... i have always wondered if there was anyone out there with even a passing similarity in their viewpoints and mine.

hi. my name is kir. it is pronounced like the english word "car", as in an automobile. i am heterodox. i am atheist. i do not define myself as such, i just happen to be so. i love and hate science. i am comfortable with ayn rand's objective egoism but proceed from her most fundamental moral and ethical theory to a progressive view of law, society and economics rather than a libertarian one. i think most of recorded history is a sham and a fraud; a con job perpetrated by the most powerful and wealthy of the world. christianity, islam and judaism are all part of that con. i don't like the soft sciences. i am a realist and pragmatist. marriage is about genes and money and love is about as real as santa and god. life is brutal competition and devoid of games. a healthy life is knowing that every moment of ur life should be spent doing something productive and u should feel morally bereft if you are not. the only free thing in this life is god's grace; and that is just a fairy tale. addictions are ur enemies elixirs. assertiveness is a virtue. complaining is not. independence is a relative thing and a healthy person seeks to maximize it. materialism is foolishness and the only durable thing u can leave behind before u die is a positive impact on humanity. money should be used to invest, not to buy "stuff". No chotchkies, salesmen or proselytizers in my house. 

anyone? cheers - kk

Views: 318

Replies to This Discussion

You can always start another discussion to elaborate on your ideas and get feedback.

thanks Ruth

Holy Sine Waves, Batman! It's hypnotizing me.

ROFL Yeah, me too.

If it can explain the need that small thinking corporations have to profit further by distributing copyright protected, brand-unique connectors on the ends of their DC power adaptor/chargers (even Apple is among guiltiest), other than greed, then I'm all ears. If there was any centralized economic planning, such incidental things would be standardized.
And like Goodyear's copyrighted "tires that last for 100 years" and are buried until Christ comes again, such shite wouldn't happen if the common welfare of society was at the top of the pyramid of capitalism's focus like these so-called job creators (LMAO) are always whining on about... They're a coven of pixilated corporate bridge trolls IMHO.
See...I have the audacity to believe that corporations are chartered to serve the greater good, just like they were originally intended to be in theory when they were invented 100+ years ago.

wait a minute. r u replying to Ruth? nothing wrong in that, but i started a discussion for what u are saying. so, i'll take the liberty of replying, as i always do.

 

i am impressed. u read. centralized economic planning has considerable advantages. unfortunately, it was implemented in ways almost guaranteed to fail in the Soviet Union. centralized planning is a useful tool to provide what i call equity in economics (analogous to equity in law), but, it has to be done in such a way that atomic businesses at the local level can respond to market forces quickly and dynamically. the simple answer to this is to limit exactly *what* u r trying to centrally plan. put another way, the Soviet Union needed to reduce the scope of planning it was trying to implement. specifically, price controls are not amenable to central planning. but the things u mentioned definitely are. and what kind of industry needs promotion or de-emphasis is also key to central planning. this is what allowed Stalin to perform one of the most rapid industrial ramp-ups in human history (along with his psychopathic murdering rampage). the poison in the pond was price controls divined and issued from Moscow.

 

the only way the "common welfare of the people" can even be approximated in economics is through what i've called equity in economics. this is nothing more than taking tried and true principles of law and justice (in western societies) and applying it to economics. that no one has explicitly done this yet is astounding.

 

u r correct. after the ratification of the u.s. constitution the "corporation" was legally recognized as an entity whose standing as such depended on its demonstrated "public good".  and this standing did not admit of any other condition or exigible.

 

laterz taterz - kk

Welcome, Kir.

thx!

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service