AnonAccount: What is it, and what does it do? - Q&A Thread
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


SRS PSS by Cedric Nammleforth - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:09:46 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195685 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1409620186126.png -(278 B, 31x30) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 278
Name of the game is serious piss, or rather, a thread for more serious discussions.

A more rational forum, that indulges in rational and useful thought. Opposite to /jenkem/ and all of the like threads on this board, this single thread will be the shining light, like a nugget of gold that has been discovered within a newly birthed shit.

This will be a formal thread, degenerate language like the above is frowned upon; It can be used, but to a limit.

Rational as in unemotional thought, only made impure, or rather enriched, by ones experiences.

Useful as in something that can be practiced is gained. Something that can be used to augment or change our lives for the better.

Philosophy & Social sciences isn't a fitting title, analysis and discussion of the human mind is more fitting.

Does anyone have a topic they would like to begin with? Maybe questions?
Cedric Nammleforth - Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:11:44 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195686 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>human mind
Human State
Human Culture

All good titles, I can't chose one.
Hannah Lighthall - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:55:31 EST ID:k9NfBdqF No.195697 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I like Human State, the state of humanity and all it entails
Walter Honeyfield - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:12:10 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195699 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Then that's what it will be called.
Nell Fegglefoot - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 20:57:04 EST ID:MMz3wHbG No.195700 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The speculative realists might object to that naming.
Walter Honeyfield - Tue, 02 Sep 2014 21:17:55 EST ID:4Ts/85EW No.195702 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Useful is part of the game.

They will be gladly accepted if they and their thoughts are rational, and of physical use.

Social economics by Caroline Wumblestone - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 11:50:54 EST ID:54PBc7Id No.195559 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1408117854507.jpg -(52202 B, 320x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 52202
I consider social interaction as completely economic in nature. I think the way the economy functions and the way people function with each other, socially, are absolutely the same in process, only what's put in and what's taken out are different. We invest in others the same way we invest our money; in a way that's easiest for us and that generates the most personal gain. The gain isn't in dollars, though. The gain could be happiness, comfort, safety; essentially any good feeling/state. I cannot think of a single social interaction that does not parallel economics or trading, as it seems everyone interacts only with the hope of gaining the most/losing the least.
Hannah Socklefudge - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 12:33:58 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I mostly agree, though I rarely share this view, as it's often seen as "cynical" or "calculating" or "cold".
I don't know what's cynical in engineering your own happiness and fulfillment though, or what's cold about this vision. I find that considering "the good life" something mystical that can only be achieved by not thinking about it too much a much more despairing view, that leaves you completely stranded and vulnerable to others, when you're lost.

I'd also add that something else you gain from others is learning a new and useful skill, which is incredibly valuable and often gets unrecognized as such.
John Dollerstone - Fri, 15 Aug 2014 17:05:41 EST ID:pLTeIYuw No.195562 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Not all trades between people are the same...each has a certain level or selfishness/selflessness attached. Can either extreme actually exist? Who knows?
Archie Punninghall - Sat, 16 Aug 2014 07:38:39 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The thing is, depending on a person and the situation, altruism or egoism can be the preferrable attitude.
It depends on whether in a given situation one feels that the effort, expenditures, and possibly sacrifices one needs to commit are outweighted by the projection of the benefits of other people on oneself or not. If they are, then one chooses the option that is self-centered, if they are not, then one choses to focus on others.

Reciprocity and reputation also factor in. One finds it easier to focus on others if those other people's view of them is going to become more favorable thanks to that (with all the benefits that brings), and if the people who are treated well are expected to return the favor in one way or another.

Of course, we're not factoring in the dimension of deceit here (it'd crash the party, because the whole world runs on bullshit).

I wanted to rebuke OP's post by mentioning that in social interactions, people very often base their decisions and actions on sentiments with little consideration of gains and losses, but then I thought: Don't they do that the same on the market?
John Murdworth - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 08:51:03 EST ID:miGT5B+J No.195619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"It’s a fact, I mused to myself, that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization. Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women, others with none. It’s what’s known as ” the law of the market”. In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude…………

Love as a kind of innocence and as a capacity for illusion, as an aptitude for epitomizing the whole of the other sex in a single loved being rarely resists a year of sexual immorality, and never two. In reality the successive sexual experiences accumulated during adolescence undermine and rapidly destroy all possibility of projection of an emotional and romantic sort; progressively, and in fact extremely quickly, one becomes as capable of love as an old slag."

Taken from Whatever by Houellebecq, you should read his stuff.

Sociopaths by Sophie Finningson - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 08:19:51 EST ID:C6QsteKY No.195325 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407154791792.jpg -(139853 B, 500x558) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 139853
How do you identify a sociopath. I feel disconnected from the idea if I have to deal with an actual person. I don't feel like concepts of the mind work on actual people because they are always more complex and don't conform to the label. I'm convinced if i ever met a sociopath I would not even know it even though I know what he definition is. So If I want to deal with the psychology of people around me, how should I go about doing so in practice?
30 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Lillian Buzzfoot - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 03:40:28 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195596 Ignore Report Quick Reply

i'm just saying the guy you are vehemently criticizing is not overstepping his bounds as far as you claim
James Semblesurk - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:07:19 EST ID:q+dVyNYa No.195597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I am? how?
Lillian Buzzfoot - Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:45:13 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195598 Ignore Report Quick Reply

exactly in the way i described in my first reply to you
Oliver Wummerwater - Fri, 22 Aug 2014 16:17:12 EST ID:Y10U/maN No.195601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
There actually is an experimental way to determine if someone is a sociopath. I don't think it's been used as a diagnostic tool, but it looks like it could.

Basically, put someone in an FMRI and subject them to some stimulus (like a pin prick or rubbing on the arm). Record what the brain looks like when that's happening. THen show them a video of the same thing happening to another person.

In normal people, the same regions in the brain light up faintly. They're empathizing with the person in the video. In psychopaths, they don't.

It suggests there's a basic neurological function not present in sociopaths. THey can't put themselves in someone else's shoes.
Wesley Dellerfuck - Tue, 26 Aug 2014 02:09:32 EST ID:gFe9zdD6 No.195615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
None of us is normal. A person having a bad day will also have less (or no) empathy for others. A person under acute or chronic stress will also be unable to empathize as well as someone who feels well about their life. Anxious and depressive disorders could also contribute, there are a million factors. Sociopathy is presented in black and white in this thread, and it is a billion shades of gray. "Normal people" have shades of sociopathy, and sociopaths have degrees of empathy, especially for family members and close friends.

Every living creature is a god by Whitey Blunnerwill - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 18:26:39 EST ID:9e/EoPTD No.195347 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407363999181.jpg -(222878 B, 1024x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 222878
142 posts and 7 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eliza Farryhurk - Sat, 23 Aug 2014 11:48:27 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195604 Ignore Report Quick Reply

your car example makes no sense

you don't have to drive a car but NOW YOU CAN, whereas before, you had one choice, not driving a car
Oliver Darringsurk - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 06:56:01 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195607 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>you don't have to drive a car but NOW YOU CAN, whereas before, you had one choice, not driving a car
I don't really see how this post relates to my point. Can you explain?
Priscilla Blenderpit - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 07:39:02 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195608 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>I do personally do not find any validation in his idea that a mode of awareness can exhaust itself usefulness

I don't think he was talking about the modes of awareness per se, but how they interact with the world we live in, especially our emphasis on and at the same time ignorance about the limits of the mental mode.
I'll take your advice in mind anyway.
Oliver Tootridge - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 14:14:11 EST ID:1heTqcJX No.195609 Ignore Report Quick Reply

being able to drive a car, and live without a car, would be "more" than only being able to live without a car, i dont see how driving a car changes your "mode of perception" in a way that destroys other perspectives
Fucking Blemmleson - Sun, 24 Aug 2014 23:43:09 EST ID:PMR6/8EW No.195611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>being able to drive a car, and live without a car, would be "more" than only being able to live without a car, i dont see how driving a car changes your "mode of perception" in a way that destroys other perspectives
Well the phenomenon is much more complex than that. Driving a car, itself, does not quite create a new mode of perception. It rather creates the groundwork so that a new mode of awareness might proliferate. Like I said, it is the lack of awareness that is the real danger. Once the car became a common commodity, it created an entirely new way of life. Life moved away from the farms, from the towns, and into the cities. Not only could product be moved at rapid speed (we have the train to thank for that), but now people could be too. A man didn't have to work near to his home any longer. Cities expanded, and there was new room to grow. The roaring twenties would not have been possible without the demolishing of old sensibilites, established by the new mode of awareness. Now we have TV, radio, most recent of all the internet. We all move faster, disembodied, than ever and our behavior reflects that. Of course it couldn't have an effect on us any longer, but back then of course.

Why not to stop economic crises before they start? by Betsy Trotshit - Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:59:52 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.195261 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406595592828.jpg -(45029 B, 960x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 45029
Why not to stop economic crises before they start? Like this:
>detect if the economic output falls significantly enough and act as soon as it does
>then, stimulate the sectors which have endured the highest output losses
>stimulate the sectors which are connected to the most losing (in terms of output) sectors to prevent the crisis from spreading
15 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hamilton Dartville - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 16:45:30 EST ID:m6XZ0r81 No.195424 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Then we should look for better solutions for everyone.
Fucking Pickdale - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 13:49:03 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195537 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>In other words crises' are inherent to the capitalist mode of production? Can't say I disagree.
Well, yeah. I dare say it's *still* better than the shortage-plagued command economy of the days of yore. I happen to live in a country that was subject to that one for 50 years. Capitalism is shit, but centrally planned economy was way more shit than that. It was quantum shit.
>And full employment to Keynesians is usually about 5% unemployment.
And it's post-keynesianism. There's a difference.
>PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE point out where in my posts I was defending those policies, because I shure as fuck can't find it.
I, uh, I just said that you yourself noted how they were NOT benefactory, and then... You know what, nevermind, let's call it a misunderstanding.
Faggy Nablingwork - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 14:21:57 EST ID:ANaFMr0N No.195538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
What? Eliza is right, full employment is still a nonzero number. When people switch jobs, they're going to be unemployed for a time. When a business goes under, there's gonna be some unemployment. You need at least some unemployment for flexibility within the economy. Unemployment insurance lessens the human cost.

Long term unemplyment should be practically 0. Also, the 5% is for older methods of measuring unemplyment, which includes discouraged workers, and part time workers looking for full time work. The US BLS U-6 numbers are closest to that.
Fucking Pickdale - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 15:00:25 EST ID:5q+Zf1cH No.195539 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, I did mean zero structural and cyclical unemployment, but not frictional unemployment. I didn't look at the figure, which does seem right now taht you mention it.
Wesley Pimbledut - Thu, 14 Aug 2014 12:41:29 EST ID:mS99whpg No.195544 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The market already takes into account future actions. The reason they wait before implementing measures sometimes, is that surprise can often be the only way to actually jolt the market in one direction or another. Alan Greenspan was famous for this tactic.

Agape by Sophie Fommersad - Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:38:07 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195289 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406867887002.jpg -(15980 B, 400x242) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15980
Other than Works of Love the only other thing I've read on it has been the New Testament

Any work anyone can recommend on it?
11 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Molly Bricklekig - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:33:04 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195513 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Dude I understood very little from when you started talking about mimesis of acquisition..

I (well, the author) simply meant that you're already in communion with God, you just have to remember it.
Nell Grandwater - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 14:57:23 EST ID:x6vWzPXr No.195514 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Charles Tootworth - Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:10:54 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The part of the person not in communion with God unless that person wills it is the will. God may be transcendent and immanent with all being, including immanence with your being, but the person behind the eyeballs making the decisions is the self, and not God. This is why love is possible at all. Love is chosen by the subject which loves, not puppeted by God. If love were coerced by a puppetmaster, it wouldn't be love. Forgiveness wouldn't be forgiveness, mercy not mercy, justice not justice etc. Which is why being in communion with God requires acting according the will of God, ie loving others. The person who doesn't love their neighbor isn't in communion with God, even if they believe themselves to be.

>internet encyclopedia of philosophy - rene girard

Sorry about that. The link above is if you're interested
Edward Pubblewater - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:02:41 EST ID:2S3ZnYuQ No.195530 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Yeah I get what you mean. The problem is that the person being awful to their neighbors leads a life that might even make him forget that he has the chance to be with God.
The delusion this book wants to dispel, imho, is that God is never unreachable, no matter what you do.
It also outlines why not acting in accordance to God will lead you to misery, but instead of being a threat like in the Bible, it explains thoroughly and with a simple language why, it shows both paths and where they'd lead, if followed to the end.

That's why I said it's what the bible wished it could be: a book about choice and freedom, instead of a book of forced laws to follow for fear of the whims of an omnipotent psychopath (yes yes I know there are several interpretations of the bible too, including lost texts etc, but this is how they teach it, mostly)
Hamilton Bardfoot - Wed, 13 Aug 2014 07:36:01 EST ID:DdEvRr05 No.195531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Gotcha. Haven't gotten it yet but its on my wishlist. I'm gonna try to finish up I and Thou first

what are you to make of this? by Simon Sublingstock - Mon, 11 Aug 2014 15:38:27 EST ID:zyqC+BJP No.195478 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407785907282.jpg -(57631 B, 403x290) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 57631

doonnoow if im postin it in right board but it sounded right

No subject by Phineas Blathercocke - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 03:40:52 EST ID:d6jykZoS No.194076 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1401781252608.jpg -(50114 B, 600x583) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 50114
Why is the word "Freedom" thrown around so much, yet rejected by most people and undermined by the ones who claim to uphold it?
1 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Reuben Boblingduck - Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:09:39 EST ID:IGKMm2X9 No.194083 Ignore Report Quick Reply

John Cubblestidging - Wed, 04 Jun 2014 05:44:54 EST ID:KHq6GlIc No.194106 Ignore Report Quick Reply


everyone falls into the life of making money to survive. It doesn't have to be that way but it works fine so there is no change.
Lydia Greenson - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 17:57:03 EST ID:4Fh3/4Ya No.195426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
not everyone. persons do because they have been indoctrinated.
Molly Himblewater - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 18:52:14 EST ID:VhAoVa0O No.195427 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I simply dont like how it seems often limited by thoughts of what it is we want.
Freedom, in my mind, means to be limitless in meaning. And we have that in seems anything is possible.

Of course, sometimes it means, you know, freedom to not be treated cruely by other people. Whips and whatnot.
Molly Himblewater - Sat, 09 Aug 2014 18:53:38 EST ID:VhAoVa0O No.195428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Means was supposed to be seems**

Consciousness by Edward Chullyfurk - Sun, 27 Jul 2014 23:24:25 EST ID:B+QtvK1+ No.195249 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406517865789.jpg -(62854 B, 781x540) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 62854
There are laws conserving matter and energy:
matter cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form
energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form.
It rather escapes me the notion that consciousness can be created or destroyed.
Maybe when we die, our consciousness exists in a different form.
then again, we may be wrong about these laws of conservation.
What do you think?
24 posts and 3 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Rebecca Drubblespear - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:38:24 EST ID:tNGsFJID No.195329 Ignore Report Quick Reply
so, the vessel that contains it?
that would mean that no consciousness is equal to one another, and that would make sense

would this mean we can't quantify it though?
Eugene Harrymadging - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 18:52:04 EST ID:x6vWzPXr No.195330 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Water Disney

haha, I get it. Cause it looks like mickey mouse
David Hingerkick - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 22:00:05 EST ID:EEdFczYN No.195331 Ignore Report Quick Reply

What would you want to quantify?
Ebenezer Blerrydane - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 11:16:46 EST ID:fRaj+9qF No.195346 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Don't worry it does, as I said in the above post, I make no claim for or against the 'reality' of those phenomena, I don't believe nor disbelieve them. To have an open minded discussion it doesn't hurt to consider multiple perspectives at once.

Also I do not think I am mistaken about consciousness and wave form collapse. True, it is the act of observing that causes the change, BUT does it not stand that the act of observation arises from a conscious entity? What can observe that is not conscious?
Sidney Honeystock - Fri, 08 Aug 2014 18:25:24 EST ID:eB4+2hhb No.195405 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>Also I do not think I am mistaken about consciousness and wave form collapse. True, it is the act of observing that causes the change, BUT does it not stand that the act of observation arises from a conscious entity? What can observe that is not conscious?

again, no, you are mistaken. the act of "observation" is merely the interaction between quantum particles and the devices we use to measure them. these particles are made up of tiny, tiny amounts of energy/mass and to detect them involves a device that absorbs some of that energy and/or alters their motions

it is not the presence of a conscious observer that causes wave function collapse

Talk by Rozen - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 02:20:55 EST ID:jS/SQDX8 No.195342 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1407306055236.jpg -(209857 B, 746x718) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 209857
Lets talk about something.
Phyllis Bashfield - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:11:25 EST ID:JJRSOOEq No.195344 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Why do people say things, and react as if you reacted a certain way regardless of your consenting response. What's going on with that, what is the basis of insistence in us all, and why is it always different when the shoe is on the other foot.
Martha Punnerworth - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:26:11 EST ID:Lt8nB5HX No.195345 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Talking is more of a /b/ thing really
Hannah Settingtot - Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:32:24 EST ID:qm2me0wE No.195361 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I wonder about things to the point of pain and anxiety. Just recently I went from regularly thinking about, i dont know, existence and what not, and then I got a new job, and I find myself just as confused by being around other people.
I wonder if thats good or bad.

Things are so whacky, but I dont like being weird.

We've all existed before by Jack Blythelock - Sat, 02 Aug 2014 05:25:46 EST ID:9e/EoPTD No.195298 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406971546877.jpg -(25037 B, 636x350) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 25037
Stoner phil here but I feel like I have a strong case. We have all existed before in the past. The circle of life is real, and it is a circle. Every individual thing we do is the result of our combination of cells, and when we die those go all go back into the earth and re-manifest itself as something different. Maybe a tree. Maybe some mud.

It's deeper than I can explain even but I believe there is more profundity to it
Post somewhat influenced by the AT episode "Food Chain" pic related
7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Sidney Modgehall - Sat, 02 Aug 2014 21:50:01 EST ID:x6hP6bcI No.195310 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Well, if we are just cells, then wouldnt cells be capable of happiness?
Not that I know what any of those words mean.
Basil Collerfit - Sat, 02 Aug 2014 22:16:39 EST ID:Lt8nB5HX No.195313 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Think of it this way:

If a ladder is just wooden sticks, shouldn't I be able to climb my house with a box of matches?

I can't though, because the building blocks of a ladder are less than the finished ladder.
Rebecca Sibberbon - Sun, 03 Aug 2014 22:40:27 EST ID:2BqgoKuL No.195318 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1407120027196.jpg -(546784 B, 1680x1050) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 546784
Okay okay. I'll lay it out.
Nothing. That's how it started. Think of it as a 0. There was nothing.
Science says something can come from nothing. Just as 1 + (-1) = 0, the Universal nothing split into negative energy and positive energy. if you've got the time.

So everything is 0. 0 contains infinite possibilities. 1 + (-1), or 5 + (-1) + (-4), or 1 + 2 + (-3). The math that describes the Universe is infinitely more complicated, but it all equals ZERO. Nothing!

So is nothing actually everything? Yes, everything in the purest sense of the term. Everything that can be, not just everything that is. And likewise, everything is actually nothing.

We came out of that. There is no reincarnation of individual human lives, only INCARNATIONS. We are all incarnations of nothing. The entire Universe is an incarnation of nothing, and we are just a part of that.

0 is the greatest God there ever could be.
Eugene Harrymadging - Mon, 04 Aug 2014 00:43:50 EST ID:x6vWzPXr No.195320 Ignore Report Quick Reply

in that case, why should I not do everything in my power to repeal roe v. wade?
Faggy Dobberstat - Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:43:50 EST ID:2BqgoKuL No.195343 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because overpopulation will kill us all and bringing children into the world who will be forced to endure bad situations (like having a child when you can't afford it) is only increasing suffering.

Can socialism be like this? by Alice Saffinghut - Thu, 31 Jul 2014 22:13:59 EST ID:eB1toxKQ No.195286 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
1406859239693.jpg -(25115 B, 500x333) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 25115
Can socialism be like this?

>people can freely submit projects and work on them
>for example, one can submit a project to create a firm, and can create that firm
>the government allocates funds to work on these projects
>the government owns the result of the project once it's complete (ex: the firm), and collects profits and re-invests them into health care, space programs, science, education, more economic growth, etc.
>the prices aren't set by the state, but rather by the market, the firms are proft-maximizing (to achieve Pareto efficiency)
>(see the First theorem of welfare economics)
>the government makes the firms act like in a market

What do you call this type of socialism?
Sophie Fommersad - Thu, 31 Jul 2014 23:24:47 EST ID:hgfltBKL No.195287 Ignore Report Quick Reply
not socialism
Polly Grimbanks - Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:18:32 EST ID:a7ZY3fF+ No.195294 Ignore Report Quick Reply

>>the government makes the firms act like in a market

I don't know what you mean here, but i heard this is what britain tried to do with their public sectors, with terrible results. Like police ''commanders'' would be fired if they didn't hit a certain target, like lower crime rate. What they did to meet those targets was to simply not report as much crime. Created a artificial crime reduction.
Hannah Fushchug - Sat, 02 Aug 2014 09:45:20 EST ID:wBEjnLCm No.195300 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Britfag here, and yes OP your suggestion is not too dissimilar to what most people were hoping for over here before it all went to shit.

That's not to say that it could never work, of course.
Martha Bardwill - Sat, 02 Aug 2014 16:17:29 EST ID:a7ZY3fF+ No.195305 Ignore Report Quick Reply
A public owned sector that behaves like a private sector is sort of the fascist dream. The idea that the problems of society are caused by people who simply need to be put on the right path with various means. But of course whoever is in charge of deciding who needs to be put on the right path cannot be put on the right path himself. In the best case, he can be not voted for in the next elections.

<<Last Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.