Taking things from white people

[oyarde]

Lithuania and Slovenia are poor? But they're homogeneous populations and are almost 100% white. Surely baed on your theories of racial purity = prosperity they should be bastions of oppulance.

median monthly income in Lithuania is about 1950 , in US 3660. I somehow doubt it dictates poverty. We'd need to know what it buys , if beer is 3.00 there and 7 here , maybe not as bad as it looks.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Power is the goal, and money is the means. Without money, one may end up in Section 8.

No. You have it just exactly backwards.

Money cannot be a means to power unless power is prior to money. (One cannot buy what does not already exist.)

Without power in the form of the application of physical force (i.e., labor) to the matter of nature, there can be no goods or services for which money would serve as a unit of account.

Without power in the form of (the threat of) the application of violence to enforce contracts and agreements, and to protect property from robbery, etc., there can be no free market in which money (or even just barter, for that matter) would be useful for trade.

Without power in the form of (the threat of) the application of violence to expropriate property from its rightful owners, there can be no kleptocracy under which money (or any other resources) would be plundered.

The power to make, trade, or steal is necessarily prior to making, trading, or stealing - thus, power is an absolutely necessary precondition for the creation, use, or plunder of money (which, again, is merely a unit of account that "stands for" the value of something else - such as power).

 

[PAF]

No. You have it just exactly backwards.

Money cannot be a means to power unless power is prior to money. (One cannot buy what does not already exist.)

Without power in the form of the application of physical force (i.e., labor) to the matter of nature, there can be no goods or services for which money would serve as a unit of account.

Without power in the form of (the threat of) the application of violence to enforce contracts and agreements, and to protect property from robbery, etc., there can be no free market in which money (or even just barter, for that matter) would be useful for trade.

Without power in the form of (the threat of) the application of violence to expropriate property from its rightful owners, there can be no kleptocracy under which money (or any other resources) would be plundered.

The power to make, trade, or steal is necessarily prior to making, trading, or stealing - thus, power is an absolutely necessary precondition for the creation, use, or plunder of money (which, again, is merely a unit of account that "stands for" the value of something else - such as power).

Power [the conquest of] may be a "precondition". But without the resource [money/apples/copper/etc.], whatever perceived power, or the desire to have it, doesn't amount to hill a beans. Furthermore, possession is still 9/10ths.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Power [the conquest of] may be a "precondition". But without the resource [money/apples/copper/etc.], whatever perceived power, or the desire to have it, doesn't amount to hill a beans.

I've already addressed this point a few times, most recently in the very post to which you just replied (bold emphasis added):

Without power in the form of the application of physical force (i.e., labor) to the matter of nature, there can be no goods or services for which money would serve as a unit of account.

Hill of beans or towering mountain, some degree of power is always necessarily prior to the possession (or creation, use, trade, theft, etc.) of resources.

Furthermore, possession is still 9/10ths.

9/10ths of what? The law?
The law as enforced by what means?
By the application of power?

Yes, I agree.

Without power, there can be no possession - of money, or of anything else.

 

[PAF]

I've already addressed this point a few times, most recently in the very post to which you just replied (bold emphasis added):

​

Hill of beans or towering mountain, some degree of power is always necessarily prior to the possession (or creation, use, trade, theft, etc.) of resources.



9/10ths of what? The law?
The law as enforced by what means?
By the application of power?

Yes, I agree.

Without power, there can be no possession.

Death and taxes. Chicken, egg.

Ok, we can go round and round forever, let's call it a draw. We're probably talking past each other anyway ;-)

Plus, Swordy's back on and it's more fun

 

[Occam's Banana]

Death and taxes. Chicken, egg.

Ok, we can go round and round forever, let's call it a draw. We're probably talking past each other anyway ;-)

Plus, Swordy's back on and it's more fun

That's fine by me. At this point, there's not much I can do except repeat myself.

I'll just leave off with one more thing:

If, as you stated earlier, "power is the goal, and money is the means" - that is, if money comes before power - then nobody can have had or exercised any power before money was invented. But that is clearly absurd. Thus, money does not come before power, QED.

 

[PAF]

That's fine by me. At this point, there's not much I can do except repeat myself.

I'll just leave off with one more thing:

If, as you stated earlier, "power is the goal, and money is the means" - that is, if money comes before power - then nobody can have had or exercised any power before money was invented. But that is clearly absurd. Thus, money does not come before power, QED.

Well, if you're talking about green backs, I guess ok. But money can be green beans, which existed before power - and probably even before people were invented.

 

[PAF]

But that is clearly absurd. Thus, money does not come before power, QED.

Rebuttal?

....money can be green beans, which existed before power - and probably even before people were invented.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Well, if you're talking about green backs, I guess ok.

No, I am not talking about "green backs".

I am talking about "money" - i.e., any medium of exchange used as a unit of account.

But money can be green beans, which existed before power - and probably even before people were invented.

At this point, there's not much I can do except repeat myself.

*sigh*

Without power, there can be no possession - of money, or of anything else.

 

[PAF]

No, I am not talking about "green backs".

I am talking about "money" - i.e., any medium of exchange used as a unit of account.

Without power, there can be no possession - of money, or of anything else.​

​

​

That does not negate the fact that the green beans existed before power. Green beans already existed, and some dude then decided that he could then possess them, and use them to an advantage, or not if person decided to just eat them and not trade for power, of which power did not come into existence until the advent of money/green beans/whatever.

Sigh, indeed.

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Lithuania and Slovenia are poor? But they're homogeneous populations and are almost 100% white. Surely baed on your theories of racial purity = prosperity they should be bastions of oppulance.

Poor, by comparison. Again, ratios, capita and averages.

70 years of Soviet oppression didn't help either.

Answer honestly: If you had only one choice, would you rather live in Vilnius or Harare?

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Construction for New Titans Stadium Halted After 'Racist and Hateful' Symbol Found

Construction on the new Tennessee Titans stadium has come to a screeching halt after a noose was found on the site, according to reports.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Anti Federalist]

Discount Yakub.

 

[TheTexan]

Discount Yakub.

Goddamn that is one Somali looking mother fucker

 

[sparebulb]

Discount Yakub.

 

[Anti Federalist]