Capitalist ParadiseBoard

Murc wrote:

I just want to make money.
If it makes me more money, I will support it.

As long as it isn't from the point of a gun, I can dig it.
That is why the marketplace is morally superior to government.

Murc wrote:

I just want to make money.
If it makes me more money, I will support it.

Capitalism!

Murc wrote:

Also, on cultural issues such as LGBT, I don't really have much of an opinion. If I was selling things, I wouldn't care what I'm selling and who I'm selling to, as long as it makes me profit.
For example, when pride month happens and everyone is buying pride merchandise, the good thing to do would be to sell pride merchandise.
On the other hand, let's say Trump becomes much more popular and there is a spike in support for Trump, the smart thing to do would be to sell MAGA baseball caps.
The main thing I care about in politics is if the government is restricting my freedoms, especially the ability to make a f--k-load of cold, hard cash
If I was American, I would probably vote for the libertarian party as they are more concerned with the free market rather than things like abortion and trans rights.

You are quite the merchant mercenary.
Reminds me of the opportunistic ferryman from
The Outlaw Josey Wales.

"You got to be able to whistle Dixie, or hum the Battle Hymn of the Republic.
Each with equal enthusiasm."

You skirt an important point, though.
The fundamental freedom of an open market is being able to spend your money where your morals are.
You want to volunteer funds towards a cause through merchandising, fine, but the political compulsion of people towards an opinion through market manipulation is despicable.

Murc wrote:

Political views are inherently emotional, and it is not wise to get emotions into business. Also, if you do business based on your political views, you will not be able to have as much customers than if you didn't. Which means less profit.
Obviously an exception is made for immoral business.

In short, people can do want they want with the open market, it's just that the people that make decisions based on emotions will usually end up with less profits than the people who make decisions purely from a 'maximising profit' view.

Is completing the discipline of Kolinahr considered under or post graduate work in business school?

Seriously, though.
People do drive me nuts treating the profit motive as inherently evil while heaping praise on government that struggles to either interfere with or ignore us all equally.

Profit is fat, and fat is survival, because you have not survived until you are survived by children, and playing a zero sum game of breaking even is the worst way to try accomplishing anything next to not trying at all.

PhilTech wrote:

There is a rising argument that capitalism is the LGBT's fakest allies which I'll quote from this thread: viewtopic.php?p=39819712#p39819712

Quote:

"They are our fakest allies for largely identical reasons. Come pride month they'll all clamor to set up their own floats for the big parade and drape their logo in a rainbow flag or whatever but at the end of the day they don't give a sh*t. See: Netflix pretending to care about the concerns of it's own transgender employees over Dave Chappelle's latest humorless dig into trans people only to do absolutely nothing at all because they'd rather have Dave's money than treat their employees with respect and dignity. To tie this back to the above, companies don't want to grant easier access to the aforementioned transitioning resources because it cuts into their profits and that they can't allow. Tolerance is expensive and companies don't want to pay; hence they will flow rainbow flags all month long but when push comes to shove they're still donating to the politicians trying to clamp down on our rights."

end quote...

LGBT has no ally lmao, not even Stalin wanted them. i always wonder why sexual orientation suddenly became political talking point and then a movement in the west.

The ultracapitalist corporatocracy wrote:

Hi

cool flag and motto

Kalihnagara wrote:

LGBT has no ally lmao, not even Stalin wanted them. i always wonder why sexual orientation suddenly became political talking point and then a movement in the west.

Not just in the west, this is a worldwide civil rights movement.

The rise of technology and social media platforms attributed to the rise of minorities being heard and given the rights against discrimination and proper welfare for their needs.

This is no surprise really, homosexuality since the rise of contemporary civilization has been looked down upon and violently discriminated against. It's only natural that as humanity continuous to modernize, new voices will be heard.

R.I.P Anchillas and Northern borland

Oh boy. This is going to hurt.

Let us set aside that the gender dynamic is perhaps the most crucial to biological survival, and serious harm can easily be wrought upon a species by screwing around with it as hunters, farmers, and conservationists have learned throughout their histories.

Subverting and destroying the binary standard as applied to any aspect of society has been the holy grail of American professional activism since its beginning.
Destroying that lynch pin of objectivity puts a culture at your mercy as its technical roads navigating between positive and negative, right and wrong, good and evil become fogged in ideological subjectivity that allows the intellectually dishonest to talk you into losing your way.
That disagreement is hate, or that speech is violence.
That we can live meaningfully in a world where everyone says yes to everything.

Meanwhile your society desperately tries to retain any forensic sense of itself that is the foundation for maintaining order, while the revolutionaries redefine its entire raison d'etre in an atmosphere of Stockholm syndrome that plays upon a people's fear and ignorance to force them into more fear and ignorance presumably for the sake of saving them from fear and ignorance.
The typical subversive campaign of projection and transference.

American racial and sex/gender activism are mirror images of each other in one very important aspect.
While racial politics evolved its way out of a variety of pseudo-sciences used to rationalize the biases of the day, gender/sex politics goes the other way around.
It abandons forensic truth as activists craft a mythology of confirmation bias around themselves having gone so far as institutionalizing child abuse that takes political advantage of a child's natural condition of perpetual physical and psychological flux, coupled with the profound lie that children are sexual beings at birth, to artificially mold them into their own specific ideological image.

Don't get me wrong.
Live and let live I say, but to fully honor that sentiment, I must be allowed to peaceably disagree with anyone that I do not have a fundamental forensic or philosophical obligation to agree with in any forum without fear of censure.
Judgement and fire are not supposed to be primary elements of our world, so no one should ever be bound to the stake for their beliefs.
Any belief, or lack thereof.
We must police ourselves with reason and mercy in the hope that such is applied to us all by the final arbiters of this universe, which we cannot get either from them or each other if we are not being entirely honest about what we are doing here.

Kalihnagara wrote:

I'd hire you as speech writer.

You would be greatly disappointed.
Whatever my talent for english composition, I can barely abide the tedium of writing.
These posts nearly exhaust me most days.

Maxcorp wrote:

R.I.P Anchillas and Northern borland

Yes, we suffered some big losses in a short span of days.

And the the WA Security Council decided to quickly condemn Northern borland, before they CTE, or the proposal wouldn't have gone through.

I've poked the bear before, tempted to do it again. Hmm...

Edit: nevermind, just checked the Yea/Nay ratio, and I see that the proposal is currently tipped towards failing to pass.

Informed consent wrote:

Many of the regions are largely unintelligible now.

The fundamental annoying aspect of socialist ideology is that it is founded primarily on sentiment, much of it false, and forwarded with all of the objectivity of a religious crusade despite the terminology used to couch it in.

I’d have to agree. It is no secret I’m socialist but I hesitate to use a leftist description because of my fundamental disagreements on leftist rhetoric and rationale. In other words they push something they have no idea how to argue for, and the arguments they use have no logical or rational basis.

Aja wrote:

The problem is that TCB is comprised of Marxist-Leninists and Maoists (often referred to as 'tankies'), one of the most hypocritical and idiotic of all political ideologies - not just left ideologies. There's a reason why tankies are so maligned in most other leftist groups. TCB members regularly deny many of Soviet Russia's worst crimes, like the Holodomor, and mindlessly parrot Pro-Russian propaganda. They shout slogans with no thought to their implications. They've become puppets and they don't even realize it.

Paradoxically, Lenin was the biggest and best critic of Lenin. All the accusations he levelled against the Bolsheviks post-revolution applied equally to him and Stalin afterwards, namely that their economic system was not state socialism but rather it was state capitalism. They had not fundamentally changed the economic power structures when they removed the private capitalists with unaccountable bureaucrats. The fundamental tension between workers and capital owners that underpins capitalism never changed.

I disagree. Marx's theories on power structures and class have lived on for the nearly two centuries since he proposed them - and for good reason. Many of the fundamentals underlying his theories hold true. There's a lot that doesn't; he did a pretty poor job predicting the future - but any political philosopher will have the same thing. Locke, Rousseau, or any of the Founding Fathers have many of the same issues. But it's a testament to their work that it has endured for as long as it has. That's why nearly all academic work uses theories, terms, and ideas that can trace their way back to Marx through several generations and iterations of improvement.

The primary issue with socialism and communism in my eyes is that it's very easily corruptible, especially as it grows in scope and scale. There are a lot of examples where communist ideas actually are very successful, but they're nearly always on a community level - Israeli Kibbutz, for example. Communism seems to work pretty well when it's decentralized, but that just doesn't work on a national level.

The only way for communism to work on a large scale is for the entire world to become one nation. Otherwise, the structures necessary for things foreign policy and defense necessarily conflict with communist praxis.

You put it the best of anyone.

Communism on a grand scale is impossible.
Socialism can work but historically the ones who push it are power hungry idiots.
Socialism also is pushed based on materialistic desires or “necessity”. Both are doomed to fail as a rationale.