PSNI Brothel Raids - Most Were Not Brothels - wtf?

[ZeroWedge]

In capitalism, objects have both use value and exchange value. Ability to pay, costs of production, costs of reproducing the productive resources, and desire for the object / its usefulness determine the price /exchange value.

Exactly right. And if those factors determine a zero price/exchange value, then the answer to that is not to tax people or force them to pay for something, that they dont put any value on.

If money was abolished, there would need to be an agreed means of distribution, with basic needs being prioritised.

Basic needs already are prioritised. Humans, like all animals, are self prioritising. Just as the birds in the fields spend their days foraging for their "basic needs". People are capable of providing for their basic needs. You dont need a government committee to make your breakfast for you each day.

[ZeroWedge]

Based on this gem of wisdom, we would have to conclude that the following are all "usefull" items:

- weapons of mass destruction
- barbie dolls
- car bumper stickers
- replica football team outfits
- national flags
- the Republican Party
- recorded speeches by the Pope
- reprints of Mein Kampf
- Books by David Irving
- anti aircraft missiles
- child pornography
- blue smarties
- Heroin
- landmines
- etc

Indeed, there is a market for those. But where did I say every market demand should be catered to? I didnt.

Natural law, aka ethics, aka morality dictates that no person has the right to initiate violence on another person. Irrespective of whether he can profit from it through some market.

[Ephilant]

Natural law, aka ethics, aka morality dictates that no person has the right to initiate violence on another person. Irrespective of whether he can profit from it through some market.

Natural Law obviously doesn't work all that well... Or the theory isn't up to scratch?

[ZeroWedge]

Natural Law obviously doesn't work all that well... Or the theory isn't up to scratch?

It worked fine for thousands of years. The "state" with all its "statutes" only came into existence at the end of the 19th century, to wage wars on other states. Thats when leftwingers started ordering people around, and acting like they are mini gods.

[C. Flower]

Exactly right. And if those factors determine a zero price/exchange value, then the answer to that is not to tax people or force them to pay for something, that they dont put any value on.

Basic needs already are prioritised. Humans, like all animals, are self prioritising. Just as the birds in the fields spend their days foraging for their "basic needs". People are capable of providing for their basic needs. You dont need a government committee to make your breakfast for you each day.

That used to be true, up to a point. People who are sick, old, too young to work, are in education etc. still have to eat. There is a certain amount of planning and redistribution of earnings to cover these things.

And now that we have gone beyond hunter gatherer, subsistence, living, there are shortages and surpluses of agricultural product to be managed.

These things are organised socially, not by individuals, as they require the work of many people to be co-ordinated.

[ZeroWedge]

And now that we have gone beyond hunter gatherer, subsistence, living, there are shortages and surpluses of agricultural product to be managed.

The shortages of food are only in the communist countries, like the famine in China in the 1970s. In a free market, suppliers respond to the rising price caused by approaching shortages, to produce more, or import from areas where there are no shortages.

These things are organised socially, not by individuals, as they require the work of many people to be co-ordinated.

All human activity is by individuals. They may hide behind a corporate entity, but the decisions are made by individuals.

Coordination of the work of many, is done by individuals responding to price signals. People will aggregate themselves into organised social units, when it is in their interest to do so. You do not have to force them to act collectively.

Government force is immoral and unethical. Behind it lies threat of violence and imprisonment.

[Ephilant]

It worked fine for thousands of years. The "state" with all its "statutes" only came into existence at the end of the 19th century, to wage wars on other states. Thats when leftwingers started ordering people around, and acting like they are mini gods.

How do you get from "markets decide" over "morality" and "ethics" controlling those markets to do the right thing (quite an amusing thought in it's own righ, as the only thing that drives markets is profit, and most definitely not morals or ethics) to states being run by leftists are mini gods waging wars? And only after the 19th century?
There was no war before the 19th century? A bit like there was no sex in Ireland before TV, is it?

[Seán Ryan]

The shortages of food are only in the communist countries, like the famine in China in the 1970s. In a free market, suppliers respond to the rising price caused by approaching shortages, to produce more, or import from areas where there are no shortages.

All human activity is by individuals. They may hide behind a corporate entity, but the decisions are made by individuals.

Coordination of the work of many, is done by individuals responding to price signals. People will aggregate themselves into organised social units, when it is in their interest to do so. You do not have to force them to act collectively.

Government force is immoral and unethical. Behind it lies threat of violence and imprisonment.

It's not really about what's in their interest. It's about their interest being decided for them and in them seeing that it is in their interest to not do otherwise.

I agree absolutely with your last sentence.

[ZeroWedge]

There was no war before the 19th century?

I didnt say that. Thats the second time youve put words into my mouth.

I wont be responding you any further. Please stay off the thread unless you have something to contribute.

[Ephilant]

The "state" with all its "statutes" only came into existence at the end of the 19th century, to wage wars on other states

I wont be responding you any further. Please stay off the thread unless you have something to contribute.

This is not the first time you feel the need to resort to crudeness and barking at people. May I suggest a few basic manners would not go astray with you?

[C. Flower]

I didnt say that. Thats the second time youve put words into my mouth.

<Mod>

If you don't want to read someone's posts, there is an "ignore" option.

If you feel that posts are contrary to forum rules, please report them.

Telling other posters to stay off threads is not an available option.

Thank you.

[C. Flower]

[quote]

The shortages of food are only in the communist countries, like the famine in China in the 1970s. In a free market, suppliers respond to the rising price caused by approaching shortages, to produce more, or import from areas where there are no shortages.

This is not the case. That is exactly what the British said about Ireland in the Famine and huge numbers died. Agriculture was a combination of export by ranchers and wealthier farmers, and subsistence by small plot holders.

There is hunger across much of the capitalist world. Millions in the US are dependent for a poor diet on food stamps. Africa has no socialist states but hunger and famines regularly take place. States like Georgia, that were until privatisation food exporters, now have a majority of their population dependent on subsistence farming on small plots.

All human activity is by individuals. They may hide behind a corporate entity, but the decisions are made by individuals.

Humans take collective, as well as individual decisions, by accepting the will of the majority, by brainstorming, or delegating to a chosen person.

Coordination of the work of many, is done by individuals responding to price signals. People will aggregate themselves into organised social units, when it is in their interest to do so. You do not have to force them to act collectively.

Responding to need, in many cases. And certainly they don't have to be forced.

Government force is immoral and unethical. Behind it lies threat of violence and imprisonment.

There is always the implicit threat of force by the State.

A properly organised collective society, in which everyone had a proper say, and in which everyone was able to defend themselves, would not need State forces.

[Sam Lord]

Natural law, aka ethics, aka morality dictates that no person has the right to initiate violence on another person. Irrespective of whether he can profit from it through some market.

"Natural law" and ehics are two entirely different conceptions. I'm interested in what your understanding of natural law is and from where it derives.