You have not demonstrated this is the case, once again you’re making claims without backing up anything. A claim to know where I am wrong is a claim to show that I am, not merely state that “you are wrong” which words and which statements of mine? Otherwise it’s a bunch of handwaving and protectionist nonsense for subjective moralistic and legalistic theory of how the world ought to be organized.
It’s no wonder the physicists created their own forum to discuss these ideas, people can’t accept when they are shown to be wrong, I’m reminded of maxwell plank.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)
Here’s the deal: When you go read up on the refutations of positivist-monist nuttiness, and come back with an understanding of the topic, I’ll discuss it with you. Until then, you’re merely asserting and repeating bullshit. So then, how about it? And again, I want that equation. Go on fool, produce it!
There’s so much wrong with what you’ve written it would take far too much time to correct it and online forums are not the best medium for the wholesale education you need. Either make an honest effort to educate yourself about the subjects you are criticizing (i.e., read the things we suggest) or stop.
Yeah, life was WAY BETTER before all that money came along. Darn money! And the politicians? Sweet and pure as the day is long!
Get rid of government and you wind up only really owning what you can directly control. You have no massive state apparatus to enforce your royal titles.
But one man, or a group of men, should be invested with the decision-making power of how rich others should be, and the force to make them comply. Yeah, that’s better.
You make long sentences. Anyway, the only reason lawyers can charge so much is because of government and its bewildering thicket of laws. If laws were simple and few, you wouldn’t need all that BS. Of course, you’re proposing a whole new set of laws defining how much one can own. You will have to define what sorts of things count towards that evil level of wealth. You’ll have to make sentencing guidelines if people exceed that level set by your eternal wisdom. You’ll need a system of adjustments that will take into account minor inflation or deflation, as well as cushions for people who, via deflation, suddenly end up with too much money without their control.
Intellectual cop out, you guys don’t have any answers, you have no valid claims! You can’t even show where I am wrong, you should be able to point out where I am wrong since you digested my words, so which words and which statements? Again you guys have nothing on me. Be rational and take me on otherwise stop making claims that I am “just wrong”, you’re not looking like very rational people here at all.
You made a claim that I was incorrect, then you MUST know what word, or group of words I stated is incorrect, and know exactly WHERE and WHICH STATEMENT I made the error, and demosntrate their incoherency exactly otherwise you’re lying through your teeth. Logic 101, so where’s the error?
If anyone accuses anyone of making an error or undefined statement, that error must exist and they must know it exists and where. So they have to show the error, otherwise they don’t know.
Or, they can refer you to reading, tell you to stop wasting their time with already discredited ideas, and that is the end of it. Why is it that people who blather on about “rationality” and “logic” all the time are some of the most stupid people alive? It is really curious.
A la la la la la la you can’t say anymore I’ll only quote you in a misrepresentative way and go off on a rant…
Are you 4?
Well, energy would still be scarce. It’s really just transferring the scarcity a step back. We can rearrange matter into useful forms now with an input of energy. The difference would ultimately be nil. Doofus.
Bullshit, you guys don’t know or you would have exposed the errors immediately. Come on don’t cop out, you’re all being dishonest because you know you got nothing.
No one cares enough to waste their time on this crap, when it’s been refuted repeatedly. You’re not making any novel or interesting arguments. When you actually know what you’re talking about, I’ll bother. Call it a “cop-out”. I call it saving time and not wasting it on a doofus.
You’re right. We got nothing. We are just such intellectual cowards, well, we can’t stand the light of your blazing intellect. It’s really just blinding. No more copping out though. Gosh, to think I’d see the day when Mises.com became obsolete. Let’s go, guys. We’ve been beaten, and decisively. I guess we should thank you for showing us the error of our ways, but I just can’t bring myself to, through the grief.
Actually JC, he was probably charged $500 for being a dreamer and hard to deal with. Just kidding.
A lawyer charges $500 per hour, because not all of his hours are billable. If you know any lawyers who bill 40 hours per week, they are either ripping off their clients, or they are working 90 hour weeks. Out of the $500, comes taxes, overheads, and then the balance is divided amongst the total hours worked, not the billable hours only.
Why is it that there are very few people on this forum (or in Academe) who have experience in the real world with commerce? It is very annoying having to explain fundamentals of actual business to people sometimes.
Your error is simple. The human world is not just a mechanical world ruled by the laws of physics. Is that so hard to understand ? Besides, physics doesn’t explain much - and even worse, at least some modern physicists reject logic anyway. Finally, the fact that engineers can build machines doesn’t mean that ‘physicists’ have the knowledge nor the authority to rule their neighbors…contrary to what you seem to think.
You’ve set up a false dichotomy. Its possible to know when a person has reach an incorrect conclusion without knowing the thought process he used to reach it.
I think we’ve given this joker enough opportunities to demonstrate he isn’t a troll, don’t you guys? If anyone objects to banning him and throwing this thread in the trashbin, please speak up.
I’m not sure he is a troll by intent. There are a lot of people who are detached from rational thought, and they will wander in here from time to time.
So I guess I am saying, maybe we should spare the rod.
I don’t feel comfortable with banning people - and deleting the thread means deleting our posts as well. Not that my posts are worth keeping but maybe other posts are.