>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

To me, it is a great joke that they are buying names. What a worthless gesture. Sure it might only cost them thousands now, but lets look at something?

26 letters
10 numerals
1 hyphen (i do not know what other characters readily appear in urls)

Yay base 37!

At 8 characters long we are looking at 3,512,479,453,921 different names (or maybe that is 9 characters). Yes, that number gets considerably smaller when you have to include BOA in there, or something that represents them. However, how far can you go? The people that will go to whatever site that does exist, and not going there because it is a nice simple URL, they are going there to find out who or how this company is fucking.

This video would have been so much better with the addition of a hyphen or two in the title to make it:

"Shark-eating whale-carcass caught on camera"

Now THAT would be something to behold!

hah, I was super pissed off. I did downvote based on content ! there was non !

with my super linguistic hyphenating skills I thought I had thrown the * in the block word I wrote.

If I can take it back I would, but this is vs and foreward is the only way to go !

sorry mate!

p.s- I hate blocked videos.

I hate the fact you can waste your time on an ad and then realize you literally wasted your time because you did it for no gain to your self.

FUCK THIS BLOCKED SHIT.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^KnivesOut:

The irony will be when he gets creamed by a school-for-the-blind bus at a cross-walk.

Crosswalk isn't hyphenated.

Ewwwww, you're going to burn!


My hyphen was popped at an early age. Damn fence post.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^KnivesOut:

The irony will be when he gets creamed by a school-for-the-blind bus at a cross-walk.

Crosswalk isn't hyphenated.


Ewwwww, you're going to burn!

>> ^KnivesOut:

The irony will be when he gets creamed by a school-for-the-blind bus at a cross-walk.

Crosswalk isn't hyphenated.

Thats just so fucking jaw-dropping, double-take-inducing, bat-shit crazy, it breaks my "how insane is this idea"-o-meter and makes me use lots of hyphens.

Nutters

wrist-mounted is a hyphenate

That's pretty weird. Off the top of my head I'd have to guess that they hyphen has something to do with it. I'll have to do more research to be sure.

In reply to this comment by Deano:
Lucky, a comment about search.

It's a bit disappointing that this advanced search does not return the video I'm after;

http://www.videosift.com/search?q=fold+t-shirt&t=v&u=&o=&c[]=37&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search&pop=1

This gives 7 results but not;

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-Fold-a-T-Shirt-Japanese-Style

Any thoughts?

Is there a hyphen in anal-retentive?

>> ^joedirt:
"because UPS is an integral part of a server."
Yeah, sure. And my spare tire pressure is a critical statistic I brag about my hotrod.
Duh, the UPS has nothing to do with server operation nor power efficiency. Look at the spare tire on that Posche!!!! Wow, that's hot.


When you get a flat tire on your "Posche", it only inconveniences you (and your passengers, if any). I'd say that's a maximum of 4 people being inconvenienced, maybe 6 if you have one of those silly "Posche" SUVs.
Now, take a look at google - a single data center has capacity for 45,000 servers, and each server probably handles 10s to 100s of simultaneous requests (being conservative). Now lets say the data center loses power, without the UPS, every request is lost.
30 seconds later the generators kick in, all the machines reboot in a few minutes, and facility is back online, but in the meantime you've just inconvenienced a million people. Not really good for PR....

So for a business like Google, a UPS IS an integral part of a server.

As far as efficiency - take a 10 megawatt data center, assume you have a central UPS (for reasons mentioned above) that is 95% efficient. That means you lose 500kW of power in the form of heat. If you replace that UPS system (as a whole) with one that is 99.9% efficient, you lose only 10kW of power to heat.

To put this in perspective, the average household in America consumes about 14,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy.
That's an average of 1.6kW per hour. So by going from 95% eff to 99.9% eff UPS system, google saved 306 households worth of electricity.

The main reason for the effeciency gain is that you aren't going AC-AC-DC-AC-AC-DC, like a traditional server room, but rather AC-AC-AC-DC.
(AC = alternating current, like power lines ; DC = direct current, like batteries; hyphen represents a conversion, none of which are 100% efficient)

Rad ass-song?
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/hyphen.jpg

>> ^MINK:
^as darkhand said, it's not a mistake, it's emphasis.
another example: double negatives do not make a positive in Lithuanian, so who is "correct"? Oh, what's that you say? Lithuanian is the most archaic surviving indoeuropean language? Oh! Maybe we should all talk Lithuanian then instead of this new fangled "english" everyone is so crazy about.
You said "Very well made clip" ... look out for hyphenation, eh?


I have never claimed my English is perfect, just pointing out that rushing to the evolution defence is rather sad when one makes a mistake instead of actually admitting your mistake and trying to improve your preferred language.

And the comment on double negatives, I hope you were joking.