ue_

73 ms·

571.
by ue_ 10y ago
Aquinas' cosmological argument, or the ontological argument have been attempts to do so. Some such as Edward Feser still uphold that the cosmological argument is valid (I'm not well versed enough to say either way myself). I'
572.
by ue_ 10y ago
I don't see any particular reason to subscribe to pragmatism; epistomatic masturbation sounds good, and from a hedonistic perspective I think I'd rather take that. You say "ruthlessly pragmatic", I say "boring"
573.
by ue_ 10y ago
It would be nice if the tools and means of production were owned by the individual researchers, then.
574.
by ue_ 10y ago
> Not any more than we can proof that a diety exists outside of this world. Why can't this be proven? Make no mistake, I'm not well versed on arguments for God, though it has been attempted in the past to prove with logic that
575.
by ue_ 10y ago
On what evidence do you proclaim that Communism works with a state? Or that there is wage labour? Can you find any quotation at all from Marx or Engels in support of the state? How do you explain the existence of anarcho-Communism if you be
576.
by ue_ 10y ago
>Communism is total government, Anarchism is no government. Its oil and water. This is false. Communism leads to a stateless society, which is known as anarchism, i.e without rulers. Where do you get your information that Communism has a
577.
by ue_ 10y ago
People disagreeing with me does not mean that I'm wrong. Communism is defined as a stateless, classless and monelyess and anarchistic society in which peolpe are not paid with wages for work. Even in Socialism, the means of production
578.
by ue_ 10y ago
>China, Cuba, Vietnam These are capitalist countries, in which wage labour is the primary way by which workers sustain themselves; property is privately owned (and yes, the government can privately own property). >North Korea North Ko
579.
by ue_ 10y ago
>Under what authority? The consent of the governed. That's strange, I don't remember consenting.
580.
by ue_ 10y ago
>Capitalist firms employ people, who support families. The feudal lord supports families by giving them a place to live while the workers pay tribute with the fruit of their labour. The idea that the workers ought to be grateful for bein
581.
by ue_ 10y ago
If you are forced to do something in order to survive, would you say this is profitable? The worker must sell his labour time in order to survive. If this is how profit is defined, then so be it - but it is a very strange way of "profi
582.
by ue_ 10y ago
> and organizations get unfairly accused. I understand people, but why organisations? Capitalist firms literally thrive on the exploitation of labour, disregard for the environment and otherwise reckless pursuit of profit.
583.
by ue_ 10y ago
I would also recommend Wage Labour and Capital by Marx, and the classical political economists like Smith and Ricardo. A good introduction to contending schools of economics is Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and M
584.
by ue_ 10y ago
The buyer of labour-time pays wholly for the labour value provided, but the worker in turn provides surplus labour which the capitalist collects as value. The worker is paid for the the time that the capitalist has purchased, not the surplu
585.
by ue_ 10y ago
But it's clear that the drive for profit is a contributor to poverty; arguably a lot of it today exists because of the profit motive. Furthermore, many people can't "claw their way out of poverty". I'm not really su
586.
by ue_ 10y ago
Private property includes land and the machinery used in order to exploit labour within capitalism; I don't believe that those who hold the 'right' to this property do so legitimately, as they can only back up their claim via
587.
by ue_ 10y ago
I'm not a libertarian in the economic sense. My reason for wanting the state abolished is firstly because it provides support via conferring of private property rights to the bourgeoisie; secondly, because the state's authority is
588.
by ue_ 10y ago
>suggests you might have unrealistic expectations I hear this a lot, but I disagree with it. Of course I do not expect the state to just vanish, but my point is that I do not want to 'settle' for a state, because I disagree wit
589.
by ue_ 10y ago
An incentive at the expense of my own freedom, which I refuse to accept as valid.
590.
by ue_ 10y ago
>I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I&#x
591.
by ue_ 10y ago
>you're a freeloader In this case, I can't see the problem with being a freeloader. Information is a non-scarce resource, and the arguments against freeloading don't apply to sharing information, other than the continuance
592.
by ue_ 10y ago
Hah, I like this.
593.
by ue_ 10y ago
>You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation. It's unfortunate that the "reward" needs to come in the form of a monopoly over an idea . The fact that ideas themselves are valuable is such a capitalisti
594.
by ue_ 10y ago
Proudhon's "What is Property?" is a good read on this. Private property is theft from society.
595.
by ue_ 10y ago
>Also your rules don't really work. "tanoshii" => "tanoshiideshita"? I learned this quite early on, but I'm still a little confused for exactly when to conjugate desu instead.
596.
by ue_ 10y ago
>One thing I'll often use dd for is recovering data from a failing drive. Funnily enough, I ended up using it to accidentally name the wrong drive in the argument, and lost years of photos, music, video etc. though I suppose I can&#
597.
by ue_ 10y ago
I don't think they must necessarily "always happen"; capitalism is much more developed now, much more advanced, and the conditions for revolution are more pertinent. I think you should move out of thinking of the way hitherto
598.
by ue_ 10y ago
>The article mentions "Welcome to the NHK"[1], which is an unusually bitter anime. Say what you will, but I found it to be excellent.
599.
by ue_ 10y ago
Why? Marxism refers to the work of Marx and Engels, who are forefathers of the criticism of capitalism (along with other 18th century anarchists and socialists). I see no reason to get rid of the term or use other terms; I base my reasoning
600.
by ue_ 10y ago
>Do they mean that same capitalism that brings >1,000,000 Chinese people out poverty every month? The idea that by pointing to some successes, it justifies the whole system of appropriating labour for profit is utterly falacious and f

More ›