MARCELL DAREUS POWER

the only class warfare that has happened is coming from the capitalist welfare free riders...

Im for markets.... are you on any medication? isnt this why car insurance is so high, because the health care costs for catastrophic care are nuts... like billions of dollars nuts... how is it reasonable to say a market can deal with catastrophic care. 1- you cant refuse care or walk away like you walk away from a store, you would die. 2- the state enforces that hospitals help people, creating higher costs for everyone else... what other option is there besides the state? isnt this the main reason for medicare? older people get more serious illness and cant work as much...

wow, im arguing against marginal productivity, not for it. thats your job... i didnt say land was simpliciter unproductive. i said it was unproductive without labor. unless farmers just sit in the house and drink tea all day... state your argument! why do you disagree with harris?

is it so controversial to have a market health care system for simple procedure, like a cold or something, and then let medicare cover catastrophic care like a car accident that puts you in the hospital for 2 weeks?

i want to talk about harris instead of my character. christ... ideology aside, ethics is fascinating to me and vital to creating a good society... its probably the greatest question in human history.

you are implying that someone who is admitting that author x is better at explaining such theories is a look at me strategy. this is why i didnt just say read person a, but actually put the ideas in quotes from people way smarter than you and i... im not some great thinker, i just stand on other shoulders. and i differ with much of marxist theory. i believe in markets, profit, and i dont think a social contract should subsume every part of our lives. im sorry, but the constant repeating of capitalist rhetoric was your game, not mine. for some odd reason you ignore use value, and its something that is empirical in observation. you were the one being dogmatic and rejecting fact. the name calling, ad hom attacks, straw man, are all coming from your side. like i said, you took a reference to an author and became insecure. when in reality, im saying, this person is smarter than me, so read him. i found this helpful. you want to attack my character instead of addressing my arguments. this is a classic case where someone doesnt have an argument and tries to deflect. reading you is like watching fox news. if you say there is corruption with a republican, they bring up a democrat that was corrupt. if a corporation does x that is bad, they deflect with what a union did. the issue isnt who, but what. and you fail to argue against "the what" and instead attack "the who"... basically, you are insecure and emotional, rather than reasonable... ironically, read the virtue of selfishness by ayn rand. this will better help you understand how your emotional state obfuscates your objectivity and reason. so yeah, either you can talk about the theory harris is putting forth, or we can go down the rabbit hole of attacking the poster and his character... again, that reveals quite a bit about you... for christs sake, its not even my !@#$ing idea.

again, more ad hom...

how is it showing off? its a discussion that has great controversy. are you that insecure?

yeah, i agree. i think well- being and suffering are loose terms like health. it could mean lots of things, and there can be many right answers. i think hes just saying at some point, there is a major difference between food and poison for example. statements like i dont want to increase well -being seem to be nonsense. either you are confused, patholigical, or lying...

cowart was a home run pick. would have been like ray lewis if not for injury. linton was a decent power back. hicks was a backup, so idk about that pick. he was ok... i would give it a c +. plus we signed flutie which might cancel out the johnson trade. but flutie was getting older so it was still a horrible trade. randy moss and eric moulds with flutie would have taken us to the superbowl!

if you are working, then how is there exploitation? you are working and creating wealth... if you own a farm, and you are the only worker, then obviously nobody is exploited. wealth belongs to those who create it... , your...misguided(I'm feeling nice)...assumption is that all labor is the same. It is not. You cannot macroeconomically define labor...and have that definition hold up in the real world. And that is the real fallacy here. 10% "interest" on your labor, is worth a lot less than 10% on mine. I guarantee it. i already gave you an example of the car lot with nobody there. this fundamentally disproves your point. Labor is not a homogenous commodity any more than management, or ownership is. Proof: Who would you rather have as an owner of the Bills? Dan Snyder(Redskins), or Bob Kraft(Patriots)? Does Bob's team have to suffer because of the idiot decisions made by Dan? No, and that is as it must be. Treating the 3 as though they are the same every time and always will be in every respect, merely betrays the childlike simplicity with which Marx and Engels treated economics, government, and human beings in general. Human beings aren't worse or better than these simplified assumptions. They are simply more complicated than these assumptions allow. And, therefore, more complicated at a granular level, than a "one-size-fits-all" centralized system will allow. What if both Dan and Bob are sitting on a government health care committee, that makes all those decisions, and their votes count the same? In your childish world, all of us, including Bob, have to suffer the Dan Snyder Idiot consequences. Bob gets blamed for Dan's incompetence, and can't do what he knows is right because of it? That's not fair to anybody, including Dan. Dan will never learn from his mistakes. "But..but...but" that is, by definition, your DEMOCRATIC..."solution" in action...is it not? Moron If we can't even assume that owners are the same...how in the hell is management the same? Look. At. The. Bills. Now. Idiot. And, for labor, is Donte Whitner the same as George Wilson? For you to be right, they must be. They are not, and therefore, you must be wrong. Unfortunately, it took the rise and fall of these childish ideas, with incalculable costs = more deaths than religion has caused, to prove that they are fundamentally flawed. wow, when your argument fails, you begin to put words in my mouth and state opinions that are not mine but claim they are... a classic strawman technique to confuse others... yes, labor is not the same. in fact use value can change depending on labor. less talent, laziness, a person quits, etc. etc. i already stated this. labor is different in talent, effort, and the circumstance of market demand. all i said was when use value, ie profit, overtakes capital, labor is creating all the new capital, and they should own it because they are creating it, they worked for it. i have said multiple times, i believe in markets, and if a co-op could use a better worker for a legit circumstance, then this should be allowed. even if it were democratic, or had reps, they will obviously go through resumes and pick the most qualified person. otherwise the company will suffer... wow...

are you really blaming the middle class for losing everything the past 30 years? really? i didnt know joe the plummer had so much power... no mention of globalization, neoliberalism, extreme downfall of union leverage in the private sector, massive deregulation of securitization and the psychotic selling of cdos and betting against them with no regs on aig..... when in doubt, blame poor people.... apparently they ignore that in any economy there is both monetary incentive and moral incentive. if you can rip people off on wall st. thats great monetary incentive but fails the test of moral incentive. you need a balance of both...

nick collins? plaxico? haynesworth?

the dline has the potential to be epic... its just a matter of doing it. when you combine inside and outside pressure like that.... well, i just hope it translates...

imbucile, the hammer is meant as a metaphor to illustrate on a microlevel what happens when use value is added... e.g. wood, hammer, and nails is worth 50$. the table now created is worth 200$... if it was just you, your labor mental and physical added 150$ of value... your labor created new capital...

it must be easier living under a rock...

this only makes you look weak in a debate... :wallbash:

reading the moral landscape by sam harris. he says that science can determine human values and morality. do you agree? he says hume's normative problem is really a non-sequitor and that our ought claims must be tied to what reality actually is. these normative claims in science are easy to answer when you admit morality is really about suffering and well-being and moving suffering in the direction of well-being. he says if bad is not connected to suffering than he doesnt know what you are talking about, and better yet, he doesnt think you know what you are talking about. he later states that we could imagine the most miserable existence for ourselves, and if we dont think this is bad, then bad is really a empty term that is complete nonsense, like square- circle..... he also uses the analogy of health. there are a ton of ways to be healthy, yet it remains a open subject. and you would be looked at as pathological/mentally ill if you asked normative questions about vomiting or cancer. your thoughts... kind of utilitarianism updated... short vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt7AGv-RNGM

So if the economy had drastic reductions in regulation during the past decade, and taxes were and are at an all time low, then why would we lower taxes even more and have even less regulation??? in fact, before the recession, middle class income has gone down over the past 30 years? does this mean supply side is really voodoo economics like bush said?

or substantial equity compensation. Wow indeed. no, i was talking about unjustified authority, then you went on some batshit notion that mental effort like marketing strategy was not labor... yes, ownership over capital they did not create.... its unjustified hierarchy. how does one have an equity stake when they are not creating capital anymore??? i said management that was without reason, was arbitrary and not needed.

Face it, you want a free ride. You want to share in the outsized profit when times are good, but when the business misses earnings you're not willing to take a bath. You're all for markets yet you're disgusted with the market value of labor. And you can spare me part where you go on about labor assuming all of the risk, as well. It is not in the best interest of any organization to engage in constant fire and hire, as the cost of hiring and training is very high. Labor trades their share of ownership for predictable and steady income, which allows them to live more comfortably and plan long-term. Its a trade-off that is more than fair. When you have a salary and defined benefits, the firm assumes all business risk. They are on the hook for your wage no matter how many of the units you've produced can actually be sold. wow.... that is labor, im talking about capital hierarchy without labor. some labor has more value... talent and effort is one reason... wow, just wow....

ad hom yes, it is a moral value, that people should not take what they do not work for. like you said, holding value relatively constant, raw materials are worth raw materials. the profit is generated from use value. if you want a system that exploits, just admit it. stop the bs. im all for profit, im all for soft regulation on markets, im all for working hard, i really like john locke. but im not for people sitting back and getting rich doing nothing. all the capital, wages, profits, overhead are being created by labor, so why cant they own it? its a massive contradiction that says person a can own capital, yet workers cannot own the capital they create. i said lending carries no risk once surplus value creates the new capital... money that is simply printed with no foundation is made up. it only has legal tender from the state, in reality its worth nothing. a better definition of money is a promissory note. the fed does this all the time with other private banks and the govt... interest comes from time value, any economist will tell you this.