Europe might break Google up

[jazzc]

No, it's when a counter-argument isn't convincing enough. And your argument is NOT. We can safely move along, if you wish...

Repeating the premise as a counter-argument to the argument, is not a counter argument - it's a "let's see who can shout longer" adrenaline thing.

 

[sirgold]

Repeating the premise as a counter-argument to the argument, is not a counter argument - it's a "let's see who can shout longer" adrenaline thing.

That's a possible explanation to a non-explanation, after all... And round and round it goes and round and round it goes...

 

[Trepanated]

Whoops, sorry. My bad, I misread.

If no one has ownership of the thing, then no one has the right to deny ownership to the thing, as the latter would imply ownership of the thing.

Yes, that would be correct.

So, we have an island that nobody owns and nobody can claim ownership of (of any part of it, clearly)

We are sitting in our boats around the island. My point here, is that nobody can land as nobody is allowed to claim any ownership (that's the thought experiment)

Now what?

 

[Deleted member 364366]

Yes, that would be correct.

So, we have an island that nobody owns and nobody can claim ownership of (of any part of it, clearly)

We are sitting in our boats around the island. My point here, is that nobody can land as nobody is allowed to claim any ownership (that's the thought experiment)

Now what?

Basing only on theory, it will be used as a public good until it becomes degraded to such an extent that people choose to leave it.

 

[jazzc]

Yes, that would be correct.

So, we have an island that nobody owns and nobody can claim ownership of (of any part of it, clearly)

We are sitting in our boats around the island. My point here, is that nobody can land as nobody is allowed to claim any ownership (that's the thought experiment)

Now what?

If logic applies to the thought experiment, the person who disallows the ability to claim, owns the island and he gets to decide. Otherwise, there can't be someone who disallows claiming of ownership.

 

[kypso]

Chinese still can see what is the original German car and what is the Chines replica - and buy the original German car.

K.

 

[Trepanated]

If logic applies to the thought experiment, the person who disallows the ability to claim, owns the island and he gets to decide. Otherwise, there can't be someone who disallows claiming of ownership.

You're missing the point. It's a thought experiment.

The point is that nobody owns it and nobody is allowed to claim ownership of any part of it. That's the premise, logical or not.

With that as the premise, how do we proceed?

 

[Scorpion Ghost]

About theft, is it not theft when the government tells you: "If we catch you smoking weed we'll take your money, make you jump through hoops - lawyers, judges, the system - and then we'll lock you up, or lock you up if we catch you do it again."

Or: "If we catch you driving without wearing your seat-belt we'll fine you, if it happens again take your license, etc."

And there are 100s of examples like these where a person is not harming anyone (except maybe oneself, which is one's right to do), and the government comes and steals their money, sanity, even freedom and years from their life.

You know, in the land of the free and the home of the slave...

Points is, if you're free you can do what you want to do, as long as you're not hurting anyone. And if a guy's smoking grass, he ain't hurting anyone, for example.

And the reason for all this insanity is money. Or in other words, them taking your money. End of Story.

p.s I would celebrate the destruction of the EU. The biggest enemy the European people have ever faced.

 

[Trepanated]

Points is, if you're free you can do what you want to do, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

That's a great idea. In principle.

It's great so long as everybody chooses not to hurt anyone

Unfortunately, there are many people who do want to hurt people. And want to do far worse.

Do we just give them free reign to hurt, rape and murder anyone they want?

 

[bartosimpsonio]

p.s I would celebrate the destruction of the EU. The biggest enemy the European people have ever faced.

There's no way any individual European country can compete with the USA or China. The EU may have its problems, but it's the only way countries like Spain or Portugal can compete in a global market. The EU GDP has parity with the USA. If you break that up, it becomes a bunch of loose states that have zero chance to put up a challenge in the global market. You think the EU is bad, then wait till the Chinese start imposing their 16 work hour day slave labor on you because your country is too small to impose sanctions or tax their imports. China can take on any individual European country, but they can't mess with the EU economically. That's the whole point.

 

[Scorpion Ghost]

That's a great idea. In principle.

It's great so long as everybody chooses not to hurt anyone

Unfortunately, there are many people who do want to hurt people. And want to do far worse.

Do we just give them free reign to hurt, rape and murder anyone they want?

That's what I meant.

If you're not hurting anyone, do whatever you wanna do. And if you're free you're free to hurt yourself as well.

If you're killing, raping, stealing, kidnapping, molesting, beating, just generally hurting other people, then you will be arrested and locked up (or some sort of punishment. You know what I mean, the severity of the punishment will be based on the severity of the crime committed).

I've been alive long enough to know that very few things in life are black and white, however, some things are...

Example, if a guy sniffs cocaine, no problem in my book. If a guy robs a guy in order to buy cocaine, problem.

Now, if a guy drinks alcohol, no problem. If a guy gets drunk and beats his wife and then gets behind the whee of a car (both of those things together or individually), problem.

See what I'm saying?

But the system is designed to create as many criminals as possible in order to build as many prisons as possible and to graduate/employ as many cops and judges and lawyers as possible. So basically, the system is designed to feed on blood of people. It's depressing, really, because the system is creating a Large percentage of crime... Change the system to be more fair and see the "Crime-rates" dwindle...

 

[Deleted member 364366]

There's no way any individual European country can compete with the USA or China. The EU may have its problems, but it's the only way countries like Spain or Portugal can compete in a global market. The EU GDP has parity with the USA. If you break that up, it becomes a bunch of loose states that have zero chance to put up a challenge in the global market. You think the EU is bad, then wait till the Chinese start imposing their 16 work hour day slave labor on you because your country is too small to impose sanctions or tax their imports. China can take on any individual European country, but they can't mess with the EU economically. That's the whole point.

But is that a reason to remain enslaved?

Being scared of something even bigger?

It is in Germany's interests to keep the rest of the EU (mainly the PIGS) afloat because of it's export market. However, the current EU leaves it's members in limbo of being controlled, while trying to control. The member states, themselves, are not competive as they are. They rely on the unbalanced power of the EU.

 

[Scorpion Ghost]

There's no way any individual European country can compete with the USA or China. The EU may have its problems, but it's the only way countries like Spain or Portugal can compete in a global market. The EU GDP has parity with the USA. If you break that up, it becomes a bunch of loose states that have zero chance to put up a challenge in the global market. You think the EU is bad, then wait till the Chinese start imposing their 16 work hour day slave labor on you because your country is too small to impose sanctions or tax their imports. China can take on any individual European country, but they can't mess with the EU economically. That's the whole point.

But why would I want to compete with anyone? Measure di*k sizes?

What you said makes sense, but you're talking about competing and then you say imposing.

Honestly, I won't act as if I know all that about global economics, but how can you impose anything on me? Except maybe if you tell me: "Do it or I attack/invade."

Look at it like this. I got a house with 5 kids. I grow my own food. There's a water well over there, there's some solar power stuff over there. I have enough to feed my 5 kids, and 5 more. Why would I need to compete with you that have 20 kids and can feed 20 more? And how can you impose anything on me apart from rallying your 20 kids and come in guns blazing?

And then apply that to a country.

Again, I'm not an expert in global economics or nothing. And I believe you have a strong argument on proving me wrong, and then I also believe that there are people who deal with global economics (or not) who will counter your argument. And I'll stand with those people, probably.

I hope I was clear. If I sounded sarcastic or something in my comment, forgive me, that was not my intention. I'm just having a discussion.

 

[Scorpion Ghost]

But is that a reason to remain enslaved?

Being scared of something even bigger?

It is in Germany's interests to keep the rest of the EU (mainly the PIGS) afloat because of it's export market. However, the current EU leaves it's members in limbo of being controlled, while trying to control. The member states, themselves, are not competive as they are. They rely on the unbalanced power of the EU.

And there it is...

 

[bartosimpsonio]

But why would I want to compete with anyone? Measure di*k sizes?

What you said makes sense, but you're talking about competing and then you say imposing.

Honestly, I won't act as if I know all that about global economics, but how can you impose anything on me? Except maybe if you tell me: "Do it or I attack/invade."

Look at it like this. I got a house with 5 kids. I grow my own food. There's a water well over there, there's some solar power stuff over there. I have enough to feed my 5 kids, and 5 more. Why would I need to compete with you that have 20 kids and can feed 20 more? And how can you impose anything on me apart from rallying your 20 kids and come in guns blazing?

And then apply that to a country.

Again, I'm not an expert in global economics or nothing. And I believe you have a strong argument on proving me wrong, and then I also believe that there are people who deal with global economics (or not) who will counter your argument. And I'll stand with those people, probably.

I hope I was clear. If I sounded sarcastic or something in my comment, forgive me, that was not my intention. I'm just having a discussion.

The reason countries started grouping up and forming blocs is because with globalization, they can actually impose themselves on you if you're a tiny country.

Here's one way they do it:

You produce oranges for U$ 1 an orange. You and your family have been doing it since 1850. Your country is tiny. China does not pay labor or social security and their workers will produce orange for U$ 0.01 each. Your main customer says "hey Scorpion Ghost I can buy oranges from Mr. Chang for 1% of your price, I'm dropping you".

You either lower your price brutally or you go broke. Then you say "wait I can't pay my bills working for U$ 0.01 an orange, that's robbery". You then contact your government and say "fuck this, you gotta block the chinese oranges!"

Your government says "I'm sorry, they're too big, they'll stop selling us computers if we drop their oranges".

Now, you could say "well their oranges are cheaper so the customer benefits". Well, they're cheaper because they come from slave labour and people working 16 hour days for U$ 1....

Then your country joins a big union. The big union then raises the issue with China and says "hey, you either protect your workers or we ALL stop buying your oranges". China comes back and negotiates with the union and the rules are set straight....

That's how they can impose upon you and it happens every day. That's why you see stickers saying "proudly made in the USA", because with that sticker you're saying "this product obeys OUR rules and no slave was employed in it".

 

[bartosimpsonio]

But is that a reason to remain enslaved?

Being scared of something even bigger?

It is in Germany's interests to keep the rest of the EU (mainly the PIGS) afloat because of it's export market. However, the current EU leaves it's members in limbo of being controlled, while trying to control. The member states, themselves, are not competive as they are. They rely on the unbalanced power of the EU.

In every union there's the bigger guys and the smaller. A large chunk of US GDP comes from California and Texas. Well should America kick out Georgia or Nebraska because their yearly state-wide GDP is like one week of a city like Dallas' GDP?

There's a big cost in maintaining a union. But there's the benefits. You get to be a big player.

Look at Japan's situation today. They are a large economy but they can't compete with China any more....and Japan is a US ally but has no trading bloc like the EU to protect it...Japan has a stagnated economy for the past 15 years and they can't do anything to fix it, China makes everything cheaper, faster, in greater volume because they don't respect worker rights or give zero fucks about copyrights.... Japan can't do anything about it, but the EU could, the EU can say "we won't buy your iphones because foxconn has suicides and slave labor". With a market as big as the EU, China's in deep shit if that happens, so they ended up trying to improve the foxconn factory situation for the workers....

It's the situation with Google. Some people say "well fuck the EU Google can just snub them". No they can't. The EU is as big as the US economy, and no corporation on earth can snub it. So they gotta come back and negotiate. That's the power of a union... If the USA broke up into a bunch of states, you'd have a wealthy California and Texas, and a bunch of abandoned places with no protection or power to compete.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

The EU still gets its orders from the political parties elected and the political parties elected in the EU listen to their biggest contributors. If its not in the best interest of the parties to go after google, the EU will just stfu and drop the subject.

Private interests control almost every western democratic nation.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

European nations wouldn't even need to compete against the USA they would be competing against individual states in the U.S. which isn't very hard to do. Many states in America also have income taxes,corporate taxes lots of red tape and local laws prohibiting certain kinds of businesses. The U.S. at a federal level also hurts the ability of states to get certain types of businesses.

If it wasn't for lack of knowledge on how easy it is to actually immigrate to some of the European Nations, America would have lost alot of the startups since the late 1990's.

 

[Scorpion Ghost]

The reason countries started grouping up and forming blocs is because with globalization, they can actually impose themselves on you if you're a tiny country.

Here's one way they do it:

You produce oranges for U$ 1 an orange. You and your family have been doing it since 1850. Your country is tiny. China does not pay labor or social security and their workers will produce orange for U$ 0.01 each. Your main customer says "hey Scorpion Ghost I can buy oranges from Mr. Chang for 1% of your price, I'm dropping you".

You either lower your price brutally or you go broke. Then you say "wait I can't pay my bills working for U$ 0.01 an orange, that's robbery". You then contact your government and say "fuck this, you gotta block the chinese oranges!"

Your government says "I'm sorry, they're too big, they'll stop selling us computers if we drop their oranges".

Now, you could say "well their oranges are cheaper so the customer benefits". Well, they're cheaper because they come from slave labour and people working 16 hour days for U$ 1....

Then your country joins a big union. The big union then raises the issue with China and says "hey, you either protect your workers or we ALL stop buying your oranges". China comes back and negotiates with the union and the rules are set straight....

That's how they can impose upon you and it happens every day. That's why you see stickers saying "proudly made in the USA", because with that sticker you're saying "this product obeys OUR rules and no slave was employed in it".

Well, thank you for taking the time to explain that to me. It makes perfect sense.

However, I'm crazy. I find someone else having that kind of power over me Unacceptable.

So while it may not be realistic, personally I would make it so that we produce everything we need, and then trade only with countries that have the raw materials my country doesn't have or can't alternatively get.

For example, I don't have oil, I'll switch Everything to solar and wind power, cut out my dependence on you, be self-sustaining, be free! And then you can impose stuff on others, but not me, never me!

And where does that leave me? I don't need your computers, I make my own. In fact, I don't need anything from you, I make Everything I need. Now, I would gladly trade with you, but you'll adjust your prices to me for me, or you can trade with others. Because again, I don't have to trade with you, and we can play the good fences make good neighbors game

But that's just me, because I'm crazy and because I value my freedom. But I'm pretty sure people as a whole would never go for it.

And the fact that I'm crazy, which I've mentioned 3 times in this post, that's because I'd rather die than let somebody have any say in what I do or have the ability to take my freedom and fuck with me.

I mean, whatever, I'm not a politician or an economist, but looking at the economies of the world, something ain't right. Something's wrong, and whatever it is all the educated people are doing is just not working, and things just keep getting worse. So a radical solution is needed, otherwise we can all keep going down this path to destruction.

 

[madoctopus]

No. My argument is that nobody is stealing from you.

That is not an argument. That is a statement. An argument is: "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory". No matter how many times you repeat something and no matter how much you believe in it and is true for you, it does not become true and a statement does not become an argument.

But you don't need to be a multi-millionaire to move to Mogadishu, or to disappear into a jungle.

OK, here's a thought experiment:

Let's say overnight a new, large island appears in the middle of some ocean.
Nobody owns it
Nobody is allowed to take it by force and claim ownership

Everyone who disagrees with 'state' gathers around this new island in boats, because they would like to live there.

How do they proceed in a way that you think is fair?

WTF would I disappear in the jungle or go to Mogadishu? First off Mogadishu is just same shit as anywhere, except they don't give you the illusion of choice and they don't have a problem with you knowing you're their slave. This has been solved by today's developed countries' governments because they know is more efficient like this, otherwise they'd have riots all the time and nobody would produce for them.

WTF would I go somewhere else? That's like me telling you if you live in a neighborhood with rapes and killings that instead of asking and expecting help from police you should move to some other even worse neighborhood. Is that somehow a solution? Is moving to Mogadishu or in the jungle a solution? How so? Does this solve the initial problem somehow magically? Now, if there was some country where there was no downside (like super high price) to move to and not live in a "farm", then yeah that would be a partial solution for those who dislike the "farm". But even so it would not be a solution for a better world.

Thought experiment:
1. "Nobody is allowed" - in order for that to stand true, there must be an enforcer. People do or don't do shit not they are allowed or not but because that is enforced upon them.
2. Why would you assume I would want to live on that island? I want to live everywhere, travel, stay wherever I want and do what I want as long as I don't bother others. In other words what your thought experiment is presenting is the idea of a natural prison.

But fine... I'll go with it. How do they proceed in a way I think is fair? There goes the proof you don't get my point. It is not about fairness. It is about freedom. There is no such thing about fairness because fairness is unrealistic. Something is fair only as long as both (all) people involved think it is fair. The moment a single soul stops thinking it is fair, it stops being fair, even though everybody else still thinks it is far. In the Jane, John and the 20 dudes "thought experiment" of mine, fucking Jane is fair from the POV of the 20 dudes. I mean, what should they do? They have needs too... so Jane should put up and stop being such a bitch. Somebody in any situation will always consider something to not be fair. Is not about fairness, is about not using forge upon people to make them do as you wish. Coming up with a "fair" strategy for your experiment is impossible. Even trying to implement such a strategy, as fair as you might think it is, will result in having to force yourself over others.

The thing you -evidently- continue to refuse to accept by playing with the definition of theft, as if the very concept of a State wasn't something the vast majority of people strongly wanted to exist in a democracy, is that for most voters paying taxes is -all things considered- the best way to run a complex society.

No is not. Is the best way we have tested so far, that we know of. Evolution doesn't come from keeping things as they are, it comes from changing things for the better. You can choose to believe it though if you want. My argument against your case would be rather long and my "proof" would be a dissection of taxes so you see how from a $100 product, $80 are just taxes (in a cascade system) and also a dissection of how things work at state level and how from $100mil of public money spent, $80mil goes in some few's pockets indirectly (I don't mean as a bribe but through legal means). Also a dissection of various segments of the government which are money black holes and many of them shouldn't even exist in an evolved, highly technological society - e.g. wars. And this would be just the tip of the iceberg.

Because it's what the majority of people perceive that determines if the people are gonna eventually find it acceptable or not: call it theft, call it "johnny" the rest is just a futile exercise of definitions in practice... What you -personally- perceive as an intolerable robbery most people DO NOT because the majority agreed that they WANTED to have a State that does most of the acts that you -personally- find so abhorrent... It's not like the State acts on it's own out of control, it's not your buddy joe... It's steered by what the majority thinks and labels "good" vs "bad"... Therefore most are more than happy to consider "that despicable act you describe" as the most efficient way to run a society.

I agree with most of this part. Things are as they are because people are ok with them and want them. That is not my point and is not jazzc's point. Our point is you can have it however you want to have it, just don't force me to do it that way if I don't want to and don't come and throw me in jail if I don't like your way and don't shoot me.

@bartosimpsonio - the crisis is not this magical black hole where money disappeared. Money does NOT disappear. Money simply goes from somebody to somebody else. In the case of banks and the crisis, the loans on the house ended up being owned by as far as a 6th party (A sold to B sold to C sold to ... F), so far the track got lost. So, since money doesn't simply evaporate, and since $X was "lost" in the crisis and $Y was payed by the governments from citizens to survive the crisis, you have $X+$Y profit in somebody's pocket. And that's not even the important thing, that being the side effects of all this economic engineering exercise called crisis.

No, it's when a counter-argument isn't convincing enough. And your argument is NOT. We can safely move along, if you wish...

Circular logic, personal beliefs and statements are not arguments or counter-arguments. Look up "circular logic" and the list with other logical fallacies on wikipedia. You will always be able to "proove" something basing your argumentation on the thing you're trying to prove. Is like trying to prove 1=1. Also, it is not about convincing somebody. I don't care if I convince you of what I say. I don't care if you think dancing around a fire will bring rain or jerking off will make the world a better place. It is about not imposing your beliefs on others. That's where the problem is. If you think cutting your ears is a good thing I have no problem with you doing it. However, I do have a problem if you want to cut my ears as well.

Logic is a branch of mathematics and also a language. It is not based on opinions but on mathematics. Hence, you can not just make statements and just say they are true just because you say so. But that doesn't even matter. You can be true as much as you want, just don't shove your truth down my throat, I want my own truth, thank you.

The point is that nobody owns it and nobody is allowed to claim ownership of any part of it. That's the premise, logical or not.

Answer: I fart and everybody dies, hence I am the only one left and can do whatever I want. Logical or not... you said it. If you come with an illogical "thought experiment" please do not demand a logical answer... it makes no sense.

That's a great idea. In principle.
It's great so long as everybody chooses not to hurt anyone
Unfortunately, there are many people who do want to hurt people. And want to do far worse.
Do we just give them free reign to hurt, rape and murder anyone they want?

WTF did I just read... What Scorpion Ghost says and what you reply... wow! His point was exactly "if and as long as you're not hurting somebody else". Your statement above is like saying this:

Sex is a great idea. In principle.
It's great so long as everybody chooses his partner and his partner wants him too and doesn't hurt anybody in doing so.
Unfortunately, there are many people who do kidnap women, rape them and if they have to they even kill their boyfriends. And then want to do far worse.
Do we just give them free reign to hurt, rape and murder anyone they want? Maybe we should ban sex altogether.

---

Again, I am not trying to convince you of anything or change anybody's beliefs. But, you either agree you're OK with using force, or supporting the use of force, to get somebody to do what you want, or you are against it. Sorry but there are no shades of grey. And there are no but's, if's or nuances to this. You either think people are born free and should live free and do whatever their heart wants as long as they don't negatively affect others, or you think people should do what they are told to do and comply with what somebody else wants, despite what they want. Is that simple. Is not about governments, religions, societies, or any other form of organization or details, is about a very simple yet fundamental principle - freedom.