|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense.
it's not touchy feely reasons, it's deeply unsustainable and is operating on borrowed time.
i am not a touchy feely person, remember, I am a stalinist
as far as your last line, let me repeat: you are an idiot and need to go read your adam smith
|
On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense.
sorry, what's your point? and how did you arrive at it?
|
Oh great, growth, family, and the spending of local government are more important than inequality for boosting social mobility. Just order us up some growth and local spending then. Easy. Gay marriage should help boost the marriage numbers too.
|
On January 12 2014 08:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense. sorry, what's your point? and how did you arrive at it?
He goes to the grocery store and sees Cavendish bananas there year round.
|
On January 12 2014 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense. it's not touchy feely reasons, it's deeply unsustainable and is operating on borrowed time. i am not a touchy feely person, remember, I am a stalinist as far as your last line, let me repeat: you are an idiot and need to go read your adam smith
I didn't say you're a touchy-feely person. I said you're a silly, privileged person. Which I think even you'd have a hard time disagreeing with.
As for me being an idiot -- maybe, but, I'm pretty confident my IQ is a lot higher than yours. But maybe you're talking about "emotional intelligence"...
|
On January 12 2014 09:02 ziggurat wrote:
I'm pretty confident my IQ is a lot higher than yours.
Best sentence I've read in weeks, bravo.
Like worse than the people complaining about an oxymoron a few pages back (but maybe you were among them).
|
On January 12 2014 09:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense. it's not touchy feely reasons, it's deeply unsustainable and is operating on borrowed time. i am not a touchy feely person, remember, I am a stalinist as far as your last line, let me repeat: you are an idiot and need to go read your adam smith I didn't say you're a touchy-feely person. I said you're a silly, privileged person. Which I think even you'd have a hard time disagreeing with. As for me being an idiot -- maybe, but, I'm pretty confident my IQ is a lot higher than yours. But maybe you're talking about "emotional intelligence"...
I guess that makes you the silly kind of person who talks about things he doesn't understand while relying on your merely above average iq to substantiate baseless opinions.
|
On January 12 2014 09:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense. it's not touchy feely reasons, it's deeply unsustainable and is operating on borrowed time. i am not a touchy feely person, remember, I am a stalinist as far as your last line, let me repeat: you are an idiot and need to go read your adam smith I didn't say you're a touchy-feely person. I said you're a silly, privileged person. Which I think even you'd have a hard time disagreeing with. As for me being an idiot -- maybe, but, I'm pretty confident my IQ is a lot higher than yours. But maybe you're talking about "emotional intelligence"...
lol
|
On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith
What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"?
Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case.
|
On January 12 2014 09:02 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense. it's not touchy feely reasons, it's deeply unsustainable and is operating on borrowed time. i am not a touchy feely person, remember, I am a stalinist as far as your last line, let me repeat: you are an idiot and need to go read your adam smith I didn't say you're a touchy-feely person. I said you're a silly, privileged person. Which I think even you'd have a hard time disagreeing with. As for me being an idiot -- maybe, but, I'm pretty confident my IQ is a lot higher than yours. But maybe you're talking about "emotional intelligence"...
you are so intelligent, you just "solved inequality" by posting a link - did not even have to form your own arguments based on the link or something oldsql like that.
some meta shit going on here.
|
On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case.
my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today
furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business
|
On January 12 2014 08:42 IgnE wrote:Oh great, growth, family, and the spending of local government are more important than inequality for boosting social mobility. Just order us up some growth and local spending then. Easy. Gay marriage should help boost the marriage numbers too.
In my physics class we all had a good laugh when we saw an example of how not to draw a line of best fit. It was something about the Africanized honey bee. When I looked at that article, I couldn't help but see some disappointing similarities:
![[image loading]](http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/Screen%20Shot%202014-01-08%20at%207.38.10%20AM.png)
The other graphs aren't *that* great either, but they are at least a little better than this.
|
LOL it's science!
edit: @below whatever jonny I don't like talking to you, believe whatever you want, and if anybody listens to you, that's their problem, I'm over it
|
On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business
I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued.
Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs.
|
On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs.
why not
|
On January 12 2014 12:47 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. why not
Are you asking why are small businesses not always better?
Well as a couple basic examples - economies of scale and business continuity.Or if you want something more tangible, small businesses typically pay employees less than big ones.
|
On January 12 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:47 Roe wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. why not Are you asking why are small businesses not always better? Well as a couple basic examples - economies of scale and business continuity.Or if you want something more tangible, small businesses typically pay employees less than big ones.
you're right, that was more tangible. now off to the nautilus. take some soma before...they're taking me away to iceland
|
On January 12 2014 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:47 Roe wrote:On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs. why not Are you asking why are small businesses not always better? Well as a couple basic examples - economies of scale and business continuity.Or if you want something more tangible, small businesses typically pay employees less than big ones. The economies of scale found in companies like Walmart and big grocery chains helps so much for those of us without a lot to spend. The availability of healthy, nutritious food on the cheap, cheap household appliances and items, wide selection of common items at low prices. They didn't get there by offering higher quality and specialty products at higher prices than previously seen. They helped people like me with meeting budgets and making life easier.
|
On January 12 2014 09:23 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 09:02 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 08:40 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 08:30 ziggurat wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
gmos are only one facet of a deeply problematic regime of industrial agriculture, the problem here is just that the public discourse about it is myopic
is our agricultural production deeply fucked? yes. is it deeply fucked entirely and unequivocally because of gmo? no
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith I don't think our agricultural production is fucked. I think it's amazing! We have more choice that at any time in history, and at lower prices than ever. There are just a lot of silly privileged people who have problems with it for various touchy-feely reasons which I personally don't care about. Also, your talk about how there is very little private property these days is transparent nonsense. it's not touchy feely reasons, it's deeply unsustainable and is operating on borrowed time. i am not a touchy feely person, remember, I am a stalinist as far as your last line, let me repeat: you are an idiot and need to go read your adam smith I didn't say you're a touchy-feely person. I said you're a silly, privileged person. Which I think even you'd have a hard time disagreeing with. As for me being an idiot -- maybe, but, I'm pretty confident my IQ is a lot higher than yours. But maybe you're talking about "emotional intelligence"... I guess that makes you the silly kind of person who talks about things he doesn't understand while relying on your merely above average iq to substantiate baseless opinions.
Well he did call me an idiot you know. If you think my opinion is baseless I'd be interested in hearing why.
|
On January 12 2014 12:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2014 12:10 sam!zdat wrote:On January 12 2014 10:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 12 2014 06:02 sam!zdat wrote:
edit: also, while I'm thinking about it, I want to address something from a couple of weeks ago. after some idiot banned me, most of the responses to me were based on mocking me for beliefs I do not hold (the main way that people respond to me here). I just want to put forth that I believe 100 percent in private property and that I think one of the main problems with our society today is that there is very little private property. a joint stock corporation is not private property, it is a form of absentee landlordism, which is the antithesis of private property. late capitalism is NOT a system based on private property, there is basically no private property in the capitalist system today. equities are not private property. your mortgaged house is not private property. securities are not private property. anyone who doesn't understand this is an idiot and needs to go read their adam smith What do you suppose would be the costs and benefits associated with a system based on "real" private property vs "absentee landordism"? Personally I can't imagine returning to "real" private property in the modern world. We'd just lose too much to make it worthwhile. But I encourage you to make your case. my only point for the moment is that late capitalism is not, as you were told in busyness school, a system built on private property, and that you cannot ground your justification for the existing order in liberal theory, ESPECIALLY adam smith, because adam smith would be absolutely horrified by the way our economy works today furthermore, the more that you can get rid of corporate ownership and promote small, locally owned businesses, the better off we will all be. don't republican assholes talk all the time about small business? the difference between me and them is that I actually believe in small business I don't think how Adam Smith defined private property is very meaningful. If his definition has the potential to produce real world betterment, great, but that needs to be argued. Similarly, small businesses are not always better and rote support of them doesn't reflect real world wants and needs.
Small businesses actually are great though. But complex government regulations hurt small businesses a lot more than they hurt big businesses. Small businesses flourish in an environment where the rules are simple and transparent. The US today seems to be moving further away from that every year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
