Why not, most of them arent even as blind as we as a society are lead to believe. Im sure if you were disabled youd want to be treated equally and fairly. Sure you and @[member="LuxSpiritus"] arent the same person with multiple accounts? Coulda swore I danced this dance once already
Blindness usually means total absence of vision. If we're talking about progressive blindness. It's like giving a mildly drunk guy a weapon. Let's do some blind shooting courses see how that accuracy works out. Or maybe we can add lock-on or give them missile launchers on their shoulders. It's for their safety right. We shouldn't discriminate against their safety right?
There cannot be a comparison made between free market capitalism (which has never existed), and the Federal Reserve, which is a centralized statist monopolistic bank. They are polar opposites. Capitalism is hierarchical because not everyone leads, or has the capabilities to lead. That does not necessarily mean that hierarchy is violent. Also, I do like the ideas of anarcho-collectivism. Its a interesting economic model. Lol this thread got derailed fast.
We're discussing the basis of something that isn't a 'thing' anymore, Marxism is the root of communism with the root of socialism. Governments want power, people want power the government has, No government no hierarchy. The popular view of communism is not Marxism not even socialism. It is completely government controlled economic socialism, socialism is community economy. It might as well be called Sovietism. As long as their is a hierarchy, no one can be satisfied(Generally). 'True Socialism' is a back-end in society's, hardly known about, eradicated by governments who wanted control. In 'True Socialism/Maxism" There is no government, There is no Hierarchy, the people work for each other for universal support, no one has the power to decide who has food, has shelter. The public does. And the public will support each other without the influence of government, but with capital hierarchy the support resides in themselves, not the community. Hardly any equal opportunity in my opinion.
Currency has no value, it is just a representation of transfer of value of the Federal Reserve. The value never leaves the Federal Reserve, Just numbers and paper. Also I don't know what you mean by violent. But Free Market is a competitive economy, Sometimes things are done the hard way. A.K.A theft, illegal loans, DRUG DEALING. For either self perseverance or the gain of monetary superiority. Which is apparently a real thing. Hierarchy.
the problem with personal views on gun control is the same with personal views on most things. You cannot justify taking away someone else's freedom, nor put them at risk, just because you personally think society would be better off without guns. Fact is guns are just an extension of our hands. More effective ones granted, but its basic self defense not just against criminals but all aggressors. Its impractical to try to use cops or even robots, to patrol the entire human race at all times. Its much more effective to allow humans some form of responsibility for their own safety Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Red contradicts green. Green contradicts blue. An asset that lacks value cannot serve as a transfer of value. This is to suggest that a contract for $x does not have any value in dollars, that a mortgage agreement has no value, that bonds, certificates of deposit, IOU's, etc. have no value. If you see no value in currency, have you abstained from its use? Does it grant you no utility? How can something be transferable and immobile? Theft and "illegal" (fraudulent) loans are deviations from the free trade. Those terms used in conjunctions are contradictory. An exchange cannot simultaneously be "free" and involve theft or fraud. Theft and fraud may occur in any system, but capitalism treats them with condemnation and punishment them rather than institutionalization. As an aside, when fiat is referred to as lacking value, the connotation suggests that it lacks intrinsic, durable value and that it's value is extremely depreciable, not that it is value-less.
are you against the concept of money in general or are you just talking about "our" money, as in usd. Even in a Communist Paradise where everyone worked for the commune and all needs were met, wouldn't you need some sort of quantitative medium of exchange for "allowance"? I guess would be the best word. You don't need a medium of exchange for everything persay, for example there could be an all you can eat commune cafeteria. But what about a lot of other things. Its not like there will be an electronics depot where you can just go get aa free TV. Who gets to decide how many xboxes to make fore the commune? What if someone doesn't play video games? "Currency" even in a society where everything is "free" is still a useful medium of exchange. It allows one person to get his Xbox, while the other can chose maybe a fish tank instead Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Gun accidents kill many people. Guns are more used for violence and aggression than self defense. It is more dangerous for a gun to be in your household than otherwise (For your children mostly). Gun control is just another one of those untouchable topics.
Currency decides who has the ability to get what. If your talking about Xbox compared to basic human needs there;s a huge difference. Socialism is community 'Goods' for the public, barter is still a possibility. Freedom of technology incites rapid progress. The strongest economies in the world use their strong community economy for production of goods to receive massive wealth from countries who lack the means to do so. So 'wealth' is transferred to the needs that arn't always met in a community. If you don't have 'Wealth' and you can't 'Produce' Your state/community will fail. 'Wealth != Currency, Wealth = Produce, Technology, And Progress' What's more valuble to everyone money or aiding the public? In capitalism it's money. You can take your Xbox while that guy starves.
This type of shit is exactly why I am not an NRA member. Plus they don't need me anyway, they have a massive lobby already. But yea also jackasses who support gun rights to dangerous ends.
Below is how value is defined in economics: Anything that people use to satisfy a need or want is, by definition, valued. The fact that anyone uses currency suggests that it has utility for them. The fact that anyone uses anything suggests the same. You may not value currency (which would only be true if you abstained from using it), but this does not discount the value it has to others. The value of gold is just as subjective as the value of currency. Gold just has a far better track record of maintaining value over time.
Currency is just the basis for the idea of value, possessions may have value to you, but not someone else. Some people don't want a nice car. So currency is the value to transfer perceived value through the goods provided by currency, it really doesn't make sense. You can trade money for valuable things to you, but what makes 3 twenty dollar bills worth whatever product you can buy with them, or a check for whatever sum how does that equal a car? You invest stocks in business with money for money output. Where is the exchange? Where is my value becoming what I value, through money, Currency promotes a selfish economy, hence the economic competition it decides whether you get by or allow others to get by. So there will always be a loser. When we value our values more than the values of others. More like a hippie speech than a downplay on currency, but nonetheless.
Read more slowly... We all know that currency is used to represent and store the value of something else, but currency is valued itself as well. Scroll back up and read some economics. value is in the minds of men. Value is not objective. It is subjective. We value things according to our understanding of their ability to satisfy some human need or want. Value is subjective. Basically all the schools of economics agree. 3 $20 bills is valuable to the seller because the seller DECIDES they are valuable to him. For what reason is of no relevance. Stocks and loans are traded because there is a time value to money. $1 today> $1 tomorrow. You're not reading the definition, I don't think. We need not determine WHY something has value, just THAT it does (to someone). Subjectivity.
Money is subjective. Yes. But it is valuable to everyone in the sense that it is support. Not just for one's personal needs which is usually the desired aspect for the 'Subjective Public' but it's not like they can do anything about it you know cause then they don't get their subjective needs. Yes currency is a subjective value to us, but in a valueless economy nothing is subjective because no one the value over another. I don't know economics is such a messed up system that's drove so deep to even understand, we have economic theories more than relativity.
Damn I hate quoting Pink Floyd. Oh who am I kidding. Money, get away Get a good job with more pay and your O.K. Money it's a gas Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash New car, caviar, four star daydream, Think I'll buy me a football team Money get back I'm all right Jack keep your hands off my stack. Money it's a hit Don't give me that do goody good bullshit I'm in the hi-fidelity first class traveling set And I think I need a Lear jet Money it's a crime Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie Money so they say Is the root of all evil today But if you ask for a rise it's no surprise that they're giving none away Roger Waters, The Master Of False Conception.