"Freedom" thread or something

Yeah that was a bit unfortunate Geoff, I wish more people understood Relativity theories and Quantum Mechanics, but reality is most of them don't.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Economies are more complex than you make them out to be.

Edited by Gerinski - July 24 2013 at 13:49

Gerinski wrote: Yeah that was a bit unfortunate Geoff, I wish more people understood Relativity theories and Quantum Mechanics, but reality is most of them don't.

Along with the "simplicity principle", I believe that you cannot truly compartmentalize your life, and if you try you will experience psychological discomfort.  I believe that all areas of life are interconnected.  As Ghandi put it: "Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."  I said this earlier in this thread and nobody questioned me on it, but I believe that existence is relationship.  I am unable to know anything outside of my relationship to it.  Christians believe in a concept of God as a trinity, which implies that God exists in eternal relationship.  Put this into the context of the fact that I John 4:8 says that God is love, and parables such as the sheep and the goats which imply that if we wish to show love to God, we must show love to our fellow man.  God is in a state of eternal, unbreakable relationship with us, and when we choose to love others in a way that refuses to break relationship no matter our differences or transgressions, we enter into that eternal fellowship.  Now as I said before, all areas of life are interconnected, though people try to compartmentalize and separate their religion from their politics and their daily lives from religion, etc.  I don't think you can truly reconcile Libertarian politics with the Christian religion, because wrapped up in the Christian religion is the idea that what you "own" doesn't really belong to you - it belongs to God.  And God loves everyone, so you should share with everyone.  And what's interesting is that when you examine other religions, you find similar logic:

People think that all they gain in life is really theirs.  They boast of their wealth, and revel in it.  But by being addicted to the gratification of their senses, they will create hell for themselves. - The Bhagavad Gita

People believe that their property and family belong to them.  But nothing belongs to us.  So this false belief can only lead to suffering.  - The Dhammapada

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. - Jesus, in the Gospel of Matthew, which parallels Luke

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. - Jesus in the gospel of Mark, which parallels Matthew and Luke

What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his own soul? - Jesus, parallel statements in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Insatiable desires only lead to ruined souls.  - The Bhagavad Gita

Those who love their life in this world will lose it. Those who care nothing for their life in this world will keep it for eternity. - Jesus, in John 12:25

Now this fits in perfect harmony with my more socialistic philosophy that is willing to release my wealth to the government and not make any complaints about it if that government is going to use it to run programs that share that wealth with others.  But the whole Libertarian philosophy is that we should clutch onto our own possessions, because they belong to ME and anyone who tries to tax me is part of an evil tyrannical system which should be resisted with prejudice!  If each person would just take care of themselves and no one had any claim on anyone else, we'd have a free market and everything would be wonderful!  But this does not match well with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbor as yourself, if you ask me.  Two of the most active Libertarians on this thread have made statements to that effect, and claim to be Christian.  That's what I mean by compartmentalizing your beliefs.  It must be pretty psychologically uncomfortable for them.  The whole idea of Libertarianism where my wealth is my own and nobody else can lay claim to it is an idea of isolationism - broken relationship.  I am an individual and can stand all on my own.  But I don't think that's true at all, and I can't see any way to logically intertwine that idea with the Bible, or any other religion for that matter.  People in this thread have made a valiant effort to defend their individualism, but I believe they will never succeed in the end - we stand or fall together. 

Existence is relationship.  Without relationship, I cease to exist.

And in those two statements, I have just demonstrated simplicity and the interconnectedness of my political and spiritual beliefs.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Christians believe in a concept of God as a trinity, which implies that God exists in eternal relationship.  I don't.

That explains a lot.

How do you explain the beginning of the Gospel of John?

Here is one of the best explanations of that passage and the Trinity that I've seen thus far.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Christians believe in a concept of God as a trinity, which implies that God exists in eternal relationship.  I don't. That explains a lot. How do you explain the beginning of the Gospel of John? Here is one of the best explanations of that passage and the Trinity that I've seen thus far. What exactly does it explain?

You don't have very good reading comprehension when something that you disagree with is being explained, do you?  Eyes to see but do not see....

Epignosis wrote: How incredibly open-minded of you.  I haven't even presented my argument on a subject and you've already insulted me.

It's a tactic you've repeatedly used.  Any time anyone makes a good argument that contradicts something you believe, you simply dodge.  You say "that doesn't make sense" or "that's a bad analogy" or "that's not very clear".  Dodge, dodge, dodge.  Never give any ground.  Any time I bring up a Libertarian who has done things that don't work: "he's not really a Libertarian."  Any time I point out that there isn't really a Libertarian country out there: "that doesn't mean it won't work."  Dodge, dodge, dodge.  You've imprisoned yourself inside a system you can't see out of.

I live in relationship.  I base my beliefs on relationship.  When you ask me "why do you believe that?"  I point to data that is observable.  So when you ask me about specifics on my political beliefs, I start to point you to other countries that are doing things that I find interesting and that line up with my political beliefs.  Your political beliefs are not grounded in reality.  You have never given an example of a policy that demonstrates the successful implementation of your political beliefs, because you live in an "all or nothing" belief system.  I point at Libertarian policies that have not worked well, and you point out that the fact it didn't work well is because the country is not in a "free market" state.  All or nothing.  You can't prove your system works until someone adopts the entire system.  And then we'll either be in utopia or we'll have completely blown up.  When I want to prove a principle works, I point at a system that models that principle and say "see, things got a little better.  Now if we do more of this, things will improve a little more."  I don't live in an "all or nothing" paradigm.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Second Life Syndrome wrote: *Looks around awkwardly*  It was a joke, my friend.  I'm just making fun of my state because it's so easy to do.  I would never call PA my country because, well, Steelers fans are jerks!    I'm not a sports fan, so I don't care about the Browns, but they do suck.  Though, I doubt we have different accents.  I know a ton of people from your part of PA that speak in the same Midwest accent that I do. I made a joke too my friend. Really? I've never heard anyone from the area talk like a Ohiooooian except those from Ohio or other weird states in that middle part that I assume are indistinguishable from Ohio.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: How incredibly open-minded of you.  I haven't even presented my argument on a subject and you've already insulted me. It's a tactic you've repeatedly used.  Any time anyone makes a good argument that contradicts something you believe, you simply dodge.  You say "that doesn't make sense" or "that's a bad analogy" or "that's not very clear".  Dodge, dodge, dodge.  Never give any ground.  Any time I bring up a Libertarian who has done things that don't work: "he's not really a Libertarian."  Any time I point out that there isn't really a Libertarian country out there: "that doesn't mean it won't work."  Dodge, dodge, dodge.  You've imprisoned yourself inside a system you can't see out of. I live in relationship.  I base my beliefs on relationship.  When you ask me "why do you believe that?"  I point to data that is observable.  So when you ask me about specifics on my political beliefs, I start to point you to other countries that are doing things that I find interesting and that line up with my political beliefs.  Your political beliefs are not grounded in reality.  You have never given an example of a policy that demonstrates the successful implementation of your political beliefs, because you live in an "all or nothing" belief system.  I point at Libertarian policies that have not worked well, and you point out that the fact it didn't work well is because the country is not in a "free market" state.  All or nothing.  You can't prove your system works until someone adopts the entire system.  And then we'll either be in utopia or we'll have completely blown up.  When I want to prove a principle works, I point at a system that models that principle and say "see, things got a little better.  Now if we do more of this, things will improve a little more."  I don't live in an "all or nothing" paradigm. And you've given exactly how much ground to Libertarians?  Remind me.

Your entire political philosophy can be summarized as: self.  My entire political philosophy (as well as my philosophy of all of life) can be summarized as: self denial with the purpose of relationship.

Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: dtguitarfan wrote: Epignosis wrote: How incredibly open-minded of you.  I haven't even presented my argument on a subject and you've already insulted me. It's a tactic you've repeatedly used.  Any time anyone makes a good argument that contradicts something you believe, you simply dodge.  You say "that doesn't make sense" or "that's a bad analogy" or "that's not very clear".  Dodge, dodge, dodge.  Never give any ground.  Any time I bring up a Libertarian who has done things that don't work: "he's not really a Libertarian."  Any time I point out that there isn't really a Libertarian country out there: "that doesn't mean it won't work."  Dodge, dodge, dodge.  You've imprisoned yourself inside a system you can't see out of. I live in relationship.  I base my beliefs on relationship.  When you ask me "why do you believe that?"  I point to data that is observable.  So when you ask me about specifics on my political beliefs, I start to point you to other countries that are doing things that I find interesting and that line up with my political beliefs.  Your political beliefs are not grounded in reality.  You have never given an example of a policy that demonstrates the successful implementation of your political beliefs, because you live in an "all or nothing" belief system.  I point at Libertarian policies that have not worked well, and you point out that the fact it didn't work well is because the country is not in a "free market" state.  All or nothing.  You can't prove your system works until someone adopts the entire system.  And then we'll either be in utopia or we'll have completely blown up.  When I want to prove a principle works, I point at a system that models that principle and say "see, things got a little better.  Now if we do more of this, things will improve a little more."  I don't live in an "all or nothing" paradigm. And you've given exactly how much ground to Libertarians?  Remind me.  Your entire political philosophy can be summarized as: self.  My entire political philosophy (as well as my philosophy of all of life) can be summarized as: self denial with the purpose of relationship. Dodging?  I'll try again: And you've given exactly how much ground to Libertarians?  Remind me.

Your political philosophy is the exact opposite of mine, therefore I have given none.  But I have backed up my ideas with examples.  You have none.  It's a lot to ask for me to give ground when you can't point to practical application.

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you.  As usual, your post was thought-provoking so I didn't want to Rush my response.

rogerthat wrote: This is exactly what I think would happen and I just think the 'eventuality' takes too long to materialize.  And coming to MS...

Why?  Obviously the process is a long one in many cases, but free markets work so that competitors start to gain ground when the service of a dominant company declines.  If said company is still providing good service at a low cost, then why does it matter if it takes many years for it to lose its dominance?

rogerthat wrote: It would be a long time before Apple could make a dent in emerging markets.   The US has always had Apple fans and people working in creative industries prefer Macs (but that is a niche requirement).  And I suspect the only reason people would still buy a Mac is because Mac compatible MS Office packages are also available.  So even if Mac preys into their OS business, replacing Office could take a very long time.  Nothing short of an event that would completely kill the PC market.   By which time, we might have had three decades of total MS domination.  That might not be a long time in history but that is almost the entire working life of a person.   I guess people who started working in the 90s won't even know a non MS world.  The pace of change in that regard is very slow when you compare it to the speed at which IT has generally been evolving for the last two decades.  And that is the price we have to pay for monopoly.    By the way, none of this is to say that in a licensed market instead of a free one,  there would not be monopoly.  We Indians experienced Licence Raj in its full glory and would not recommend it to anyone as it created seller's markets everywhere.    I want entry into a market to be unfettered.  I just want restrictions on marketshare or hostile takeovers.    Let the small firm compete with the shark if they want to and let them only sell out on their free will.

Office is only one type of software.  If it's already compatible with Mac.  It works fine.  So what's the big issue?  I suppose you could say that Microsoft has a monopoly on word processing software in the business realm (and that definitely doesn't count the software people have for their private use).  That doesn't give them a whole lot of leverage when you take into account all the other aspects of the computer market.

rogerthat wrote: Yes, SoS was still available for viewing but the block deal was done to deny it the best screens.  Ok, you have to understand a little more of Bollywood dynamics for this.  Ek Tha Tiger was a Salman Khan film and usually these dumb and dumber Salman starring action films are assured blockbusters.  By contrast, JTJH was a film with a dated storyline and may not have found as many takers had it not been for the block deal.  Yes, there's nothing legally wrong there but it is a monopolistic practice.  Each film ought to stand on its own in the market, whereas Yashraj has used their clout to push both films on distributors.  You cannot tie the right to distribute the film with the obligation to another, that is just blackmail.  I will choose if I want to buy either of Civic or Accord.  It's none of Honda's business to force me to buy both or none at all.  I mean, that actually goes against the principle of choice and monopolies often succeed in extracting agreements that cramp the choice of their suppliers or customers.

What's "blackmail" about it?  It might not be the ideal deal for the distributors but it's their choice whether to take it, depending on whether it is the most profitable.  It's not blackmail if Honda only offers their cars in package deals either; you have the choice to purchase a car from Honda or from another company, and if you don't want to buy both cars then there are plenty of other companies that will take advantage of Honda's marketing blunder.  As I said before, if SoS became popular then distributors might think again before accepting a similar deal next time.




Edited by Ambient Hurricanes - July 24 2013 at 20:03