Alcohol, time to give it up.
Yep, those evil men.
An important insight into human psychology that will come in handy later in your life.
An absolute must speech by Stefan Molyneux. He has a score of zingers in the speech, but my favorite is:
"You know, if you pick the wrong guys to sleep with, can't close your legs, and are too stupid to use one of the 18 methods of birth control out there, then MAYBE parenting isn't for you!"
Another damn fine podcast by The Black Brigade.
Alton Brown I already hold in very high regard. Pilot, motorcyclist, gun guy, musician, oh and that whole cooking thing. Now add to his list "Interviewed by William Shatner." Damn Alton Brown, outdoing me in every category of cool.
And remember the auction is still on for this piece of Cappy Cap paraphernalia. The current bid is $12.02.
14 comments:
Hey buddy, if you have the stones, I'd like to hear your response to this:
Capitally Speaking.
You can do it here or there, whatever you like.
https://medium.com/@publicanthro/academia-and-the-people-without-jobs-c7e503f3bbc3
Now that's funny shit HA. Nihilists sure use a lot of words in the information age.
Take it on cappy, but please charge a full hour for the 2 minutes work.
Capitalism, it's what's for dinner.
Anonymous 5:39, isn't this the blog that recently did an article on "styles of bad argument," including "ad hominem"? Perhaps you should review the Captain's recent work for a clue.
Thanks, Chris. That was a really good read - and a nice from-the-inside agreement of the thesis in Worthless.
High Arka -
I stopped reading by the fourth paragraph. So many of your premises are so fatally flawed that it wasn't even worth my time to go on. If you start from a fatally flawed position, then no amount of arguing afterwards can salve the wounds you started with.
For instance:
Capitalism is not anarchy. They aren't the same thing. They are not mutually exclusive of each other, true, but one does not necessarily rely on the other to exist.
Well, I guess anarchy relies on capitalism, but that's only because we haven't found any other economic system under which you can allow freedom to trade with whomever you please, whenever you please to do so, which would be a prerequisite for anarchy. All other economic forms require some cetralized power to direct traffic, so to speak, which would be anathema to anarchy.
Back to my point:
The existence of government law, and law enforcement forces does not preclude the existence of a capitalist society. Nor, I might add, is such a thing necessary for capitalism to flourish. There are other methods by which a man can protect the products of his labors, and his property, other than having the government do it. Many others.
The thing is that we've found over the years, that perhaps having the government do it is the most efficient method to achieve this goal, and we have chosen to go down that path. This does not mean that we are no longer under a capitalist economic system.
Capitalism relies on the ability to protect property and the product of one's labors. It does not rely on the government doing so, and having the government do so does not mean that you don't have capitalism.
You are making the mistake of conflating political systems with economic systems. It is a common error, but it is basically the fatal flaw in your line of thought that made the rest of your thoughts so dis-interesting to me that I didn't finish reading them.
Keep trying, friend. I'm not saying you're stupid. You are obviously not. But like capitalism not being anarchy, not being stupid doesn't mean you cant be wrong.
And you are. Very, very wrong.
How do you strike a balance between the absolute minimum of law enforcement necessary to "protect the marketplace," and interference that, to you, becomes socialism?
Example: I write a song, record myself singing it, and sell CDs. You make a million copies of my CD and sell them as bootlegs.
(1) Is it capitalist if I hire muscle to tear down your operation?
(2) Is it capitalist if I tear it down myself, by hand?
(3) What if I do that, and then you hire muscle to eliminate me? Is your retaliatory act still capitalist?
(4) What if the muscle I paid to shut you down have been given exclusive license to respond to patent infringements by a representative republican government, and I pay them not by the job, but via yearly membership dues (taxes)?
Okay, so let's say you choose (4), and you believe that it is "capitalism" when I hire exclusively-licensed muscle to stop your reselling my songs. Ergo you feel that it is still a "fair marketplace" when we're abiding by rules put in place by a representative republican government.
The thing you won't like about that is that, by accepting such a proposition, you're accepting Obamacare as capitalist, too--and it is capitalist. If I can interfere with your CD sales by hiring licensed muscle to force you to follow a set of regulations, and if I can justify that as "capitalism" by claiming that the actions of a representative republic are sufficient to legitimize putting you in jail for selling a product, then United Healthcare and Blue Cross are equally justified in employing law enforcement and taxing agencies to mandate purchases of their products.
Welcome aboard the ACA bandwagon, aspiring socialist!
If the actions of a "representative republic" justify capitalism, then it is also capitalism to prevent private individuals from smoking a $300 bag of marijuana to ease the pain of terminal cancer, or growing a $20 bag of the same marijuana, and instead, requiring them and their insurer to buy a $2400 cocktail of pain drugs that don't work as effectively, and cause constipation and permanent mood alterations?
For the same reason, then, it's "capitalism" to pay thousands of dollars in welfare payments to a woman who drinks in her apartment all day, churning out kid after kid, while a different woman from the same family struggles to get by, making less for working two jobs. If you think that the actions of a representative republic legitimize an act as capitalist, then you cannot object to Hillary Clinton's 2021 government takeover of the gun marketplace on "safety grounds" agreed to by her party's majorities in Congress. Everything that the representative republic does is sanctioned as "capitalism," to you.
“How do you strike a balance between the absolute minimum of law enforcement necessary to "protect the marketplace," and interference that, to you, becomes socialism? “
I don’t think anyone ever has. I don’t know if I’ve got that answer, friend, becauce I don’t think “perfect” can ever be obtained. What I do know is that having a set of rules and laws in place does not turn a capitalist economy into socialism automatically.
“Example: I write a song, record myself singing it, and sell CDs. You make a million copies of my CD and sell them as bootlegs”
I can already smell your straw man coming. Under any sane capitalist regime, that would be illegal. Having laws against THEFT does not make a capitalist economy suddenly socialist, even if those laws are enforced by government agents. But I’ll play along, just to humor you.
“(1) Is it capitalist if I hire muscle to tear down your operation?
(2) Is it capitalist if I tear it down myself, by hand? “
The method by which laws against theft are enforced has nothing to do with capitalism, socialism, or anything revolving around economic policy at all. Again, you’re conflating political and legal policy with economic policy. Those are two different things. Until you can grok that fact, we’re not going to be able to have a reasonable discussion about this.
“(3) What if I do that, and then you hire muscle to eliminate me? Is your retaliatory act still capitalist? “
I made this point already in my previous comment. Also, in my previous comment, I made the statement that I didn’t think that you were stupid. You’re inability to grok one simple concept is starting to make it look like I’m wrong about that.
I’ll say it again for your benefit, since you didn’t pick it up the first time around:
CAPITALISM DOES NOT REQUIRE ANARCHY. You are conflating economic systems with social and political systems, and they are two different things. You can have a capitalist economy in what would otherwise be considered a police state, or you can have capitalism is total anarchy. THE METHOD BY WHICH A SOCIETY CHOOSES TO ENFORCE LAWS AGAINST THEFT (OR OTHER CRIMES) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF THAT SOCIETY.
It’s very simple. Take some time to digest that please.
“(4) What if the muscle I paid to shut you down have been given exclusive license to respond to patent infringements by a representative republican government, and I pay them not by the job, but via yearly membership dues (taxes)? “
I’m starting to wonder if I’m wasting my time here. You just don’t get it.
THE METHOD BY WHICH YOU CHOOSE TO CREATE AND ENFORCE LAWS AGAINST THEFT HAS FUCKING NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE IN A CAPITALIST ECONOMY OR NOT.
“Okay, so let's say you choose (4), and you believe that it is "capitalism" when I hire exclusively-licensed muscle to stop your reselling my songs. Ergo you feel that it is still a "fair marketplace" when we're abiding by rules put in place by a representative republican government. “
Why wouldn’t it be? You have yet to explain that.
“The thing you won't like about that is that, by accepting such a proposition, you're accepting Obamacare as capitalist, too--and it is capitalist.”
No, I am not. Obamacare has provisions for subsidies that are paid involuntarily by people, and it forces people to purchase a product that they may or may not need. Forcing people to participate in a market that they may or may not want to participate in, and also forcing them to pay for goods and services for others is sort of the exact opposite of free-market capitalism.
I don’t think it is socialism, either. I’m not really certain what you’d call it, but probably the closest political system to such a situation, where private individuals are forced to buy things from putatively private companies against their will would be fascism. Not the evil, “ZoMG NAZISSSS” fascism, but the actual political and economic system that they call fascism.
“ If I can interfere with your CD sales by hiring licensed muscle to force you to follow a set of regulations, and if I can justify that as "capitalism" by claiming that the actions of a representative republic are sufficient to legitimize putting you in jail for selling a product, then United Healthcare and Blue Cross are equally justified in employing law enforcement and taxing agencies to mandate purchases of their products.”
I’m sorry. You’re really having troubles with logic here today. Putting someone in jail for theft of property is not the same thing as putting someone in jail for refusing to buy a product that they don’t want to buy.
Serious, Arka, if you can’t see the difference between those two things, then I can’t help you. You’re way too far gone.
“Welcome aboard the ACA bandwagon, aspiring socialist! “
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Obamacare is not socialist. See above. Obamacare is probably most closely related to fascism than socialism or capitalism.
“If the actions of a "representative republic" justify capitalism, then it is also capitalism to prevent private individuals from smoking a $300 bag of marijuana to ease the pain of terminal cancer, or growing a $20 bag of the same marijuana, and instead, requiring them and their insurer to buy a $2400 cocktail of pain drugs that don't work as effectively, and cause constipation and permanent mood alterations? “
Yeah, here we go with that whole “conflation of political systems with economic systems” again. Not that I disagree with your desire to legalize marijuana, but that’s beside the point.
By your argument, if we can’t buy and sell everything, all the time, without rule or regulations, then it is not a true capitalist system, because capitalism should not be fettered by any rules, whatsoever, ever, at all. If capitalism dies the very instant that you pass a law saying that it is illegal to buy or sell anything at all, ever, then capitalism died when slavery was abolished. Because if you can’t buy or sell a person, then it isn’t real capitalism, right?
I think you and I can agree on one thing – that entire concept is stupid as fuck. Which means that your entire argument is invalid. And stupid as fuck.
“For the same reason, then, it’s “capitalism” to pay thousands of dollars in welfare payments to a woman who drinks in her apartment all day, churning out kid after kid, while a different woman from the same family struggles to get by, making less for working two jobs. If you think that the actions of a representative republic legitimize an act as capitalist, then you cannot object to Hillary Clinton’s 2021 government takeover of the gun marketplace on “safety grounds” agreed to by her party’s majorities in Congress. Everything that the representative republic does is sanctioned as “capitalism,” to you.”
I hope I have said enough that I don’t have to respond to this, because it really is stupid. It is also untrue. A takeover of the gun market would be fascism. Again, if you cannot see the difference between using the government to enforce laws against theft, and the government unilaterally taking over entire segments of the economy because of political desires, then I am beyond being ableto help you.
I think at this point, I’ll take back the comment about not thinking that you are stupid.
You've also committed one final logical fallacy, which is to say that by agreeing with one thing that a representative government is doing, that I must then agree with ALL the things that government does.
It is a logical fallacy of the most base variety.
I hope you recognize why it is stupid.
I agree with our government enforcing laws against theft.
I disagree with any theoretical attempt by Hillary Clinton to nationalize the gun industry.
THose two statements are not contradictory, or mutually exclusive of each other.
By your argument, they are incongruous and cannot exist at the same time. Which is really stupid.
As a sentient adult human, i reserve the right to agree with some things that an entity does, while at the same time disagreeing with other things that it does, without nullifying my position in any way, whatsoever.
Your attempt to make it so that agreeing with one point means I must agree with all points is really a weak argument techinique, and with that, I'm finished wiht you.
Have a nice day.
I share your desire to believe that there can eventually exist some kind of fair marketplace where what a person produces can be protected by a social compact, sold to others, and the profits allowed to accrue to the producer. Hand in hand with that desire, I must accept that creating such a system would mean forming a government to impose marketplace rules, some of which would interfere with participants' abilities to do whatever they wanted, such as steal or rape or kill.
Accordingly, whatever this system is, it would not be "capitalism." We do not need to be so wedded to the term that we fly into a rage when we realize that its tenets are self-contradictory. Let us, instead, be honest with each other--we want to create markets where certain kinds of trading are allowed, and others disallowed, based upon our own perceptions of morals. We want to create a marketplace based on morals, rather than wishful economic principles that are somehow detached from the people and societies who create them.
Let's work together, talking about what those guidelines should be, rather than arguing about what Adam Smith was really thinking about when he took a crap in some outhouse in 1780. Justifying our current market allowances based on references to the abstract, incomplete, self-contradictory guidelines written down by a bunch of slaveholders is foolish as well as wasteful.
For example, we can demand equal public schooling opportunities and vigorous prosecution of violent rape without also deciding to become "feminist" and spend more of our time arguing about Margaret Mead's favorite flavor of ice cream than about discussing how to make a better future for ourselves.
You have no idea what the word capitalism means.
It does not require a total lack of regulation or law to exist.
As I said in my very first post, you're starting from a completely false premise, so everything else you are saying is essentially worthless.
Forgive me; I was using a combination of Merriam-Webster's dictionary and a mid-level British economics textbook. Do you have a better definition in mind?
Post a Comment