Share something pointless about your life!

[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.

[Arbiterone]

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?.

That's crowd control, just so the people have a reason to believe governments are legitimate.
You can do all of that without a government through private services. You'll end up with a better service, or maybe a cheaper service. You'll choose which service you want, and not the government. I think individuals are better deciding what they want to do with their lives than a government, no? If I go to the market, I know what I want to buy better than any government.

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

wat. Are you saying freedom is a cancer, and we should become communists?
And governments turn corrupt because they can. Who had the incredible idea of giving the monopoly of violence to a small group of people?

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.

Not sure how that contradicts what I said. You accepted the rules when you joined. And, unlike governments, you can leave whenever you want.
And you have a misunderstood anarchy -- it is not the lack of laws. You have the natural human rights -- the right of property, the right of freedom. You don't have the right to go killing other people.
Most if not all government laws will infringe both natural human rights somehow. I believe the rights of freedom and property comes before any laws made by any government, and as such any laws infringing both of these aren't legitimate.

[Mercy]

Most if not all government laws will infringe both natural human rights somehow. I believe the rights of freedom and property comes before any laws made by any government, and as such any laws infringing both of these aren't legitimate.

No. There are very distinct differences between anarchy and freedom.

Taken straight from Google;
an·ar·chy
ˈanərkē
noun
- a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
"he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy"
synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil
"conditions are dangerously ripe for anarchy"
- absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

Notice where it says "absolute freedom". The operative word here is ABSOLUTE. The freedoms provided by the Constitution of the United States of America (as an example) dictates that the "freedoms" of one person STOP where the freedoms of the next person BEGINS. There are reasons why things like slander are against the law. In an environment of ABSOLUTE freedom, none of this matters. I can say whatever I want, do whatever I want, against other people without any concerns or fears about the repercussions of what I've said or done to another person. There are a variety of reasons why freedoms are restricted to certain degrees - controlled, if you will - because there is a LINE that you DO NOT CROSS. A line which anarchy does not provide nor recognize. That in itself is the biggest argument against anarchy as a political ideal and that is one of the biggest reasons why it does not work. It could work in a utopia where people don't treat each other like garbage for the dumbest and most petty reasons - but that is not our world, at least not yet.

[magaginho]

Not sure how that contradicts what I said. You accepted the rules when you joined. And, unlike governments, you can leave whenever you want.
And you have a misunderstood anarchy -- it is not the lack of laws. You have the natural human rights -- the right of property, the right of freedom. You don't have the right to go killing other people.
Most if not all government laws will infringe both natural human rights somehow. I believe the rights of freedom and property comes before any laws made by any government, and as such any laws infringing both of these aren't legitimate.

I'm gonna ignore everything else and just grab this because I just want to point out two things.

Do you truly know what an Anarchy is? An Anarchy isn't freedom; An Anarchy is a system where everyone reign themselves under their own terms, rules and values. Therefore, it's more than ok if I kill someone, if I steal, if I am corrupt, etc. Your freedom is null according to my eyes and the most violent or manipulative people are the ones that endure in such system. Either you become a savage or you end up dead. That's the extremist view of an anarchy and there's a reason why no country in the world follows such vision.

And now here's my second point: If you're such an anarchist why are you a moderator then? You're not only being a hypocrite to yourself but you're also going against all the principles that you're dropping here since you're forcing rules against your fellow men. So here's my question to you; Do you or do you not need laws and rules to exist in order to get a paycheck? If anarchy was to be followed in this forum, you would not get a paycheck. You would just be another one getting smacked by the violence of the so called "freedom" that you so much preach about. As you can see, laws and rules are indeed required and this is just a tiny example of the many reasons why you need rules.

There are a variety of reasons why freedoms are restricted to certain degrees - controlled, if you will - because there is a LINE that you DO NOT CROSS. A line which anarchy does not provide nor recognize.

This line says everything.

[Obnoxious]

The part of anarchy that you're missing is that under a real one people are expected to "do the right thing" for the good of the community, without the need of a government limiting and ordering people around to try to regulate something as close as possible to that. It's not simply an absolute lack of laws with absolute freedom alone. It includes the expectation of people to be mature enough to understand the best for everyone is the best for the individual as well because everyone will be in the same line of thought.