devaluation is good for society

martinglake:

if I write go jogging at 6am tommorow. to write it is a human act. but now it exists as a phenomenon on a piece of paper and it holds a power over me, namely the promt to jog at 6am in the moring.

BEHOLD: THE POWER OF THE WRITTEN WORD!

ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND MIGHTY POWERS OF THE MEMO!

martinglake:

 

I might argue that the system was more reliable because it wasn't human. and follows abstract/ideal laws that are not based on human nature.

You might argue that, sure. But It was based on human action.

martinglake:

I don't think my/your views on tax can be proven. they are subjective points of view based on the literal definition of tax and theft.

Theft is the unjust removal of wealth. One person taking something from another person without their consent = theft.
 Taxation Fits the bill. I do not consent to the government taking my wealth. Therefore they steal it from me.

And please don't respond with a Logical Positivist claim.

martinglake:

no views on human nature? thats the foundation of ecconomics. you can't have a ecconomic model without out being to presume how people will act. surely?

Yes you can. Hence, I'm an Austrian.

Who constructs your abstract ideals?  Isn't that a lot of power for one or some people to have, when those ideals can be promoted and enforced by law, without recourse, against the will of some individuals?

I think you are missing that compliance has to be voluntary.  In order to have a just society, there must be an absence of coercion.  Regardless of what patterns, habits or natures emerge, people must be free to choose to participate or not.  If you require mandatory, or comprehensive compliance, without free choice, then the system is coercive, and fundamentally authoritarian or tyrannical.

Who decides what the laws are?  Who can stop the lawmakers from making bad laws?  How can we reverse the trend?  Democracy?  Democracy is the tyranny of a majority, 51% against 49%.

exactly my point fsk

fsk:

Give me an example of a free market degenerating into a State.  All the States I know about were imposed by violence/conquest/trickery.

violence/conquest/trickery are products of the free market.

hense the grouping and defense against such things into a compromised society that is not perfect...and must hold its own preservation above its duty to its individual parts (us) but one that prevents extremes and provides a stable invironment for trade so that the majority do not feel the desire to rebel.

I think that's is the society that we live in, nationally anyway. overseas we are still sorting out  the international free market. hopfully one day we will have a global government to regulate countries into civil (although inhuman) behaviour.

all governments were created as part of a free market process.  it unfortunately is not human nature to seek free markets, but group, organise and (suposedly) improve.

by `sorting out` I mean it is being sorted out, in the mix. I don't mean any one coutry is sorting it out or ahs the right idea of which way to go.

agian this is a completly unfounded assumption but I would say global goverment is inevitable.

violence/conquest/trickery are products of the free market.

BS. Free market = free exchange of private property, which implies no coercion. The above violate the market. Before getting heavily involved in a debate, make sure you know what you're talking about. Maybe you should give this a read. BTW, learning to spell would be a big asset when advocating that We the Morons need to be regulated by some platonic Philosopher-Kings.

-Jon

the system is a phenomenon. it has a degree of independance from individuals. so the people in power should not be free  to impliment their  individual  ideals. but add a small fraction to the system that already exists inhumanly. the system therby restrict and prevent individual power (in its full extent) from ever occuring.

this is arguably the primary function of the system.

so it is not created by me or anyone. the ideals have to prove themselves the fittest to exist just like every other pattern in nature.

and this is what we have....there is no distinct ideology but a mismash of different things. some tyranical some caring. no particular person in charge or free to act freely. half the government might want to drop bombs on Iran but the other half don't. therfore through bearocracy we have inaction and the containment of extreme human nature hurah!

:) we were all wandering around with drums at one point. that was a free market and those free market guys made this.

they chose to do what they did...or should I say the powerful warmongers did.

sadly powerful warmongers will always exist in one way or another.

most people never do anything, they just milk the cow and eat eggs. its the individuals that make society. thats why they should be slowed, limited and generally  stopped.

the system can do that.

So, what reading have you done on the history of the state? Endogenously or exogenously created, which would you say?

-Jon

my argumemt, in absense of any traction, has evolved into a totally oblique position envolving systems phenomenons and functions. it's rather amusing:)

martinglake:

my argumemt, in absense of any traction, has evolved into a totally oblique position envolving systems phenomenons and functions. it's rather amusing:)

You keep using words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Hey, maybe his first thought when he read the word "platonic" was "you wash your dirty mouth out boy!!!"

-Jon

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

You keep using words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

It's rather amusing :)

without knowing what your talking about but knowing it was in the beginning of an economics text book, (yes I have read a page or two out of an ecconomics text book - shocking as that may seem) and considering my argument, it contains aspects of both I'd say both, and further more the creation of the state was (as everything is) an organic process that happend over time and the dotting of sentances and waving of flags was only a formal moment in the creation of that state. For example whoever drew up the plans for the state was already functioning as and aspect of the state they were about to create. I can guess that much:)

well its only going to take a mathmatition to prove me wrong. are you said mathmatition?

I think I have a general understanding wide enough to use such words, perhaps they arn't taken from an ecconomics context though.

what words are you questioning?

This isn't economics, strictly speaking. Moreso the province of political science, perhaps sociology, but of course all are subsumed under praxeology. Just because something is an organic process, of course, neither means it is a market phenomenon, nor does it even begin to justify it.

-Jon

banned:

Geoffrey Allan Plauche:

You keep using words, but I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

It's rather amusing :)

Has Nim Chimpsky risen from the dead? :D

martinglake:

well its only going to take a mathmatition to prove me wrong. are you said mathmatition?

I haven't seen you propose any mathematical functions which you would use determine your ideal society with.