danielsangeo

While I'm not at all a "believer" in that idea of capitalism I feel tempted to play devils advocate here. I think the most common reply to arguments of that kind are that since every company will want to take advantage of this cheap labor they'll all move there and the competition for workers will start "driving up" salaries which will eventually make the difference between the two countries much smaller (or non-existent). But, should that be our job? To drive up the wages of the rest of the world? (Just asking from a laissez-faire capitalism stance.)

I am actually a regular in the Black Mesa forums. They're not that bad...especially if you do research before posting.

I believe completely unrestrained (laissez-faire) capitalism is ultimately unpatriotic. Why do I believe that? In laissez-faire capitalism (or, let's call it "Michael Archer Capitalism"), there are no rules on business except for those against "the initiation of force". This nebulous concept however, leaves out a major problem: The cost of living in, say, the United States, is much higher than the cost of living in another country. This imbalance in the cost of living (for example, it's possible to live on $2/week in one country but impossible to live on even ten times that in the United States) leads to a "race to the bottom". Let's say I have a business. Let's also say that I have the ability to choose where to have the majority of my staff. I have a choice of: In America, hiring someone making $35k/year (minimum) or in Bangladesh, hiring someone making $3.5k/year (minimum). Both candidates have identical education and will bring an identical skillset to the position I'm hiring for. What would I choose? If I was a smart businessman, I'd hire the Bangladeshi person -- save $31.5k/year on a single position, who wouldn't?! However, if the majority of my support staff are in other countries, that means that people inside the United States are going without a job. "Dey durk yerrr jerbs!" in South Park parlance. This ultimately harms America. Laissez-faire capitalism harms America. Or any other country where this happens. Isn't this an "initiation of force"? Unless the cost-of-living is identical in every country or region in the world (I don't see this happening any time soon and isn't that "socialism" or "communism"; the redistribution of wealth?), then you're going to have this problem.

There are many things one can turn to such as friends and family, a hobby or something you really enjoy....or if it's a medical condition, medicine. If I might ask, can you tell me the steps on how that happened? If that is what you need to be "a more balanced person" then I say, more power to you. However, remember (and I know you know this so I'm not so much talking to you as to anyone else): not everyone needs religion or a belief in a deity to "keep one sane". I am actually both atheist and agnostic. Agnosticism and atheism answer two different questions. Agnostics say, "I don't know" and atheists say, "I don't believe". I say, "I don't know and I don't believe." I know of agnostic theists as well ("I don't know but I believe"). They aren't on a scale, such as atheist<>agnostic<>theist. On theism, you have three options: Theism (belief), atheism (no belief), antitheism (against belief). On gnosticism, you have the same three options: gnosticism (knowledge), agnosticism (no knowledge), and ignosticism (against knowledge, but I'm not sure I'm using the right word here). Also, I find the very concept of "belief there's no god" to be a bit weird. On the subject of driving a car, you actively drive a car. If you aren't actively driving a car (say, you're watching TV at home), are you still driving? I see the same here with belief. "Not believing" is not "believing in not". You and many Christians will be looking pretty silly for not getting into Valhalla.

I was asking anyone who cared to answer. You, Michael Archer, anyone...

It wasn't a scientific theory, regardless of what Wikipedia says...because it wasn't backed by evidence. It was, for all intents and purposes, a guess.

I think that there are degrees of "wrong". Simply saying that something was "wrong" in the past doesn't necessarily mean that something "wrong" today is of equal import. Let us take "pi" as a f'rinstance. A long time ago, without much math skills, they worked out that pi=3. Later, with more refinement, they found that pi=3.1 Then 3.14. Then 3.142. Then 3.1415. Then 3.1416. Then 3.14159. Then 3.141593. Then 3.14159265.... Later, with more and more refinement (we're still refining it today), we're out into the billions of digits for pi. Does that mean that we, today, are as wrong as those that said pi equaled 3? No. Does that mean that pi=3 was completely wrong for the time it was in? Also no. It was the best available evidence at the time. Science desires...no, CRAVES...pointing out flaws. It allows refinement. Those that claim that "Big Science" is trying to "keep evidence away that challenges Big Science" just doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone that can point to a huge flaw in the theory of evolution would be the most famous scientist of their time. Millions have tried...and some have tried to introduce hoaxes such as Piltdown Man but under scrutiny, these hoaxes are quickly discarded. Evolutionary theory, like the value of pi, continues to be refined as more evidence comes in. Some things, such as phrenology, do not stand up under scrutiny and are eventually discarded as having no evidence or misusing (or even abusing) the scientific method in order to advance a conclusion. Phrenology was wrong because there was no evidence that it was right. I'd have to research "phlogiston theory" because I haven't heard of it, but I assume, at the moment, that it's similar. EDIT: Just looked up phlogiston theory. It wasn't a scientific theory at all. It was a hypothesis that fell apart under testing.

If all this was said before, then why is he still insisting on repeating the same mistakes?

My name has a sort of convoluted history. In 1994, I first subscribed to a BBS. I needed to pick a screen name and I wracked my brain trying to figure out a good one. And then the Karate Kid came on TV. Since my RL name is "Daniel" and the kid's called "Daniel-San" by Mr. Miyagi, I picked the name "DanielSan" as my screenname. This stuck with me as I got a webpage on "Geopages" which soon became "Geocities". So, a long time later, Geocities was bought by Yahoo. Yahoo eventually shut down Geocities e-mail addresses so I reregistered with Yahoo but "DanielSan" and "Daniel-San" were already taken so I took "danielsangeo". And this is how it is today.

Just a quick question. Does this include contraceptive actions such as condoms or so-called "morning after" pills? These are interventions that will kill what would otherwise not die.

Axeldeath: tl;dr: Evolution is all three: law, theory, and fact.

It's called lassiez-faire capitalism, for the record. It's French! Which isn't, really, capitalism at all. The role of the court system to objectively (capitalism is all about objectivity) determine who initiated force whom and to objectively apply retaliatory force. Bob should sue Steve, like you said, and it's not up to Steve to say if he did something; it's up for the courts to objectively determine. Why? What right does the court have to get involved in a private matter between Bob and Steve? Capitalism is a system of freedom I disagree. Capitalism is an economic model. It has nothing to do with freedom. One can be free in a socialist or communist state. Okay, let's say that the "force" is not objective. Let's say it's subjective. For example, cigarette companies. Their products have an addictive quality to them and, through the use of their products, their customers negatively affect other people ("second-hand smoke"). Are the cigarette companies initiating force against the second-hand person? Is the smoker initiating force? What if I, as a non-smoker, sue the smoker? Or the cigarette company? Am I initiating force? Should it be a class action lawsuit? Are class action lawsuits allowed? What about oil companies polluting the air? What then? Like in China? I'm not sure what I'd call that. In capitalism, corporations exist by right. In China, corporations exist by permission. That's socialism, if anything. Not really. Socialism is where the means of production are publically-owned. Just having corporations exist by permission doesn't necessarily mean that "the government" owns the business' means of production. And just because the government owns the means of production doesn't necessarily mean that it's socialism. What right does a business have to charge money for things?

So, in this "capitalist" system of yours, Michael, how does one "retaliate" against someone that wronged them if the other feels like they didn't? If Bob takes Steve to court because Bob feels that Steve wronged him in some way, but Steve doesn't feel like he did anything wrong, then isn't "the government" initiating force against Steve? Also, I haven't read the communist manifesto. Despite what you might believe, I'm a capitalist but I don't believe that capitalism has anything to do with sociopolitical theory. It is, to me, a purely economic model. You can have capitalism in an extreme totalitarian state (probably what you'd call "statism"), for example. Capitalism, to me, is simply an economic theory in which the means of production are privately owned and you can buy and sell goods and services at a profit. That's it.

Yes, it is. As others have said, scientific theory is not conjecture. Something that requires no conjecture to support Evolution. Like what? Provide an example.

I think what BTG is asking for is eyewitness accounts to the formation of the Earth as proof...or perhaps formation of life or perhaps eyewitness accounts of dinosaurs or whatever.... I'm not sure what BTG wants.

Okay, like I said in another post, define "capitalism" in your own words. Don't tell me to "look it up yourself" or give me a dictionary definition. I want you to define it in your own words.

What would you accept as proof?

Wait a moment. Are you suggesting that, without real-time eyewitnesses, there's NO WAY to know what happened in the past? The Earth was formed by material from the accretion disk coalescing into a large rock that orbits the star we call "The Sun" (or Sol). This big rock had elements from the accretion disk such as hydrogen, carbon, etc. Internal heat (caused by pressure) formed volcanoes on the surface of the rock and released steam, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and other fun stuff. This steam fell to the surface of the rock as water. Over time, organic material formed and began to grow and divide, forming the most primitive life. That life eventually evolved until we are here. This is all backed up with literal mountains of evidence.

Koocka: The church never HAD control over legal marriage but they could certainly control religious marriage all they want. Exactly the same as they got now. So, it wouldn't be taking ANYTHING away from them.

How would it take control away from the church?

"Wouldn't that mean taking control away from the church though?" Not really.

I don't feel comfortable with the church controlling me and my government like that.

I, personally, don't understand why there can't be two definitions of the word "marriage". Many English words have more than two definitions, why not "marriage"? You can have the religious marriage and you can have legal marriage. And, if it's what they want, the twain shall not meet. A legal marriage does not have to be done in a church and a religious marriage does not have to be recognized by the state. It's not like a specific religion OWNS the term and tells the government what it can and cannot do. "Throw the book at him" could mean two different things. In one context, the phrase could mean that you want to incarcerate the person. In another context, the phrase the could mean that you will be tossing a book at someone for them to read. Two different meanings, same phrase. A fork could either be a split in a road...or an eating utensil. We can have different definitions for words. And "marriage" is not strictly religious and has been around since even before Christianity. I mean, I'm a straight male and I would never get married to another guy, but that doesn't mean others can't.

I like instrumental types of rock (no singers or very little singing).

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It isn't a science. It also isn't a philosophy. It's not anything. It's the lack of something. Let's get back to those monkeys, though.