Obama, the King of Corporate Welfare

[abandonconflict]

 

[cannabineer]

You can just quote me.

I would, once you provide a structure of ideas, a development behind the clunker that property equates to religion. Sell this to me.

 

[abandonconflict]

I would, once you provide a structure of ideas, a development behind the clunker that property equates to religion. Sell this to me.

You suggested that to respect the earth enough to consider it to be nonproprietary would be religious. I countered straight from the hip and I'm going to run with it. If such an idea is so foreign, that in itself is a testament to the zeitgeist. It is like how Eskimos have so many words for snow, because it is such a big part of their lives. In Western culture that is how property is. Everything is a commodity to be acquired. None of it goes with you when you die, yet you still strive to acquire.

My suggestment while radical and unexplored and which you promptly dismissed, was not meant as something I wish to see come to pass necessarily. I'm not saying I don't or do, just that it is not why I suggested it. I suggested it as an idea simply to show that there is more than the two choices. The two you mentioned being private and collective.

 

[cannabineer]

You suggested that to respect the earth enough to not consider it to be nonproprietary would be religious. I countered straight from the hip and I'm going to run with it. If such an idea is so foreign, that in itself is a testament to the zeitgeist. It is like how Eskimos have so many words for snow, because it is such a big part of their lives. In Western culture that is how property is. Everything is a commodity to be acquired. None of it goes with you when you die, yet you still strive to acquire.

My suggestment while radical and unexplored and which you promptly dismissed, was not meant as something I wish to see come to pass necessarily. I'm not saying I don't or do, just that it is not why I suggested it. I suggested it as an idea simply to show that there is more than the two choices. The two you mentioned being private and collective.

Ideas evolve, and they do so in Thunderdome. If you cannot arm your idea to prevail over the spike-shouldered incumbents, ~shrug~. I do not dismiss an idea because it is unexplored. But if it cannot (or will not; functionally indistinguishable) fight and gain ground against the current holders of ideological territory, my interest collapses. Next!

 

[abandonconflict]

Ideas evolve, and they do so in Thunderdome. If you cannot arm your idea to prevail over the spike-shouldered incumbents, ~shrug~. I do not dismiss an idea because it is unexplored. But if it cannot (or will not; functionally indistinguishable) fight and gain ground against the current holders of ideological territory, my interest collapses. Next!

You suggested that it would be religious to consider the earth nonproprietary by defining it as alive and granting it rights. I disagree, I find it to be semantically correct and that therefore, any claim of ownership upon the earth can be called in to question. Indeed, if you investigate, you will find it is your position that is rooted in a religion. It was John Locke. The West just kept going with it.

 

[cannabineer]

You suggested that it would be religious to consider the earth nonproprietary by defining it as alive and granting it rights. I disagree, I find it to be semantically correct and that therefore, any claim of ownership upon the earth can be called in to question. Indeed, if you investigate, you will find it is your position that is rooted in a religion. It was John Locke. The West just kept going with it.

I would be much more satisfied if you'd either defend or provide a link to a developed and deliberate defense of that concept. Until then, I find the private/collective dichotomy to be useful and inclusive. I do invite you to put some muscle behind the alternative idea. If it shows traction, I'm very inclined to sit up and listen. I am not invested in the traditional dichotomy, but i would like something toothier than "because i want it to be so", y'know? If wishes were fishes we'd all eat fresh sushi.

 

[abandonconflict]

I would be much more satisfied if you'd either defend or provide a link to a developed and deliberate defense of that concept. Until then, I find the private/collective dichotomy to be useful and inclusive.

Yeah, keep the view narrow, it makes life easier.

 

[heckler73]

I see what you're saying. The only alternative to privatization is collectivization. It's more akin to quantum science (eigenstates) than the continuum model more familiar from classical models. It's either/or with hybrids being chimerae, patchwork constructs and not true intermediate states ...

Are you certain of that conclusion?
Even in the Quantum World, to the best of my understanding, it has come to be realized that energy states exist on a helicoid.

Perhaps what you perceive as a patchwork construct, has a subtle flow associated with it which does alter the nature of the whole.
A circuit has parts, but what makes it "something" is the behaviour of the current flowing through it.
What is the "electron" in a socio-economic framework? Money? People? Actions?

How far does one need to step back before the piecewise functions in the picture appear continuous?

Nay, Fuzzy Chilled Carnivore of merciless Justice, I disagree with your presumption and wish to offer the concept of public goods in application, as evidence in favour of an intermediate state. And as part of the subset manifestation of "principle in practice" for Privatized Collective...a Co-op...
ad libitum
we seek safe harbor.

For further details, I would instruct concerned parties to discuss the matter with my attorney:

 

[UncleBuck]

Meowist. ...

my cats are always hounding me about their rights under the catstitution and magna catta.

 

[UncleBuck]

Fuzzy Chilled Carnivore of merciless Justice

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to heckler73 again.

two nights in a row.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Are you certain of that conclusion?
Even in the Quantum World, to the best of my understanding, it has come to be realized that energy states exist on a helicoid.

Perhaps what you perceive as a patchwork construct, has a subtle flow associated with it which does alter the nature of the whole.
A circuit has parts, but what makes it "something" is the behaviour of the current flowing through it.
What is the "electron" in a socio-economic framework? Money? People? Actions?

How far does one need to step back before the piecewise functions in the picture appear continuous?

Nay, Fuzzy Chilled Carnivore of merciless Justice, I disagree with your presumption and wish to offer the concept of public goods in application, as evidence in favour of an intermediate state. And as part of the subset manifestation of "principle in practice" for Privatized Collective...a Co-op...
ad libitum
we seek safe harbor.

For further details, I would instruct concerned parties to discuss the matter with my attorney:
View attachment 2891364

Co-Ops are collectives, just voluntary ones.

members of a co-op may leave the co-op at their pleasure, and nobody can be compelled to join.

co-ops are a natural and welcome part of capitalism, and the free market, while co-ops cannot exist under marxism

arguing that private or collective are the only two choices ignores the obvious difference between freeely joining your goods with others and having your shit taken by force.

collective and private are not opposing sides of a coin, they can exist simultaneously in a free society.

Protip: you can only see the sun in the daytime, but the moon can appear at night, in the day or whenever. they are not opposites.

 

[abandonconflict]

There is very little difference between private collective property and private hereditary property.

 

[Dr Kynes]

There is very little difference between private collective property and private hereditary property.

thanks Noam. we needed the chomp chomp wordsalad.

"private collective property" is GIBBERISH,

what is collective is no longer private you dipshit. when joining a co-op or collective, everything you put in the pile of "Collective Property" is no longer private.

example: Blue Diamond Growers, the largest co-op in california. member growers pool their harvests each year and receive a share of the total profits proportionate to their contribution.

when you pull out of the co-op, you dont lose your land, or even the crops you have already put in. you get paid out along with everybody else, but next year you can chop down your almond grove and plant tomatoes or olives or turnips if you wish, or sell your almonds yourself.

 

[abandonconflict]

what is collective is no longer private you dipshit. when joining a co-op or collective, everything you put in the pile of "Collective Property" is no longer private.

Then who fucking owns it? China? If nobody owns it, then it isn't property. But if the collective owns it, they are a private collective, bro.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Then who fucking owns it? China? If nobody owns it, then it isn't property. But if the collective owns it, they are a private collective, bro.

that depends on the collective, you simpering whelp.

or are you still whingeing because nobody will let you take their shit whenever you want it.

if you want something go fucking earn it you pathetic childish simpleton.

sticking your hand out and demanding shit because you're the Birthday Boy is ridiculous, even for a crypto-marxist

why dont you put your huge misshapen head on your pillow and drift off into your wet-dream utopian fantasy of all the world being free for your use and exploitation.

nobody else is interested in your bizarro-world daydreams

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[cannabineer]

Are you certain of that conclusion?
Even in the Quantum World, to the best of my understanding, it has come to be realized that energy states exist on a helicoid.

Perhaps what you perceive as a patchwork construct, has a subtle flow associated with it which does alter the nature of the whole.
A circuit has parts, but what makes it "something" is the behaviour of the current flowing through it.
What is the "electron" in a socio-economic framework? Money? People? Actions?

How far does one need to step back before the piecewise functions in the picture appear continuous?

Nay, Fuzzy Chilled Carnivore of merciless Justice, I disagree with your presumption and wish to offer the concept of public goods in application, as evidence in favour of an intermediate state. And as part of the subset manifestation of "principle in practice" for Privatized Collective...a Co-op...
ad libitum
we seek safe harbor.

For further details, I would instruct concerned parties to discuss the matter with my attorney:
View attachment 2891364

I think we're coming at this from different core premises.
I am arriving from the conqueror's axiom: if you cannot hold it i will take it. If nobody owns it, it's either not worth taking (ice cap) or not for the taking (atmosphere).
The concept of public goods is contingent on a contract plainly spelled out and honorably held. These things don't stand up in the most elementary crucible of them all: war.
And while I hate war as much as the next moral creature, I won't pretend that it isn't still the final arbiter, colder and more relentless than even the polar predator.

The concept of ownership is as old as the species, "my stick; my kill; go pound sand". It's ingrained.
So for there to be a competing concept, one not dependent on the frailties of a temporal contract, it would have to be strong. Perhaps not obvious or intuitive, but robust.

I have restrained my impulse to say "pfff" because i really would like to be shown wrong in my misanthropy. Someone more optimistic but no dreamier than I, please convince me. But i do request a cohesive reasoned edifice from agreed premises to the startling conclusion.

 

[UncleBuck]

that depends on the collective, you simpering whelp.

or are you still whingeing because nobody will let you take their shit whenever you want it.

if you want something go fucking earn it you pathetic childish simpleton.

sticking your hand out and demanding shit because you're the Birthday Boy is ridiculous, even for a crypto-marxist

why dont you put your huge misshapen head on your pillow and drift off into your wet-dream utopian fantasy of all the world being free for your use and exploitation.

nobody else is interested in your bizarro-world daydreams

 

[Dr Kynes]

I think we're coming at this from different core premises.
I am arriving from the conqueror's axiom: if you cannot hold it i will take it. If nobody owns it, it's either not worth taking (ice cap) or not for the taking (atmosphere).
The concept of public goods is contingent on a contract plainly spelled out and honorably held. These things don't stand up in the most elementary crucible of them all: war.
And while I hate war as much as the next moral creature, I won't pretend that it isn't still the final arbiter, colder and more relentless than even the polar predator.

The concept of ownership is as old as the species, "my stick; my kill; go pound sand". It's ingrained.
So for there to be a competing concept, one not dependent on the frailties of a temporal contract, it would have to be strong. Perhaps not obvious or intuitive, but robust.

I have restrained my impulse to say "pfff" because i really would like to be shown wrong in my misanthropy. Someone more optimistic but no dreamier than I, please convince me. But i do request a cohesive reasoned edifice from agreed premises to the startling conclusion.

the core of the collective, whether in the family, the tribe or even some imagined communist utopia is "Our". Our stick, Our kill, Our village.

this presumes that there is an outsider of some sort who might wish to take Our stuff.

Marxists pretend that holding things in common would end all economic disparity, but they forget that my kin are infinitely more important to me than some nameless faceless sad-sack on the other side of the world, thus only when my kin have enough of all the things they desire can i responsibly begin giving shit away to strangers.

thats the fatal flaw in all Marxism, whether Crypto-Marxist, Socialist, Fascist or Communist. a man who lets strangers eat the food needed by his hungry children is a FOOL, so he will defend his goods and property. Marxists pretend to be about caring and sharing, but the reality is, they are only willing to "collectivize and share" OTHER PEOPLE'S SHIT not their own, and when the sharing happens, the Marxist is always the first one to the table despite having chipped in none of his own goods for the party.

and thats why i'm a Capitalist.

 

[abandonconflict]

the core of the collective, whether in the family, the tribe or even some imagined communist utopia is "Our". Our stick, Our kill, Our village.

this presumes that there is an outsider of some sort who might wish to take Our stuff.

Marxists pretend that holding things in common would end all economic disparity, but they forget that my kin are infinitely more important to me than some nameless faceless sad-sack on the other side of the world, thus only when my kin have enough of all the things they desire can i responsibly begin giving shit away to strangers.

thats the fatal flaw in all Marxism, whether Crypto-Marxist, Socialist, Fascist or Communist. a man who lets strangers eat the food needed by his hungry children is a FOOL, so he will defend his goods and property. Marxists pretend to be about caring and sharing, but the reality is, they are only willing to "collectivize and share" OTHER PEOPLE'S SHIT not their own, and when the sharing happens, the Marxist is always the first one to the table despite having chipped in none of his own goods for the party.

and thats why i'm a Capitalist.

Since everyone is going to TL;DR your endless dogmatic prattle, I highlighted some key words so they could get the jist of what you're pushing. No need to thank me.