Resource Based Economy? Scientific Effort vs. Free Market System

[teamjordan79]

Originally Posted by Dey Know Yayo

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

The market is far, far from free. Anarcho-capitalism would only make it less free, from a pragmatic sense.

Quickest way to make markets much fairer much quicker:

(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies, absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not gonna happen.

(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).

(1) Would the money go towards the national budget? Most people would probably compare that to communism. 

(2) Def not happening

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

anarcho-capitalism might be the best bet after all given the despondent situation 

 

[rashi]

Rule of law? Who enforces the rule of law?

Private courts.

I believe in a system in which a minimum threshold of standard of living (minimum wage, emergency healthcare, food stamps/welfare, fire dept/police/etc) is subsidized and beyond that the market does its job. Additionally, incentives must be aligned by audits of subsidy use, with transgressions punishable as felonies.




I believe in a system of voluntary exchange. Everything you just mentioned as a "minimum threshold" could never last as a "minimum" because they are politically detrimental (if someone decides to lower payments) and where do they stop? Who decides the minimum wage and how? Who defines the standard and living and how? Who decides who needs and how much police and fire dept and how? Based on what? All of which is subject from individual to individual. All of which can be efficiently allocated by Free Markets. How do you appropitate these programs? How do you fund them? Stealing private property from individuals? Is that moral? This country looks down at mob activity, but when the State does it it is justified as being "compassionate"? Really? All of which would have to be propped up by central planners at a central bank. The Welfare State cannot be supported by Welfare State policies.

Anarcho-capitalism is a Chomskyish delusion, it has no means of functioning within the reality of humans that exists today on earth.

Actually, Chomsky disagrees with Anrcho-Capitalism. Why wouldn't it? We all act based on human action, right? We would all prefer more than less, right?

 

[rashi]

Rule of law? Who enforces the rule of law?

Private courts.

I believe in a system in which a minimum threshold of standard of living (minimum wage, emergency healthcare, food stamps/welfare, fire dept/police/etc) is subsidized and beyond that the market does its job. Additionally, incentives must be aligned by audits of subsidy use, with transgressions punishable as felonies.




I believe in a system of voluntary exchange. Everything you just mentioned as a "minimum threshold" could never last as a "minimum" because they are politically detrimental (if someone decides to lower payments) and where do they stop? Who decides the minimum wage and how? Who defines the standard and living and how? Who decides who needs and how much police and fire dept and how? Based on what? All of which is subject from individual to individual. All of which can be efficiently allocated by Free Markets. How do you appropitate these programs? How do you fund them? Stealing private property from individuals? Is that moral? This country looks down at mob activity, but when the State does it it is justified as being "compassionate"? Really? All of which would have to be propped up by central planners at a central bank. The Welfare State cannot be supported by Welfare State policies.

Anarcho-capitalism is a Chomskyish delusion, it has no means of functioning within the reality of humans that exists today on earth.

Actually, Chomsky disagrees with Anrcho-Capitalism. Why wouldn't it? We all act based on human action, right? We would all prefer more than less, right?

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by rashi

Rule of law? Who enforces the rule of law?

Private courts.

I believe in a system in which a minimum threshold of standard of living (minimum wage, emergency healthcare, food stamps/welfare, fire dept/police/etc) is subsidized and beyond that the market does its job. Additionally, incentives must be aligned by audits of subsidy use, with transgressions punishable as felonies.




I believe in a system of voluntary exchange. Everything you just mentioned as a "minimum threshold" could never last as a "minimum" because they are politically detrimental (if someone decides to lower payments) and where do they stop? Who decides the minimum wage and how? Who defines the standard and living and how? Who decides who needs and how much police and fire dept and how? Based on what? All of which is subject from individual to individual. All of which can be efficiently allocated by Free Markets. How do you appropitate these programs? How do you fund them? Stealing private property from individuals? Is that moral? This country looks down at mob activity, but when the State does it it is justified as being "compassionate"? Really? All of which would have to be propped up by central planners at a central bank. The Welfare State cannot be supported by Welfare State policies.

Anarcho-capitalism is a Chomskyish delusion, it has no means of functioning within the reality of humans that exists today on earth.

Actually, Chomsky disagrees with Anrcho-Capitalism. Why wouldn't it? We all act based on human action, right? We would all prefer more than less, right?


who makes the rule of law? benevolent dictators?

you have to be practical. obviously my proposal is not ideal. but it's the least of all evils. and no a central bank does not necessitate current system. a central bank should not be setting the cost of borrowing by controlling permanent money supply. that is economy-wide socialism because it controls the means of production of CAPITAL & DEBT, which are pervasive and necessary in all industries. instead it should operate as a central clearinghouse (for wire transfers etc) and to provide lender-of-last-resort, STERILIZED liquidity. this cannot cause bubbles & bursts because it is sterilized temporarily LIQUIDITY to realign markets in LIQUIDITY/CONFIDENCE crises rather than to provide liquidity as a mask to INSOLVENCY.

read "human action" by ludwig von mises. obviously agrees with a lot of your ideals but has a better, more pragmatic approach that takes into account the realities of human nature.

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by rashi

Rule of law? Who enforces the rule of law?

Private courts.

I believe in a system in which a minimum threshold of standard of living (minimum wage, emergency healthcare, food stamps/welfare, fire dept/police/etc) is subsidized and beyond that the market does its job. Additionally, incentives must be aligned by audits of subsidy use, with transgressions punishable as felonies.




I believe in a system of voluntary exchange. Everything you just mentioned as a "minimum threshold" could never last as a "minimum" because they are politically detrimental (if someone decides to lower payments) and where do they stop? Who decides the minimum wage and how? Who defines the standard and living and how? Who decides who needs and how much police and fire dept and how? Based on what? All of which is subject from individual to individual. All of which can be efficiently allocated by Free Markets. How do you appropitate these programs? How do you fund them? Stealing private property from individuals? Is that moral? This country looks down at mob activity, but when the State does it it is justified as being "compassionate"? Really? All of which would have to be propped up by central planners at a central bank. The Welfare State cannot be supported by Welfare State policies.

Anarcho-capitalism is a Chomskyish delusion, it has no means of functioning within the reality of humans that exists today on earth.

Actually, Chomsky disagrees with Anrcho-Capitalism. Why wouldn't it? We all act based on human action, right? We would all prefer more than less, right?


who makes the rule of law? benevolent dictators?

you have to be practical. obviously my proposal is not ideal. but it's the least of all evils. and no a central bank does not necessitate current system. a central bank should not be setting the cost of borrowing by controlling permanent money supply. that is economy-wide socialism because it controls the means of production of CAPITAL & DEBT, which are pervasive and necessary in all industries. instead it should operate as a central clearinghouse (for wire transfers etc) and to provide lender-of-last-resort, STERILIZED liquidity. this cannot cause bubbles & bursts because it is sterilized temporarily LIQUIDITY to realign markets in LIQUIDITY/CONFIDENCE crises rather than to provide liquidity as a mask to INSOLVENCY.

read "human action" by ludwig von mises. obviously agrees with a lot of your ideals but has a better, more pragmatic approach that takes into account the realities of human nature.

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79

Originally Posted by Dey Know Yayo

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

The market is far, far from free. Anarcho-capitalism would only make it less free, from a pragmatic sense.



Quickest way to make markets much fairer much quicker:



(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies, absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not gonna happen.



(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).

(1) Would the money go towards the national budget? Most people would probably compare that to communism. 

(2) Def not happening

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

anarcho-capitalism might be the best bet after all given the despondent situation 

1. yes. it would go toward the natural budget. no one holds justifiable claim to that money. and inheritance rarely generates good investment anyway, even worse than the inefficient government. sure, tons of rich people's kids turn out to be rich & successful in their own right. but that's just it, it wasn't their inheritance that gave them that power. sure they got start up capital, but they went beyond that.

2. ehh you'd be surprised. we're headed toward a big shift away from global FX imbalances and i doubt the USD will be the international reserve currency in 10 years. russia and china have no started bilateral currency exchange... RBL/CNY. who wouldve ever thought>

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79

Originally Posted by Dey Know Yayo

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

The market is far, far from free. Anarcho-capitalism would only make it less free, from a pragmatic sense.



Quickest way to make markets much fairer much quicker:



(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies, absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not gonna happen.



(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).

(1) Would the money go towards the national budget? Most people would probably compare that to communism. 

(2) Def not happening

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

anarcho-capitalism might be the best bet after all given the despondent situation 

1. yes. it would go toward the natural budget. no one holds justifiable claim to that money. and inheritance rarely generates good investment anyway, even worse than the inefficient government. sure, tons of rich people's kids turn out to be rich & successful in their own right. but that's just it, it wasn't their inheritance that gave them that power. sure they got start up capital, but they went beyond that.

2. ehh you'd be surprised. we're headed toward a big shift away from global FX imbalances and i doubt the USD will be the international reserve currency in 10 years. russia and china have no started bilateral currency exchange... RBL/CNY. who wouldve ever thought>

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

It work fine in Somalia after they over threw their government.

http://mises.org/daily/2066

(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies, absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not gonna happen.

(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).
1. You're right, they didn't, but if the individual leaves his/her property, who are you to say whose property goes to who?

2. How about getting rid of fiat altogether?

who makes the rule of law? benevolent dictators?

Natural Law? Nobody has the right to kill someone else. Nobody has the right to steal from someone else. Nobody has the right to coerce anybody else.

you have to be practical. obviously my proposal is not ideal. but it's the least of all evils. and no a central bank does not necessitate current system. a central bank should not be setting the cost of borrowing by controlling permanent money supply. that is economy-wide socialism because it controls the means of production of CAPITAL & DEBT, which are pervasive and necessary in all industries. instead it should operate as a central clearinghouse (for wire transfers etc) and to provide lender-of-last-resort, STERILIZED liquidity. this cannot cause bubbles & bursts because it is sterilized temporarily LIQUIDITY to realign markets in LIQUIDITY/CONFIDENCE crises rather than to provide liquidity as a mask to INSOLVENCY.

I believe we are on the same page, but also at the same time you want to appease to Statists. Milton Friedman talked about this a lot, but at the same time I thought he was off about because his theory on inflation is irrational. I would like a full reserve system because A) Takes away the States monopoly to issue currency B) Gold/Silver are stable C) The ability of banks to compete on how interest rates are really to be determined (i.e. supply/demand) D) No Boom/Bust cycle


I understand why you want the central bank, but it wouldn't last controlled by the State. Yes, it would start out as not dictating borrowing rates. At the same time, with your Welfare State policies that would expand because of politics, and like I said before, how would you pay for these? It is impossible to determine everything you mentioned before efficiently. We all know that these central planners can never allocate resources correctly, what is the way the State abuses it subordinates without us noticing? Inflation. Pump the press.

read "human action" by ludwig von mises. obviously agrees with a lot of your ideals but has a better, more pragmatic approach that takes into account the realities of human nature.

I have, it's my bible.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

It work fine in Somalia after they over threw their government.

http://mises.org/daily/2066

(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies, absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates & Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not gonna happen.

(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).
1. You're right, they didn't, but if the individual leaves his/her property, who are you to say whose property goes to who?

2. How about getting rid of fiat altogether?

who makes the rule of law? benevolent dictators?

Natural Law? Nobody has the right to kill someone else. Nobody has the right to steal from someone else. Nobody has the right to coerce anybody else.

you have to be practical. obviously my proposal is not ideal. but it's the least of all evils. and no a central bank does not necessitate current system. a central bank should not be setting the cost of borrowing by controlling permanent money supply. that is economy-wide socialism because it controls the means of production of CAPITAL & DEBT, which are pervasive and necessary in all industries. instead it should operate as a central clearinghouse (for wire transfers etc) and to provide lender-of-last-resort, STERILIZED liquidity. this cannot cause bubbles & bursts because it is sterilized temporarily LIQUIDITY to realign markets in LIQUIDITY/CONFIDENCE crises rather than to provide liquidity as a mask to INSOLVENCY.

I believe we are on the same page, but also at the same time you want to appease to Statists. Milton Friedman talked about this a lot, but at the same time I thought he was off about because his theory on inflation is irrational. I would like a full reserve system because A) Takes away the States monopoly to issue currency B) Gold/Silver are stable C) The ability of banks to compete on how interest rates are really to be determined (i.e. supply/demand) D) No Boom/Bust cycle


I understand why you want the central bank, but it wouldn't last controlled by the State. Yes, it would start out as not dictating borrowing rates. At the same time, with your Welfare State policies that would expand because of politics, and like I said before, how would you pay for these? It is impossible to determine everything you mentioned before efficiently. We all know that these central planners can never allocate resources correctly, what is the way the State abuses it subordinates without us noticing? Inflation. Pump the press.

read "human action" by ludwig von mises. obviously agrees with a lot of your ideals but has a better, more pragmatic approach that takes into account the realities of human nature.

I have, it's my bible.

 

[josebronx]

OP is beyond BASED

 

[josebronx]

OP is beyond BASED

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

It work fine in Somalia after they over threw their government.

http://mises.org/daily/2066

(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies,
absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His
child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates &
Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic
of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue
which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not
gonna happen.



(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).

1. You're right, they didn't, but if the individual leaves his/her property, who are you to say whose property goes to who?

2. How about getting rid of fiat altogether?

who makes the rule of law? benevolent dictators?

Natural Law? Nobody has the right to kill someone else. Nobody has the right to steal from someone else. Nobody has the right to coerce anybody else.

you have to be practical. obviously my proposal is not ideal. but it's
the least of all evils. and no a central bank does not necessitate
current system. a central bank should not be setting the cost of
borrowing by controlling permanent money supply. that is economy-wide
socialism because it controls the means of production of CAPITAL &
DEBT, which are pervasive and necessary in all industries. instead it
should operate as a central clearinghouse (for wire transfers etc) and
to provide lender-of-last-resort, STERILIZED liquidity. this cannot
cause bubbles & bursts because it is sterilized temporarily
LIQUIDITY to realign markets in LIQUIDITY/CONFIDENCE crises rather than
to provide liquidity as a mask to INSOLVENCY.

I believe we are on the same page, but also at the same time you want to appease to Statists. Milton Friedman talked about this a lot, but at the same time I thought he was off about because his theory on inflation is irrational. I would like a full reserve system because A) Takes away the States monopoly to issue currency B) Gold/Silver are stable C) The ability of banks to compete on how interest rates are really to be determined (i.e. supply/demand) D) No Boom/Bust cycle


I understand why you want the central bank, but it wouldn't last controlled by the State. Yes, it would start out as not dictating borrowing rates. At the same time, with your Welfare State policies that would expand because of politics, and like I said before, how would you pay for these? It is impossible to determine everything you mentioned before efficiently. We all know that these central planners can never allocate resources correctly, what is the way the State abuses it subordinates without us noticing? Inflation. Pump the press.

read "human action" by ludwig von mises. obviously agrees with a lot of
your ideals but has a better, more pragmatic approach that takes into
account the realities of human nature.


I have, it's my bible.



you have an extremist austrian school ideology my friend and it is completely impractical and uselessly restrictive. i've written for mises.org (a piece bullish on gold back in january 2009) and i do subscribe to austrian boom-bust theory but you're taking it to an unnecessarily restrictive level as i said.

comparing success in somalia to america is disingenuous. iceland for example devalued & defaulted its way into sound growth now after being literally the worsth it by the financial crisis with a banking sector 3x the size of gdp. if the usa defaults & devalued we would start a nuclear war. the contingencies are much different with a world superpower, politically or economically.

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by TeamJordan79


The market isnt free though. You can't deny that favoritism, monopolies, coercion, nepotism and other machinations are still driving the whole system of capital flow. 

I would honestly love to see how anarcho-capitalism would play out in a closed, impartial setting and how a real free market economy would fare without interference. As far as rule of law and protection goes, at this point in civilization, i believe it mostly caters to the established plutocracy and polyarchy in preserving their influence and decrease social mobility. Of course under current conditions, this is all merely but wishful thinking. 

It work fine in Somalia after they over threw their government.

http://mises.org/daily/2066

(1) Hike inheritance/estate taxes up to 80-90%. When someone dies,
absolutely no one holds a moral/justifiable claim to his money. His
child has not earned the money his parents made him. Bill Gates &
Warren Buffett even agree with this. It would change the entire dynamic
of wealth disparity, and overnight. Unfortunately this is the one issue
which has a lobby almost exclusively funded by rich people... so not
gonna happen.



(2) Eliminate agreements that lead to international reserve currencies a la Bretton Woods. Even less practical than (1).

1. You're right, they didn't, but if the individual leaves his/her property, who are you to say whose property goes to who?

2. How about getting rid of fiat altogether?

who makes the rule of law? benevolent dictators?

Natural Law? Nobody has the right to kill someone else. Nobody has the right to steal from someone else. Nobody has the right to coerce anybody else.

you have to be practical. obviously my proposal is not ideal. but it's
the least of all evils. and no a central bank does not necessitate
current system. a central bank should not be setting the cost of
borrowing by controlling permanent money supply. that is economy-wide
socialism because it controls the means of production of CAPITAL &
DEBT, which are pervasive and necessary in all industries. instead it
should operate as a central clearinghouse (for wire transfers etc) and
to provide lender-of-last-resort, STERILIZED liquidity. this cannot
cause bubbles & bursts because it is sterilized temporarily
LIQUIDITY to realign markets in LIQUIDITY/CONFIDENCE crises rather than
to provide liquidity as a mask to INSOLVENCY.

I believe we are on the same page, but also at the same time you want to appease to Statists. Milton Friedman talked about this a lot, but at the same time I thought he was off about because his theory on inflation is irrational. I would like a full reserve system because A) Takes away the States monopoly to issue currency B) Gold/Silver are stable C) The ability of banks to compete on how interest rates are really to be determined (i.e. supply/demand) D) No Boom/Bust cycle


I understand why you want the central bank, but it wouldn't last controlled by the State. Yes, it would start out as not dictating borrowing rates. At the same time, with your Welfare State policies that would expand because of politics, and like I said before, how would you pay for these? It is impossible to determine everything you mentioned before efficiently. We all know that these central planners can never allocate resources correctly, what is the way the State abuses it subordinates without us noticing? Inflation. Pump the press.

read "human action" by ludwig von mises. obviously agrees with a lot of
your ideals but has a better, more pragmatic approach that takes into
account the realities of human nature.


I have, it's my bible.



you have an extremist austrian school ideology my friend and it is completely impractical and uselessly restrictive. i've written for mises.org (a piece bullish on gold back in january 2009) and i do subscribe to austrian boom-bust theory but you're taking it to an unnecessarily restrictive level as i said.

comparing success in somalia to america is disingenuous. iceland for example devalued & defaulted its way into sound growth now after being literally the worsth it by the financial crisis with a banking sector 3x the size of gdp. if the usa defaults & devalued we would start a nuclear war. the contingencies are much different with a world superpower, politically or economically.

 

[stockholm patriot]

Originally Posted by rashi


We would still be living in caves without the voluntary exchanges of goods (Free Market). I'm still waiting for someone to tell me one productive thing a Marxist/Socialist/Fascist has ever invented...It doesn't exist because they aren't interested in capital.

Government couldn't exist, Democracy freedom to participate in how you choose.

  
Please, democracy is a mob rule and a oppresion of the minority. The only moral form of government is no govenrment; individualism, voluntarynism, anarchy.
Radical change might be need to reinforce the importance of democracy, rape, theft, homicide, genocide, sheer utter chaos. "Anarchy"
Now you have capitalistic scenario similar to Sacra Corona mafioso customs offering "protection" for a price profiting off the fear of others, offering ZERO
progress compared to what we have now as economic super power...no different than individualistic and individualistic government you speak..."dog eat dog", natural selection.

So basically you answered your own rebuttal, Marxist and Socialist do not want money or any other form commerce.
If we lived ONLY for the advancement of the human race and in search of knowledge we would exponentially grow as a planet...possibly a inter-galactically

...but we'd rather spend 900 trillion dollars on war (and that's just in the US), you know how many space stations or air-crafts, or inter-dimensional transportation research projects could have been made by now?
which brings me to my OP,
we could possible discover the origins or non-existence of heaven and hell and relinquish religion from our planet and empower science to take us further

 

[stockholm patriot]

Originally Posted by rashi


We would still be living in caves without the voluntary exchanges of goods (Free Market). I'm still waiting for someone to tell me one productive thing a Marxist/Socialist/Fascist has ever invented...It doesn't exist because they aren't interested in capital.

Government couldn't exist, Democracy freedom to participate in how you choose.

  
Please, democracy is a mob rule and a oppresion of the minority. The only moral form of government is no govenrment; individualism, voluntarynism, anarchy.
Radical change might be need to reinforce the importance of democracy, rape, theft, homicide, genocide, sheer utter chaos. "Anarchy"
Now you have capitalistic scenario similar to Sacra Corona mafioso customs offering "protection" for a price profiting off the fear of others, offering ZERO
progress compared to what we have now as economic super power...no different than individualistic and individualistic government you speak..."dog eat dog", natural selection.

So basically you answered your own rebuttal, Marxist and Socialist do not want money or any other form commerce.
If we lived ONLY for the advancement of the human race and in search of knowledge we would exponentially grow as a planet...possibly a inter-galactically

...but we'd rather spend 900 trillion dollars on war (and that's just in the US), you know how many space stations or air-crafts, or inter-dimensional transportation research projects could have been made by now?
which brings me to my OP,
we could possible discover the origins or non-existence of heaven and hell and relinquish religion from our planet and empower science to take us further

 

[devildog1776]

Who cares? This modern day form of fascism will dwarf all forms of slavery ever implemented on any society at any time in recorded history. I will obtain assets while most buy liabilities which further the institutionalized slavery. It's quite simple.

 

[devildog1776]

Who cares? This modern day form of fascism will dwarf all forms of slavery ever implemented on any society at any time in recorded history. I will obtain assets while most buy liabilities which further the institutionalized slavery. It's quite simple.

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by devildog1776

Who cares? This modern day form of fascism will dwarf all forms of slavery ever implemented on any society at any time in recorded history. I will obtain assets while most buy liabilities which further the institutionalized slavery. It's quite simple.

it's not fascism. it's a game. and there are the ones who are competing. and there are the ones who are winning.

but everyone's welcome to play. and you're never fully counted out unless you're dead or in jail.

no matter what color, where you come from. may be a bit harder if you're a black female. or an irish immigrant son of weavers. but winfrey & carnegie both amassed more than a bil.

the smart and clever win.

 

[dey know yayo]

Originally Posted by devildog1776

Who cares? This modern day form of fascism will dwarf all forms of slavery ever implemented on any society at any time in recorded history. I will obtain assets while most buy liabilities which further the institutionalized slavery. It's quite simple.

it's not fascism. it's a game. and there are the ones who are competing. and there are the ones who are winning.

but everyone's welcome to play. and you're never fully counted out unless you're dead or in jail.

no matter what color, where you come from. may be a bit harder if you're a black female. or an irish immigrant son of weavers. but winfrey & carnegie both amassed more than a bil.

the smart and clever win.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by Stockholm Patriot

I'm talking about all three, in the animal kingdom most species work together to ensure survival of the species.... bees, ants, migratory birds etc.
For humans I meant space travel, deep sea exploration,  NO FREE MARKET systems...no luxuries to drive the economy....survival and advanced
science is the luxury that drives the economy. currency would be abolished

Sounds like communism to me

Communism will never work as long as humans are humans.
If some advanced alien species swooped in, took all our resources, and decided to parse them out as we needed them it might work......and even then, they'd probably take most of what we have for themselves.....so no.

 

[grypr33]

Originally Posted by Stockholm Patriot

I'm talking about all three, in the animal kingdom most species work together to ensure survival of the species.... bees, ants, migratory birds etc.
For humans I meant space travel, deep sea exploration,  NO FREE MARKET systems...no luxuries to drive the economy....survival and advanced
science is the luxury that drives the economy. currency would be abolished

Sounds like communism to me

Communism will never work as long as humans are humans.
If some advanced alien species swooped in, took all our resources, and decided to parse them out as we needed them it might work......and even then, they'd probably take most of what we have for themselves.....so no.

 

[stockholm patriot]

Originally Posted by Dey Know Yayo

Originally Posted by devildog1776

Who cares? This modern day form of fascism will dwarf all forms of slavery ever implemented on any society at any time in recorded history. I will obtain assets while most buy liabilities which further the institutionalized slavery. It's quite simple.

it's not fascism. it's a game. and there are the ones who are competing. and there are the ones who are winning.

but everyone's welcome to play. and you're never fully counted out unless you're dead or in jail.

no matter what color, where you come from. may be a bit harder if you're a black female. or an irish immigrant son of weavers. but winfrey & carnegie both amassed more than a bil.

the smart and clever win.

But at the end of the day what's billion dollars? We don't if religion has CONCRETE basis, we don't know intelligent life exists beyond our galaxy or dimension.
We cant cure cancer, AIDS, HIV, the common cold even. We've only mapped 90% of the DNA strand of humans...there's some much MORE we could be doing
with out resources, money, man power and knowledge.

But gave up on the mankind's thirst for knowledge and truth a long time ago...I'm saying there's better things we could be doing with out money and lives.

 

[stockholm patriot]

Originally Posted by Dey Know Yayo

Originally Posted by devildog1776

Who cares? This modern day form of fascism will dwarf all forms of slavery ever implemented on any society at any time in recorded history. I will obtain assets while most buy liabilities which further the institutionalized slavery. It's quite simple.

it's not fascism. it's a game. and there are the ones who are competing. and there are the ones who are winning.

but everyone's welcome to play. and you're never fully counted out unless you're dead or in jail.

no matter what color, where you come from. may be a bit harder if you're a black female. or an irish immigrant son of weavers. but winfrey & carnegie both amassed more than a bil.

the smart and clever win.

But at the end of the day what's billion dollars? We don't if religion has CONCRETE basis, we don't know intelligent life exists beyond our galaxy or dimension.
We cant cure cancer, AIDS, HIV, the common cold even. We've only mapped 90% of the DNA strand of humans...there's some much MORE we could be doing
with out resources, money, man power and knowledge.

But gave up on the mankind's thirst for knowledge and truth a long time ago...I'm saying there's better things we could be doing with out money and lives.

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by Stockholm Patriot

I'm talking about all three, in the animal kingdom most species work together to ensure survival of the species.... bees, ants, migratory birds etc.
For humans I meant space travel, deep sea exploration,  NO FREE MARKET systems...no luxuries to drive the economy....survival and advanced
science is the luxury that drives the economy. currency would be abolished

This is false... Organisms are "programmed" to perpetuate their own genes, and will act together only as far as it enhances their ability to reproduce or promote their own survival or the survival of those with whom they share genes (i.e. their relatives.) Bees in a colony acting together are all "related", as with ants.  They don't co-operate with other colonies of the same species, in fact they would be in competition with them...  Migratory birds stick together because being part of a flock enhances the chances of each individual surviving, not the species as a whole.
Also the human genome has been mapped 100% since the early 2000s
 

 

[whiterails]

Originally Posted by Stockholm Patriot

I'm talking about all three, in the animal kingdom most species work together to ensure survival of the species.... bees, ants, migratory birds etc.
For humans I meant space travel, deep sea exploration,  NO FREE MARKET systems...no luxuries to drive the economy....survival and advanced
science is the luxury that drives the economy. currency would be abolished

This is false... Organisms are "programmed" to perpetuate their own genes, and will act together only as far as it enhances their ability to reproduce or promote their own survival or the survival of those with whom they share genes (i.e. their relatives.) Bees in a colony acting together are all "related", as with ants.  They don't co-operate with other colonies of the same species, in fact they would be in competition with them...  Migratory birds stick together because being part of a flock enhances the chances of each individual surviving, not the species as a whole.
Also the human genome has been mapped 100% since the early 2000s