If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Ten books that screwed up the world. Amazon is your friend   (listverse.com) divider line 507
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

48018 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 May 2008 at 2:50 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



507 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-05-17 05:43:06 PM
Lane83: Do you think that a consumption-based for-profit economy is a sustainable model?

Yes.

Lane83: I mean, resources aren't unlimited

Ultimately, no. But we're just now barely getting to the point where we can envision using up all of just a single planet's resources.

Though it is nice to see someone come in and so explicitly make the zero-sum argument I was speaking of earlier.

Lane83: if we allow unrestricted hoarding and privatization of the means and materials of production, it only causes their cost to go up

Only once you reach the point of all natural resources having been harvested. And at that point it makes no difference whether or not the resources are in "private" hands or not.

Lane83: This frees man up from the necessity of struggle for basic goods, like homes, food, etc. and allows him to focus on things that will advance the cause of all humanity, such as medical or scientific research, cultural projects like art or literature, etc

Because you can magically collectivize the production of basic goods, like homes, food, etc. without drastically reducing the output of those items?


Lane83: The great lie of US education is that this represents totalitarianism. That's just plain wrong

While I don't see the relevance of the (socialized) US school system, the simple fact is that that is totalitarianism. You're talking about a system where the totality of society is controlled. It might be theoretically be controlled by the will of the majority, but you're still talking about a controlled society.
 
2008-05-17 05:44:00 PM
11.

i194.photobucket.com
 
2008-05-17 05:46:12 PM
Churchill2004: Brown Jenkems: It's interesting to note that Marx and many contemporary anarchists thought socialism and eventually communism would easily and bloodlessly emerge in the US because of it's ideals, political organization, and lack of a historically well-developed ruling class

It's also interesting to note that they were dead wrong.


No they weren't. They were actually quite right, however the Bolsheviks in Europe beat them to the punch, then Stalin seized power. Stalinism scared the bourgeoise elite in the US into seeking ways to stop the rise of communism here (which was occurring quite readily during the Great Depression) and through propaganda and a series of compromises (the New Deal) they succeeded in preventing communism from taking hold in the US.

It still infuriates me to think of the incredible amount of damage one man, Josef Stalin, did to the modern world. Hitler may have been a monster, but at least he didn't set back the progress of economic systems all over the world by decades.
 
2008-05-17 05:47:37 PM
jaylectricity: Why did the article say the list was in no particular order, and then list them from 10 to 1 like some sort of countdown?

If they're in no particular order don't you just number them 1-10 to keep count of how many books there are?


Ah, that would explain a lot. I was wondering why only one person in the thread thus far was asking why an anti-evolution book that I've never heard of is outranking Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, and many others.
 
2008-05-17 05:48:24 PM
Farque Ewe: Weaver95:

Or to put it another way, Machiavelli was right - mankind is inherently weak and evil. Given that fact of life, if you want a just society you have no choice but to build a government that assumes weakness and corruption to be a common vice shared by rulers and the ruled alike. Write your laws accordingly.

The US Constitution assumes and accomplishes that.


almost, but not quite. i blame it on the fact that it was impossible for the framers to forsee just how powerful lobbyists would become when america became THE world power.

it could be repaired, but it would require the people truly in power to to allow the govt. to just GIVE back what they've systematically taken over the past 200+ years
 
2008-05-17 05:49:25 PM
ok, I only read about half the thread so I apologize if I'm stating points already made, but for what it's worth:

1. The author of TFA apparently has no grasp of Dewey's work or pragmatism.

2. Those in the thread who blame religion for the Dark Ages are incredibly ignorant about history and are essentially repeating 2 hundred year old talking points, largely invented by Edward Gibbon and rejected by modern scholarship.
 
2008-05-17 05:49:29 PM
I really wonder whether this person has read these books. I ain't saying Mein Kampf is benign, but blaming Dewey for the troubles of the educational system is pretty ridiculous, considering that he foresaw future developments in education, and that what he saw wrong with the system then is exactly what's wrong with it now.

Kind of like blaming Marx for Stalin.
 
2008-05-17 05:49:35 PM
Machiavelli gets a raw deal - the book is no more dangerous than The Once and Future King, by T.H.White.
A dangerous mind armed with a book does not a book dangerous make.
 
2008-05-17 05:49:36 PM
Wow, I own, and have read, 5 of the books on that list.
 
2008-05-17 05:49:59 PM
Esc7: What a load of BS.

There are no dangerous books, only dangerous people.

You cannot blame blame opinions and lies written on a page for the actions of people who cause suffering.

Even if a book is 100% libel and slander created solely for the purpose to incite people to cause evil, people still need to do evil on their own accord. Anyone who can think rationally and critically can discredit false information and see ill informed opinions for what they are.

Mein Kampf is made up of ridiculous ramblings. Any sensible person can see it for what it is.

These works are not responsible for atrocity, the perpetrators of atrocity are. The second we start blaming books for actions of men we've taken the first step towards banning and burning thoughts and opinions, and we know where that path takes us.


THIS
 
2008-05-17 05:50:01 PM
arbulus: ADubs86: moothemagiccow: mekki: But haven't you ever noticed that people who use the Bible as means to do harm usually have only read bits and parts of it and not the whole thing. They only pick and choose what suits them.

Except that's EVERYONE. No preacher cites the menstrual clauses from Leviticus, the animal sacrifices, the stoning of wayward children, the support of slavery. Every Christian cherrypicks the Bible.

A lot of people pick the only part that matters: The New Covenant.

/love God above all others
//love thy neighbor as thyself
///everything else doesn't matter

Then the rest of the bible shouldn't be there. If those three things that Jesus commanded truly are the only parts that matter and the new and completeness of Christian law, then the Bible should be a 4 page pamphlet.


It's there because it's more or less a history lesson, showing the many times God had found favor with his people, how they kept screwing up, how he would send someone to save them, how they would go back to being righteous, how they would go back to being unrighteous, etc. It's a guide to show how God got to the point that he was so fed up with the world, yet loved it still that he gave a last way out in Jesus.

Furthermore, Christians should NEVER quote things from the Old Testament or use them as examples of what God thinks, because the Old Testament would no longer apply at all in any way. No one would ever be able to say "God hates gays, look at what he did to Soddom and Gomorroah" because that part of the Bible is invalid. It also invalidates the ten commandments (a phrase which i find idiotic anyway because those ten were only part of a law that contained hundreds of commandments).

It was what God thought, but as I said previously, the arrival of Jesus is the mark of the New Covenant. I agree with you that the Old Testament should not be quoted as some Christians do.


Moreover, saying that the New covenant was the only thing that mattered would mean that the things that God said and did for the thousands of years prior was somehow flawed, incorrect, or somehow needed to be adjusted. But if God is perfect and incapable of error or mis-judgements, then the whole concept is invalid.

Here's where it gets tricky. God put forth the rules knowing they would not be followed, and when they weren't followed, he sent another to show the way. Yeah, I see the inherent flaw in putting a rule out that you know isn't going to be followed, but I'm not God, nor do I claim to know what He is thinking, so it's a bit lost on me.

If the New Covenant were really the only thing that truly mattered, then the rest of the bible should not exist.

Answered that above. It does make me think about how much stock people put into certain passages, because if I remember correctly, a christian follows the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of Abraham/Moses (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deu) or the teachings of Paul (the Romans letter many fundies throw out to justify their bigotry). I'm not saying either of those sources is to be ignored at all costs, just that being human also comes with the unfortunate side effect of being wrong sometimes, no matter how godly you are.
 
2008-05-17 05:50:32 PM
Farque Ewe:
Sweden is a country with many Socialist policies but it is not a totally Socialist state. The voters of Sweden can vote for Reagan Conservatives if they so choose. Can the people of Cuba vote their way out of their worker's paradise?


Sigh. I understand that. My point was that those two were spouting off 'absolutes' without room for examples of successes. The same point can be made about capitalistic societies that are stifling, or of democracies that are totalitarian. The black and white judgement is just wrong headed.
And of course the point is missed.

Methinks Sanger may have had a point.
 
2008-05-17 05:51:27 PM
CaptainMidnight: Just pointing out the simple, basic definition of each term is NOT the same, dude.

You fail to recognize the difference between "socialism", the American pejorative describing several European economic policies and true socialism.


Unknot your panties and carry on with your knee-jerk McCarthyism.

Opposing socialism != McCarthyism

The beauty of your ignorance is you will never live in such a country.

Ironic you calling us ignorant.
 
2008-05-17 05:52:02 PM
Brown Jenkems: Did I or did Marx? See his distinction between use-value and exchange-value

It's a fallacious distinction that rests on the idea that people voluntarily make exchanges for any reason other than "use-value" as they see it.


Brown Jenkems: When individuals being to sell their labor to someone else who extracts profit, addition value denied to the worker

So only in a situation where the person "buying" labor brings nothing beneficial to the exchange? Then what, exactly, compelled the laborer to sell his labor?

Brown Jenkems: I'd think a proletarian dictatorship would serve a similar purpose in an ideal situation: formulate the future role of government. I'm not advocating this track, mind you. But that's what I understand the role of such a body might be

Well- look at how much power has been accumulated by a government established by people who more or less saw power as inherently evil. We can easily imagine (and arguably have seen) how much worse it is when the "Founders" of the revolution don't take such a dim view of concentration of power.

Brown Jenkems: See again the difference between use-value and exchange-value

Again, the fallacious idea that "use value" is objective and not determined wholly by the user.

Brown Jenkems: One is easier to make a case of ownership for (the latter)

How can you make a case for ownership of something made from natural resources when you deny the right to own natural resources? At what point does something become owned?

Brown Jenkems: That's a stretch. Obviously individuals shouldn't be owned

Obviously, but why? The Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen you're made of was ultimately a natural resource that someone else harvested.

Brown Jenkems: Anyone that wants access to resources should have access, whether that's land for sustenance, etc. There's no basis for denying individuals access to world they're born into unless it's by force or threat of force

Are other individuals not part of "the world they're born into"? If not, whence the distinction?

Brown Jenkems: Qualified yes

Unqualified yes.
 
2008-05-17 05:53:29 PM
Trance750: calbert: Quite a disappointing list, no "On the Origin of Species," no Bible?
"The Art of War?"
"The Communist Manifesto?"
"A Million Little Fibers?"

Didn't take long for the Bible-bashing to start.


How is that Bible bashing?

Replace the words "screwed up" with "changed", or "influenced" and the Bible holds ground, same as the Quran. Take the list to mean that the world was one way, then after "x" was printed, the world was another way.

I am embarrassed that I didn't catch "TCM" as #2, but I will say that this is an original list (you always expect to see the same books mentioned) and it has opened itself to interesting opinions.
 
2008-05-17 05:53:51 PM
Naman: Churchill2004: Brown Jenkems: It's interesting to note that Marx and many contemporary anarchists thought socialism and eventually communism would easily and bloodlessly emerge in the US because of it's ideals, political organization, and lack of a historically well-developed ruling class

It's also interesting to note that they were dead wrong.

No they weren't. They were actually quite right, however the Bolsheviks in Europe beat them to the punch, then Stalin seized power. Stalinism scared the bourgeoise elite in the US into seeking ways to stop the rise of communism here (which was occurring quite readily during the Great Depression) and through propaganda and a series of compromises (the New Deal) they succeeded in preventing communism from taking hold in the US.

It still infuriates me to think of the incredible amount of damage one man, Josef Stalin, did to the modern world. Hitler may have been a monster, but at least he didn't set back the progress of economic systems all over the world by decades.


Yep. There's a reason Lenin, in his testament, warned the party to removed Stalin from his position.
 
2008-05-17 05:54:33 PM
I agree with ChewbaccaJones. If it wasn't for that damn Necronomicon, we wouldn't have all these Deadites running around.

/groovy
 
2008-05-17 05:54:54 PM
Naman: the rise of communism here (which was occurring quite readily during the Great Depression)

You can stop right there. At no point was communism "rising quite readily" in the US- a fact bemoaned quite frequently by European communists. There was a general lunge in that rough direction under FDR, but at no point was there any serious indication that America was heading for a Marxist revolution.
 
2008-05-17 05:55:36 PM
Brown Jenkems: Yep. There's a reason Lenin, in his testament, warned the party to removed Stalin from his position

Even so, it's not like Lenin was all rainbows and puppy dogs himself.
 
2008-05-17 05:56:21 PM
YoungSwedishBlonde:
Ironic you calling us ignorant.


Nice handle. Young indeed. Swedish, not so much.
Live in both places for a good long while, kid, then talk to me.

Been to Lindsborg much?

McPherson KS sucks.

Yeah, I've lived there too.
 
2008-05-17 05:57:02 PM
thefilter.blogs.com
 
2008-05-17 05:57:25 PM
arbulus: Every Christian cherrypicks the Bible.

Nmoothemagiccow: No preacher cites the menstrual clauses from Leviticus, the animal sacrifices, the stoning of wayward children, the support of slavery. Every Christian cherrypicks the Bible.

OK, I'll bite. Most of what you're talking about is basically orthodox Jewish law. It also includes things like not ever trimming your hair or beard. Jesus began the New Covenant, and specifically stated that following those was no longer necessary. It began with His death. But unlike Adubs86, I don't feel like the entire Old Testament was ever invalidated, just the traditional customs and whatnot.

As for the slavery thing, most "slaves" in Biblical times were not really slaves, but something closer to indentured servants who sold themselves into that position.
 
2008-05-17 06:01:43 PM
To give you an idea of how seriously we should take that site, the first article on the main page is now "Top 10 Supporting Characters in the Simpsons."
 
2008-05-17 06:04:45 PM
Fireproof:But unlike Adubs86, I don't feel like the entire Old Testament was ever invalidated, just the traditional customs and whatnot.

I din't say that I think the whole thing should be thrown out (or at least I was trying to say that), I simply thought that the "God sayeth" parts should not have as much emphasis in the modern Christian's life.
 
2008-05-17 06:05:30 PM
Brown Jenkems: What's the evil part of the Communist Manifesto?

Alien Robot

Confiscation of land, confiscation of any means of production, forbidding of the hiring of laborers, confiscation of excess wages, etc. It pretty much guarantees impoverishment of the people and overbearing oppression by those doing the confiscating.


[nospam-﹫-backwards]nm****t­hats sounds like both hillary and obamas plan for america.
 
2008-05-17 06:06:11 PM
Churchill2004: Brown Jenkems: Did I or did Marx? See his distinction between use-value and exchange-value

It's a fallacious distinction that rests on the idea that people voluntarily make exchanges for any reason other than "use-value" as they see it.


No it's not. There are clearly instances of individuals only dealing in interest of exchange value, or have you forgotten profits?

Brown Jenkems: When individuals being to sell their labor to someone else who extracts profit, addition value denied to the worker

So only in a situation where the person "buying" labor brings nothing beneficial to the exchange? Then what, exactly, compelled the laborer to sell his labor?


Desperation on the part of the worker.Read Marx's work on labor and alienation as well. Capitalist don't buy labor to extract profit. That's the only motivation.

Brown Jenkems: I'd think a proletarian dictatorship would serve a similar purpose in an ideal situation: formulate the future role of government. I'm not advocating this track, mind you. But that's what I understand the role of such a body might be

Well- look at how much power has been accumulated by a government established by people who more or less saw power as inherently evil. We can easily imagine (and arguably have seen) how much worse it is when the "Founders" of the revolution don't take such a dim view of concentration of power.


The Founders had a very limited view of freedom and access to power. I fail to see how a more inclusive group of individuals could successfully limit and concentrate power.

Brown Jenkems: See again the difference between use-value and exchange-value

Again, the fallacious idea that "use value" is objective and not determined wholly by the user.


See above. Read Marx's discussion of it and keep in mind his commitment to dialectic thought.

Brown Jenkems: One is easier to make a case of ownership for (the latter)

How can you make a case for ownership of something made from natural resources when you deny the right to own natural resources? At what point does something become owned?


I don't deny the right to access resources (for all), though you might. Anything you've fairly accessed and worked on your own would be yours since it constitutes the materialization of your labor. You certainly wouldn't have the right to horde resources or deny others similar access. That's my opinion, not necessarily Marx's.

Brown Jenkems: That's a stretch. Obviously individuals shouldn't be owned

Obviously, but why? The Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen you're made of was ultimately a natural resource that someone else harvested.


Sentience. The state of being human.

Brown Jenkems: Anyone that wants access to resources should have access, whether that's land for sustenance, etc. There's no basis for denying individuals access to world they're born into unless it's by force or threat of force

Are other individuals not part of "the world they're born into"? If not, whence the distinction?


What distinction. Maybe I wasn't being clear. Everyone deserves to benefit from what is and a chance to secure their own existence and reproduction. The only way to limit others' access to what they need to use force to deny it to them. That would be and is fundamentally wrong.

Brown Jenkems: Qualified yes

Unqualified yes.


We'll agree to disagree.

/Not proofreading to carefully at this point. Apologies for typos.
 
2008-05-17 06:07:16 PM
ADubs86: I din't say that I think the whole thing should be thrown out (or at least I was trying to say that), I simply thought that the "God sayeth" parts should not have as much emphasis in the modern Christian's life

I'm just saying that "God sayeth" should not play a part in any modern person's life.
 
2008-05-17 06:07:22 PM
sweetmelissa31:

THANK YOU! I was hoping someone would share that great literary classic!
 
2008-05-17 06:08:09 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

This book blew my mind
 
2008-05-17 06:12:08 PM
Churchill2004: Brown Jenkems: Yep. There's a reason Lenin, in his testament, warned the party to removed Stalin from his position

Even so, it's not like Lenin was all rainbows and puppy dogs himself.


Man. Removed? I'm full of typos today.

Yeah, but what active revolutionary is? Compared to Stalin he practically shiat rainbows and gold, and pissed free (drinkable) beer.
 
2008-05-17 06:13:50 PM
Brown Jenkems: It's the bourgeoisie that has confiscated land, production, labor, excess wealth, etc.

No, they purchased it, they didn't confiscate it. You can purchase it from them if you so desire.

Under capitalism, labor's benefits are accumulated by the few.

There are more rich people under capitalism than under communism. In the United States we essentially don't have any poor people, to the extent that we have to import poor people in order to have people willing to take the dirty jobs no one else will do because they think their quality of life is high enough that they don't feel the need to work those jobs.

Under communism, the products of one's labor are enjoyed by the laborer.

LOL! Under communism one slaves for the state who may or may not gaive you anything in return. Did the workers in the Kolyma mines feel they were enjoying the fruit of their labor?

This is inherently evil why?

Slavery is evil. I'm amazed that you don't understand this.
 
2008-05-17 06:14:58 PM
Churchill2004:
I'm just saying that "God sayeth" should not play a part in any modern person's life.


Hey, it's your call. To each his own. Just don't take away anyone else's right to choose.
 
2008-05-17 06:15:28 PM
2.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848

200Px-Communist-Manifesto

On the list because: it could win the award for the most malicious book ever written

This book has inspired some of the most brutal regimes in man's history. Regardless of whether there has been a state which is a true Marxist state, this book has inspired so many evil actions that it can not be left off a list of this nature. Some of the principles found in the manifesto are the abolition of private ownership of land, confiscation of property of emigrants, heavy taxes, and the abolition of inheritance.


so the author of this article is trying to say these things are inheritly evil? this makes me feel this person has an alterior motive. why put in this statement as evidence that this book is bad?
 
2008-05-17 06:17:21 PM
PC LOAD LETTER: Bible
Tankakh
Quran
are missing


I came here to say this...
 
2008-05-17 06:19:25 PM
olddinosaur: The Prince by Machiavelli is an exccellent treatise on business management, timely even today. Its advice, taken too literally, CAN be dangerous--the same thing can be said of the Bible, the Koran---or the bullcrap people spew in FARK threads.

That.

On a side note, how is Malleus Maleficarum #10, and Darwin's Black Box #1?

Gotta say, I'd rather be a scientist listening to an asinine argument than a person being burned alive for witchcraft. Of course, that's just me...
 
2008-05-17 06:20:12 PM
aerojockey: It's not that it's inherently evil, it's that it's inherently impossible.

Communism is slavery and slavery is inherently evil. Are North Korean or Cuban workers free to leave the plantation or are they slaves bound to the land or factory in their "worker's paradise"? Being forced to work for someone else, not receiving equitable pay, and not being able to leave is the definition of slavery is it not?
 
2008-05-17 06:20:28 PM
I assume I'm ridiculously late to say THE BIBLE/QURAN/ETC.

The list has zero credibility without those books on there. Of course I'm sure the editor knew if they did include those books they'd probably be murdered within a few days.
 
2008-05-17 06:22:19 PM
The Bible. The Koran. Native Son. Anything Dan Brown has written.
 
2008-05-17 06:22:52 PM
Alien Robot: Brown Jenkems: It's the bourgeoisie that has confiscated land, production, labor, excess wealth, etc.

No, they purchased it, they didn't confiscate it. You can purchase it from them if you so desire.


Really? Who sold the land to them? Who sold them mineral rights? You can carry out this line of questioning for your self. The ruling class has not just purchased what they horde. They've taken. You can say the same thing about many of the supposed socialist states that have existed. That's less a result of communist theory than it is existence of a state and permanent ruling class.

Under capitalism, labor's benefits are accumulated by the few.

There are more rich people under capitalism than under communism. In the United States we essentially don't have any poor people, to the extent that we have to import poor people in order to have people willing to take the dirty jobs no one else will do because they think their quality of life is high enough that they don't feel the need to work those jobs.


You're living in a fantasy. You've obviously neither been poor or ventured into a poor region of this country. Furthermore, the number of rich under capitalism versus communism isn't a logical comparison. The point is there are fewer rich that have almost everything than poor who have little or less of what they need under capitalism. Marx and Engels wanted to rectify that problem so that everyone had what they needed.

Under communism, the products of one's labor are enjoyed by the laborer.

LOL! Under communism one slaves for the state who may or may not gaive you anything in return. Did the workers in the Kolyma mines feel they were enjoying the fruit of their labor?


Read everything else that has been said in here. I'm not typing it over. You obviously do not understand how Marx and Engels defined communism or you wouldn't suggesting concepts like "Communist states."

This is inherently evil why?

Slavery is evil. I'm amazed that you don't understand this.


I do. That's why I'm personally against all forms of it, including capitalism. But, if you're going to argue that the Communist Manifesto is inherently evil, at least read it and understand what's being argued about first.
 
2008-05-17 06:23:48 PM
Brown Jenkems: No it's not. There are clearly instances of individuals only dealing in interest of exchange value, or have you forgotten profits?

The "exchange value" is simply another way of saying that people assign different use-values to different items. My insulin probably doesn't have much use-value to my pharmacist, but it has a hell of a lot to me. Thus the "exchange value"- I agree to reward my pharmacist (and through him all the people who made the insulin) in exchange for giving me something I consider to have a higher use-value than the money I exchanged for it.

This is the concept at the very heart of free exchange and ultimately division of labor.

Brown Jenkems: Desperation on the part of the worker

Which only arises when there is no one else is willing to hire him. A situation endemic to the monopoly "capitalism" that Marx knew but not a product of actual free-exchange capitalism.

Brown Jenkems: Capitalist don't buy labor to extract profit. That's the only motivation

Who cares what their motivation is? Of course their motive is profit. That's everyone's motive. You're getting back to what I said about capitalism harnessing self-interest while communism tries to crush it.

Brown Jenkems: The Founders had a very limited view of freedom and access to power

They saw freedom and access to power as contradictory.

Brown Jenkems: I fail to see how a more inclusive group of individuals could successfully limit and concentrate power

Limiting and concentrating power are two fundamentally opposing goals. In fact it was the concentration of power that the 1787 Convention produced that ultimately undermined the limitation of power that that same convention tried to achieve.

Brown Jenkems: I don't deny the right to access resources (for all), though you might

I don't deny access to resources to anybody. I just assert that they cease to be "natural resources", available to all from the state of nature, once someone actually makes them their property.

Brown Jenkems: Anything you've fairly accessed and worked on your own would be yours since it constitutes the materialization of your labor

That is the essence of the Lockean Proviso, and the core of modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. It's a core theme of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty- though he rightly points out that it is itself an outgrowth of self-ownership.


Brown Jenkems: You certainly wouldn't have the right to horde resources or deny others similar access.

That's a contradiction. If anything I've produced from taking a natural resource and "mixing it with my labor" (as Locke famously put it) is mine, then it follows that I have every right to keep ("hoard") it if I so choose.

As for "denying others similar access"- the right to deny others access to something is the essence of what it means to own something. You have no right to deny others the right to "homestead" a natural resource and make it their own property, but you do have every right to deny them the "right" to a natural resource which you have already made your own property.


Brown Jenkems: Sentience. The state of being human

Correct. And that self-ownership necessarily extends to a person's labor, the product of that labor, and whatever they might freely exchange that product for- thus, private property.

Brown Jenkems: Everyone deserves to benefit from what is and a chance to secure their own existence and reproduction. The only way to limit others' access to what they need to use force to deny it to them. That would be and is fundamentally wrong

So you, what? Propose to force others to provide for them?

Brown Jenkems: We'll agree to disagree

I think that's an understatement.
 
2008-05-17 06:24:26 PM
Fireproof: To give you an idea of how seriously we should take that site, the first article on the main page is now "Top 10 Supporting Characters in the Simpsons."

That one would be worse. If we were discussing that, there'd be so much blood spilled you'd be able to see your own reflection.
 
2008-05-17 06:28:33 PM
Brown Jenkems: Who sold the land to them? Who sold them mineral rights?

I purchased mine from another person. I didn't confiscate it from him. He sold it to me freely.

And if you are so appalled at people who you imagine are confiscating land, they why is your solution to confiscate their land?
 
2008-05-17 06:30:40 PM
Brown Jenkems: Yeah, but what active revolutionary is?

We had plenty who came close.


ADubs86: Hey, it's your call. To each his own. Just don't take away anyone else's right to choose

Agreed. Though the corollary to that is the right to attempt to persuade someone to change their choice.

Brown Jenkems: Really? Who sold the land to them? Who sold them mineral rights?

Coming out of a state of nature, something is unowned and thus there is no need for someone to sell/give it for its acquisition to be just.

Brown Jenkems: The ruling class has not just purchased what they horde. They've taken

Blanket statements like that are impossible. Our current system, being a mixture of the economic means and political means, is thus also a mixture of justly and unjustly acquired property. I'd agree that what you'd call the "ruling class" probably tends towards the latter, though.
 
2008-05-17 06:31:17 PM
The_Gallant_Gallstone: Esc7: Mein Kampf is made up of ridiculous ramblings. Any sensible person can see it for what it is.

I think that's what they said when Hitler was the doing the crackpot thing with no real power. Of course, he had to be doing something right to become Chancellor of Germany. I know a lot of ridiculous people, none of them could ever do something like that.

I'm not saying Hitler's a cool guy, or that I love Hitler, or want to move into a loft with him and wear matching fanny packs; all I'm saying is that anyone who can impose a totalitarian dictatorship on a nation like Germany has to know what he is doing.


A nation like Germany ?
You talk as though it was some idealistic promised land, with good Christian souls before Hitler came to power, when quite clearly it wasn't.
 
2008-05-17 06:33:54 PM
Brown Jenkems

Cool! A communist! I've read about them but never seen one this close up before. *poke* *poke* *poke* Cooooooooool.
 
2008-05-17 06:37:25 PM
refrigeratorelf:
On a side note, how is Malleus Maleficarum #10, and Darwin's Black Box #1?

Gotta say, I'd rather be a scientist listening to an asinine argument than a person being burned alive for witchcraft. Of course, that's just me...


Regarding # 10 Malleus Maleficarum, the Catholic Church banned the book in 1490, placing it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Despite this, the Malleus Maleficarum became the de-facto handbook for witch-hunters and Inquisitors throughout Late Medieval Europe. Ironic, in a way, that the invention of the printing press helped spread this book. I might read it out of curiosity of what it said back then.
 
2008-05-17 06:42:06 PM
PC LOAD LETTER: Bible
Tankakh
Quran
are missing


This.
 
2008-05-17 06:45:09 PM
it is not necessary ... to have all the above-mentioned qualities [merciful, faithful, humane, honest, and religious], but it is indeed necessary to appear to have them

Planned Parenthood today have tried very hard to distance themselves from their founder.


Coincidence?
 
2008-05-17 06:47:34 PM
This list is silly.

The Pivot of Civilization: It quotes the author: "the most urgent problem of to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. [...] possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism."

Seems perfectly logical and makes good sense to me... unlike a multitude of other books that've really farked the world up (mostly religious). If we continue to support the severely mentally and physically retarded, especially those with serious inheritable diseases, we will weaken our gene pool. Simple as that.

Machiavelli's "The Prince"? FTFA: "Some of the people inspired by this book are Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Napoleon I of France."

Seems to me that he gave some pretty damn good advice then... all of those listed were quite successful in moving towards their respective goals, regardless of how much people disagree with those goals.

Not to mention perpatrating crimes on a mass scale isn't always a terrible thing in the grand scheme of things... we need some every once and a while to give us all a common enemy to fight against together to prevent us drifting too far apart.

The Communist Manifesto: Hmm, so someone wrote a piece with good presumably good intentions offering up ways in which to allow man to live along side fellow man in peace, so it makes the list? Then I fully expect to see the Bible on there (I'm pretty sure we could attribute more deaths to the Bible-based religions than to communism.).

Silly, silly list. So many more worse pieces.

/ But now, after 35 hours awake, I head to work.
// Have a good evening Fark.
 
2008-05-17 06:48:54 PM
Churchill2004: Brown Jenkems: No it's not. There are clearly instances of individuals only dealing in interest of exchange value, or have you forgotten profits?

The "exchange value" is simply another way of saying that people assign different use-values to different items. My insulin probably doesn't have much use-value to my pharmacist, but it has a hell of a lot to me. Thus the "exchange value"- I agree to reward my pharmacist (and through him all the people who made the insulin) in exchange for giving me something I consider to have a higher use-value than the money I exchanged for it.

This is the concept at the very heart of free exchange and ultimately division of labor.


Of course it doesn't have use-value to your pharmacist. Of course, nothing your pharmacist sells have use-value in that transaction or as a market endeavor since he is only selling. Nothing he has is produced by him for his benefit. I'm assuming you're not buying insulin from a DIY pharmacist making his own bathtub insulin. Any selling would be for exchange-value. But, if you and a group of insulin-dependent individuals got together to produce your own insulin, that would be use-value. If you made more than you needed and traded it to me for some quantity of whatever I produce, that would still be use-value. There's no profit because no wealth beyond the labor and materials put into is acquired. Plus, everyone worked. The essence of the capitalist system is that a small group of non-produces maintains a monopoly on both the means of production and resources. They buy labor, not use, from individuals who essentially sell their sweat and time in exchange for not an equal value, but a less value. This value must be lesser or else our lazy capitalist wouldn't be able to extract a profit on the market.

Brown Jenkems: Desperation on the part of the worker

Which only arises when there is no one else is willing to hire him. A situation endemic to the monopoly "capitalism" that Marx knew but not a product of actual free-exchange capitalism.


Free-exchange capitalism sounds a utopian as Marx's pure communism. Capitalists need government to maintain their monopoly on power. This is one of Marx's best points, I think. That capitalist markets exist unrestrained and are antithetical to government power is an illusion.

Brown Jenkems: Capitalist don't buy labor to extract profit. That's the only motivation

Who cares what their motivation is? Of course their motive is profit. That's everyone's motive. You're getting back to what I said about capitalism harnessing self-interest while communism tries to crush it.


Profit is inherently exploitive. Please note, I'm not using profit as a synonym for a positive result from one's labor but a specific manifestation of an asymmetry between those who own and hire and those who sell and labor.

Brown Jenkems: The Founders had a very limited view of freedom and access to power

They saw freedom and access to power as contradictory.


Let me clarify. The founders had a limited view as to who was truly free to act socially, economically, and politically. Unsurprisingly, those most free also had the greatest access to power. They did not set up a free, unregulated system for a nation of equals.

Brown Jenkems: I fail to see how a more inclusive group of individuals could successfully limit and concentrate power

Limiting and concentrating power are two fundamentally opposing goals. In fact it was the concentration of power that the 1787 Convention produced that ultimately undermined the limitation of power that that same convention tried to achieve.


By limit I meant limit access to power, which they did to a subset of the country. By power I meant the ability to participate in governance. This results in concentrating power.

Brown Jenkems: I don't deny the right to access resources (for all), though you might

I don't deny access to resources to anybody. I just assert that they cease to be "natural resources", available to all from the state of nature, once someone actually makes them their property.


You can extract from the mine, but you cannot own it. That's sharing and owning one's labor versus ownership of a resource.

Brown Jenkems: Anything you've fairly accessed and worked on your own would be yours since it constitutes the materialization of your labor

That is the essence of the Lockean Proviso, and the core of modern libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. It's a core theme of Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty- though he rightly points out that it is itself an outgrowth of self-ownership.


To a limited degree. The supposed anarcho-capitalists would suggest they could fence an entirety of a resource to be doled out at their whim. I disagree.

Brown Jenkems: You certainly wouldn't have the right to horde resources or deny others similar access.

That's a contradiction. If anything I've produced from taking a natural resource and "mixing it with my labor" (as Locke famously put it) is mine, then it follows that I have every right to keep ("hoard") it if I so choose.

As for "denying others similar access"- the right to deny others access to something is the essence of what it means to own something. You have no right to deny others the right to "homestead" a natural resource and make it their own property, but you do have every right to deny them the "right" to a natural resource which you have already made your own property.


I knew I should have proofread. That's not a contradiction. Everyone gets access. You don't get to carry away resource X or build a fence around it just because you got their first or because you can kill anyone that wants some too. You do have the right to use it within reason. It's called sharing.

Brown Jenkems: Sentience. The state of being human

Correct. And that self-ownership necessarily extends to a person's labor, the product of that labor, and whatever they might freely exchange that product for- thus, private property.


You sure you're not talking about possessions? There's a distinction between claiming the firewood I collected is mine and claiming I own the forest.

Brown Jenkems: Everyone deserves to benefit from what is and a chance to secure their own existence and reproduction. The only way to limit others' access to what they need to use force to deny it to them. That would be and is fundamentally wrong.

So you, what? Propose to force others to provide for them?


People have a right to their existence. Humans are social animals and there is no point in human existence without social structure or some kind, no matter how limited. Participation within a system obligates that system to ensure its participants existence. Yeah, it may suck to think you have an obligation to those in your community, but you do. But, communities should, in the end, be participatory. If you don't want to participate, move on and accept the risks of being a hermit.

Brown Jenkems: We'll agree to disagree

I think that's an understatement.


Heh.
 
Displayed 50 of 507 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report