Share something pointless about your life!

[Arbiterone]

Yes greed is the main problem in the world. People say pure capitalism is amazing. But pure capitalism is based on greed. The principle behind it is to become big, bigger, biggest and do not stop there. A lot of these people have more money then they could ever spend. Yet they still keep the salaries of the employee's low. Why? Because the amount of jobs are is finite... and its a wide spread practice. They know that other companies also want to become big, bigger, biggest and surpass you. The greed seen in the world these days is so widely used that people have gotten used to it. They think its fair that one person has to work 3 jobs and still live in poverty just so that some db who got lucky can have 10 houses instead of 9. And a bank account with millions of top of it.

And why the number of jobs and sallaries are low? Why is it so hard to open new businesses, offer more jobs and compete for a better service? Taxes, tributes and bureaucracy. You see high sallaries and good services in countries where the government does not touch the economy. If other companies could compete with them, sallaries would raise. They would be competing for the best workers, the best services, the best prices. If you are friends with the government, why you'd do that?
The problem of low sallaries is actually result of the lack of capitalism.

Hell a good chunk of the wars in history have started on greed. (i want your resources, I want you land, i want your population, etc)

And in all cases both sides ended up losing more than earning. In all cases we have seen commerce is better than violence.

Edit: Greed is everywhere, I just used America's pure capitalistic ideals (the American dream) as example. But greed is seen everywhere

USA is far from being pure capitalism. Taxes, tributes and bureaucracy.

[magaginho]

Assuming that the deal Billy offered is about lowering prices, I don't see how lowering prices to the point that new ISP companies can't arise is a bad thing to society. If society is happy with their service, they will stick to it. If they aren't happy, there is demand for a new type of service. If no government prohibits a new ISP to open, you will see a new ISP services competing with them sooner or later.

Go google how the American ISP's work and tell me if your logic makes any sort of sense after getting information regarding their current model. You'll be surprised to see how easy it is to kill the competition and overcharge the common society.

Corruption wouldn't be rewarded in free markets. If an entrepreneur sees, for example, a region where all restaurant owners have priced their food high, then he knows he'll take a good portion of their market if he opens his own, if he offers a fair price.

He will also create a good ammount of enemies since he's trying to directly hit their market and costumer pool. That means that they'll align their efforts to kick that rookie out of the market. It isn't that hard to see how quickly strategic alliances are done in order to clean up the potential problem.

If that was true we'd always have world wars every few years.

And what do you see in the newspapers every single day? Innocents dying and bleeding thanks to the bloodthirsty behaviour from a specific group of countries, religious groups, etc. Every single day you have a little war going on and that's part of what the society has evolved to. A war doesn't need to happen through guns either - Remind yourself of that.

Middle east is a terrible example against freedom. In fact, if governments didn't do anything about them, the situation would be completely different today. Sooner or later they'd learn commerce is better than violence.

Sure. While they keep killing innocent lifes, launching multiple threats thowards other countries and claiming that we're all a bunch of infidels. You can't ask people that are dying for a chance of justice in their own eyes, since the crusades, to be logical and go after commerce. They want revenge and the days of revenge are so sweet for them. Look at the fear that exists nowadays in Europe thanks to the "freedom" that you preach about and ask yourself if you'll feel comfortable with the idea of allowing your kid to play outside, by himself, in the next 10 years.

Islamic extremists were armed by governments. Their numbers increased because the people there hated other governments. And whose idea was to move jews to Palestine in the first place, again?

Extremists were armed by governments but that doesn't mean that every single government out there supports such actions. Reason why you have so many tensions between multiple countries. You're talking about people that move themselves under a religious extremist movement and not because they hate a government. They hate the infidels that follow a different religion than them and that have the guts to question their beliefs. That's what happens when you provide freedom to people; They become liberal and they find themselves in the right of killing the fellow men just because he isn't part of their religion.

Rules and laws are mandatory in order to make a proper society work. You always have tiny pieces of anarchy inside the society since you have the choice of following or not following the rules, however, applying a total concept of anarchy doesn't mean that things would end up well. Try to apply that same anarchy in this forum and tell me what you'll get by the end of the day. I'm pretty sure that your head will feel like it's about to blow. I rather have a broken society that is missing values than having a place where people are allowed to live according to their own rules while crossing my own line and definition of freedom.

[apprentice]

If society is happy with their service, they will stick to it. If they aren't happy,

People are ignorant and people do not see past the greed and corruption going on around them. Honestly the lets take a example. A two goverment system again using America as a example can easially be corrupted and controlled. (as seen last election) yet do people change the system? No because the majority of people are ignornat about it. And those who are not... well are overal in no position to change it. To my knowledge there are third parties in the US but the majorty of "sheep" in the herd blindly follow the wolves leading them. Hense no change is made.

Corruption wouldn't be rewarded in free markets. If an entrepreneur sees, for example, a region where all restaurant owners have priced their food high, then he knows he'll take a good portion of their market if he opens his own, if he offers a fair price.

Corruption is not rewarded in open markets?
Do you know what lobbiests are? They are people that fund politicians for services.... A modern form of "legal" corruption.
Do you know what cartels are? " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel "
Do you know what what minimum wage is? A minimum wage is sett by countries to prevent people from going fully yolo on the employee extortion. Yet many companies barely get above the minimum wage.

If that was true we'd always have world wars every few years. Humanity learned from WW1 and WW2 that wars only make you poorer, not richer, even if you're the "winner".

Há funny part is a lot of companies got extremely wealthy from world wars
Há a funny part America got wealthy from both world war one and world war 2.
" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering " this applies to both and again remaining to the US as a example.

Middle east is a terrible example against freedom. In fact, if governments didn't do anything about them, the situation would be completely different today. Sooner or later they'd learn commerce is better than violence.

So they need to go from violent suppression into legal corruption/manipulation based on greed.... with as reward minimum freedom and a hand full of people really gaining much from it. Is it better? Meh yeah i suppose, is it a solution? Nope.

Oh i just remember a funny example video about commerce keeping the masses ignorant.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKTORFmMycQ

I can keep going about things but meh

Islamic extremists were armed by governments. Their numbers increased because the people there hated other governments. And whose idea was to move jews to Palestine in the first place, again?

Great bait I am not touching anything religious.

[Arbiterone]

Go google how the American ISP's work and tell me if your logic makes any sort of sense after getting information regarding their current model. You'll be surprised to see how easy it is to kill the competition and overcharge the common society.

I google'd exactly what you asked me to. It seems this article implies free market is already slowly solving this problem of ISPs in the US, companies are already trying to bring a solution. Not sure what this proves against free markets?
EDIT: I have one question. What allowed these companies have monopoly of that area, in the first place? Wasn't it related to a law somehow? In all cases I know of a company trying to make a monopoly of itself, buying other companies or whatever else, eventually it reaches the point that buying becomes too expensive, as people will notice that and raise their prices. In fact there are cases people opened their own companies with the intention of being sold. Monopolies are impossible in free markets.

He will also create a good ammount of enemies since he's trying to directly hit their market and costumer pool. That means that they'll align their efforts to kick that rookie out of the market. It isn't that hard to see how quickly strategic alliances are done in order to clean up the potential problem.

Eh, costumers are who will pick the winner, not alliances. As long as he's offering a good service, he'll have his portion of the market. And he can expand from that.

And what do you see in the newspapers every single day? Innocents dying and bleeding thanks to the bloodthirsty behaviour from a specific group of countries, religious groups, etc. Every single day you have a little war going on and that's part of what the society has evolved to. A war doesn't need to happen through guns either - Remind yourself of that.

Can you give me an example of a war today that is not related to a government?
And I'm assuming you're implying terrorist attacks when you say wars can happen without guns. Who incited the war, again? Do you think religion alone can turn an entire society to bloodlust and go to other places of the world to just kill?

That's what happens when you provide freedom to people; They become liberal and they find themselves in the right of killing the fellow men just because he isn't part of their religion

That's a big lie. You're using an example of a society on war for many many years and only had a short time to become liberals. If you remove a government from one day to another in a country in war, of course someone else will try to fill up the hole. There's tension everywhere.
Again, do you honestly believe people will go out and kill themselves if governments are gone? (in normal countries, please, not countries in war). I don't think a government telling you it's a bad thing to kill is the only reason people don't go kill each other.

Corruption is not rewarded in open markets?
Do you know what lobbiests are? They are people that fund politicians for services.... A modern form of "legal" corruption.
Do you know what cartels are? " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel "
Do you know what what minimum wage is? A minimum wage is sett by countries to prevent people from going fully yolo on the employee extortion. Yet many companies barely get above the minimum wage.

Lobbiests require governments interfering the market to exist.
Cartels could be defeated by offering a better/cheaper service. No government making laws to help cartels and bam, people can open their own business and compete.
If you look at the history of minimum wage, it was actually intended so that people below a sallary would die out. People who produce less than a minimum wage are by law prohibited to work. If you remove taxes, tributes and bureaucracy, slowly more jobs will be created as more companies rise and compete for their place in the market. Sallaries will rise with or without a minimum wage. You can just look at countries who do that and their people are generally rich.

Há funny part is a lot of companies got extremely wealthy from world wars
Há a funny part America got wealthy from both world war one and world war 2.
" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering " this applies to both and again remaining to the US as a example.

Are you implying WW2 was somehow planned to happen by the US so that they will become wealthier?

[apprentice]

I am still taking about the concept of greed and corruption. btw....

Lobbiests require governments to exist.

Correct its a term to describe legal political corruption so you are correct.

Cartels could be defeated by offering a better/cheaper service. No government making laws to help cartels and bam, people can open their own business and compete.

Great last year firms where punished because a cartel came to light it was a bunch of truck manufacturers. The most of them where in on it. Good luck trying to compete with that as a lowly peasant.

If you look at the history of minimum wage, it was actually intended so that people below a sallary would die out. People who produce less than a minimum wage are by law prohibited to work. If you remove taxes, tributes and bureaucracy, slowly more jobs will be created as more companies rise and compete for their place in the market. Sallaries will rise with or without a minimum wage. You can just look at countries who do that and their people are generally rich.

Countries that are generally rich (the majority of them) are capitalistic (aka commerce). They follow the ideal "MORE MORE MORE" I have heard from several people that they needed to have 2-3 jobs just to keep their heads above the water because companies god rid of jobs to make more profit made the employee's fill the gab without extra pay. And the pay low to the point of minimum wage. Sure there are jobs that pay more and suffer less of this. Lawyers and people with a high degree but those are not the people who really suffer under "commerce".

If you need several jobs to feed your family working whole day and part of the evening just to feed your family the system is wrong. If those dweebs at the top of the money chain would pay fair wages instead of hogging everything. They would still have a wealthy life and the lower class would not be "suffering" under it.

Are you implying WW2 was somehow planned to happen by the US so that they will become wealthier?

Edit: WW2 was started over territory + the war repetitions. Both are a gain of assets. (the war repetitions where to get rid of a drain lol) And a lot of companies profited by it.

I was merely pointing out the finer point of commerce. I never stated they initiated the war but that "commerce" just as easily exploits human suffering.
ww1: Stay out the war for the longest.... just so you can make bank (because commerce is so great!) jump in late with minimal support.
ww2: Stay out the war and make bank.... join in later free other nations give them "Loans" with "interest" to make bank.
A bonus on top of that are war rerparations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations )
" Historian John Gimbel, in his book Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, states that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion."


Yes war costs a bit of money.

[Link]

Edit: WW2 was started over territory + the war repetitions. Both are a gain of assets. (the war repetitions where to get rid of a drain lol) And a lot of companies profited by it.

I was merely pointing out the finer point of commerce. I never stated they initiated the war but that "commerce" just as easily exploits human suffering.
ww1: Stay out the war for the longest.... just so you can make bank (because commerce is so great!) jump in late with minimal support.
ww2: Stay out the war and make bank.... join in later free other nations give them "Loans" with "interest" to make bank.
A bonus on top of that are war rerparations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations )
" Historian John Gimbel, in his book Science Technology and Reparations: Exploitation and Plunder in Postwar Germany, states that the "intellectual reparations" taken by the U.S. and the UK amounted to close to $10 billion."


Yes war costs a bit of money.

The US certainly didn't stay out of the war because they thought they would make money. There was no civilian backing at all, and they was no reason at all to enter the war (No treaties broken, etc). Also, the US didn't make bank from world war 2 at all. First, there was the lend-lease program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease (Note that 50 billion was given out and an incredibly small sum was ever paid back, a couple of billion)

And then there's the Marshall Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan (Note that 12 billion of aid was given out to help reconstruct Western Europe and only 1.2 billion of this was loans.)

And on top of that, the portion you quoted means that is how much information they gained from the German research they took, not money paid. One can argue that the information they gained was used during the reconstruction of Western Europe, so West Germany and other countries benefited from it.

Also, laws exist to prevent cartels and monopolies in the US.

[Mercy]

Both, considering that I use both hands for multiple functions. I guess that it would be a thing of the moment.

So, I guess we cut off both hands this time, eh?

[apprentice]

The US certainly didn't stay out of the war because they thought they would make money. There was no civilian backing at all, and they was no reason at all to enter the war (No treaties broken, etc). Also, the US didn't make bank from world war 2 at all. First, there was the lend-lease program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease (Note that 50 billion was given out and an incredibly small sum was ever paid back, a couple of billion)

And then there's the Marshall Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan (Note that 12 billion of aid was given out to help reconstruct Western Europe and only 1.2 billion of this was loans.)

And on top of that, the portion you quoted means that is how much information they gained from the German research they took, not money paid. One can argue that the information they gained was used during the reconstruction of Western Europe, so West Germany and other countries benefited from it.

Also, laws exist to prevent cartels and monopolies in the US.

I know everything you said, the argument was about the concept of greed, corruption and making money. It was not about justification of their actions or how much money was made.

Laws exist against monopoly, yes they do. It does not stop them from greed/corruption from forming them. :)
I was using America as an example since well "the American dream" is based purely on acquiring wealth. Do not take it personal lol I know you see it in other places. In my country for example also. But i do not get a lot of time so going to cut it off here.

[magaginho]

That's a big lie. You're using an example of a society on war for many many years and only had a short time to become liberals. If you remove a government from one day to another in a country in war, of course someone else will try to fill up the hole. There's tension everywhere.
Again, do you honestly believe people will go out and kill themselves if governments are gone? (in normal countries, please, not countries in war). I don't think a government telling you it's a bad thing to kill is the only reason people don't go kill each other.

I'll requote myself for this;

Rules and laws are mandatory in order to make a proper society work. You always have tiny pieces of anarchy inside the society since you have the choice of following or not following the rules, however, applying a total concept of anarchy doesn't mean that things would end up well. Try to apply that same anarchy in this forum and tell me what you'll get by the end of the day. I'm pretty sure that your head will feel like it's about to blow. I rather have a broken society that is missing values than having a place where people are allowed to live according to their own rules while crossing my own line and definition of freedom.

So, do we want to try that little taste of anarchy with the forum? I think we both know what would happen once the chains were to be lifted.

So, I guess we cut off both hands this time, eh?

Oh, oh... What have I done now? You can have the right hand. I still need the left one though.

[Mercy]

I wasn't referring to you, but ok, since you offered.

[Arbiterone]

Also, laws exist to prevent cartels and monopolies in the US.

In the end many laws end up helping big companies. In my country you see that by the form of bureaucracy. A company does X process during the making of their products, another company does Y. The government goes in and makes a law that you must do X only from now on -- the second company now needs to spend money to implement X. It happens a lot.

So, do we want to try that little taste of anarchy with the forum? I think we both know what would happen once the chains were to be lifted.

Except the forums is a private property and no one was forced to agree with our rules, and at any time you can leave. With a government you're not allowed to say "I'm a free person and I'm not a part of this system". You'll pay taxes one way or another -- if you resist, you'll go to prison, and if you resist prison because you think you are free, you'll be killed.

[magaginho]

Except the forums is a private property and no one was forced to agree with our rules, and at any time you can leave. With a government you're not allowed to say "I'm a free person and I'm not a part of this system". You'll pay taxes one way or another -- if you resist, you'll go to prison, and if you resist prison because you think you are free, you'll be killed.

Same rules are applied in a country. You were born in it, you follow the laws and multiple social standards that exist in that country (culture). You don't agree with them? You are free to leave and find a place that fits you. If you don't like it, no one forces you to stay either. See how things work in the same way? The only difference is that if I were to raise anarchy in this forum you would be the one getting a headache. In a country, it's the government getting a headache. Same end result and the only thing that changes are the names of the variables. Also I'll remind yourself that in order to use the services provided by Warmane you are forced to agree with the terms of service presented in the main page. Just throwing this out there.

[Arbiterone]

Same rules are applied in a country. You were born in it, you follow the laws and multiple social standards that exist in that country (culture). You don't agree with them? You are free to leave and find a place that fits you. If you don't like it, no one forces you to stay either. See how things work in the same way? The only difference is that if I were to raise anarchy in this forum you would be the one getting a headache. In a country, it's the government getting a headache. Same end result and the only thing that changes are the names of the variables.

I never signed any contract with my country when I was born. Yet still they point a gun at me if one day I decide I am a free person and stop giving politicians a high percentage of my work, only so that they create more and more problems, to then come with a solution to take even more of my money.
Governments are not legitimate. Nor is democracy -- the idea that the majority can attack and invade the property of others simply because they are majority is unacceptable.
Here, there are no guns at you.

[Mercy]

Except the forums is a private property and no one was forced to agree with our rules, and at any time you can leave.

Actually, I'm going to correct you here.



https://www.warmane.com/policies/terms

TERMS OF USE
BY ACCESSING OR USING WWW.WARMANE.COM (THE "SITE") AND ITS SERVICES (THE "SERVICES"), YOU (THE "USER") AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE USER'S USE OF ANY AREAS OF THE SITE AND AFFILIATED SERVICES AS SET FORTH BELOW.

Very first paragraph.

USE OF SITE
THIS SITE OR ANY PORTION OF THE SITE AS WELL AS THE SERVICES MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED, DUPLICATED, COPIED, SOLD, RESOLD, OR OTHERWISE EXPLOITED FOR ANY COMMERCIAL PURPOSE EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY WARMANE.COM. WARMANE RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE IN ITS DISCRETION, WITHOUT LIMITATION, IF WARMANE BELIEVES THE USER CONDUCT VIOLATES APPLICABLE LAW OR IS HARMFUL TO THE INTERESTS OF WARMANE, OTHER USERS OF THE SITE AND THE SERVICES OR ITS AFFILIATES.


Second paragraph.

[magaginho]

I never signed any contract with my country when I was born. Yet still they point a gun at me if one day I decide I am a free person and stop giving politicians a high percentage of my work.

They provide you protection, they provide you medical care, they provide you a guaranteed percentage of your salary in case you lose your job, they give you multiple social benefits, and so on. Multiple benefits change from country to country and stating that governments are nothing else besides an imposed force is just ridiculous. After all, you have the duty to vote every 4 years for some reason, right?

Governments are not legitimate. Nor is democracy -- the idea that the majority can attack and invade the property of others simply because they are majority is unreal.
Here, there are no guns at you.

Governments are corrupted nowadays thanks to that so called "freedom" that you talk about. The more "freedom" you provide to people the more mistakes they make. You're trying to give even more strength to the cancer of the humanity with your fabulous idea.

Here, there are no guns at you.

Yeah, I'll call that bull****. My infraction history is there to tell the story. Why? Because your definition of what's right doesn't match with my definition of what's right and just this, by itself, demands laws. Otherwise, under an anarchy, you would end up shot by anger.

P.S: I would advise you to take a good read at the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If you want to talk about freedom, I hope you have those definitions in mind before replying to me.