A fine display of intellectual incoherence. Please explain: “For [trade] to be artificial, it must be FORCED.” Because it seems obvious that for something to be artificial it must be constructed. Trade is a the constructed product of human intelligence, thus it is artifical; just like your computer. But rather than a physical construction, like your computer, trade is an intellectual construction.
Good. After all, we’ve demolished all your laughable nonsense by using airtight arguments. And now you’re pouting. So I suggest growing up and not being a troll. Think you can do that?
Oh goody; another oversensitive emoposter. I do so enjoy the wailing your type produces. The hysterics are quite funny, especially considering that you’re trying to mind my business when you should be minding your own. Have I made myself clear?
They’re literally a caricature of teenie commies who think the only reason anyone would oppose their ideology is because they’re emotioneless, a corporate shill, republican hack &c. &c.
Arguing with commies is useless. Typically it goes like this:
Communism failed because it wasn’t a true communism.
Socialism failed because the people in charge were “bad”. Replace Stalin with someone nice and kind, and you’ll get a recipe for success (go, Obama).
Capitalism and industrialization hves improved the lives of the millions… but people are not equal! Workers are exploited! Isn’t it unfair that poor people can’t afford a Lamborgini! Let’s appoint some people who will fairly redistribute everything and give Lamborghinis to those who deserve them!
From what I’ve seen, reading through this thread, first Markus copy pasted some Communist rambling from another forum, and then selectively ignored posts that countered it succinctly, all the while complaining that “no one can counter this,” “I thought a community of libertarians would be better,” and “Marx was an anti-Semite? That’s all you’ve got?” Then, apparently Markus disappeared and thetruthisnonexistant took up his mantle, doing the exact same things. Whenever ladyattis, Daniel, etc. make a post that presumably thetruthisnonexistant doesn’t understand / doesn’t have the means to find a copy-paste communist response, he completely ignores that post and moves on to something simpler. If you can’t debate with someone because you are not on their intellectual plane, it isn’t fair to only choose the posts they “dumb down” for you to reply to. So far, you have failed to provide any substantial evidence for anything, except for maintaining that since the dictionary states that profit = exploitation, it MUST be true! That is completely ridiculous, and the only way this “debate” will come to fruition is if you begin to understand this.
I think truthisnonexistant did a much better job then Markus. I applaud truth for attempting a debate in this forum, i wish for more of the rev lefters would come in here and do the same. I would strike this thread up to the austrians though… although I am biased
Hmm Ayn Rand seemed to paint a different picture. She lived there, I doubt you have. I am inclined to beleive her over you. In fact she wrote a book about what life was like over there.
I recently worked with someone who just left Russia also. He doesn’t describe things as you do. Suprisingly he’s more upset at what our current nation is doing because he left Russia to avoid such rediculousness. He thought that America was the land of the free. He thought wrong.
But I thought praxeology states that human action is too complex and its results too subjective to be measured by observation? I mean, didn’t Mises in Human Action argue that we must rely on a priori justifications alone for our economic knowledge, and that because of this any real world application of an economic system is irrelevant?
You are evidently confused, the ‘nature’ of an internet message board allows people to read back through old discussions. This allows us to verify assertions made regarding the history of the board. And in this instance read whether you have, as you claim, ‘demolished’ all of my contributions. Clearly, reading back over older discussions, that is not the case.
Please explain how my post was intellectually dishonest; or alternatively try to prove it by addressing my position, as opposed to producing these tedious red herrings. Or is asking you to step up and qualify your assertions ‘trolling’?