I did as soon as I heard it proposed that mere possession of child porn would be made illegal.

It's not rocket surgery, you know.

Growth is when something is better than it was minus maintenance. When you say you can't grow the economy forever you are right in a sense (sun ending, heat death of the universe etc.) but wrong in the sense that you actually mean. Further growth is only impossible when everything and I mean everything is exactly like everyone wants it. Then your silly talk about further growth being impossible might be wroth listening to. As it is you should probably go suck a tailpipe as you're not good for much else.

Also, growth in monetary terms must be higher than inflation otherwise your company is losing. Being static is fine but it still requires a monetary growth equal to inflation.,

Why are you defending the "justice" system?

All it takes for almost any women to put almost any man in lockup for several days is their word. That is not reasonable and it is not something to defend.

What does the floating barrel have to do with accuracy during movement? Either I've missed something fundamental or you have. The point of a floating barrel is that there is nothing affected by temperature or humidity touching the barrel along its length. It's still attached to the receiver (?) and it's a fricking thick walled metal pipe that doesn't care about a few G's this way or that way. At least not in comparison to the general innacuracy anyone would have when on the run/move.

You fucking retard. Dioxin was a contaminant of agent orange it was not the actual agent.

What you say is mostly true but it's also clear that most who claim to be socialists have no idea what socialism means.

When I was about six years old I upended a pot of boiling water on my woolen clad foot. All I got was a second degree burn on my big toe. Please tell me how the fuck an adult gets third degree burns from tea.

What about me who appreciates both a milkshake an my own special concoction of campari, angostura bitter and tonic water but still dislikes beer. Hell, I can drinl angostura neat.

ATM though I've only been drinking semi cheap polish vodka which is suprisingly tasty. Called Zubrowka if anyone is interested. I might be reaching my limits though as I'm responding to this.

That's just because we're in the infancy of social networking sites or more generally in the infancy of the internet itself. At some point (which we may or may not have reached) things will stabilize and we'll see a single or a few large players that will dominate for a long time period. Compare this to any new industry, be it automobile or even personal computers. They all start out with insane diversity, shrink and stabilize to a few large players which usually gets complacent and/or makes mistakes and get taken to the cleaners by some upcoming company which will then be the new large player until they screw up.

You deserve a response but I'm tired as hell ATM and that mass of text requires me to step out of the browser.

I'll respond later tonight or tomorrow.

We are obviously on opposite ends of the political spectrum. You seem to be some sort of anarchist, mutualist or just generally socialist while I'm a minarchist with anarcho-capitalist leanings. So there is almost zero chance of either of us denting the other's opinions and views.

I consider most of what you wrote so insanely contra-factual and fantastic that I'm not even going to respond to the claims that I consider more difficult to oppose as I don't see much point in even trying to debate when we are so far apart.

I'm not saying the entire world is wealthy, only the countries with decent institutions and freedoms (i.e. capitalism) have most of the wealth. BUT even the poorest of today in capitalist countries have a living standard (in some or most ways) that is higher than even the rich had in the 1800's. Granted much of this is due to industrialism but it isn't a fluke that the capitalist west is the most industrialized.

Not having enough food or at least toiling 12 hours a day in the fields for just enough to eat and not much else was the norm. And that's if there wasn't a drought or some other calamity that disturbed the cultivation. You need to go to gapminder and look at actual stats to realize how fucking far off the mark you are. http://www.gapminder.org/

I make shit wages. I do various physical labor but mostly construction. I'm more or less the equivalent of a Mexican outside a hardware store in the US but with more job security. I need to work about two hours to eat (very well) in a day. If we're talking the cheapest possible but still nutritious (as in calories, proteins and vitamins not the whole foods kind of nutritious) I could probably get away with half an hour worth of labor. Food is not a problem in the capitalist parts of the world.

Trade by definition must be voluntary (voluntary in this case=without external coercion) otherwise it would not be trade. It would be called forcible exchange of goods or something like that.

Of course the sweatshop workers choose to work in sweatshops! The alternative is starving or toiling in the fields for 12 hours a day. Or working for some local firm which pays much poorer wages than a western company does. All the western world had sweatshops in the dawn of industrialization and there was no-one forcing people to work in the factories or the cottage industries. People voluntarily moved from a life of being farmers to a life of being industrial workers.

Pure capitalism demands an unemployment rate that is equal to the percentage of people who are unwilling to work at current wages or are in the process of switching jobs.

I live in Sweden you insensitive clod!

We have something like 25% open (which means massaged numbers) unemployment among young people. This is due to all the wonderful regulation that makes it impossible to fire people and the marginal effects (that might be the wrong term) of the high taxes. You have no fucking clue what a 48% tax burden (the 48% is of GNP the middle class is taxed about 60%) does to an economy. You have no clue what generous unemployment benefits does to the willingness to work. You have no idea what the regulation of rents does to the availability of apartments. You have no idea what it's like to deal with state health care. If you break say your wrist it's not uncommon to have to wait for 4 or more hours to even see a doctor. In fact rich people and our wonderful equivalent of congressman all have private health insurance because the state care requires so much time spent waiting. Lastly you should not underestimate the free boost Sweden got from having an intact industrial base after WW-II and the fact we weren't particularly socialist until after 1970.

If you're going to look at a nordic country look at Denmark they seem to be managing much better than we do.

I can't remember the exact title but I have and it was called. "Nationalekonomi för nybörjare" if I remember somewhat correctly.

Are you telling me that the severity and frequency of economic downturns have decreased since we came off the gold standard? Crisis in the 80's, crisis in the year 2000 and a crisis in 2008.

I don't agree with current mainstream economics and I've made no claim to do so. But someone that still spouts the labor theory of value would get enormous benefits from reading even mainstream economy 101. There is no need for me to muddy the waters with my own kooky views from the get go. It's much better for me to refer to something that is mainstream.

I'm more or less an austrian.

I don't really feel like debating mainstream vs austrian economics at this time I'll let you get the last word.

Yeah, I'm the one that contradicts what economists have held true for 200 years without proof. The burden of evidence lies on you. You need to explain why to people trade voluntarily without both getting a benefit.

Who hasn't benefited from capitalism in absolute terms? If you're interested in relative numbers I suggest you move to North Korea or another country with a similar amount of equality. Seriously I'm not being facetious or an asshole. If you really believe relative poverty is relevant you need to experience relative equality first hand. Because relative equality so far has only come in the guise of absolute poverty.

You're putting the cart before the horse. You still haven't showed me the exploitation but still claim it.

Oh great, the marginal theory of value. A theory which hasn't been used by anyone but marxists in about at least a hundred years. And you're calling me ignorant. I agree that it's a shame that capital moves more freely than labor due to immigration legislation but even with similar legal restrictions labor will still move less easily than capital by nature. It's much easier for you to send N amount of dollars to Ulan Bator than it is for you to move away from friends and family and shipping all your stuff to wherever you want to go.

I don't agree with some (maybe all) parts of the limited liability that a public company gets but stocks are useful and needed. Without the option to go public you severely limit the ability of companies to raise capital. Then you'd get even more inequality which is the same thing you say want to fight. Derivatives isn't a problem as such that's just getting a percentage in exchange for taking on risks. The problem is that this time around they wouldn't allow the fucking assholes on Wall Street that messed up go bankrupt.

Slavery is not some suffix you can tack to any phrase without destroying it's original meaning. You take on debt voluntarily and you can go out of debt at least individually but since our banking system (fractional reserve banking) is a bit wonky at the moment everyone can't pay their debts off because the money supply would contract. It doesn't have to be that way but we are much better off with stocks than without, with derivatives than without and with loans than without.

No, no you don't. If you really had an understanding you wouldn't call capitalism predation and exploitation. You'd also need to explain away the insane amounts of wealth humanity has acquired since the 1800's. You'd need to explain why two people trade voluntarily if there is no benefit for both parties.

You would also clearly state that for wall street and bankers to behave the same way under a metal standard as they do under a fiat system would require fraud. So I conclude that you have studied the matter less than most who has such strong opinions.

I think you might need to read any book with economics 101 in the title. GL HF.