OpinionSociety is an elitist concept which is intended to excuse or remove individualist freedoms and ideals, and basic market forces.
      – DigitalBoss, 2010-01-07 at 13:21:17   (71 comments)

On 2010-01-07 at 13:21:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
The idea that members of a community live together for their mutual benefit is not a definition of a society, but the definition of a market. Friends, family, and government aside, the only relationships that exist are market relations.
On 2010-01-07 at 17:16:49, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Society is a necessity, particularly for a social species like ours - and division of labour is a huge step forward. Having a hierarchy, however, where money is funnelled upwards to a lucky/greedy few is clearly an unfair system - something that promoted by current forms of capitalism. Communism is a nice alternative in theory, despite the blackening of the word by McCarthy and his cronies, but perhaps isn't practical. Maybe a mix of capitalist self-worth and legislation to limit the stealing of wealth for the 'elite' would be a better system than either alone. You do have to have some taxation, but preventing taxes being squandered would be a huge improvement.
On 2010-01-07 at 17:30:39, DigitalBoss wrote...
There is no such thing as society, it is an elitist fallacy. A fallacy that is merely an excuse to ignore liberty and market forces.
On 2010-01-07 at 17:43:37, Lee J Haywood wrote...
You're confusing society in its basic sense, as defined in the dictionary, and society as it exists today. Some countries doubtless have very good societies that are nothing like you describe. "A society is a body of humans generally seen as a community" - it's a simple enough concept, that you're loading with your own hatred of government (as usual). I'm also amused by your use of the word 'elitist' - it's one that's often co-opted (and perverted) by Americans to mean anyone with any intelligence, leading to a preference for an idiot president instead of a sensible one.
On 2010-01-07 at 18:00:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
The society that you think you live in is in fact a market, there is no such a thing as a society. Pure and simple. The elitists to which I refer are the smartasses in our government that think that they know more about how we should live our lives than we do.
On 2010-01-08 at 04:11:44, BorgClown wrote...
Is a pack of wolves a market force or a society (i.e., an association)? They understand (maybe instinctively) that hunting together reaps greater rewards, but they have other forms of cooperation purely for the good of the pack. A lone wolf would live less. What about a beehive? It is not that different than our own communities.
On 2010-01-08 at 11:32:25, DigitalBoss wrote...
We are talking about humans Borg. Humans that have rights protected by a constitution.
On 2010-01-08 at 11:34:50, DigitalBoss wrote...
When is the last time you hunted for survival together with your neighbor down the street?
On 2010-01-08 at 11:40:32, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: Money is not funneled, it is earned. Just because one has an ability to earn a large salary does not make one lucky nor greedy.
On 2010-01-09 at 05:15:25, BorgClown wrote...
Unless you make that large salary recruiting other people and sharing with them the crumbles. As long as you keep them from getting richer, the cheap workforce will be your gold mine.
On 2010-01-09 at 05:19:25, BorgClown wrote...
An ideal market should make people naturally fill positions where they perform best while keeping the inept at simple jobs. Without regulations, we have the inverse, inept people managing and profiting from the hard work of the apt ones. Parasitism is a natural and successful survival strategy, you just have to keep the infection at a minimum or the host dies. The whole world is still recovering from a an important infection.
On 2010-01-09 at 11:06:33, Lee J Haywood wrote...
If a politician accepts a million dollars of 'support' from a large company for their campaign, they haven't earned it in any way shape or form. They're blatantly being bribed. The company that gives the money may well have 'earned' it legitimately, but the politician is being paid for something they might do. A sweatshop owner will maximise profits by utilising slave labour to produce goods at the lowest price and maximising how much they sell them on for, passing as little of their profits onto the workers as possible. They've 'earned' the money by 'working as a manager' but there's a huge disparity between the work done by those on the floor and the money they make, and the lesser work and greater money made by the one in charge. There's little doubt that the sweatshop owner is 'lucky' in not being one of the ones forced to work on the floor, and that those on the floor are 'unlucky' that they don't have the money to buy a sweatshop. Whether greed comes into play depends on the particular circumstances.
On 2010-01-09 at 15:46:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
@LeeJ: The larger and more powerful you allow the government to get, the more you entice people to bribe them. These congressmen should simply not be powerful enough to be worth a bribe. Another reason to limit the power and size of government.
On 2010-01-09 at 15:51:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Borg: Glad you abandoned the wolf argument, it was stupid, but parasitism? Come on. I am sick of the elitists in government telling me what I can charge for my products and what I must pay my employees. It is none of their business. Let the market decide what an employee earns. Let the market decide the price of goods and services.
On 2010-01-09 at 16:36:17, DigitalBoss wrote...
If a large company pays a million dollar campaign contribution to a politician that is restricted by term limits and has not been around long enough to build power, the company gets very little for its money. Problem solved.
On 2010-01-09 at 19:59:24, Melchior wrote...
So no government, and no laws but those you can enforce yourself. Unless you happen to be very lucky you either end up dead, or suffering under the heel of a few massive conglomerates. Hooray.
On 2010-01-09 at 20:41:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Term limits aren't an answer - quite the opposite, as it means politicians are only capable of short-term thinking and make rubbish decisions. The solution is to ban contributions and let the politician live of their salary - i.e. what they've actually earned.
On 2010-01-10 at 01:10:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
Borg, I am not advocating zero government, I just want our congress to stick to their constitutional powers.
On 2010-01-10 at 05:15:59, DigitalBoss wrote...
I wish the politicians would do nothing. We are much better off when they do nothing. We have more than enough laws now. In fact, we could do with the repeal a few of the ones we have.
On 2010-01-10 at 22:48:26, BorgClown wrote...
I understand why current Governments have become burdens instead of facilitators, but I don't accept giving money even more power. I'd agree with giving people means of auditing and regulating back the government, that is, taking back power from the government and giving it to the citizens, but not to private companies.
On 2010-01-10 at 22:49:16, BorgClown wrote...
I think governments should have an independent QA and audit done by civil organizations.
On 2010-01-10 at 23:34:44, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: That's a good idea.
On 2010-01-11 at 21:30:55, BorgClown wrote...
Maybe that will be the next step after democracies.
On 2010-01-12 at 03:36:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
I think we should go back to what we were meant to be (in the US), a free republic.
On 2010-01-13 at 07:11:32, BorgClown wrote...
No way, that system has showed it also doesn't work. Build upon it.
On 2010-01-25 at 03:44:24, DigitalBoss wrote...
Communism has certainly shown that it does not work.
On 2010-01-25 at 05:26:21, BorgClown wrote...
Socialism, on the other hand, does work better.
On 2010-03-05 at 20:01:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Bullshit.
On 2010-03-05 at 20:02:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
You don't live in a society. Aside from friends and family, you live in a market.
On 2010-03-06 at 06:42:47, BorgClown wrote...
Bullshit.
On 2010-03-06 at 06:46:51, BorgClown wrote...
If you lived in a true market kids would be left to care for themselves, they are not profitable. Your family is the smallest society, considering yourself a lone ranger is foolish and unrealistic. Did you change your own diapers? Did you sustain yourself before 18?
On 2010-03-06 at 17:46:11, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: We know what friends and family are, explain to us what this elusive society is. How do you interact with this society?
On 2010-03-06 at 17:47:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
Other than friends or family people with whom you deal with are market relations. There is no society.
On 2010-03-06 at 17:57:18, DigitalBoss wrote...
You don't live in a society. Aside from friends and family, you live in a market. You are a trader. If not a trader, you must be a looter or a moocher.
On 2010-03-07 at 22:38:15, BorgClown wrote...
Don't oversimplify life as a simple market. Free market is a subset of life.
On 2010-03-08 at 20:36:43, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: In what manner do you deal with people other than friends or family? You trade with them. You trade in the marketplace. They are no society. They belong to no society. There is no society. But there is a market.
On 2010-03-08 at 20:41:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
The people other than friends or family that you do not trade with are nothing to you. You may watch them walk down the street, but they affect your life in no way. They may provide a good or a service which you may trade for, but then you and he are traders now, no longer strangers. The concept of a society has always been a creation of elitists that wish to control your life.
On 2010-03-09 at 18:15:18, Thelevellers wrote...
What about neighbours? Strangers you help get on or off the train? Stuff like that? You could call them all transactions in the 'karmic market' if you really want to, but that's the kind of thing I would call (good) society.
On 2010-03-10 at 00:46:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Basic civility among strangers. Some of my neighbors I would say are friends, some of them are strangers. I give all of them a civil wave when I can. Just me being nice. Doesn't have a damn thing to do with an imaginary society.
On 2010-03-10 at 05:02:25, BorgClown wrote...
Don't force the world into your capitalistic view man, open your miiiinddddd
On 2010-03-10 at 05:05:02, BorgClown wrote...
Although most mammals can be selfish, most also like to live in a pack. Not an animal market, but a pack, a community, a society. Why do you wish so much for us apes to be different?
On 2010-03-10 at 09:07:18, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Why are you nice? Is that part of your market? What reason is there to be nice? I say it is because being nice helps maintain a civil society in which we would all prefer to live.
On 2010-03-10 at 12:36:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: My mind is open to reality, not some progressive communist concept that is used to excuse the denial of my rights as an individual, and to ignore basic market forces.
On 2010-03-10 at 12:38:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: "What reason is there to be nice?" What a dumb question. If you are not nice to me, I will kick your ass. That's why. I have heard that back in the American Old West, that people were much nicer and civil when most men walked around with a six gun on their side.
On 2010-03-10 at 13:15:24, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: It's not a dumb question at all, and I dopn;t do it because someone will kick my ass. In fact, I am far LESS likely to be nice to people who have that attitude. I am nice to people because I enjoy being nice, and it is the nice thing to do. No ulterior motive required other than the hope that if you are nice in general, other people will be nice in general, and so create a far more enjoyable world to be in. As you can see, our reasons for being nice are different, so it was actually a perfectly reasonable question.
On 2010-03-10 at 17:11:55, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Our reasons are the same. I am nice because I like being nice to people. I don't do it because of some imaginary society. I was jerkin you around with the kick ass comment.
On 2010-03-10 at 17:14:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am surprised that no one agrees with me on this opinion. It is the obvious truth. Anyone with an open mind should be able to see it. Maybe no one wants to admit it.
On 2010-03-10 at 21:13:57, BorgClown wrote...
I've always thought societies make market forces stronger, what with people associating to join forces. Where did companies come from, if not from societies?
On 2010-03-18 at 02:37:15, Melchior wrote...
You cannot say we don't live in a society, and that strangers do not affect your life. You live in a country where the individuals are expected to follow a common set of laws, in return for rights that the society will (try to) enforce for you. Your country is your "society" if you will. Yes, you can try to do whatever you want - but if those actions are outside what is deemed acceptable by society you effectively become an outcast, and lose the benefits that society would otherwise grant you. Freedom to live outside of a cell for one thing... Does your definition of society differ to this? Do you not at least agree that this is the case? I think most people would accept this definition of society.
On 2010-03-18 at 19:53:41, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Melchior: I am sorry, I can say it, and I did. Your words:"You live in a country where the individuals are expected to follow a common set of laws". That is called a Republic, yes. Citizens are expected to follow the law. Has nothing to do with a society. I live in a marketplace. With people other than friends and family, I am a trader.
On 2010-03-18 at 19:54:58, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Companies are composed of co-traders. “Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.” --Oscar Wilde
On 2010-03-18 at 20:00:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
Society is a elitist collectivist concept. They use it against me. The elitists think they know more about what is good for me than myself. The elitists say "Oh, we need to, or you need to, do what is good for society". They use it as an excuse to ignore my rights as an individual, and to break or bend basic market forces. I need to do what is right for my friends and family, and for myself. Fuck a bunch of society. Take it out of your own check. Leave mine alone.
On 2010-03-21 at 07:20:23, BorgClown wrote...
Society, whatever form it took in the past, is what put us at the top of the food chain on Earth. Lone wolves sure can sustain themselves, but are of little relevance overall. Society gives us culture, being gregarious is a powerful mammal trait. I'd say free market is the mental abstraction, not society.
On 2010-03-21 at 17:51:56, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Try paying for new tires for your car with culture. Try buying your groceries with your esteemed culture. How about gas for your car and your rent; try paying for those with your dear culture. The simple truth is that you live in a market, and you are a trader. You trade your time and skills for wealth, and you use it for trade in the marketplace. There is no society. Society is a liberal elitist collectivist construct; a communist concept. I will argue that your culture is the one thing that you cannot trade with in the marketplace. Your culture is the one thing that you have that is absolutely worthless. Why do your arguments always revert to wolves? Lone wolf? I don't know about you, but I am far from irrelevant to my family, my friends, my beneficiaries, and my trading partners.
On 2010-03-21 at 18:13:35, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: The wolf, either alone, or in a pack, spends most of its time looking for food. Because of our mind, and the efficiencies that we can produce, and manifest in our markets, we can spend time doing other things. That is what put us near the top of the food chain. Being gregarious, or belonging to a flock, a herd, or even a social group, is a collectivist ideal. Not one that applies to me. I am an individual and do not take well to belonging to a group. I am of the smallest minority, the individual.
On 2010-03-21 at 18:52:18, Thelevellers wrote...
I think you've hit the nail on the head there DB: Animals have basic societies - that's what the wolf pack is, or the lion pride, etc. Thus proving that there is a society. It may well be paired with a market place now, thanks to the capitalist society we live in, but you can't get everything right... :P
On 2010-03-22 at 03:07:38, BorgClown wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Lone wolf is a common ground, it wouldn't be as clear a concept if I said lone polar bear or lone tiger, or even hermit, for example. I'm happy for your phrasing, "Because of our mind, and the efficiencies that we can produce, and manifest in our markets, we can spend time doing other things. That is what put us near the top of the food chain". As you imply, people can continue the work of their ancestors and make it better, they build upon their culture (the sum of all knowledge of a society). A hermit's legacy dies with him, and humanity would never be what it is today if people considered themselves isolated individuals. For example, you'd be still riding horses if not for the people who dedicated their lives to mathematics without the goal of monetary reward, and who made possible the industrial revolution. Sure, they might have done it for respect, but what's respect good for without a society to recognize it?
On 2010-03-22 at 04:42:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: You can belong to a herd, or a flock, if you want. I will continue as a trader. Your society does not constitute a mortgage on my wealth.
On 2010-03-22 at 17:14:05, DigitalBoss wrote...
Traders build upon others trader's efficiencies. The market and all other traders benefit. It is the looters and moochers that cause the problems.
On 2010-03-23 at 02:47:16, BorgClown wrote...
What are you trading here in DNr?
On 2010-04-14 at 02:49:20, DigitalBoss wrote...
Here to counteract the brainwashing.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:50:51, BorgClown wrote...
Are you getting profit?
On 2010-04-14 at 02:52:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Just a hobby to pass the time.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:52:47, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: getting a chapped ass.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:53:48, BorgClown wrote...
Eeeew!
On 2010-04-14 at 02:55:25, BorgClown wrote...
Guided by your "everything is a market" logic, it's sensible to assume that you trade entertainment.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:56:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
@BorgClown: Except for friends and family, yes, a market. On-line acquaintances could be considered as friends.
On 2010-04-14 at 02:58:19, DigitalBoss wrote...
Do you have price gouging laws in Mexico?
On 2010-04-14 at 03:03:12, BorgClown wrote...
Yes, but they are applied to basic goods, like food or common fabrics. For everything else we have most of the markets dominated by a monopoly, or near-monopoly. Communication services are the worst offenders, mainly because Carlos Slim (the new richest dude in the world) owns most of them.
On 2010-04-14 at 03:06:18, BorgClown wrote...
They become handy when a government wants to kill a company, though. The mexican iron industry was dominated by Fundidora, located in Monterrey, until one of our presidents killed it for being a monopoly. Only to give rise to Hylsa, the next monopoly =/
On 2010-04-14 at 03:09:00, BorgClown wrote...
Of course, Hylsa is owned by people closely related to said president. At least the last decade's law changes make it difficult to that trick again.