Richest 2% hold half of world's assets

[neverforgetlol]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason to believe it would exist, no empirical evidence of this "pure capitalism."


[/ QUOTE ]
Pure capitalism has been discussed in theory ad nauseum on this board. Using empirical evidence as the only factor for what is and what isn't possible is fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a person of science, I like to be shown evidence. Sorry!

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not going to write a thesis, but everything done by hierarcchial companies can be done by worker owned ones. it would be better because i don't think most people like having bosses, basically. they don't like part of what they produce going to a boss, they don't like the structure which i believe alienates the workers from others.

i mean who here really would want to work under a boss instead of in a company where everyone is equal, where everyone has an equal say in how the company is run?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, there's reasons why this doesn't happen now. What changes happen that suddenly makes coops practical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because capitalists run most of society, and use the state to make sure no one gets in their way.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

The discussion was over "vested interest." As for legitimacy the definition speaks for it self. Efficiency and morality aren't relevant. But certainly, the current rules for counting share holder votes in a corporation are neither efficient to the investors nor are they moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your vested interest statement is a JUSTIFICATION of why its acceptable for you to pass laws telling people what to do, no one cares if you make the observation that people's actions affect each other its not debateable. The value of that observation is what is in debate.

[ QUOTE ]
he current rules for counting share holder votes in a corporation are neither efficient to the investors nor are they moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not efficient? According to who? Why does your opinion cary any weight without having invested in the company, or withheld investment because of the inefficiency?

[ QUOTE ]
n any event, we're not talking about you playing ping-pong in your basement and 1.01 persons telling you not to

[/ QUOTE ]

You are explicitly reserving the right to. There are currently laws about smoking, drinking, using drugs, owning certain dogs, wearing seatbelts, helmet laws, using certain words or phrases. What happens when you and 0.01 other people decide your "vested interest" would be better served by me trying to cure heart desease rather than playing ping pong? There is no logical reason from your arguments why you would oppoose such a decision if it was supported by more people than it was opposed by.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
neverforgetlol,

Don't bring up empiricism with ACists. They only believe theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true!

The standards of those who embrace economic "empiricism" around here would lead one to believe in cold fusion just because Pons and Fleishman claimed they got it to work once.

ACers do not ignore empirical data, they just have standards.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Being a person of science, I like to be shown evidence. Sorry!

[/ QUOTE ]

As a person of science, you surely demand reproducible results, control groups, and all of that other "scientific method" stuff before accepting anecdotal data as evidence.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
neverforgetlol,

Don't bring up empiricism with ACists. They only believe theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true!

The standards of those who embrace economic "empiricism" around here would lead one to believe in cold fusion just because Pons and Fleishman claimed they got it to work once.

ACers do not ignore empirical data, they just have standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, didn't Borodog once post about something that may have worked once, many hundreds of years ago.....oh yeah, it was AC.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
neverforgetlol,

Don't bring up empiricism with ACists. They only believe theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true!

The standards of those who embrace economic "empiricism" around here would lead one to believe in cold fusion just because Pons and Fleishman claimed they got it to work once.

ACers do not ignore empirical data, they just have standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, didn't Borodog once post about something that may have worked once, many hundreds of years ago.....oh yeah, it was AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wait, he has also posted dozens of logical arguments from true assumptions (which are acceptable as scientific evidence and is precisely how Darwin was able to describe the thoery of evolution). The iceland example was just a vain attempt to shut up the "it ain't neer worked before, so it canna work now" crowd.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh wait, he has also posted dozens of logical arguments from true assumptions (which are acceptable as scientific evidence and is precisely how Darwin was able to describe the thoery of evolution).

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this "evolution" you speak of? Darwin was sent by God to test our faith.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The discussion was over "vested interest." As for legitimacy the definition speaks for it self. Efficiency and morality aren't relevant. But certainly, the current rules for counting share holder votes in a corporation are neither efficient to the investors nor are they moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your vested interest statement is a JUSTIFICATION of why its acceptable for you to pass laws telling people what to do, no one cares if you make the observation that people's actions affect each other its not debateable. The value of that observation is what is in debate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do I really need to justify why it is acceptable? I don't think I do, becuase it is acceptable. All I need to do is be conviced that the moral arguments against it being acceptable are weak, which I think they are quite weak.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the current rules for counting share holder votes in a corporation are neither efficient to the investors nor are they moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not efficient? According to who? Why does your opinion cary any weight without having invested in the company, or withheld investment because of the inefficiency?

[/ QUOTE ] My opinion carries very little weight...perhaps no weight at all, that doesn't prevent me from holding it or voicing it...Why do you care whether or not I hold an opion on this matter?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in any event, we're not talking about you playing ping-pong in your basement and 1.01 persons telling you not to

[/ QUOTE ]
You are explicitly reserving the right to.

[/ QUOTE ] Well, I'm not reserving my right to...I'm not that important or powerful, but you are denying the public the right to...which you have no right to do. [ QUOTE ]
There are currently laws about smoking, drinking, using drugs, owning certain dogs, wearing seatbelts, helmet laws, using certain words or phrases.

[/ QUOTE ] There are bad laws, there are good laws...the question "should a law be written that says such and such?" and "should laws be allowed to be written that says such and such?" are two entirely different questions. Not all actions or interactions are on the same level, some involve a lot of people both explicitly and implicitly. Every single type of law you just mentioned should be considered individually, not with this one distilled, overarching principle that very few people actually buy into.[ QUOTE ]
What happens when you and 0.01 other people decide your "vested interest" would be better served by me trying to cure heart desease rather than playing ping pong? There is no logical reason from your arguments why you would oppoose such a decision if it was supported by more people than it was opposed by.

[/ QUOTE ]If by "logical reason" you mean "absolute, self-evident principle" then, I suppose there isn't...but in that case, there wouldn't be a logical reason whether or not I made the argument, because, those reasons were just chimeras to begin with. It is you and the ACers who put everything in terms of one principle, I just happen to think that that one principle is not the most important principle and is certainly not universal.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
neverforgetlol,

Don't bring up empiricism with ACists. They only believe theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true!

The standards of those who embrace economic "empiricism" around here would lead one to believe in cold fusion just because Pons and Fleishman claimed they got it to work once.

ACers do not ignore empirical data, they just have standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, didn't Borodog once post about something that may have worked once, many hundreds of years ago.....oh yeah, it was AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the claim is "X is impossible" then all you need is a single counter example.

If the claim is X is better than Y, theory is better than one trial with no control.

I cracked AA with 72o last night. It was the first time I had ever been all-in preflop with 72o against AA (or vice versa). Ergo, 72o > AA in all-in preflop scenarios. Right?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

Do I really need to justify why it is acceptable? I don't think I do, becuase it is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Laws and approaches to law wouldnot have been acceptable in 1776, or in 1850 or in 1950 in the US, and have been acceptable for only a small percentage of recorded history in a small percentage of populations. So no, i don't think tht since it is currently accepted by a portion of the population of a portion of the world that it should be accepted without thought or reason.

[ QUOTE ]
All I need to do is be conviced that the moral arguments against it being acceptable are weak, which I think they are quite weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are only against rape, murder, slavery and burning Jews in an oven when the majority of the country that they occur in reject them, but will accept them when the majority accept them?

[ QUOTE ]
My opinion carries very little weight...perhaps no weight at all, that doesn't prevent me from holding it or voicing it...Why do you care whether or not I hold an opion on this matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't except you are perfectly willing to kill me to get your way, which gives me a big ole invested interest to change your mind.

[ QUOTE ]
There are bad laws, there are good laws...the question "should a law be written that says such and such?" and "should laws be allowed to be written that says such and such?" are two entirely different questions

[/ QUOTE ]

They are somewhat different questions, but it is inconsistant for you to deride laws that arise (predictably) from the type of organizations you favor.

[ QUOTE ]
Every single type of law you just mentioned should be considered individually, not with this one distilled, overarching principle that very few people actually buy into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considered by who? By people it will barely effect? By people with little to no education? By people who benefit financially from the laws?

[ QUOTE ]
It is you and the ACers who put everything in terms of one principle

[/ QUOTE ]

The overriding trend in your posts is "if people vote for it, its acceptable". You cling to one principle as much as anyone. Only its an inconsistant, violent and imo disgusting principle.