Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ænonymous' started by dramacrat, Jan 25, 2013.
@The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae 4900
I agree with it. Like all things when government comes up with an idea, precious resources are squandered on pointless and extravagant things. Most precious of all, though, are people whose mind and body would otherwise benefit their tribe and their species. (Every wasted talent cuts a deep scar within society.) It's not only those within government that are the problem but also those connected to it. The Edison Monopoly, for instance, kept back rapid technological progress in order to turn a buck and maintain its morbid influence. It's impossible to fathom what we would have now if these cartels never existed and these mob wars never waged.
What do you think he means when he says
Remember Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury survived the English civil war that saw king Charles executed and the ascendance of Oliver Cromwell to the title of "Lord Protectorate." He spent exile amidst a period of violent revolution and war.
Julius Caesar said it better: "Alea iacta est."
Not at all.
What are you trying to say? That war is uncertain? That it creates a trend of violence? Perhaps you'll inform us that the sky is blue as well.
No. The sky is green.
This man has much, too much; it should be taken from them.
Ceaser said "the die has been cast." as he crossed the Rubricon. It means there's no turning back after a certain mark a line in the sand if you will. This is a powerful image but it is not the one Hobbes is evoking. Sometimes these texts are hard to follow and often require a double take because of the archaic words used. The grammar remains, however. Within this text is a strain of thought that serves as the cornerstone of classical liberalism, libertarians, the clearing of the brush and revealing the free market, and not to mention the birth of the nation State.
The die is cast also means that future events are unpredictable, especially when one acts boldly. Why do you think he used gambling as a metaphor? In any case, tell me what you think of it so we can get this over and done with.
This was his prediction of the future. The die has been cast (past tense) the results of the gamble are already known. He was hoping to avoid civil war. On my view I'll bring up textual evidence, just a sentence or two, later. My view is not important. What is the face value of this single simple sentence mean:
@The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae 4900 you would have not have been called to a task if someone did not think you apt, determined, and intelligent enough to manage it.
Leave he kid alone, he's just a stupid kid who runs around and shitposts. He's not capable of understanding Hobbes and he never will be.
"The die is cast" means exactly the same as "no more bets."
At face value he's saying that in war one must live day-to-day because any investment one makes in anything could be lost in a split second.
Frances Titchener, To Rule Mankind and Make the World Obey
Excellent. This is exactly what Hobbes is saying. He claims that in the state of war no culture or industry may be produced, but worst of all, Hobbes contends, is the continual fear, and danger of violent death; making the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
His exploration into the cause and nature of war:
Within this text I contend there are hints within his texts at the emerging power of the markets, which were cropping up across Europe during the Renaissance. With them came chaos.
Too bad Thomas Hobbes supported a powerful centralized (though minimalist government), so The Member Formerly Known As Baya, who is a neoliberal capitalist pig, would not like this because it still has government in the way of allowing the global elite to exploit the 99%.
He was in support of a very specific kind of state. He is the father of liberalism. He was not a totalitarian and was staunchly opposed to such a stance as evidenced by his hatred of the Aristotelian Scholastics.
So you agree with me entirely, then.
If you had being paying attention then you'd know that I had already written that in all my other posts. In any case there's no such thing as an "emerging" market. Markets are economic reality. Governments try to transcend that reality and fail miserably. Markets were always alive in the medieval ages but centred around towns where the burghers had domain. The various plagues and civil wars that wiped out populations across Europe and contributed to rapid urbanisation merely decreased the authority of the nobles as their power (ever since the Roman Empire replaced slavery with serfdom) laid in population growth and the food demand that comes with it. Serfdom was the socialism of yesteryear.
Fuck off, Rice.
What an enlightening discussion.
@The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae 4900
I will answer you in the order of your statements.
1.) I know but Hobbes builds upon it and goes on to say other things.
2.) Nonsense. Markets are a created reality that must be upheld. In the ancient world you rarely had a market. In the Mediterranean area amongst the Greek and the surrounding Levant there existed not an economy so much as a set of rituals centered around gift giving. With predetermined set unchanging economic actions due to a religious adherence to ritual, how can there exist the natural dynamic change that is one of the chief characteristics of the modern market? If all production is confiscated and distributed by major landholders via the sharecropping scheme of feudalism, how can there be the characteristic free exchange of markets? The answer is that if society lacks the ability to genuinely support any one of the unique traits of the market you cannot say that there exists a market. Markets, in the modern and proper discussion of economics when you refer to THE markets it is referring specifically for the markets that developed as you say in the medieval period. However even in it's most basic definition: A gathering place for the distribution of resources; is supported by Hobbes assumption: If people are too afraid for their lives to go to a market then there no longer exists a market for people cannot gather in any one place unless they feel assured of their safety.
3.) Exactly and Hobbes was writing as the feudalistic society started to shift as many outlying towns developed a market and a middle class, guilds and burghers etc, and he wrote on the change. His view of limited government is interesting indeed. He was the first to break politically from the ancients and look at man solely as an individual. What's more you admit that the markets were weak in some places and strong in others, I am not arguing with you on this merely adding to it that in some places they are dead.
4.) Due to the intense rituals most peasants actually lived with a bigger cut of societies' production than they did in the era of capitalism.
@The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae 4900
also the roman religio regulated the market, all businesses had to do business in the "roman" way and were essentially unchanging. How can there be competition when all businesses are the same, producing the same goods, made exactly the same way, and for exactly the same prices, how can there be the genuine competition that is such a virtue of the marketplace?
No, that text showed how you were wrong. Read it again.
Whenever the government (or any other type of cartel) tries to fuck with the market then a black market is immediately created. The black market is the market.
The nobility wasn't part of society, they were yesterday's politicians and bureaucrats. Yesterday's socialists. They tried to rule by force and now they're in the dustbin of history where they belong.
Safety isn't a requirement for markets to exist. That's fucking stupid. Markets, and black markets, have existed during wars and disasters. During all manner of strife.
The market isn't a place. It's the collective result of everybody's ambitions and actions.
I never wrote that it's weak somewhere. There's no such thing as a weak market. All are subject to its rules. The feudal governments still had to sell their goods at the price determined by the market. Indeed, it was their inability to keep up with the market after the plagues and civil wars that resulted in the end of feudalism. Apart from that, trade continued everywhere, regardless of the rules established by anyone.
Even if true, what good would that have done? They have nowhere to invest the money for they didn't own any land which means their bigger savings was a drain on society as whole.
Black market. Also, did you forget that the Roman Republic/Empire imported a lot of its goods? From its colonies as well as from other nations. There is always choice.
No argument here.
They were, they were most certainly a part of society. They were a part of their society in a deep and influential way.
The nobility are the opposite of the bureaucrats. Think about it. Unlike a bureaucrat an aristocrat does not have to file paper work, wait for superior's approval, they act. They are suppose to be a regime of excellence, in which men are given the leisure necessary for them to pursue virtue or "arete"
Aristocrats hate bureaucracies and they loath socialism as both deplete their power.
Some of them wield great power:
And there are men that rule by force now:
Of course it is. You can't have people meet in any one place to exchange goods unless several conditions are met.
Yes, and always in a place of relative safety, which first has to be found by exploring the patterns of law enforcement and then exploiting their inevitable flaws. Black markets don't just magically pop up out of the ground like spring flowers. First you have to actually find a place that is safe from whatever regulatory agency, from there it's a matter of spreading through word of mouth. Only after people arrive and after it becomes a place in which the exchange of goods takes place can it be considered a market.
The market is indeed a place.
You're describing a metaphysical deity. There is no such thing as the "collective result" that doesn't exist in reality, the "result" inherently is of a reality. If the market isn't a place then it doesn't exist. Stop talking about magical beings that exit in our imaginations.
You said that markets are stronger, imply that others are not as strong and thus are "less strong", or as it is known by it's synonym "weak."
Could you please answer these two question for me? Define:
For you are not using the proper term that is used in academic economics or political theory, nor are you using it's more broad vernacular use. You are actually contradicting both.
Yet there have never been a full pattern between the histories uncovered. The only thing modern science has uncovered is that there appears to be no patterns. Humanity is so radically different from one age to another it is maddening.
Many times there was no trade between towns and all goods were overseen and distributed directly by the lord. In some cases there was no surplus for there to even be a market. People who possess nothing and are on the brink of starving to death have no ability to produce commerce. The market can indeed die.
No it was WW1 along with industrialization. Also some aristocracies survived and their tradition of vast landowners survived and through doing nothing but collecting rent alone they were able to keep their position in the market. Land always is a monopoly.
No after the fall of the roman empire the roads no longer were maintained. Trade came to a stand still. The dark ages was an interesting time period.
They had a village marketplace. Besides most currency exchanges at these times were strictly in goods, specifically food. Taxes mainly served to feed the army so it was agricultural levies. In fact Rome use to pay their legions with salt, which is where we get the term salary.
There was no "black market" then. If a business wasn't Roman no one shopped there, if you didn't do business the roman way you were insulting the Roman Religio.
I forgot nothing.
That's conquest, and no there was no "choice" for the plebeians. Also for a while the empire was flooded with riches, mainly for the nobility. Importers worked within a trade but the model is not like it is today, it was radically different. They were only able to import and even live in Rome as a merchant/citizen to sell in set areas, or "turf" owned by the Roman lord of whom they are a client. These men would use their contacts to import goods, they specifically worked for certain lords. You didn't have businesses directly competing with each other like they are today.
@The Member Formerly Known As Baya Rae 4900, wrong. You can't even read an example someone shoves right in your face
No one agrees with you, not even libertards.