Re: CDR: Re: AP Al quim
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I knew this would happen, I just knew it... On Wednesday 19 December 2001 08:02 pm, Jim Choate wrote: > > > Would you mind sticking to the topic? I did not say Communism was a form > > of Capitalism, I said Capitalism and Communism were both forms of > > Commerce. > > Just checking. So you recognize a distinction between 'capitalism' and > 'commerce' too... Of course there's a frigging distinction. I said that the first time around. My problem with your statement is not that you said there was a distinction, it was your definition. > > No. The belief that capitalism is the only mechanism to solve problems is > > philosophy, not commerce, and pretty bad philosophy at that. > > And what makes you think capitalism isn't just that, a philosophy. Capitalism is not philosophy for the same reason that a dog is not cheese. Capitalism is a economic system, a form of commerce, and nothing more. Philosophy is a method of looking at the world around you and attempting to apply a system of rules to it. You can have a philosophy that includes capitalism - either positivly or negatively - but you cannot have capitalism *as* a philosophy. That is quite literally like saying having a nice car is happiness. It's not. Having a nice car might make you happy, but it is not itself happiness. Please go back to third grade and relearn the concept of symbolism. > In fact > 'capitalism' is just like 'communism' or 'democracy', or even > anarcho-capitalism, in that respect. It's nothing more than the > prioritization of goals and resources. No. "Capitalism" is an economic system. "Democracy" is a form of government, one of the classic forms as a matter of fact. "Communism" is both, but it is not the same thing - Communist government is essentially a form of pure democracy, in that all members of the commune have an equal say in the distribution of the resources of the commune, exactly as a pure democracy does. Communism as an economic system is a model which posits the distribution of resources (output) based purely on need, and the distribution of work (input) purely on ability, with relationship defined between input and output. >It's distinction is that it posits > that by making lots of money all the other problems somehow take care of > themselves. "In the long run it'll all work out". Assuming of course there > is still anyone around...God $$$ Fascism is what Capitalism is. No. I already defined capitalism. You weren't paying attention. Five demerits. What you have defined is a philosophy, a belief system which incorporates capitalism. The important difference is that your philosophy, in an infantile way, ascribes motives and emotions to the workings of capitalism. This is incorrect. > "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." > > Anonymous You mean: "When all you have is a hammer, all problems start to look like nails." Samual Clemens a.k.a. Mark Twain Attribution, Iago, attribution! > 'Commerce' has two definitions. The first is involving the economic > exchange of goods and services. The second is any interchange between > individuals. Your first definition is doublespeak. You just stated that commerce is an "economic" exchange of goods and services. Economics are of course a major portion of commerce - in fact, if you include in "economics" emotional exchanges, it can be said to be equal to commerce. So your statement is semantically true, but valueless, since anything is of course equal to itself. Your second is a limited definition - change "individuals" to "any entity" and you have exactly the same definition I gave when I joined the thread, in contradiction to your own statement about the definition of commerce and capitalism. > commerce' (and I'm speaking from an axiomatic and algorithmic > perspective if that's not clear, not philosophical). You can speak axiomatically, or algorithmically, but you can't do both. Axiomatic is philisophical, algorithmic is mathematical. The two are not synonymous. > And this after all brings us right back to the original question. > > "Does everything have a price or not?" Which is an interesting (if pointless) question, but it's not the original question. The original question is whether or not you were giving the correct definitions of commerce and capitalism, and of course you were not. Raise your hand if you're shocked. - -- Matt Beland [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rearviewmirror.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8IXobBxcVTa6Gy5wRAvlAAJ9mhJZ8XU+d5e3jpdZPWgnZ4zT/SACeJUTV qD/EtEXHgVYfY8ghCELtxQo= =XtOs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: CDR: Re: AP Al quim
It's not worth the effort. It's not worth the effort. It won't make a damn bit of difference. Oh, fuckit. On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 04:57:15PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote: > > > Since capitalism is a meritocracy (Those who work eat; > > That is certainly a good definition of 'commerce', it is not accurate for > 'capitalism'. Capitalism represents the belief that $$$ is the primary > goal in life. That he who collects the most is the best. That all things > can be reduced to a 'price'. No. Capitalism is a meritocracy. *Commerce* is simply a label for that class of activities that include all forms of resource transfer from one entity (person, company, nation, world) to another. Some of those are meritocracies, such as capitalism. Others are not - true communism is one example, almost any form of "planned economy", welfare. As for your definition of capitalism - lay the crack pipe *down*, and slowly step away. Capitalism, pure and simple, is the idea that competition and market forces will solve problems. Price of bread too high? Someone will open a cheaper bakery. Too many bakeries for the market? Those with the weakest support and poorest quality will fail. That's all. Everything else is an add-on. It's a meritcracy because emotion and sentiment are not supposed to enter into the equation - either succeed or fail, based on how well you compete. Period. Reality is not that simple, but then, reality seldom is. > It is a faulty assumption and a warped view of humanity. As are yours. Hello Mr. Pot, and how are you today? What's that? Who's black? > Finis. I'm beginning to think that Mr. Choate should never, ever, be allowed to declare a discussion finished or claim to have the "last word". -- Matt Beland [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rearviewmirror.org
Re: CDR: Re: AP Al quim
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote: > So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past > with because it's capitalism is now a good thing. I don't have a problem with commerce per se. Capitalism I do have a problem with, greed <> good. Commerce <> Capitalism (which will come as a shock to a lot of CACL promoters when/if they ever realize it). -- Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: CDR: Re: AP Al quim
Oh, you mean like the parable of the ants and the grasshopper? Where the ants get the results of the work they put into it, and the grasshopper who didn't do any work starves and freezes in the winter? So now you're saying that the very thing you've had a problem in the past with because it's capitalism is now a good thing. So are you finally evolving? --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, David Honig wrote: > > > At 09:53 AM 12/11/01 +1100, mattd wrote: > > >Tim said its an openly elitist list > > >once. > > > > Yes, so is an university. A meritocracy is necessarily discriminatory. > > > > Deal with it. > > Don't confuse having a high standard of excellence with simple egotism > (which is the majority of the cases with both your examples). > > And no, a meritocracy isn't disriminatory. You get what you put into it, > not what somebody else thinks it's worth. > > > -- > > > Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. > > Bumper Sticker > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > > >
Re: CDR: Re: AP Al quim
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote: > Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy > of the solution. That's a TECHNICAL measure, not emotional or social. Yes, but someone somewhere is in charge of making the decision that something is more or less efficient. How do you measure merit for instance for literature? There can be little technical measures. Sure, you can measure grammer and spelling, and use of vocabulary, but you cannot measure creativity by technical means. > Discrimination is inherently ILLOGICAL (ie emotional), which puts it in > direct odds with the concept of 'merit'. Discrimination is simply the chosing of A over B, C, D, and E. It is not necessarily emotional. When someone choses mates, he/she does so by picking the mate that is most likely to guarantee the sucess of their offspring. When someone has discriminating taste, it means that they aren't likely to eat at McDonalds. Further, discriminating between food and poison is a very good thing and has everything to do with logic. The goal of every being is to survive and to produce offspring. It is therefore a good thing if that being can discriminate between sweet and bitter flavors. Sweet flavors are more likely to provide nutrition whereas bitter flavors may indicate posion. Merit simply discriminates between those who have done the work, and therefore are worthy of the reward, and those who haven't. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net > > Further, a meritocracy makes judgements about worth based on the solution > not the source. Source filtering is inherent in discrimination, hence they > can't be synonymous or layered. > > > D'oh. > > Doh indeed. > > > -- > > > Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. > > Bumper Sticker > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > >
