EPTOn June 28 2010 06:51 Jibba wrote:
Damnit. Do you accept ESPORTS bucks?
Damnit. Do you accept ESPORTS bucks?
You'll pay me in heaven, or in the other place.
G20 Protests Become Violent - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
You'll pay me in heaven, or in the other place. | ||
|
makoplux
88 Posts
| ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On June 28 2010 06:54 Biff The Understudy wrote: You'll pay me in heaven, or in the other place. Sieben minutes in Heaven? ;<> | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 28 2010 07:01 makopluxx wrote: The things I'd do to protesters if I didn't have to deal with the law. Just become a "protester" break shit and shout at ppl and then when the law comes to arrest you for breaking shit and disturbing the peace run. Fuck if you get caught get your protest group to bail you out. Fuck, peta proves if you want to be a firebombing dick face do it in the name of saving animals from scientific research peta will bail you out but say they never did. Rodney coronado is a fine example of this bullcrap. ie become a "protester" and break the stupid "protesters" faces in. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Wombatsavior
United States107 Posts
On June 28 2010 06:35 canucks12 wrote: I hate protests because there are so many people there who are not there for legitimate reasons. Some people like to cause havoc, some people just like to be in a group. Protests are largely ineffective when the group makeup is so poor and it was a very poor decision on behalf of all of the protesters to show their discontent via this medium. I think that the police are there just to make sure that things don't get incredulously out of hand. While they may not stop the violent members from doing things such as breaking windows because they are outnumbered, I am sure that if somebody in the group pulls out a gun and starts making threats, they will stop said person. I believe that is their purpose for going undercover, not to rile up the crowd and cause violence, what kind sense does that make? (Don't go making any conspiracy comments about this either) If you want I can find a video of them dressed up about to throw a brick through a window actually causing the damage, but stop, and actually scoot back to the police for safety. here's another video of cops getting taunted by the crowd when they find out they are cops. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
Now that I think about it? Seven minutes in heaven... Wasn't that a creepy game or something? :D On June 28 2010 07:01 makopluxx wrote: The things I'd do to protesters if I didn't have to deal with the law. Yayy! Repression is so cool, I luv it! Seriously, please... | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
more damage was done in montreal, when the NHL team passed 1st round of the playoffs. :o | ||
|
Draconicfire
Canada2562 Posts
![[image loading]](http://torontoist.com/attachments/toronto_david/515pm-20100627-drost-062710-BAYRICHMOND_515p2.jpg) | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest. LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
On June 28 2010 08:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: + Show Spoiler + On June 28 2010 08:41 Draconicfire wrote: Probally the best picture from the protest. LOL???!!? It's so random it's funny! omg I LOL'd Can't wait to see the G20's bill after this. It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 27 2010 22:13 Von wrote: Oh. You mean like BP. Or Goldman Sachs. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Now I totally understand. I believe "Money as Debt" was produced by the Mises Institute, who have been around far longer than the Internet. Its a neat little entertaining film about the basics of the banking system, that will teach any average person the fundamentals and the associated problems if they spend a little bit of time and effort to watch it. "Money from Debt" didn't come from the Mises institute. I watched the video years ago and it completely misses the point that the system he denounces as undesirable, is put in place by the state, aka, force. Any austrian would note that first. Is the service being offered voluntary? No, you either take those notes as payment or go to jail (legal tender laws). Well, there's little discussion further needed to establish that such system is undesirable (for those that value private property and the NAP) As for the violent protesters (anarchists? lol at that), it's a shame. No one who respects and really understands private property (a.k.a capitalism) would do that. But the cops are a shame too, since they're paid by stolen property (a.k.a taxation). And the streets. And the whole government. Shame all around. On June 28 2010 04:24 Jibba wrote: There we go. Mises, who represents a fraction of all working economists. Take away Ron Paul, Youtube and Wikipedia and no one would care about Mises right now, just like they did before. At least come at me with Chicago, the classical school that actually has an effect on the world. Was Copernicus wrong since he was in the minority too? Obviously the austrian school is unpopular in a statist world, since it doesn't advocate the use of violence to further peace; stealing to enrich, regulating to liberate; etc. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system. Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion. + Show Spoiler + EDIT: or maybe you were sarcastic and I didn't understand your point. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 28 2010 09:31 Biff The Understudy wrote: I don't want to be mean, but I don't think economist are the best people to talk about capitalism as a whole. It seems contradictory, but my point is that economic sciences work, from what I know, in the capitalist coordinates. I would rather refer to philosophers if you really want to discuss if capitalism is a good thing or a pathological system. Oh, also, about Yurebis. Saying that "taxation is stolen property" or that "state aka force" is so fucking gross that I don't really know what to say about it. It was supposed to be a serious discussion. Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.) | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
On June 28 2010 09:34 Yurebis wrote: Obligatory libertarian comment, and it's true. Can one not pay taxes? Economics is the science of human choice. Of course economists who are private property advocates can vouch it as the best means of x (production, peace, making burgers, whatever ends. except maybe, violating private property. that would be contradictory.) Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production, distribution, exchange and consumption in the capitalist society, period. There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that theses obscure reasonments about private property. | ||
|
Ramsing
Canada233 Posts
On June 28 2010 08:10 Wombatsavior wrote: If you want I can find a video of them dressed up about to throw a brick through a window actually causing the damage, but stop, and actually scoot back to the police for safety. here's another video of cops getting taunted by the crowd when they find out they are cops. + Show Spoiler + Please do so for the 2010 summit being held in Toronto. Otherwise, stop posting videos of past summit actions that occurred in foreign countries. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 28 2010 09:42 Biff The Understudy wrote: Sorry but economics is the science which treats of wealth production and distribution in the capitalist society, period. There is no science of human choice. You have 2500 years of philosophers discussing if there is such thing as a choice at all, and believe me, with a bit more insight that this obscure reasonment about private property. Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do. edit: I might just open a new thread soon instead of going off-topic and risking another ban, sorry | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
On June 28 2010 09:46 Yurebis wrote: Replace "choice" with "picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time". Can one choose capitalism over socialism? If so, then socialism can also be economically evaluated. Not through a price system of course, but as long as man can see two things and pick the best one to his ends, then there can be economics in that there's always going to be different things he can do. Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism. Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example). This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy. I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism). Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 28 2010 08:48 koreasilver wrote: It won't change much? The government already said a while back that they weren't going to provide coverage for any loss of business or destruction of property caused by the summit. werid as that should be part of the 1 billion, to cover any collateral damage causing during the summit, else i can't see why a mayor of any city would allow it to be hosted there. Shit like this always brings protesters and some call rioting protesting. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 28 2010 09:53 Biff The Understudy wrote: Replace"picking that which one finds best at a certain point in time" by "self interest". And then you start to see that you have quite a fucking huge philosophical problem at the very root of capitalism. Socialism cannot be evaluated economically for two reasons which go together: 1- Because it doesn't make any sense to evaluate a system with tool designed by and advocating naturally another system. 2- Because socialism is built on the whole idea that there are more important things than the wealth you produce (like justice and equality for example). This is precisely why Marx created Political Economy. I would advise you to read Lenin to understand about that problem, and the reason why Trotsky was against the concept of "Socialism in one country" (which leads to economical confrontation which has to be in te detriment of socialism). Now, I don't advocate socialism and especially not in the autoritarian form it has taken in the XXth century. The fact is, socialism as it has been experienced is the exact opposite of the stateless communist society that Marx was aiming for. It doesn't matter the ends (self-interest or outside of oneself), I said whatever ends you wish. They can be economically evaluated. And for those ends, you can evaluate what means are better. Those ends could be "justice, equality". Is there something that is so important to man yet so abstract that he cannot evaluate or consider? How do you choose socialism over capitalism then? Is that not a performative contradiction? "You cannot choose socialism over capitalism but I choose socialism over capitalism"? Oh sorry, I read that you *did* prefer socialism. | ||
| ||
