NationStates

Aellex wrote:

Liriena wrote:
I've been catching up on it all. Nap deserved what he got, and Mardla was unequivocally a bigot.

That being said, thanks for confirming the axiom that right-libs will always side with fashies and reactionaries.

And confirming the axiom that left-libs will always side with pedophiles truly makes that a glorious victory and leave you standing on the moral high-ground once you're done vilipending those dirty right-libs for daring to be disgusted by kiddie diddling.
Or maybe that's a bigoted and age-ophobic term too? We gotta call it "ephebophilia" rather to make sure people who defend prostituting kids don't feel shocked?

Despite all our clashing, I quite like you Liri so know that I'm not saying that at you in particular however Nap really didn't deserve what he got and he indeed did nothing wrong.

...okay, that's some fantastic shitposting. o7

Northern Davincia wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Let me guess, the clergy?

Those are often the right's own skeletons when it comes to the issue of pedophilia.

Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.

On the one hand, purging Rothbardites from your ranks is good. But on the other hand... conservative libertarians. :/

Northern Davincia wrote:

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:
Let me guess, the clergy?

Those are often the right's own skeletons when it comes to the issue of pedophilia.

Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.

Anything that dabs on the pedophiles (ephebophilia is a VERY grey zone, though) constantly trying to insert themselves into various movements is good!

Liriena wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.

On the one hand, purging Rothbardites from your ranks is good. But on the other hand... conservative libertarians. :/

Alas, poor Rothbard, I doubt he knew he'd attract that kind of following.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Not the clergy in this case. A number of right-libertarians don't see ephebophilia as contradictory to the NAP, or operate on the logic of "what if the child consents tho?!"
Then the Hoppeans (or just slightly more conservative libertarians) came along and saved the day.

Anything that dabs on the pedophiles (ephebophilia is a VERY grey zone, though) constantly trying to insert themselves into various movements is good!

Aye to that. If only we could direct our wrath at Hollywood...

Genivaria wrote:In an attempt to steer the thread away from gloating I ask this.


Do you think that the left can make capitalism work for the good of all and that some aspects are worth preserving? Or do you think that capitalism is inherently harmful and must be done away with entirely?

I don't think the left can make capitalism "work for the good of all", no. It certainly benefits a select few and awards them with greater power and influence than others, even in welfare states that try to ensure "opportunity" for all. Even then, it alienates man, both worker and capitalist by chaining everyone to the endless race of competition to outsell and outproduce one another, to cut costs and cut corners, and to accumulate as much as possible.

I'd support the former position and say that the tendency of capitalism to create quality products is admirable and worth preserving, the problem is that sometimes that quality product can be so expensive to produce that it becomes inaccessible to many.

This is an accurate description of the American healthcare system imo.

There are a lot of shitty products out there too, made solely for the purpose of bringing in money, not to mention practices such as planned obsolescence that leads to further waste under capitalism. Furthermore, scams, fraud and generally shady practices that seek to deprive people of their money; these rest upon the monetary incentive that is fundamental to capitalism - for example, selling subpar goods and marketing them as if they were high-quality, useful etc., or, on the other side of the same coin, brand goods that are needlessly more expensive despite being little different from their counterparts.

Genivaria wrote:In an attempt to steer the thread away from gloating I ask this.


Do you think that the left can make capitalism work for the good of all and that some aspects are worth preserving? Or do you think that capitalism is inherently harmful and must be done away with entirely?

I'd support the former position and say that the tendency of capitalism to create quality products is admirable and worth preserving, the problem is that sometimes that quality product can be so expensive to produce that it becomes inaccessible to many.

This is an accurate description of the American healthcare system imo.

1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

Orostan wrote:

Genivaria wrote:In an attempt to steer the thread away from gloating I ask this.


Do you think that the left can make capitalism work for the good of all and that some aspects are worth preserving? Or do you think that capitalism is inherently harmful and must be done away with entirely?

I'd support the former position and say that the tendency of capitalism to create quality products is admirable and worth preserving, the problem is that sometimes that quality product can be so expensive to produce that it becomes inaccessible to many.

This is an accurate description of the American healthcare system imo.

1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their benefits do not change?

Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Aellex wrote:And confirming the axiom that left-libs will always side with pedophiles truly makes that a glorious victory and leave you standing on the moral high-ground once you're done vilipending those dirty right-libs for daring to be disgusted by kiddie diddling.
Or maybe that's a bigoted and age-ophobic term too? We gotta call it "ephebophilia" rather to make sure people who defend prostituting kids don't feel shocked?

Despite all our clashing, I quite like you Liri so know that I'm not saying that at you in particular however Nap really didn't deserve what he got and he indeed did nothing wrong.

Right-libs are making progress with driving out pedophiles from our ranks, but it's a recent advancement.

Good, and they should work on driving out the unironic totalitarian supporters too. Can’t be a libertarian or minarchist and have totalitarian sympathies. :^]

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

Innovation hasn't always been driven by competition for personal benefit. Historically, a lot of innovation came from people who didn't really have competition and profit as an incentive, but rather mere curiosity or altruism.

Valrifell wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their benefits do not change?

Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

New haven america wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

Valrifell wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their benefits do not change?

Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

Loads of the game changing inventions required capital to get done but they weren't conducted as get rich quick schemes.

That is to say, getting filthy stinking rich was a byproduct and not the goal of invention.

Northern Davincia wrote:

New haven america wrote:A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

I never said selfishness wasn't involved, I only said that competition isn't the sole driving factor behind innovation.

Try again.

Liriena wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.

Art seems to be a bad example considering how widely opinions vary on quality.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Orostan wrote:1) Capitalism by its design does not do that. Any system that does do that is not capitalism, or is temporary.

2) In a socialist society you'd see more or the same amount of innovation than you do now. I'd wager on more, as a socialist society would be more inclined to invest in technologies that have long term benefits. Competition between cooperatives will exist (just not capitalist competition) and competition between products will still exist. Read Cockshott.

A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

Cooperatives would be set up as such. Let us say we have one product, a car. This car is produced in two different factories. These cooperatives compete to produce the car most efficiently, and they do so because being more efficient reduces their working hours. It personally benefits them to work less because they can do other things, even if work is pleasant.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

The number of people who will just choose not to work in any sort of way and sit at home is an extremely small minority. The vast majority of people want to do something.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

Capital is very good at improving existing technologies, but it often takes the government funding development to get long term research (new inventions) done. A socialist system will be at least as good as capital in the former, and much better in the latter.

Northern Davincia wrote:

New haven america wrote:A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

Surely it is in one's own interest to improve the quality of life - shortening the work week, in other words increasing productivity, etc.? There's an incentive to innovate right there.

New haven america wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

I never said selfishness wasn't involved, I only said that competition isn't the sole driving factor behind innovation.

Try again.

I would agree with you on it not being the sole driving factor, but in a modern context, I'd absolutely find it to be the main one.

Northern Davincia wrote:

New haven america wrote:I never said selfishness wasn't involved, I only said that competition isn't the sole driving factor behind innovation.

Try again.

I would agree with you on it not being the sole driving factor, but in a modern context, I'd absolutely find it to be the main one.

If selfishness was the prime driver of human behavior, we'd already be living in communism.

Northern Davincia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.

Art seems to be a bad example considering how widely opinions vary on quality.

It's definitely subjective, yes, but even if you could argue that the films themselves are good, Hollywood trend-chasing does serve as a case study in innovation not inherently going hand in hand with competition.

Lindsay Ellis did a pretty cool video essay on the history of the Hollywood musical which was illustrative of this.

Northern Davincia wrote:

New haven america wrote:A lot of innovation hasn't come from competition, it's come from curiosity, altruism, or not wanting to have to deal with something.

Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

Literally all science before the industrial revolution since all that was before the sciences were seen as a profession rather than a passion. Folks like Brahe and Newton were minor nobilitiy anyway so applying the desire for capital to their work doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Even after that, the science community has had several good eggs that do things against their personal interest. The polio vaccine is a famous example of this.

Orostan wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:A socialist society would be stagnant without true competition. Why would cooperatives compete if their personal benefits do not change?

Cooperatives would be set up as such. Let us say we have one product, a car. This car is produced in two different factories. These cooperatives compete to produce the car most efficiently, and they do so because being more efficient reduces their working hours. It personally benefits them to work less because they can do other things, even if work is pleasant.

Northern Davincia wrote:Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

The number of people who will just choose not to work in any sort of way and sit at home is an extremely small minority. The vast majority of people want to do something.

Northern Davincia wrote:Sure, a few people might decide to push ahead altruistically, but most will be content with whatever amount of free stuff they get. They have less of a motive to create something new because nothing is put at risk, and nothing is offered as a reward.
This is also ignoring the huge effect that capital has on innovation.

Capital is very good at improving existing technologies, but it often takes the government funding development to get long term research (new inventions) done. A socialist system will be at least as good as capital in the former, and much better in the latter.

So if work is optional, why care about how many hours you work? You could show up for one hour and do very little, yet still get the very car others worked hard on for free.

Duvniask wrote:

Northern Davincia wrote:Can we find examples where absolutely no one involved, in either creation or distribution, had selfish intent?

Surely it is in one's own interest to improve the quality of life - shortening the work week, in other words increasing productivity, etc.? There's an incentive to innovate right there.

A business could very well benefit from kindness to workers, as demonstrated by Henry Ford, because it gives a serious edge over competitors.

Liriena wrote:

Valrifell wrote:
Because everyone's benefits change. There are a few altruists out there already and it can be argued that the capitalist system supresses altruistic thinking and encourages cut-throat competition and selfishness at every level and removing it would make people more likely to help a fella out.

Tbh, you could seriously point to Hollywood as an example of this: competition between major studios drives a lot of them to pour obscene amounts of resources into "safe bets", chasing trends and sometimes directly meddling with their products to increase market appeal, often leading to mediocre or disastrous results. Countless passion projects end up in development hell, artists get fired for not accommodating to the financial aspirations of their bosses, and films get radically altered in post-production to emulate competitors' past successes.

Don't forget the fact that studios end up buying as much as they possibly can, thus monopolizing the industry and controlling the flow of information.