56:11 PM
The function of an economy cannot be labeled "evil", because there's no intrinsic value of "good" or "evil" about it.
wow that made a lot of sense

yes, letting the public (the bulk of which is made up my fucking dumb shitheads who think anything is worth anything) decide how to run the economy is so intelligent and totally not evil at all

/s
Quote
Oh and it's not dysfunctional.
i like the part where you never explained how it isn't dysfunctional

your economy is broken if value is decided by our perception alone

that is SO
fucking
stupid

Oh, so who should decide how it's run? You? You have no grasp on economics.

And LOL are you fucking stupid? There is no perception other than our own to go off of, so how would we even value it by anything else? Make something up? Magic? Unicorns? We have one perception and one perception only - our own. So yeah, I think it's a good idea to value things by it, rather than something that doesn't exist.

challengerX · May 09, 2015, 06:11:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · May 09, 2015, 06:11:52 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 06:09:14 PM

Oh, so who should decide how it's run? You? You have no grasp on economics.

did i ever say that it should be me?

no

Quote

And LOL are you fucking stupid? There is no perception other than our own to go off of, so how would we even value it by anything else? Make something up? Magic? Unicorns? We have one perception and one perception only - our own. So yeah, I think it's a good idea to value things by it, rather than something that doesn't exist.

how about:

destroy currency

work for your bread, not for green pieces of paper

aREALgod · May 09, 2015, 06:13:30 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:11:52 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 06:09:14 PM
Oh, so who should decide how it's run? You? You have no grasp on economics.
did i ever say that it should be me?

no
Quote
And LOL are you fucking stupid? There is no perception other than our own to go off of, so how would we even value it by anything else? Make something up? Magic? Unicorns? We have one perception and one perception only - our own. So yeah, I think it's a good idea to value things by it, rather than something that doesn't exist.
how about:

destroy currency

work for your bread, not for green pieces of paper

You're implying it by making assertions that the economy is "evil" and must be changed.

Also, sorry, but it doesn't work like that. We don't value off of merit. There's no basis to value anything from it.

Verbatim · May 09, 2015, 06:14:05 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 09, 2015, 06:11:37 PM

I'm too tired to write an essay here explaining basic economics, so I'll just say when things have scale we have to have some sort of system where we can obtain these things in exchange for something and if you work harder you can obtain better qualities of things ideally.

Otherwise we'd just be robbing each other.

from what i've read, this is well within the bounds of socialism

Verbatim · May 09, 2015, 06:16:11 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 06:13:30 PM

You're implying it by making assertions that the economy is "evil" and must be changed.

i never said "the economy is evil and must be changed"

i'm saying capitalism is evil and should be destroyed

the only thing that i will lead is the queue to collectively piss on its ashes

Quote

Also, sorry, but it doesn't work like that. We don't value off of merit. There's no basis to value anything from it.

prove it

your personal incredulity means nothing

aREALgod · May 09, 2015, 06:19:30 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:16:11 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 06:13:30 PM
You're implying it by making assertions that the economy is "evil" and must be changed.
i never said "the economy is evil and must be changed"

i'm saying capitalism is evil and should be destroyed

the only thing that i will lead is the queue to collectively piss on its ashes

Quote
Also, sorry, but it doesn't work like that. We don't value off of merit. There's no basis to value anything from it.
prove it

your personal incredulity means nothing

And there is nothing evil about capitalism. You earn what you work for.

As does yours. There is no way to value merit and never will be. You're living in a fantasy.

Verbatim · May 09, 2015, 06:21:28 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 06:19:30 PM

And there is nothing evil about capitalism. You earn what you work for.

except you don't

some people don't earn enough
some people earn too much

this is capitalism
this is supply and demand

Quote

As does yours. There is no way to value merit and never will be. You're living in a fantasy.

i'll take that as a challenge

More Than Mortal · May 09, 2015, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:09:00 PM

i don't think it takes much brilliance to figure out that the basic needs of life (food, clothing, and shelter) shouldn't be commodified, let alone sold for so much, that only the most privileged can have any access to the highest qualities of them

It takes more brilliance than any collection of intellectuals has to figure our production, distribution, pricing and a whole host of other things. I mean, just think about how a house is made. It isn't just a construction team rolling up and propping up a couple of bricks; fuck, just think of a pencil:

YouTube

Supply and demand is the most efficient pricing mechanism precisely because it encompasses more information than any one individual, or group of individuals, could realistically collate and manipulate. It is, as far as it matters, completely autonomous and reactive. It does nothing but reflect the general desires of society. Granted, consumers are fucking idiots, but government regulation like restrictive intellectual property laws and safety regulations hold much more sway over the development of important drugs.

Obligatory videos:

YouTube

challengerX · May 09, 2015, 06:22:26 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

aREALgod · May 09, 2015, 06:23:22 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:21:28 PM

Quote from: ////\\\\ on May 09, 2015, 06:19:30 PM
And there is nothing evil about capitalism. You earn what you work for.
except you don't

some people don't earn enough
some people earn too much

this is capitalism
this is supply and demand
Quote
As does yours. There is no way to value merit and never will be. You're living in a fantasy.
i'll take that as a challenge

And supply and demand is working fine. It's doesn't discriminate. You earn what you work for, and if you're not earning much, you're not working for much. It's that simple.

Fine, take it is whatever you like, but you'll get nowhere.

DAS B00T x2 · May 09, 2015, 06:24:09 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 09, 2015, 06:11:52 PM

how about:

destroy currency

work for your bread, not for green pieces of paper

Things were like that many, many, many years ago. Currency evolved as a way to set bartering standards and conduct trade in a fair and consistent manner. Not everyone wants my chickens, but they will take my money.

Until we are in a post-scarcity, socialist, gift economy, we're going to need currency.

Azumarill · May 10, 2015, 12:01:33 AM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on May 05, 2015, 09:08:47 AM

I honestly feel like this is wasted on this site, so I hope you're just copying an essay you wrote previously.

Truly, only a gifted intellectual such as yourself could comprehend and appreciate this post!

Verbatim · May 13, 2015, 01:15:35 PM

Sorry for the wait.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 09, 2015, 06:22:00 PM

just think of a pencil:
YouTube

All right, this was my favorite bit:

Quote

Each part of the pencil is the result of the collaboration and cooperation of millions of people. Together, they form a process that is constantly changing and adapting. A change in the availability or cost of material from one place might make another source more desirable, and the process changes and adapts fluidly. And there is a fact that's still more astounding: the absence of a mastermind of anyone dictating these countless actions which bring a pencil into being. Each member of this family tree supplies only a small amount of the necessary know-how needed to make a pencil. They do so voluntarily, not because they necessarily want pencils or like pencils, but because by working to create them, they exchange their labor and skills for the wages that let them buy what they want and need. What you're seeing is the market at work.

(As a quick aside, I saw Lee Doren's name in the credits there. I may vomit.)

Now, Mr. Leonard Read is absolutely correct there in stating that we create these goods voluntarily, NOT because we "necessarily" want them, but because it allows them to receive money. Money to buy things that they "want" and "need", but money. That's what people work for. But that's the problem.

In my opinion, that's not what people should be working for. That shouldn't be the control of the workforce. Frankly, people should work because it's the right thing to do. I know I use that phrase very often, but it's true. People don't make pencils because they like them? Well, why the fuck not? Pencils are pretty fucking cool. And useful. I'd love to make pencils. I'd love to do productive work, and I would do it for free. Everyone should want to work for free, because work gets shit done. That's really all the pay that you should need.

But since that's not enough for people, I'll stick to the next best solution that I can think of, and that's the concept of working for your bread, and not for green pieces of paper. I don't think anyone can really take issue with that, at least in theory.

There's also another bit earlier on in there that I'd like to address, because it illustrates rather decently my utter contempt for the very concept of "supply and demand".

Quote

A change in the availability or cost of material from one place might make another source more desirable, and the process changes and adapts fluidly

Exactly. Since water is so ubiquitous here, I can buy myself twenty-four bottles of water for about $2.50 (or £1.50). But if I were in the fucking desert, or Six Flags, or hell, the campus of my own university, I would be paying the exact same amount (or more) for one stinking water bottle. So yes, that's absolutely correct--the "value" (in the shitty, asinine capitalist sense of the word) of a good increases as it becomes more scarce in a specific area--even if the good isn't scarce elsewhere. The underlying problem with this should be tautological, but... perhaps not to a capitalist.

Quote

Obligatory videos:
YouTube

YouTube

Currently watching these, as I now have the time to do so...

Verbatim · May 13, 2015, 01:20:34 PM

Quote from: challengerX on May 09, 2015, 06:22:26 PM

How would that be any better? The guy stuck getting Wonder bread would rob/be jealous of the guy that gets baguettes.

That wouldn't be socialism. Assigning special rights to certain individuals (like who gets baguettes and who gets cheap bread) has nothing to do with socialism. Ideally, everyone would be able to choose their packages. If you want baguettes, you can have baguettes. If you want apples, you can have apples. There's no reason why some people would get "better" or higher quality food than other workers.

The dependent variable, or how much work you put in, determines the independent variable, or how much food you earn. So if you're stuck with less than a week's worth of food for the week, that means you didn't work a week's worth. Is there any way to determine how much a week's worth of food is? I think it's calculable.

Verbatim · May 13, 2015, 01:28:34 PM

You can talk all you want about how it won't work in practice. I think that's a pointless discussion to have, considering that we can't test it, and all we can do is look at historically failed attempts at socialist societies in the past (that most likely did everything wrong anyway). I'm not interested in that discussion. All I know is that it's rock-solid in theory.

King pesto · May 13, 2015, 01:31:20 PM

Who determines value in this system?

Verbatim · May 13, 2015, 01:33:57 PM

Value of what.

Word Wizard · May 13, 2015, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 13, 2015, 01:28:34 PM

So in your world view, would there no longer be luxary/recreational items? How would one go about buying/earning something like a 80" 4k tv or PC?

More Than Mortal · May 13, 2015, 01:35:55 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 13, 2015, 01:15:35 PM

I'd love to make pencils. I'd love to do productive work, and I would do it for free.

Which is completely unrealistic; you saw all of the labour, places, infrastructure and capital that it required for the production of a pencil. You could make a pencil for free if you had all of the parts required, if you so desired, but you're still totally ignoring the majority of the distribution system/

Quote

I don't think anyone can really take issue with that, at least in theory.

Most economists do, quite easily. Money is a medium of exchange, it allows you to receive bread in the capacity to purchase it if you so desire. Paying people in goods for their labour is the mark of a dying economy that no longer has an effective medium of exchange, which is a necessity for all economies which suffer from scarcity.

Quote

The underlying problem with this should be tautological, but... perhaps not to a capitalist.

Why should you pay less for the same product in an area where it is more scarce? It doesn't properly represent the supply of that product, and would lead to its inefficient allocation. It's what happens when you subsidise the consumption of water for farmers in California: artificial scarcity, because the allocative mechanism is no longer there.

Verbatim · May 13, 2015, 01:41:14 PM

Quote from: Sly Instinct on May 13, 2015, 01:34:49 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on May 13, 2015, 01:28:34 PM
So in your world view, would there no longer be luxary/recreational items? How would one go about buying/earning something like a 80" 4k tv or PC?

In my opinion, everyone should be entitled to their own comfortable home. Televisions are obsolete, and thus, unneeded. Everyone would have access to a standard, quality-assured personal computer that wasn't planned to obsolesce, unlike basically every electronic on the market. And by "everyone", I mean everyone. Everyone should have complete access to the infobahn. The Internet is an invaluable resource of information.

Is this feasible? Probably not. Is this a La-La-Land? Probably. But it certainly sounds a lot fucking better than the current world we live in, in my humble opinion.

More Than Mortal · May 13, 2015, 01:42:17 PM

BRB, making a thread about socialist theory.

challengerX · May 13, 2015, 01:44:20 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · May 13, 2015, 01:45:40 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Genghis Khan · May 13, 2015, 03:15:56 PM

No matter how good your life is you always think it could be better.