Create account

replied 2005d
The west did not define capitalism. We just observed it rise and fail. Satoshi did not invent communism.
1 / 56
replied 2004d
Dude, Capitalism is a system designed by British and Americans but they defined it incorrectly deliberately so that it appeals to people as Free Marlets sounds good but Its PROPAGANDA.
replied 2004d
You just described the problem with communism. We can point to the good done by the free market, lives saves and poverty diminished. We can point to harm done by communism.
replied 2004d
Satoshi didn't invent Communism but he USED ITS MAIN PRINCIPLE WHEN HE WAS SOLVING THE DOUBLE SPEND PROBLEM. PoW requires active WORK to get rewards not just having stake without work.
replied 2004d
Communism has nothing to do with PoW. Capitalism rewards people for work. Communism robs people for work.
replied 2004d
Black is White, War is Peace... this is what you believe. Truth is completely the opposite.
replied 2004d
Capitalism allows you to sell your labour. Communism ties it up with group needs. How do you see Bitcoin as a system that doesn't accept private property rights?
replied 2004d
FYI, private property is man made concept which goes completely against natural state of things, only things of personal use should be considered as private property.
replied 2003d
That is false. It is a very animal nature to distinguish between mine and yours.
replied 2003d
only up to a point of need. Nature has no such thing as over consumption or money, this is what humans introduced only. Animals consume only what they need, not more, humans take more.
replied 2003d
If anything humans are the only animal that manages its consumption so as to not over consume. The is what supply and demand regulate. Animals let starvation regulate it.
replied 2003d
Again this is wrong. Overconsumption is very natural, from the cellular level up to the animal level. You going to say Australia never saw an animal over consume?
replied 2003d
What fucking animal over consumes? Give me one fucking example? What does animal consume? Food & water? Can it eat & drink more then it needs? No. How about land? Also no.
replied 2003d
I cant think of an animal that wouldn't over consume. Animals can eat until the food has run out, then they starve and die. Cats do it a lot. Cats put a lot of animals into extinction.
replied 2003d
That is not over consumption by an animal, there is a natural balance in nature which is what humans have disturbed. No individual animal over consumers... some people do. You get it?
replied 2003d
I get that you have no idea what you are talking about. Animals over consume all the time. Individual animals, and species. Animals can destroy an ecosystem. Look to Australia.
replied 2003d
Let me repeat, ONE ANIMAL DOES NOT OVER CONSUME, species as a whole can, but there is NATURAL BALANCE which makes those animals that eat too much, they die out and balance restores.
replied 2003d
In nature you have no private property, you have no inheritance, you have no money... you are just too stupid I guess, to understand this.
replied 2003d
GPS tracking of wolves in six different packs around Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota, which shows how much the wolf packs avoid each other's range
2
replied 2003d
An animals territory is its private property.
2
567
replied 2002d
You and every moron that liked this post, are just too stupid.
replied 2002d
Do you even have a reason to believe that is not the case? You just demand people now to your word? You could try backing up your aim instead of demanding people accept your word.
replied 2002d
You have said plenty of really stupid things, therefore you are stupid. And if some person likes such stupid comments, it means they are stupid also. This is basic logic which you lack
replied 2002d
I've taken basic logic courses. Have you? Do you really think you have used any logic to come to your conclusions?
replied 2003d
I guess it is because I listen to the experts who study animals instead of making bold assumptions as you do.
replied 2003d
Animal can fight & need to protect territory (if territorial animal) but it doesn't own it, when it dies that land is used by other animals.
replied 2003d
Animal also needs to defend its territory and it can only do so up to a limit, if territory gets too large, it can't be defended by the animal so easy, so there is natural limit there
replied 2003d
The limit is irrelevant. It is still the animals territory, and the animal will kill to defend it. So there you go. Natural property.
replied 2003d
Limit is very relevant, because its NATURAL LIMIT which again, human's don't "obey" one person having a whole continent is not fucking normal... do you get it yet?
replied 2003d
No one person has a continent. Also, who are you to decide it isn't natural?
replied 2003d
SILENTSAM.... YOU ARE DUMB AS A FUCK... PLEASE.... STOP REPLYING TO ME AND JUST GO FUCK YOURSELF
Fnuller15
replied 2003d
If you want an echo-chamber, then Memo is not the right place for you
5
2,212
replied 2003d
Quit saying so many incorrect things then. Especially since obvious mistakes.
1
567
replied 2003d
The British Monarchy colonized Australian continent you stupid fuck... and more than that... is that good enough proof that you are so fucking stupid? Who am I to decide? Who are you?
replied 2003d
The British empire was not a single person. Is your mistake obvious yet?
replied 2003d
Also, once again, when that animal dies, territory is not inherited or still owned by it. Do you get it yet?
replied 2003d
Nothing wrong with inheritance at all. It is actually a good thing.
replied 2003d
Again wrong. This is the very thing that allows people who are born into rich families who got rich from exploitation to not having to work at all and continue to exploit others.
replied 2003d
Inheritance is earned and deserved. A right worth killing over.
1
replied 2003d
Humans are only species where some human can own whole continent (like the fucking British Monarchy for example), because they exploited & killed other people & stole territories.
replied 2004d
No one created any part of this planet or anything within it, which means no one should own any part of the planet, you should own only what you create yourself.
replied 2004d
And that is exactly what is wrong with it because you are selling your effort/work/labor/energy for LESS then what you deserve, because the capitalist who did no work wants to exploit.
replied 2003d
The capitalist either did work,or did invest, and that investment is just as important as the labour, and sometimes more important.
1
546
replied 2003d
You are truly very ignorant. Investment is NOT WORK, get that into your thick head and money alone produces NOTHING and WORK ONLY PRODUCES EVERYTHING.
replied 2003d
Investment > work. Labour without the right tools doesnt accomplish much. Investment brings the right tools. Work alone accomplishes very little.
replied 2003d
No it is not you stupid moron, you are really talking out of your ass, what did people do when there was no money? Can you build a house if you had no money? Of course you can.
replied 2003d
You can build a house without money, but you can build a house a lot faster and easier by buying better equipment. A back hoe can dig more than guys with shovels.
replied 2003d
So you admit that you are wrong? Money doesn't create anything, money is mad mane concept, it is just UNIT of exchange, measurement of value just how SI units are measures of something
replied 2003d
I admit I showed you were wrong. Investment gets a lot more done than work alone, and I explained that. Investment decreases the amount of work required. Therefore investment > work.
replied 2003d
Sorry... you are stupid as fuck. I think your IQ is less then 80. You can't even understand basic concepts... you are THAT STUPID.
replied 2003d
Funny how when I prove you wrong you just flip your kid. Seems you inwardly admit you were wrong since you are incapable of defending your position.
1
567
replied 2003d
WORK is what creates and builds... not money. If you still don't get it and you still think money is what does the work, you are just too stupid so please stop replying to me.
replied 2003d
I guess I just understand construction far better than you. It is pretty obvious you have no experience with these things.
replied 2003d
You stupid moron.... only think you understand is how to write shit.
replied 2003d
I actually have experience in these issues. That is why, unlike you, I know what I am talking about.
replied 2003d
You are by far the most ignorant and quite frankly, highly uneducated person I have talked to, you are completely talking out of your ass & I am tired of trying to make sense into you.
replied 2003d
I actually am educated. I majored in physics and minored in philosophy and political science. Maybe you should spend more time thinking than assuming you are correct.
replied 2003d
That is where you are wrong. The value of your labour is not determined by the price of the product sold.
replied 2003d
The value of labor is in energy needed to produce something. If some worker used all of his energy to produce something, he should get all the rewards.
replied 2003d
Anyone can work hard. Not everyone can work smart. If you are dumb and work hard it doesnt make your labour more valuable. If no one demands your labour it isn't valuable.
replied 2003d
This is about as wrong as it could be. The value of labour is set by supply and demand. If it can be done by anyone then its value is low. If only a few can do it the value is high.


About Privacy Terms Stats