sillygoose

> There is no right or wrong.

So I guess 2 + 2 makes whatever the hell you want it to?

> he articulates them well and can back them up by showing his thought patterns

What if his thought patterns are all fucked up, and completely detached from reality? Wouldn't it be better to change your views based on reason, logic and evidence?

I'll be throttled again real soon, if I can even post this one anymore, so I'll paste a reply that was meant for another comment of yours.

-------

> As I suspected you have never experienced any financial hardship. This is fine in itself but is very telling in how you perceive the world.

Having experienced it wouldn't change anything about what's rational and objective though.

> It's easy to calculate the value of something that has no direct value to you. It's called a cost benefit analysis and it is the corner stone of any business education but is applicable in many fields beyond business.

I can't help but wonder if you're trolling me, but here goes..

Since value is subjective, it cannot be calculated, because calculations require units, and there's no unit for how much you happen to want something at a particular moment. It also can't be measured or represented externally, outside of your mind.

If you're engaging in a cost / benefit -analysis, that implies that you do perceive value in something. That would be the "benefit" part. But you still can't put exact, objectively accurate numbers on the benefit.

You can, however, decide how many dollars you're willing to lose through a course of action, and you can expect to gain a number of dollars from it. But that only represents your subjective evaluation of how much something is worth to you, in terms of monetary units.

> It is however impossible to do this accurately if you are incapable of any thinking apart from ego-centric thinking.

That's insulting, especially coming from someone who's woefully unequipped to correct me on economic matters.

> If you do understand the difference then you are purposefully corrupting the discussion. Please stop doing this.

Yet another wild-ass accusation. Could you please stop?

-------

> That's not how it actually works; price is only bounded by the value is brings, not proportional to it

Price can be whatever the hell someone feels like asking for something, which already invalidates your claim. I can ask for $500k for a bucket of shit, but you probably wouldn't be willing to pay it.

But there's a set price already, staring you in the face, making your claim look silly.

Now what you might be getting at is that the price you're willing to pay is bounded by the value you perceive in something, and that's certainly correct.

People aren't willing to pay for air because they have all the air they could possibly want to use at their disposal already. Air just is there. The fact that you can't survive without air doesn't mean you assign an extremely high valuation to it. You don't even think about air, let alone how much you'd be willing to pay for some in some specific situation.

> Sure they can; they've always have! Roads, cops, healthcare, education; hell, you're European, you should know.

You're just showing your ignorance here. None of the things you listed are actually free, as in, without cost. All of the services you listed are provided by people working in exchange for money, and the money has to come from somewhere, and it's not free. Someone needs to do something productive to pay for all of that, and.. well, it's actually our hard-earned money they're spending. Go figure.

> Maybe expanding it to the levels of allowing everyone to not work is (still?) unrealistic

That much we can agree on.

> claiming "things can't be handed out for free" is silly

Nice strawman there. That's not a claim I've made. Read again.

It's interesting how you can recognize an Anarcho-Capitalist viewpoint when you see one, but can't recognize that being an AnCap basically just boils down to being moral, sane, rational and consistent.

Most self-proclaimed "Anarchists" I come across are actually something like Marxists, nonsensically railing against evil capitalist oppressors, without wanting to even discuss what capitalism means.

I went to one of their gatherings once, and out of around twenty people, only one seemed rational and open-minded.

The rest were intent on figuring out what kind of "activism" they'd engage in, and didn't want to discuss whether what they were doing actually made any fucking sense at all.

The overarching problem here is herd mentality. Using Angular is a bad idea, but lots of companies are using it anyway because The Herd stampeded towards the new shiny thing, mostly because of how cool two-way binding looked in Angular's demo toy app.

Now all those companies are bogged down by Angular, but feel like ejecting it would be too costly. Elsewhere, lots of new developers are introduced to Angular and invest time and effort into learning it because they don't know any better.

Herd mentality is a big problem. It's basically the polar opposite of thinking for yourself, and as such, extremely detrimental in other aspects too.

Here's a relevant reply I posted to someone else:

-----

I'm guessing his point was that we're so accustomed to relatively comfortable living (especially here on HN), that we take valuable things for granted.

That leads to a sense of entitlement and confusion. We don't see how valuable the things we have are, so we end up thinking they should be "free", without realizing that nothing of value is actually free, because otherwise it wouldn't have value.

So if we experienced real hardship, our thinking would shift, and we'd appreciate valuable things more and we'd feel less entitled.

My point in another, heavily hissy-fit-downvoted message, was that everything of value costs something to produce, and therefore things can't just be handed out for free, because the things themselves are not actually free.

The same applies to "free money" in the form of Basic Income. People like to fantasize about not being personally responsible for their choices in life. Instead, they'd just get free money every month without having to work. "We have the technology!! Why aren't you giving me free stuff?! Damn capitalist oppressors!!"

People should think about how things work in the real world.

------

Suppose Service X costs you $500 per month to produce. If you keep giving it away for free, you're incurring a loss of $500 per month. That is not sustainable.

In a similar fashion, running the Nanny-Fairy-Machinery and producing things with it would definitely cost something, and that's why giving the output away for free wouldn't be sustainable. It's a Marxism-tinged pipe dream.

> Every time there is any thread about anything remotely socially progressive you are there espousing your highly conservative viewpoint.

Oh? Well, from my point of view I'm espousing independent thinking. Questioning things is a sign of doing that.

> Where did you grow up? What were your parents jobs? How much did your parents earn in yearly income?

I grew up in Finland, in an upper-middle class family.

> Have you ever not eaten for multiple days on end because you couldn't afford to buy food? What do you work as?

Nope. A developer.

> How much do you currently earn?

Around three thousand euros per month, before taxes.

> How do you personally calculate the cost and value of a good or service?

I don't. Something either has value to me or it doesn't. If you've actually read my messages, you may have noticed me talking about how value is subjective. In a nutshell, Value is utility as a means towards an end.

For example, how do you "calculate" the value of something you don't want at all?

> Do you understand the difference in the meaning of the words 'want' and 'need'?

Sure.

I'm guessing his point was that we're so accustomed to relatively comfortable living (especially here on HN), that we take valuable things for granted.

That leads to a sense of entitlement and confusion. We don't see how valuable the things we have are, so we end up thinking they should be "free", without realizing that nothing of value is actually free, because otherwise it wouldn't have value.

So if we experienced real hardship, our thinking would shift, and we'd appreciate valuable things more and we'd feel less entitled.

My point in another, heavily hissy-fit-downvoted message, was that everything of value costs something to produce, and therefore things can't just be handed out for free, because the things themselves are not actually free.

The same applies to "free money" in the form of Basic Income. People like to fantasize about not being personally responsible for their choices in life. Instead, they'd just get free money every month without having to work. "We have the technology!! Why aren't you giving me free stuff?! Damn capitalist oppressors!!"

People should think about how things work in the real world.

> We must do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living

Right, because valuable things don't actually cost anything to produce! That's why they can just be (automatically) handed out by some big Magic Nanny-Fairy Machinery.

We should all just get whatever we want, because we deserve it!

Maybe it's time to reconsider the term "conspiracy nut", then?

He didn't have a point. He just signaled that he can't think independently.

The video is a summary of what we were told happened, through the mainstream media. The story is absurd, which means it's not actually true! That, in turn, means that there was, in fact, a conspiracy!

Here's a few videos of an invisible plane hitting a building, which then collapses seemingly on its own: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWorDrTC0Qg .. but it wasn't on its own, of course, because an invisible plane hit it!

Feel free to start thinking for yourself any time now.

For the record, the video summarizes what we were told happened, through the media.

I shouldn't need to connect the dots for you, and you shouldn't dismiss me as some crackpot lunatic (even though you've been programmed to). Try independent thinking some time. It's pretty cool.

My guess is that he's a psychopath and just making things up for his own enjoyment. Maybe he's a Narc and just wanted more attention?

But either way, think about what I said about the article. If you're being intellectually honest, you'll have to admit it doesn't make sense.

Alright, but if governments work for the people, as we're told, then they'd also erm.. "regulate" news organizations and make them actually serve the public. You know full well they could, if they wanted to.

That would include warning us of cancer-causing shit that we come into contact with all the damn time.

Strangely enough, they don't. What does that tell us?

Well, are they looking out for their citizens or not? Isn't that supposed to be their job?

Well they could just reject or renegotiate the TTIP then?

> Uh-huh, right, because EU governments have editorial control of the evening news

Well yeah, they largely do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

But even if they didn't, surely news organizations would co-operate for a noble cause, yes?

> No, if they really cared they would ban or strictly regulate the use of such chemicals.

Sure, and if they really cared, they could do that even despite the TTIP, or they could reject or re-negotiate the TTIP. There's no way around that, regardless of whether you trust that governments are operating with our best interests at heart.

You know, if EU countries were genuinely concerned about their beloved citizens coming into contact with damaging chemicals, they could warn them on the evening news or something.

    Hey there Dear Citizens, these products have been found
    to cause cancer. Please avoid using them, and tell your
    friends to avoid them too! 
    
    Best Regards, 
    Your Benevolent, Caring Overlords

Do you think that just might have an effect on the companies producing the toxic crap they force on us?

    "Those naughty companies haven't stopped putting cancer-causing
    chemicals in their products. You should still boycott them."

If they really cared, they could just keep informing the citizenry until they were safe.

I call bullshit.

This guy has 100k/yr in income but no savings at all? And his much highlighted Nissan 350 Turbo "pro street" was bought on credit? Where did the money go? He had people renting his house, presumably for a monthly profit? Did he fail to mention being a heroin addict, or where thd hell did all his money go?

He didn't sell his swanky car immediately, so he could rent a sucky apartment to avoid being homeless?

He gets attacked by a bunch of hoodlums who beat him up before he gets his gun out? But he somehow gets it out anyway.

Then his assailant pulls a gun right back at him, and instead of shooting in fear for his life, he proceeds to engage in a Mexican standoff (which the other guy is happy to maintain too!), and walks up to the guy to deliver a macho line, as if he's in a goddamn movie or something?

Then cops show up and somehow magically diffuse the Mexican standoff situation without using any force themselves?

And finally, there's a time when he's got thousands of dollars of "tax free" income (hah!) in the bank, but he's still homeless? Because having money in the bank sure beats having shelter?

This story is complete bullshit.

There's some merit to the idea != all charismatic people are psychopaths.

I already acknowledged your point. You could do the same for mine.

Alright. Often there's only one person in the car though, and what I said applies to other things too.

Alright, you got me. Now imagine you being the only person in the car and try again.

The state punishing people for not wearing seatbelts represents the idea that people need to be protected from themselves, by force.

If we go along that road, what's next? Should police officers be everywhere, ready to snatch a beer from an adult's hand if he seems to have had "too much" to drink already? What's too much? How do you know? The Nannier a state gets, the closer you are to complete tyranny.

Instead, we could just consider everyone personally responsible for their own choices.

- Didn't wear a seatbelt and got paralyzed in an accident? That's certainly tragic, but you're personally responsible for your choice to not wear a seatbelt.

- Didn't wear a seatbelt and nothing bad happened? Well good for you!

Psychopaths are usually both extremely charismatic and extremely dishonest though, so there is some merit to the idea.

Is aging a disease? :)

Well, the real problem here is inane downvotes, not that I pointed it out.

Excellent video.

As a sidenote, whoever downvoted this and the other related post is allergic to thinking.

True. But it's even more amazing how the masses just keep swallowing that shit. Of course, it's understandable too, considering people have been trained to be obedient cattle.

The Land of The Free needs a "Freedom Act" to add some freedom?

Even if it's passed, do you think NSA will stop snooping on everyone?

If not, what's the point of enacting the legislation? Are politicians just retarded, or do they think the law serves a purpose even without an effect on what NSA is doing? Wha t might that purpose be? Could it be related to perception management?