Kokiri-Mentat

Then you would love noocracy. Just figure out how to manipulate gravity and you'll be good to go. ;)

Hello hello. it would seem that you are assuming that there are no other employers to go to in a capitalistic society, or rather; that the CEO's all are in a joint marketing scheme against all the workers. It's kind of interesting, employers in the US convince their employees to stay put through benefits such as retirement, health insurance, stocks; and often the retirement packages become more valuable with duration of work experience in that particular company. The problem is that those benefits are not always mutual currency between competing companies. The result is a stagnant, and immobile work force. So essentially the workers get more for staying put and less for being a mobile corporate hopper. The way to solve this without nationalizing the means of production is to nationalize the benefits and keep the basic means of production privatized. When you empower employees with nationalized benefits, then the big bad guys that are in charge of the means of production are forced to make working conditions both more efficient and more bearable while also maintaining a sensitivity to the demands of the market. In this case the workers are also the consumers. So the tables are turned and the bosses become the slaves in a sense. But then who want's to become a boss? Well, naturally he will get slightly more pay for being the boss. So long as their are other bosses to go to who are in direct market competition, things should be ok for the work force. So long as corporations are not allowed to create joint monopolization while the workers are allowed to do so, the real slaves will be the corporate bosses, whose "moderate" remuneration is enough motivation for them to keep things running smoothly. Also, when you look at the means of production, differentiation of procedure (and thus machinery, I would assume) is vital for free-market comparisons that will shed light on "the best" way for production to appease the needs of the people. Do the people want shoddy electronics that break down after 2 years but look really cool, or do they want a more simplistic and effective design that lasts for several years? When the government owns the means of production, how would they be able to offer this same methodology of market progression? I guess this is presupposing the idea that the people know what kinds of product that they want better than "the government", (whoever that ends up being). It's also assuming that people are inherently good at judging what is necessary over what is excess. Essentially, saying that people are more efficient of percieving how best to accommodate their changing needs than the government. Another problem is the bureaucratic red tape. If the government owns the means of production and a certain type of factory becomes essential to certain societal needs, how does the government go about appointing and distributing the factories among the differing groups that desire to make the said products? It would seem that the government would have to be very perceptive and wise when making that judgement call that would leave others outside of the means of production who wish to be a part of that process. And how would the officials decide which version of the product is better and for which people? It doesn't matter if people want to make the cars or not. If they don't know what they are doing, then they are going to be shoddy cars. So why bother letting them into the factory in the first place? Who's to say that the government can even tell which car makers are more "qualified" to be making the cars than somebody else? credentials are nice (which is what a Bureaucrat will inevitably have to rely on) but experience and market feedback seems to be a much more accurate deciding factor than an exclusive group of officials who are perhaps naive of the rapidly changing demands of society. I suppose that Nationalization of the means of production would only work in an older market that has been thoroughly tested and subjected to the free-market test. Then perhaps the government could step in and buy the factories and let groups waltz in and out as they wished. However, when it comes to newer and inovative markets, it would seem that Nationalization of production would slow it down and perhaps make several mistakes. Also, who would create and invent the machinery used for production? Would the ideas belong to the individual or the government? How would an inventor's labors be rewarded in Communism? Not trying to be antagonistic, just slightly curious. but why not? When someone is a "unique" individual and others desire for that "rare" talent, people tend to get naggy about wanting to be a part of that "marketable" talent. Nagging is the worst form of torture, thus remuneration of sorts is arguably ethically required (depending upon the social circumstance, I suppose). In a capitalistic or even socialistic society, this works fine. In a communistic society, the green eyed monster would reign supreme; thus killing anyone born with inherent individuality that is (for some reason) desirable. Men are not born inherently "equal" in the literal sense, they have subtle differentiations. If one differentiation is societally most preferable by general consensus, why ignore that and rebuke it rather than encourage it? Isn't that killing individualism in a way? Especially if the "talent" is able to contribute to society on a large scale, either culturally or otherwise. I didn't know Obama was a proctectionist. That makes me very sad. I'm embarassed of US politics right now. = It's like watching cit-com re-runs. Political satire is perhaps a good word for our current media reality.

lol, haven't had time to sit down and watch anything aside from the initial ceremony yet (that was spectacular wasn't it?), but anyway....that swim race where the US beat France is all they've been showing on the news today. The victory fist pump was very epic in slow motion.

*nonchalant whistling* So you finally got it right, right? :- (I'm bored)

The most interesting thing about this argument that I found to be true was the following. 1)Without objective laws, there will always be room for logical criticism of the law in question. 2)Logical criticism of laws are a breeding ground for active dissidents of the laws in question. 3)Thus without objective laws, man will always be doomed to a fate of chaos and violence. one valid proceeding conclusion could be this: 1)It is impossible for man to be objective. 2)Thus, any laws created by man will be subjective. 3)Subjective laws are are always open to justified criticism. 4)Justified criticism is a breeding ground for active dissidents of the laws in question. 5)Only God can provide man with objective laws. 6)Man rejects the laws of God. 7)Man will always be doomed to chaos, dissidents, and war. This makes a lot of assumptions, perhaps, but I found this logic to be interesting. Any thoughts?

france gall- laisse tomber les filles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMhO0Kfl5Ck She's so hypnotizing in this video. It's the 1964, french version of the end credit song to Tarantino's Death Proof

Five words. LMFAO. Fox news really outdid themselves this time. Attempt to smear Obama results in an epic fail. :D Watch these in order. but you only need to watch the 1st minute of the first two. fox tries to smearhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=8Ecio9BLMNg msnbc points out sillyness fox apologizeshttp://youtube.com/watch?v=3plZq0p9L18&feature=related looping of said sillyness

oh, hello Newbiezilla. I hope you've met someone besides me. I really have no authority to be introducing you to the site/community, but regardless nice to meet you. /off-topic Are you talking about the original Fable? I think the Pre-release hype was much bigger than how well-received the game was. Personally, I had never heard a scoring that was as good as that game. It sounded like a real orchestra. It was so good for me at the time to hear that coming from a video game. Anyway, I enjoyed the graphics and the story feel of the game, but I wish there would've been just more....game. I honestly couldn't tell you any of the plot line, but it seemed too short. I think if they had expanded the amount of gameplay upon initial release than the game would've felt more balanced. epic music, epic embiance, epic graphics, epic choice between good/evil,.......puny plot line, puny amount of gameplay. It make for a weird game. Overrated? In terms of hype, yes. In terms of post-release fan-base acclaim, it got what it deserved.

Those cheeky bastards. Wow, really not cool on their part. Any reason given as to why?

arghh, that's just torture. Bum luck, mate. Well for your sake I hope it is released sooner than later, but it will be worth the wait for you I'm sure.

Ah, probably bad wording on my part. By using the phrase wishes of the people I was trying to imply it as a synonym for "the laws, created by the legislatures, who are elected by the people" I meant it to be read as "The idealistic purpose of punishment would be to uphold the idea of an elected government that enforces legislation which in a democracy should reflect the rights of the people." Didn't mean to imply the wishes of the actual victims, just society in general.

Any luck Kirbs?

Ah, yes. Good point. Indeed, these are entirely different sacks of potatoes. I would say that the practical purpose of punishment is to deter crime through fear of legal enforcement of the law in the case of lesser crimes and thus ensure an orderly society. In the case of prison time the practical purpose is to prevent the criminal from further harming society. Essentially, the practical purpose of punishment is to protect people's rights and promote the general welfare. The idealistic purpose of punishment would be to uphold the idea of an elected government that enforces the wishes of the people (in the case of a democracy/republic). I'm not sure if rehabilitation fits in with punishment. Punishment does not necessarily imply rehabilitation and rehabilitation does not necessarily imply punishment. They can, however, be considered to be the same thing at times.

The Darkness-I believe in a thing called love http://youtube.com/watch?v=6-4VOLeKBOw