How I think we will abolish money.

[black_wing_angel]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

Kiumaru

And I call it a pretty big con if I can be killed by an armed teenager along with 25 other people in 40 seconds.

And yet, it only takes one well placed bullet, to stop him dead in his tracks.

But in the time between, they can kill a lot more effectively. If he, for instance, had to go around and try to kill people with his bare fists or with some sort of bladed weapon, it would be a lot harder for him to even kill one or two people before possibly facing retaliation.

Yep. See, we can go back and forth with this, all damn day long. It only further proves my point, that guns are neither bad, nor good. They do just as much potential good, as they do potential bad.

Besides, if I wanted to kill 20 people in under 40 seconds, I don't need a gun. Just something explosive. And you'd cry if you realized how easily that need can be met.

[N3bu]

black_wing_angel

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

Not entirely true, actually. States like Vermont and Florida, which have moderately relaxed carry laws, seem to have the lowest crime rates.

The answer to crime is not to take the guns away from all people, but to give them to good people.

The answer to crime is to foster such a culture so that crime isn't such a prevalent phenomenon and, thus, reduce the need to be armed at any given moment.

"To ensure peace, is to prepare for war."

"The best weapon, is one you never have to use."

The more you have a weapon, the less you have to use it. Criminals don't like ******** with people that can actually stand their ground effectively. That's why houses with signs specifically stating that the occupants are armed, tend to not get burgled, as often.

That's a totally simplified analysis of crime. The entire argument that guns have anything to do with crime is largely over-simplified and probably flat out wrong.

It's a much large socio-economic phenomena.

[Kiumaru]

black_wing_angel

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

Kiumaru

And I call it a pretty big con if I can be killed by an armed teenager along with 25 other people in 40 seconds.

And yet, it only takes one well placed bullet, to stop him dead in his tracks.

But in the time between, they can kill a lot more effectively. If he, for instance, had to go around and try to kill people with his bare fists or with some sort of bladed weapon, it would be a lot harder for him to even kill one or two people before possibly facing retaliation.

Yep. See, we can go back and forth with this, all damn day long. It only further proves my point, that guns are neither bad, nor good. They do just as much potential good, as they do potential bad.

And I think the potential bad that they have far outweighs the potential good which makes them bad in my view.

[black_wing_angel]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

Kiumaru

And I call it a pretty big con if I can be killed by an armed teenager along with 25 other people in 40 seconds.

And yet, it only takes one well placed bullet, to stop him dead in his tracks.

But in the time between, they can kill a lot more effectively. If he, for instance, had to go around and try to kill people with his bare fists or with some sort of bladed weapon, it would be a lot harder for him to even kill one or two people before possibly facing retaliation.

Yep. See, we can go back and forth with this, all damn day long. It only further proves my point, that guns are neither bad, nor good. They do just as much potential good, as they do potential bad.

And I think the potential bad that they have far outweighs the potential good which makes them bad in my view.

*shrug* Ok then. Duly noted, and disregarded as irrelevant.

[Kiumaru]

black_wing_angel

*shrug* Ok then. Duly noted, and disregarded as irrelevant.

Hey, you're the one who turned my changing of a metaphor into a discussion about guns.

I was taking their metaphor of money being like guns (they were arguing that what was done with money was merely a crystallization of human nature) into one where the advent of guns (money) made things that were never before possible, possible.

The advent of a monetary system shifted how we think and act. It's not as if money appeared in some sort of vacuum and never influenced us. The introduction of something new tends to influence how we act, and money has certainly done that.

[black_wing_angel]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

*shrug* Ok then. Duly noted, and disregarded as irrelevant.

Hey, you're the one who turned my changing of a metaphor into a discussion about guns.

Indeed I am. I made my point. You made yours. At this point, it's completely irrelevant.

I was taking their metaphor of money being like guns (they were arguing that what was done with money was merely a crystallization of human nature) into one where the advent of guns (money) made things that were never before possible, possible.

The advent of a monetary system shifted how we think and act. It's not as if money appeared in some sort of vacuum and never influenced us. The introduction of something new tends to influence how we act, and money has certainly done that.

I wouldn't say it "changed" anything, so much as it "simplified" it.

Before money, if you had something I wanted, I'd have to trade you something I had that you wanted. If I didn't have what you wanted, I was a ******** monkey. Money simplified this issue. I could give you money for it. And you could take that money and trade it for whatever it is you actually do want.

The mentality is still the same. I want what you have, so I trade you for it. It's just a much simpler version of that concept, as I don't have to actually have the skill or product that you would want in trade. Just the catalyst that gets it for you.

[Xero Entak]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

*shrug* Ok then. Duly noted, and disregarded as irrelevant.

Hey, you're the one who turned my changing of a metaphor into a discussion about guns.

I was taking their metaphor of money being like guns (they were arguing that what was done with money was merely a crystallization of human nature) into one where the advent of guns (money) made things that were never before possible, possible.

The advent of a monetary system shifted how we think and act. It's not as if money appeared in some sort of vacuum and never influenced us. The introduction of something new tends to influence how we act, and money has certainly done that.

I am also sure that many new paradigms will spawn in the future, that will change how we act and our value system(maybe not even in our lifetime). We probably can't even imagine it at this point. The technologies that would bring about these changes are probably things we haven't imagined yet.

[Kiumaru]

black_wing_angel

I wouldn't say it "changed" anything, so much as it "simplified" it.

Before money, if you had something I wanted, I'd have to trade you something I had that you wanted. If I didn't have what you wanted, I was a ******** monkey. Money simplified this issue. I could give you money for it. And you could take that money and trade it for whatever it is you actually do want.

The mentality is still the same. I want what you have, so I trade you for it. It's just a much simpler version of that concept, as I don't have to actually have the skill or product that you would want in trade. Just the catalyst that gets it for you.

It doesn't merely change the way we do things, it fundamentally changes how we view things. Before the advent of money, it's hardly conceivable that one could evaluate their labor by means of arbitrary measures of currency. And it's hardly conceivable that one could make multinational corporations if one did not have a method by which to use arbitrary currency.

[Xero Entak]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

I wouldn't say it "changed" anything, so much as it "simplified" it.

Before money, if you had something I wanted, I'd have to trade you something I had that you wanted. If I didn't have what you wanted, I was a ******** monkey. Money simplified this issue. I could give you money for it. And you could take that money and trade it for whatever it is you actually do want.

The mentality is still the same. I want what you have, so I trade you for it. It's just a much simpler version of that concept, as I don't have to actually have the skill or product that you would want in trade. Just the catalyst that gets it for you.

It doesn't merely change the way we do things, it fundamentally changes how we view things. Before the advent of money, it's hardly conceivable that one could evaluate their labor by means of arbitrary measures of currency. And it's hardly conceivable that one could make multinational corporations if one did not have a method by which to use arbitrary currency.

Great documentary... please watch it!

[N3bu]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

I wouldn't say it "changed" anything, so much as it "simplified" it.

Before money, if you had something I wanted, I'd have to trade you something I had that you wanted. If I didn't have what you wanted, I was a ******** monkey. Money simplified this issue. I could give you money for it. And you could take that money and trade it for whatever it is you actually do want.

The mentality is still the same. I want what you have, so I trade you for it. It's just a much simpler version of that concept, as I don't have to actually have the skill or product that you would want in trade. Just the catalyst that gets it for you.

It doesn't merely change the way we do things, it fundamentally changes how we view things. Before the advent of money, it's hardly conceivable that one could evaluate their labor by means of arbitrary measures of currency. And it's hardly conceivable that one could make multinational corporations if one did not have a method by which to use arbitrary currency.

The way we view things are just mostly abstract simplifications. Valuing your labour in terms of money is essentially the same as valuing it is terms of barter. The realism of the the situation, that is that the "value" of something is what can be obtain for it, is an almost pointless definition these days dealt with by economists, money just simplifies that paradigm for "normal" people.

That simplification enables larger Economic outcomes then thought possible as the cost of transaction is greatly reduced, hence the ability to create massive multinationals.

[black_wing_angel]

Kiumaru

black_wing_angel

I wouldn't say it "changed" anything, so much as it "simplified" it.

Before money, if you had something I wanted, I'd have to trade you something I had that you wanted. If I didn't have what you wanted, I was a ******** monkey. Money simplified this issue. I could give you money for it. And you could take that money and trade it for whatever it is you actually do want.

The mentality is still the same. I want what you have, so I trade you for it. It's just a much simpler version of that concept, as I don't have to actually have the skill or product that you would want in trade. Just the catalyst that gets it for you.

It doesn't merely change the way we do things, it fundamentally changes how we view things. Before the advent of money, it's hardly conceivable that one could evaluate their labor by means of arbitrary measures of currency. And it's hardly conceivable that one could make multinational corporations if one did not have a method by which to use arbitrary currency.

Well, a slave-owner could be seen as an ancient form of corporation. Clearly not multinational, but that's more due to technology.

As far as how to evaluate labor charges, it was still a matter of trade. Just not as easily regulated. Instead of getting paid $5 an hour to pick apples, you probably got to enjoy a given portion of the rewards. If you were picking apples, you probably got to keep a few. If you were cleaning someone's house, you probably got permission to use some of the provisions there-of.

Money didn't change the concept of payment for services. Just simplified the evaluation of it.