- 30 Apr 2019 19:49
#15001860
The alternative was always a higher death rate, especially for children. You are a socialist, so you think it is better for more children to die. Simple.
No, more and more resources are being made available. Google "Ehrlich Simon Wager" and start reading. The exception is natural fertility resources like fish stocks, but they are being depleted because they are NOT owned: it's the Tragedy of the Commons. The privately owned forests of the USA are in excellent condition because their owners want them to remain productive.
Wrong again. Humanity actually came very, very close to extinction after the Lake Toba eruption 70Kya precisely BECAUSE we did not have technology to adapt to global cooling. In fact, our high intelligence relative to previous human species is probably mainly due to the intense selection pressure of that event: those who could not figure out ways to cope with radically cooler and drier climate -- especially surviving winter outside the tropics -- perished.
Sorry to identify facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.
No, that's impossible, because unlike banksters and landowners, those who own producer goods have no legal power to deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have. They can't make anyone any worse off. All they can do is reduce scarcity and increase abundance. By contrast, banksters are legally empowered to issue and charge interest on the money that people have to use to participate in the economy, while landowners are legally empowered to deprive others of their liberty to use natural resources. IP monopoly owners can deprive us of knowledge and ideas that would otherwise be in the public domain.
The only people who can be our owners are those who own our rights to liberty: landowners and other privilege holders. Landowners own our liberty rights to ACCESS transportation infrastructure, job opportunities at factories, etc. IP monopolists own our liberty rights to access and use knowledge, ideas, and culture that would be in the public domain if they had not been legally reprivatized. The factory owner, by contrast, can't stop us from making a living, only offer us an enhanced opportunity to do so. Landowners and IP monopolists can and do stop us from making a living unless we pay them full market value for PERMISSION to do so. Banksters are in a slightly different category, as they enrich themselves by being entitled to do something -- issue money -- that the rest of us are not allowed to do. But our dependence on banksters for money enables them to charge us interest on the money we have to use to access economic opportunity.
More accurately, they have paid for the creation and hegemony of a phony and dishonest "economics" -- neoclassical economics -- that serves their narrow financial interests.
QatzelOk wrote:Yes, they wanted more worker bees.
The alternative was always a higher death rate, especially for children. You are a socialist, so you think it is better for more children to die. Simple.
And now their worker bees are in the billions, and resources are drying up.
No, more and more resources are being made available. Google "Ehrlich Simon Wager" and start reading. The exception is natural fertility resources like fish stocks, but they are being depleted because they are NOT owned: it's the Tragedy of the Commons. The privately owned forests of the USA are in excellent condition because their owners want them to remain productive.
Withouut owners, humanity would have a lower population right now, and less technology. Thus, we would be much further away from extinction (the ultimate failure of a species).
Wrong again. Humanity actually came very, very close to extinction after the Lake Toba eruption 70Kya precisely BECAUSE we did not have technology to adapt to global cooling. In fact, our high intelligence relative to previous human species is probably mainly due to the intense selection pressure of that event: those who could not figure out ways to cope with radically cooler and drier climate -- especially surviving winter outside the tropics -- perished.
Oh please.
Sorry to identify facts that prove your beliefs are false and evil.
Our economy is so layered and connected and its mafias are so on top of social control, that banksters, means of production owners, and land owners all work together to ensure everyone else's servitude and poverty.
No, that's impossible, because unlike banksters and landowners, those who own producer goods have no legal power to deprive anyone of anything they would otherwise have. They can't make anyone any worse off. All they can do is reduce scarcity and increase abundance. By contrast, banksters are legally empowered to issue and charge interest on the money that people have to use to participate in the economy, while landowners are legally empowered to deprive others of their liberty to use natural resources. IP monopoly owners can deprive us of knowledge and ideas that would otherwise be in the public domain.
The means of production, of transportation, of opportunity, of legality... are all in the hands of an oligarchy (our owners) who herd normal people with violence and lies.
The only people who can be our owners are those who own our rights to liberty: landowners and other privilege holders. Landowners own our liberty rights to ACCESS transportation infrastructure, job opportunities at factories, etc. IP monopolists own our liberty rights to access and use knowledge, ideas, and culture that would be in the public domain if they had not been legally reprivatized. The factory owner, by contrast, can't stop us from making a living, only offer us an enhanced opportunity to do so. Landowners and IP monopolists can and do stop us from making a living unless we pay them full market value for PERMISSION to do so. Banksters are in a slightly different category, as they enrich themselves by being entitled to do something -- issue money -- that the rest of us are not allowed to do. But our dependence on banksters for money enables them to charge us interest on the money we have to use to access economic opportunity.
They have studied the important parts of "economics" very well.
More accurately, they have paid for the creation and hegemony of a phony and dishonest "economics" -- neoclassical economics -- that serves their narrow financial interests.