Weapons, poll

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Your work has no value because you consider that the work of your neighbour has no value, you have to be fair. If you see a product in a store at 10$ and beside it free of charge, you take the product free of charge as anybody else, then you consider that the work of your neighbour has no value and to be fair your own work. Say the true and be fair.

That is ridiculous and presumes that the consumption of a product is never mediated. If I see an article that is free, while the same one in the same store is priced at ten dollars, I presume that the store has paid the maker of it and is promoting the product for reasons I need not understand, or that the store has some other reason which is none of my business. I do not, after all, run the store. It has nothing to do with what I think my neighbor's work is worth. On the contrary, when I purchase something, I use money because I consider my neighbor's work (or the long and circuitous financial route to it) as worth, not what I in my selfish way might decide, but what they decide. If I buy, say, a gallon of maple syrup from my neighbor, I pay the price asked, because that is what he asks, and that is what gives him the freedom to purchase, in his own time and his own way, what he wants, not from me, but from anyone who is selling what he wants. If you respect the value of a person's work, you pay what is asked with currency that is fungible. If he asks for no money, then respect for him and his work demands that you take the gift that is offered.

Originally Posted by The Man

As noted before not all guns and bombs are made to exclusively kill people. Yet even those that aren't can quite easily. A knife is essentially a knife, the Scottish dirk often carries ones eating fork and knife along with what is almost like a Roman short sword. Lacking the sword, in battle, I have no doubt one would have used the others as much as possible.

No doubt you could cut your bread with a misericorde as easily as I've cut branches with a Swiss bayonet. And useful as is a machete for hacking through the puckerbrush, one cannot forget the Mau Mau of old or the militias of today. Still, I think it reasonable to suggest that weapons which lack reasonable alternative functions would be better off gone even if the result is not perfect. You can kill with a deer rifle, but you do not need a machine gun to hunt deer, and you can blow up a building with fertilizer but you can't enrich your field with land mines.

So I'll grant that much to Gaetan. Arms control is good. Peace is good. So, some say, is motherhood, apple pie, baseball, a chicken in every pot, and some might go so far as to include a five cent cigar. We get that part. Now, however, our sage philosopher of the good and holy must start thinking wisely about the practicalities of getting there. This, I'm afraid, has not yet occurred, and I do not harbor great confidence that it shall.

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

These weapons are not made for the purpose to ease the killing of people. I talk about weapons made as a special use to do that.

Do you have any idea how many people in Rwanda were murdered by non ‘weapons’ in 1994?
The amount is easily in the several hundred thousands. In only 100 days time!

[jimbob]

I have removed a post that completely fabricated a quote from another member. If you are changing someone's quotes, then the change has to be clear and the reason obvious; creating a strawman is not a good reason

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jimbob

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

WHOA! Please explain why the free of charge product is free.

This is one of Gaetan's repeated flights of nonsense. He claims that your taking the $0.00 item proves you don't value the work of the producer. No. You assume the gift is made for a reason and everyone in the supply chain got paid. The important question is why is it free. If, as Gaetan seems to imagine, the producer does not get paid then the person who does not value their work is the one who set the price, not the customer who takes it.

The fundamental problem with Gaetan's utopia is that it depends on everyone cooperating when all motivation to do so is removed and when every impediment to cheating is similarly removed.

I note that people who have all the material wealth they could wish for do not generally volunteer to collect trash or scrub hospital floors to help out through some sense of fairness. I mean they might altruistically volunteer to pay someone else to do it, but that can't happen in a world with no money. I wonder if Gaetan thinks they would start to do so if he became emperor of Canada.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If a country is disarmed it is not a threat to other countries, why would they attact them when they could have what they want through trade.

Perhaps because what they have cannot be secured through trade.

I would very much like your house and will trade you one small candy bar for it. If you do not accept the terms of my trade then I still want your house and will simply seize it by force.

Does that sound fair enough to you ?

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

If a country is disarmed it is not a threat to other countries, why would they attact them when they could have what they want through trade.

Because if the country is disarmed, you don't have to trade with them: you just invade, occupy and take it all for free.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

Because if the country is disarmed, you don't have to trade with them: you just invade, occupy and take it all for free.

This is what the barbarians did in the past but we are in 2022 and these are no longer methods used today. The reasons for wars today are caused by the fear of threats of all kinds, nuclear, bacteriological, military, not to steal their resources which they may have through trade.

[Gaetan]

You fellows can say that you want to pay for products but you take the free of charge product as anybody else then the true is that you don't want to pay for the labor of your neighbour then you can't charge for your work to be fair. What you agree to do and what you want to do are two differents things.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

You fellows can say that you want to pay for products but you take the free of charge product as anybody else then the true is that you don't want to pay for the labor of your neighbour then you can't charge for your work to be fair. What you agree to do and what you want to do are two differents things.

No, as people have repeatedly pointed out that simply is not true!

We are not in the stone age where we only trade neighbor to neighbor. Of course I want to get stuff free, but this has nothing at all to do with whether I believe the maker's work has value or not. I want someone else to pay what the work is worth. And that's exactly what happens, and happens often. For reasons that may or may not be valid, about which we need not agonize, a business decides it would be to their net benefit to give something away. It might be a loss leader product, a promotion, or a door prize. It does not matter. They decide to defer one profit in the hope of another, but this does not mean that the laborer is cheated. The decision is local to the business. It means that a capitalist has made a decision, and we would be fools not to avail ourselves of it.

Once long ago, I went to the grand opening of a propane distributing business, thinking about buying propane to heat my workshop. They were giving away door prizes, and I got a brand new water heater! Did they steal that water heater from the manufacturer? NO. They paid for it just as they paid for all the ones they sold off the floor. Did they stiff the laborers who built it? NO. We can't say for sure what the water heater manufacturer did, but that manufacturer sold the goods to the business, and the business paid for it just as they did for all the others, and made a business decision to give one away, hoping that it would get people in the door, and result in the profitable sale of propane. As it happens, it got me in the door, but I decided propane was too expensive to heat my shop, and stuck with kerosene, and sold the water heater at a yard sale, since my shop is waterless. None of this transaction hurt any of the laborers who built the water heater.

This has been explained over and over again. If you see a product in the store that is being given away, next to the same product that is being sold, accept the giveaway. The maker was paid the same for both. And if the store has been around for a while, you can be quite sure that the decision is profitable to the store, even if you, personally, do not contribute to the profit. Take it. It's free for a reason, but that reason is emphatically not the fallacious one you keep bringing up.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

This is what the barbarians did in the past but we are in 2022 and these are no longer methods used today.

Have you thought for even a moment about why these are not the methods used today?

Did human beings change into some different kind of less barbaric animal, or did society gradually develop power structures which reduce that kind of barbarism? (Clue: it's not the first one.)

It's sometimes a shock but shouldn't be a surprise to learn how close we are to fearful savagery if our modern society begins to break down. You want to destroy modern society and have the deluded idea that things will just turn out fine instead of reverting to the levels of violence which used to be entirely normal.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Your work has no value because you consider that the work of your neighbour has no value, you have to be fair. If you see a product in a store at 10$ and beside it free of charge, you take the product free of charge as anybody else, then you consider that the work of your neighbour has no value and to be fair your own work. Say the true and be fair.

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

WHOA! Full stop. You do not put words in my mouth/post.

My work does have value. My neighbor's work has value. Just because I cannot play an instrument and my neighbor can't fix computers doesn't mean that we don't value each other's work.

Addressing the second part of your post, if there are two products that are exactly the same, yes I would take the free one. I am conserving my resources. However, if there are two products made by two different manufactuers, then it's different. If I like Light Beer #1 and don't like Light Beer #2, I will not pick up free Light Beer #2. If Pasta Sauce #1 has mushrooms and sausage, but Pasta Sauce #2 has only sausage, I'm getting Pasta Sauce #1.

Edit: Please explain why the free of charge product is free.

Once again your post is wrong. Please answer my question.

You have the following people: Prime Minister of Canada, nuclear physicist, nurse, actor, janitor, fire fighter, police officer, fast food employee, waiter/waitress, cook, chef, electronic engineer, ditch digger, park ranger, secondary school teacher, professor, football player, triathlete, musician, sandwich maker, landscaper, retiree, taxi cab driver, rancher, corn farmer, potato farmer, cotton farmer, agave farmer, rice farmer, video game designer, sailor, real estate developer, priest/rabbi/nun, meat processor, hazardous materials removal worker, coal miner, sewage technician, plumber, garbage collector, rendering technician, mechanic, bus driver, shoe salesman, retirement home worker, construction worker, oil drill worker, Dept/Bureau of Motor Vehicles customer service representative, insurance adjuster, carnival ride operator, disabled person, and someone who is always wrong.

Using your "plan", explain how each person's work value is determined.

Originally Posted by Gaetan

You fellows can say that you want to pay for products but you take the free of charge product as anybody else then the true is that you don't want to pay for the labor of your neighbour then you can't charge for your work to be fair. What you agree to do and what you want to do are two differents things.

Answer my two requests.

Please explain why the free of charge product is free.
Using your "plan", explain how each person's work value is determined.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

This is what the barbarians did in the past but we are in 2022 and these are no longer methods used today.

Tell that to Vladimir Putin.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Using your "plan", explain how each person's work value is determined.

It is determined by the price you want to pay and you always want the product to be free of charge unless you are unhealthy.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Tell that to Vladimir Putin.

Putin doesn't want the ressources of Ukraine, he wants to get rid the arms NATO put over there.

[8enotto]

Products are usually of different grades and quality if generally the same item.

A generic pork and beans is not the same as brown sugar baked beans. I would not take free low end product over paying for a premium product. If only the low end product was available, maybe take the free, maybe pass waiting for better.

In fact I probably would leave the free lower end product for people more in need.

In a no money climate there is no incentive to make a premium product. You won't be compensated for trying harder and becoming noteworthy.

People love to be compensated for excelling at thier art. It takes more effort, more ingredients, more tools of the trade but pays bigger rewards for better results.
Stroke my ego material, you paid more for my product because it is better. Do that enough and I may expand my product line.
We reward each other in the exchange.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by 8enotto

Products are usually of different grades and quality if generally the same item.

In my exemple it is exactely the same product and has to be. You shouldn't think that the free of charge product is expired or of bad quality.

Quote:

In fact I probably would leave the free lower end product for people more in need.

Congradulation you would rather the free of charge product but you'll leave it for people in need.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

It is determined by the price you want to pay and you always want the product to be free of charge unless you are unhealthy.

Of course you want to pay nothing, and many people don't care whether the people doing the labor are fairly treated or not. More important in a non-slave economy is what you are willing to pay for what you want.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Putin doesn't want the ressources of Ukraine, he wants to get rid the arms NATO put over there.

He wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. Everything that Ukraine is, he wants.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

It is determined by the price you want to pay and you always want the product to be free of charge unless you are unhealthy.

Please explain why the free of charge product is free.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

In my exemple it is exactely the same product and has to be. You shouldn't think that the free of charge product is expired or of bad quality.

Then your example is utter nonsense.

I tell you what, when it comes to beef I'll have all the ribeye, you can have the eyeballs and connective tissue.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

Putin doesn't want the ressources of Ukraine, he wants to get rid the arms NATO put over there.

You are wrong again.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by The Don

Then your example is utter nonsense.



I tell you what, when it comes to beef I'll have all the ribeye, you can have the eyeballs and connective tissue.

I seem to remember from a previous time around this argument that Gaetan does not eat meat. But the same argument can be made with any food. Tomatoes, grapes, cheese, strawberries... I'll have the really delicious ones which are more effort to produce and Gaetan can have the mass produced ones which look impressive but taste of nothing. Because that's completely fair, right Gaetan?

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by bruto

More important in a non-slave economy is what you are willing to pay for what you want.

A society with money is a slave economy because nothing is voluntary, you are forced to work if you want to eat, have a home and a decent live. You can't have what you want unless labor is associated to it. In a gift economy work is voluntary.

[Gaetan]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

He wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. Everything that Ukraine is, he wants.

This is a lie but if it would be true it would'nt bother the people who live there, you can eliminate the borders of Canada it doesn't bother me.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

A society with money is a slave economy because nothing is voluntary, you are forced to work if you want to eat, have a home and a decent live. You can't have what you want unless labor is associated to it.

That would also be true if you were Robinson Crusoe living alone on a desert island and fending for yourself. It's nothing to do with money or slavery.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

This is a lie but if it would be true it would'nt bother the people who live there, you can eliminate the borders of Canada it doesn't bother me.

The "borders" of Canada are not plural. There is only one. And it is, I repeat, the longest unmilitarized border in the world, for a reason. Hate the US as you might, it is no threat to Canada, and Canada, armed though it is, is no threat to the US. The border is accepted by both sides, accepted by a treaty honored by both. To suggest that this situation is similar to that of Ukraine is ridiculous.

[Little 10 Toes]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

It is determined by the price you want to pay and you always want the product to be free of charge unless you are unhealthy.

I noticed that you purposely missed answering my request. Is there a reason?

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Little 10 Toes

Please explain why the free of charge product is free.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

This is a lie but if it would be true it would'nt bother the people who live there, you can eliminate the borders of Canada it doesn't bother me.

Wow! It sure is amazing at how continue to publicly demonstrate your incredible ignorance on so many different issues.

In this case, your attitudes are definitely not the same attitudes that are held by the other 7.9 billion people in the world.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by bruto

The "borders" of Canada are not plural. There is only one.

Alaska?

Dave

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Alaska?

Dave

Still the US border

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Still the US border

But not contiguous.

Dave

[jond]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

This is a lie but if it would be true it would'nt bother the people who live there, you can eliminate the borders of Canada it doesn't bother me.

You are utterly and entirely ill informed and very very wrong. I have a Ukrainian mother and daughter living with me now, for as long as they need to be here. We just finished a video chat with her husband who had to remain behind to fight. I can absolutely positively guarantee you that the vast majority of the Ukrainian population does not want to live under Russian control. And that was before the genocidal maniac Putin invaded. Everything you have posted is as wrong as wrong can be. Grow up.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Gaetan

It is determined by the price you want to pay and you always want the product to be free of charge unless you are unhealthy.

In the real world, the value of something depends on what someone is willing to pay for it. That's clearly not the same thing.

In your fantasy world, how do you force the seller to accept what the buyer wants to pay instead?

This is a perfectly serious question. You seem to think "it depends on the price you want to pay" is some kind of explanation, but it isn't, it's insane. What force will you use to compel the seller to go along and give their property away for nothing? If someone says to you "I want to buy your house and I am willing to pay you this dried up apple core" will you just move out and wish him happiness in his new house?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

But not contiguous.

Dave

Of course you can look at it more than one way, but the fact remains that Canada borders only one other country, and whether that border is contiguous or not, it is with the same country, under the same rules and treaties.

[Ziggurat]

Simpsons did it.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[The Don]

Originally Posted by jond

You are utterly and entirely ill informed and very very wrong. I have a Ukrainian mother and daughter living with me now, for as long as they need to be here. We just finished a video chat with her husband who had to remain behind to fight. I can absolutely positively guarantee you that the vast majority of the Ukrainian population does not want to live under Russian control. And that was before the genocidal maniac Putin invaded. Everything you have posted is as wrong as wrong can be. Grow up.

Good for you

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jond

You are utterly and entirely ill informed and very very wrong. I have a Ukrainian mother and daughter living with me now, for as long as they need to be here. We just finished a video chat with her husband who had to remain behind to fight. I can absolutely positively guarantee you that the vast majority of the Ukrainian population does not want to live under Russian control. And that was before the genocidal maniac Putin invaded. Everything you have posted is as wrong as wrong can be. Grow up.

What The Don said.

Well done and pass on the best wishes of an internet randomer to their family

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Yup, I have no idea how old it is probably 1930s at the youngest.

Also a short handled billhook. Without the sharpened back. But also 80 years old at least.

I have a cargo hook that belonged to a great-uncle who brought it to Cable Street.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by bruto

For the abundantly obvious reason that motivates the countries that are doing it right at this very moment and always have, for political power and territory and resources. Of course they use perceived and imaginary threats, but Viet Nam did not threaten the US, nor did Czechoslovakia threaten Germany, nor did Manchuria threaten Japan, nor does Ukraine threaten Russia, nor did Kuwait threaten Iraq. Taiwan does not threaten China, but I doubt that will help them much in the long run.

History is full of instances where a well armed nation finds it easier to invade for its oil and rubber and lebensraum than to pay for them.

I see from your response to The Man that you're walking back the weapons a bit more. If hunting weapons are not in your weapon eradication program you're going to have limited success in stopping gun crimes. Note that I quite approve of partial measures here, and that's quite all right. But you need to be aware of what you're saying. Fewer people will shoot each other, but that's not to say none will.

The nukes will.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by catsmate

I have a cargo book that belonged to a great-uncle who brought it to Cable Street.

Hook?
Which side?