|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On July 06 2018 20:18 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 19:26 xM(Z wrote:well one could see it as a victory(copyright law was blocked for now) but also as MEPs just opened up the lobby war to fatten their pockets ....
Bring on more lobbyists
Thursday's decision opens up the possibility for MEPs to introduce amendments to the parliament's text.
This also means that the race is on for lobbyists to convince MEPs that are not necessarily experts on copyright or how the internet works. Copyright is a controversial topic with vested interests new and old.
Immediately after the vote, interest groups started flooding mailboxes with press statements.
These emails also give some indication of how heated the debate has become and how entrenched are the positions.
Four lobby groups representing magazines, newspapers, and publishers said that MEPs "voted to obstruct" the copyright reform, "succumbing to an intense lobby of manipulative anti-copyright campaigners, US internet giants and vested interests who benefit from stealing and monetising publishers' valuable content".
September
The issue will return on the plenary agenda in September.
The full chamber will then be able to debate the bill, before its rapporteur Voss is sent to negotiate with the Council of the EU – which represents national governments – and the European Commission.
The negotiators will have to find a compromise between the commission's original text, the to-be-determined parliament text, and the council's text, which was agreed last May.
It will be the outcome of these so-called trilogue talks which will determine who will benefit from the 'directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on copyright in the Digital Single Market'. I am still a bit flabberghasted by how this became a thing. I hope the MEPs resist these shitty lobby groups trying to maintain their troglodyte view of what media is and how it works. MEPs are elected by the people, aka populists, so figure it out.
i think though that in 2019 there should be a new election for MEPs across EU so maybe those already elected might fear they won't be reelected ... i don't know; but imagine all those populists voting in 2019, oh gosh.
Edit: and with 73 vacancies coming from the british MEPs following brexit, i'd expect Merkel to bend over some more on (new)allocation criteria and what not.
|
NIgel Farage certainly demonstrated the flaw with the MEP system, since he never once even pretended to do his job while serving as Britain's MEP.
|
On July 07 2018 00:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do? Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame). And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself). So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this: 1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or 1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold. 2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b). 3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces.
You could have simply said 'an utopia with vague statements that can say anything and the contrary of anything, that I know will never be realized so I can keep bitching to others about how I'm intellectually superior'.
|
On July 07 2018 05:21 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 00:45 Big J wrote:On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do? Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame). And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself). So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this: 1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or 1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold. 2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b). 3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces. You could have simply said 'an utopia with vague statements that can say anything and the contrary of anything, that I know will never be realized so I can keep bitching to others about how I'm intellectually superior'.
You asked him what he would do with unlimited power to reform a sociality and then complain when the response is overly idealistic?
|
On July 07 2018 05:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:21 SoSexy wrote:On July 07 2018 00:45 Big J wrote:On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do? Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame). And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself). So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this: 1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or 1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold. 2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b). 3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces. You could have simply said 'an utopia with vague statements that can say anything and the contrary of anything, that I know will never be realized so I can keep bitching to others about how I'm intellectually superior'. You asked him what he would do with unlimited power to reform a sociality and then complain when the response is overly idealistic?
This thread resembles a high school bully group. When someone disagrees, the ganking begins.
Anyways, It's clear from his reply that those sentences have no possibility of realization. 'You would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL.' Also, funny that such a idealist, detached from reality point of view feels entitled to tell everyone if their solutions are realistically doable or not. On second thought, I could agree with him...if we were in 1890. Finally, special rights = capital makes me shiver inside.
|
On July 07 2018 05:21 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 00:45 Big J wrote:On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do? Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame). And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself). So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this: 1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or 1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold. 2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b). 3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces. You could have simply said 'an utopia with vague statements that can say anything and the contrary of anything, that I know will never be realized so I can keep bitching to others about how I'm intellectually superior'.
The reason you don't understand what I am writing is that you are a socialist who doesn't understand markets. You want to hear results. I can't give you results, since the whole point of my world view is that "good" (in the sense of generally accepted) results come from "good" (hence unbiased) decision processes.
I can tell you my personal decisions in such a system, which was not the exercise. I can't tell you if that would be the outcome of the social decision process. If I guaranteed you a result, then my society couldn't have other members.
And no my friend, just because you seemingly don't understand abstraction, doesn't make my views unrealistic. You are the one who has unrealistic demands. You seemingly believe that societies can exist against the free choices of people. They can't, they never could and they never will. They always eventually collapse. In the "best" case you can surpress them with propaganda and violence for a few decades or generations until the inbred elites have become so shallow due to the lack of competition and challenges that they even become to stupid for that.
|
On July 07 2018 05:57 SoSexy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:26 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 05:21 SoSexy wrote:On July 07 2018 00:45 Big J wrote:On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do? Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame). And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself). So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this: 1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or 1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold. 2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b). 3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces. You could have simply said 'an utopia with vague statements that can say anything and the contrary of anything, that I know will never be realized so I can keep bitching to others about how I'm intellectually superior'. You asked him what he would do with unlimited power to reform a sociality and then complain when the response is overly idealistic? This thread resembles a high school bully group. When someone disagrees, the ganking begins. Anyways, It's clear from his reply that those sentences have no possibility of realization. 'You would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL.' Also, funny that such a idealist, detached from reality point of view feels entitled to tell everyone if their solutions are realistically doable or not. On second thought, I could agree with him...if we were in 1890. Finally, special rights = capital makes me shiver inside.
You asked a stupid question, got a more serious answer you deserved, and mocked it.
You absolutely deserve what you're getting right now.
If someone was going to take your stupid question seriously, the first thing to shoot back would be 'how much personal power do I have?'
Are we talking Infinity Gauntlet, reality-redefining power? Does the bureaucracy respond instantaneously to my whims or am I limited to the awkwardness of existing governments? Can I invent an entirely new government system or do I have to work with what we have?
From the initial outset you were setting a bad basis from which anyone who bothered to reply to you had to work from.
On July 07 2018 07:30 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 05:21 SoSexy wrote:On July 07 2018 00:45 Big J wrote:On July 06 2018 23:23 SoSexy wrote:
Big J, what would your dream society be? If you were in charge with limitless power, what would you do? Me and a lot of superhot, horny girls that all love me and do all the work for me (obviously because they freely want to, so I am not to blame). And that's the reason why neither I nor anyone else should have a lot of power. In my dream society you would probably only exist as someone I can exchange with on TL (not for personal dislike, but for lack of personal usefulness for myself). So instead, I think I should rather interprete your question in a Rawl'sish sense, that I could choose a society with an accepted ruleset, that I want to be born in (as a random member). A quick draft would go along the lines of this: 1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or 1)b) only gives special rights (=capital) to idividuals, if those privileged people continuously pay for them according to their market value (or give them up again). Having a special right must never be a source of power itself, it must be met with an equal payment to the rest of society, which is the source of that power. The criterium for the size of the payment is to find equilibrium prices for capital/property rights, which guarantee that the summed (market-based) value (at a point in time) of income a person has acquired through production and free trade through his or her lifetime is the same as the value of capital they hold. 2) that demands of new applicants that they obviously agree to these rules, but invests into them by teaching them these values of liberty as well as the technical/practical skills required to acquire a higher income than what is implied through 1)b). 3) that has general insurance mechanisms against external (non-human) forces. You could have simply said 'an utopia with vague statements that can say anything and the contrary of anything, that I know will never be realized so I can keep bitching to others about how I'm intellectually superior'. The reason you don't understand what I am writing is that you are a socialist who doesn't understand markets. You want to hear results. I can't give you results, since the whole point of my world view is that "good" (in the sense of generally accepted) results come from "good" (hence unbiased) decision processes. I can tell you my personal decisions in such a system, which was not the exercise. I can't tell you if that would be the outcome of the social decision process. If I guaranteed you a result, then my society couldn't have other members. And no my friend, just because you seemingly don't understand abstraction, doesn't make my views unrealistic. You are the one who has unrealistic demands. You seemingly believe that societies can exist against the free choices of people. They can't, they never could and they never will. They always eventually collapse. In the "best" case you can surpress them with propaganda and violence for a few decades or generations until the inbred elites have become so shallow due to the lack of competition and challenges that they even become to stupid for that.
I'm not entirely sure about the point you're making here. I think societies of all types collapse sooner or later, whether by the will of the people or against it. Though certainly those that aren't at odds with their own people trend towards lasting longer. That seems to be a potentially very broad category that a lot of different societies might fall into or out of depending on the observer.
|
I'm not entirely sure about the point you're making here. I think societies of all types collapse sooner or later, whether by the will of the people or against it. Though certainly those that aren't at odds with their own people trend towards lasting longer. That seems to be a potentially very broad category that a lot of different societies might fall into or out of depending on the observer.
I think you understand my point exactly. A society that isn't at odds with the opinions of people is more stable, and leads to more happiness.
That can only be one in which the people are exchanging their opinions and "the socially accepted, peaceful and exclusive control over things" (=special rights = capital) under personal responsibilty. Hence a market system. Systems not based on broad, free choice only survive for as long as the remaining planners (who make the choices) just randomly happen to assume the free choices semi-correctly, and even then it will be hard, because without a free choice a person won't take a personal responsibility for their actions. Most of those systems will resort to violence and propaganda, at which point they can hardly be seen as "one" society anymore. It's really just two societies (the controllers and the controlled) living in close space of each other, and this will eventually lead to conflict between the parties.
|
special rights and free choice ... whooaaa.
what you do with the submissive/passives(S&M says fucking Hi!) people that don't want to or can't make choices for themselves?; stop them at the border?, separate them from their choice-able family?.
it's as if someone hasn't heard about human variances in abilities, aptitudes, behavior, personality etc.
you chose traits you deem worthwhile and just want them; care for a babbybottle with that?.
first learn what people want in general terms at least(it is a clusterfuck), then realize some people submit willingly and consensually their right of choice(if there ever was one) or give/handover their power to other people(chosen, trusted representatives) and after that see that you need SoSexy there in your world to herd some of the sheep. he is the one you'll be giving special rights to, a.k.a the capital.
now enjoy the irony.
|
On July 07 2018 15:54 xM(Z wrote:
special rights and free choice ... whooaaa.
what you do with the submissive/passives(S&M says fucking Hi!) people that don't want to or can't make choices for themselves?; stop them at the border?, separate them from their choice-able family?.
it's as if someone hasn't heard about human variances in abilities, aptitudes, behavior, personality etc.
you chose traits you deem worthwhile and just want them; care for a babbybottle with that?.
first learn what people want in general terms at least(it is a clusterfuck), then realize some people submit willingly and consensually their right of choice(if there ever was one) or give/handover their power to other people(chosen, trusted representatives) and after that see that you need SoSexy there in your world to herd some of the sheep. he is the one you'll be giving special rights to, a.k.a the capital.
now enjoy the irony.
Yeah and nothing I described forbids any of that.
|
it's not about forbidding things but about the fact that you want to have all people equal participants (in)to your world while knowing they can't be which make everything a scam.
basically you want what it is now but everyone to be happy. 
|
On July 07 2018 16:11 xM(Z wrote:it's not about forbidding things but about the fact that you want to have all people equal participants (in)to your world while knowing they can't be which make everything a scam. basically you want what it is now but everyone to be happy.
quote that part or stop lying
|
from:
1)your society exists
and
2) "1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or"
you get to
3) people that delegate their rights/choices/trust to someone else are secondary obeyers thus do not belong to 'that everyone' group, the group that made and agreed on the rules.
that makes some more equal than others; your equality trickles down.
Edit: as a whole, you want a world with the rulers and the ruled which is fair i guess and then try to prescribe each category a duty/obligation to do x to be y ... etc. you have free market to weigh the value of goods BUT you also need a free-like market structure to weigh the actual wants/wishes of the people and you don't have it.
the current social order uses indoctrination to steer those wishes towards whatever who's in charge want. for you to have equality and everyoness you'll need that second market.
|
On July 07 2018 16:24 xM(Z wrote:
from:
1)your society exists
and
2) "1)a) only makes restrictive rules that everyone within the society has to obey to equally or"
you get to
3) people that delegate their rights/choices//trust to someone else are secondary obeyers thus do not belong to 'that everyone' group, the group that made and agreed on the rules.
that makes some more equal than others; your equality trickles down.
a) If you freely delegate something on an individual level it is an individual contract, not a rule of society.
b) A "rulemaking rule" which chooses a representation in which everyone can apply to be a representative and has an equal right to vote, is equal.
|
a), assuming it's between a submissive and his delegate, does not and will never account for all variables and possible outcomes when applying it to a rule made in absentia of the submissive. that leads to abuse of trust, willingly or otherwise, to which you/this society, replied with courts and a law system.
for a) to stand, you need the delegate to reapply for the submissive's trust AND get the his agreement again after each and every rule the delegate pre-agrees upon.
|
On July 07 2018 16:55 xM(Z wrote:
a), assuming it's between a submissive and his delegate, does not and will never account for all variables and possible outcomes when applying it to a rule made in absentia of the submissive. that leads to abuse of trust, willingly or otherwise, to which you/this society, replied with courts and a law system.
for a) to stand, you need the delegate to reapply for the submissive's trust AND get the his agreement again after each and every rule the delegate pre-agrees upon.
That's called contract law.
Obviously, what you are implying, not regulating individual contracts further falls under 1)a. But a general renegotiation mechanism that triggers under certain circumstances/in certain periods for every individual contract, as you also described, is a regulation which also falls under 1)a) as well and is therefore completely acceptable too. Which regulation this society chooses is up to them as long as the process of choice falls under 1)a) and the outcome under 1)a) or 1)b).
If you want to make special regulations, like "an entrepreneur is allowed to..." that is category 1)b) and is valid if every entrepreneur pays a tax for that special right according to 1)b).
|
and you've closed the loop; case done! , come on ...
realize that you going from individual contracts that fail to society chooses and up to them is primarily wishful thinking.
first, a failing individual contract invalidates the (power of)delegate who made/agreed to the initial rule that broke the contract.
second, if you pass the first problem(the individual re-agrees with delegating the same person to represent his needs) and move into negotiations, you'll get to two scenarios:
1) if the individual still doesn't agree and will never agree to the rule he will be excluded from that 'everyone' thus your idea fails;
2) if the individual agrees with the new rule after 'negotiations' then your idea still fails because "that everyone within the society has to obey to equally" makes it so that the guy that got fucked in the first place, obeys the rules way more that everyone else.
first makes you fail on everyone and second on equality.
Ex: know that every individual contract is always made based on principles and broad generalities.
a dude agrees with roads; the roads are good i need roads. his representative negotiates rules and routes for said roads.
when the representative comes back to the dude and tells him that a road will go right through his house your world gets fucked, irreconcilably.
so exclude the guy or fuck the guy is all you're left with.
dude just realize that you can't make everyone the same amount of happy then accept you're a tyrant.
|
This time when you realise that Germany has a second team in the World Cup which actually wins against Brazil. Well done, I'm impressed. :D
|
On July 07 2018 20:14 sc-darkness wrote:
This time when you realise that Germany has a second team in the World Cup which actually wins against Brazil. Well done, I'm impressed. :D
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Care to explain?
|
On July 07 2018 21:33 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 20:14 sc-darkness wrote:
This time when you realise that Germany has a second team in the World Cup which actually wins against Brazil. Well done, I'm impressed. :D I'm not sure what you mean by this. Care to explain?
It's a politically incorrect joke about flags of Belgium and Germany. Considering Germans here found mild nazi jokes funny, this one should be no issue if they're consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
