Prev: Jeffries, LWalk and lack of defining "finite-number" #429 Correcting Math
Next: God's Insanity is a normal phenomenon
From: Michael Gordge on 13 Feb 2010 17:43
On Feb 14, 6:42 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

> They're interested only in forcing capitalism on other people,
> not on themselves.
>
> Andrew Usher

Wrong, capitalism is destroyed / no longer exists, by the initiated
use of force.

As I have explained, capitalism is based upon reality, it is based
upon YOU being the owner, therefore YOU being responsible for the
results of YOUR actions generated by YOUR mind.

Capitalism means leaving YOU free and alone, why? So as that YOU can
be the SOLE benefactor and the sole decider of the results of YOUR
energy, why? Because they belong to YOU and so as that YOU can be held
responsible and so as that YOU and YOU alone can determine your very
own perceptions of obtaining for YOURSELF a greater for lessor value
via the use of trade.

BOTH parties to a capitalist transaction benefit, how? By applying
their very own perception of obtainig a greater for lessor value for
EACH OTHER.

MG
From: Immortalist on 17 Feb 2010 22:09
On Feb 13, 2:43 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 6:42 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > They're interested only in forcing capitalism on other people,
> > not on themselves.
>
> > Andrew Usher
>
> Wrong, capitalism is destroyed / no longer exists, by the initiated
> use of force.
>
> As I have explained, capitalism is based upon reality, it is based
> upon YOU being the owner, therefore YOU being responsible for the
> results of YOUR actions generated by YOUR mind.
>

I agree that capitalism is based on the reality of altruistic
instincts involved with "fair deals" and fair trades" which trigger
specially evolved emotions and reaction patterns. Capitalism and
leftism/comunitarianism are both based upon the natural altruistic
drives to not cheat one another. Your stealing the concept and
applying it to just capitalism man.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom,
particularly in species with complex social structures. For example,
vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other
members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring
they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives
help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the
nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys
give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators,
even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves,
increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect
colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote
their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting
the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is
maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any
offspring of their own -- so have personal fitness of zero -- but
their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

Some animals are 'nice' to each other. Vampire bats, for example, have
been shown to share meals. These animals live life on the edge. If a
bat fails to find a meal it is often unable to survive until the next
evening's hunting. A bat that has fed well, though, has more than
enough to survive, and could easily spare some of its meal. So
sometimes a full bat will regurgitate some of its meal to another that
is starving.

But why should one bat share with another? Bats within a colony are
not necessarily relatives, and so there seems to be no reason why they
should be so charitable. Needless to say, there is a good reason.

These animals are showing behaviour known as 'reciprocal altruism',
which simply means that they lend each other favours in the
expectation that the favours will be repaid some time in the future. A
bat which one day might be bloated by a great meal, might on another
evening be less lucky and be in need of help itself. By being generous
one day at little cost to itself, it might be saved from starvation
the next by another bat returning the favour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/mammals/explore/altruism.shtml



> Capitalism means leaving YOU free and alone, why? So as that YOU can
> be the SOLE benefactor and the sole decider of the results of YOUR
> energy, why? Because they belong to YOU and so as that YOU can be held
> responsible and so as that YOU and YOU alone can determine your very
> own perceptions of obtaining for YOURSELF a greater for lessor value
> via the use of trade.
>
> BOTH parties to a capitalist transaction benefit, how? By applying
> their very own perception of obtainig a greater for lessor value for
> EACH OTHER.
>
> MG

From: Michael Gordge on 22 Feb 2010 02:34
On Feb 22, 12:40 pm, SilentOtto <silento...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

> That line of thought is really one of the basic flaws in Objectivism.

Whooops silly ewe, there are no flaws in reality and reailty is all
that objectivism deals with.

> Ownership is an -artificial- concept.

Only to those who seek to remove the responsibility of their actions
which are generated by their minds.

> Objectivism masquerades as natural law, but it's based on an
> artificial concept.

There is no masquerading and you being responsible for the results of
your energy which can only be generated by your mind, is as natural as
it gets.

Tell you what dopey, why dont ewe jump out of a plane without a
parachute and test your idea that ewe are not responsible for the
results of your mind.

MG
From: SilentOtto on 22 Feb 2010 07:24
On Feb 22, 2:34 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 12:40 pm, SilentOtto <silento...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That line of thought is really one of the basic flaws in Objectivism.
>
> Whooops silly ewe, there are no flaws in reality and reailty is all
> that objectivism deals with.

You only -think- you're dealing with reality.

That's because you're deluded.

> > Ownership is an -artificial- concept.
>
> Only to those who seek to remove the responsibility of their actions
> which are generated by their minds.

Show me "ownership" then?

Where can I find it?

If you claim it's real, then you must be able to show it to me.

> > Objectivism masquerades as natural law, but it's based on an
> > artificial concept.
>
> There is no masquerading and you being responsible for the results of
> your energy which can only be generated by your mind, is as natural as
> it gets.

For something to be natural, it has to be concrete.

Ownership is an abstraction.

Responsibility has nothing to do with ownership.

One can make things happen, but they don't own the results.

The results just -are-.

Ownership is an artificial concept.

Possession is real, but ownership is not.

> Tell you what dopey, why dont ewe jump out of a plane without a
> parachute and test your idea that ewe are not responsible for the
> results of your mind.

Responsibility has nothing to do with ownership.

Heh heh...

Objectivist loons...

Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

>
> MG

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Jeffries, LWalk and lack of defining "finite-number" #429 Correcting Math
Next: God's Insanity is a normal phenomenon