Chapter 15
Non-Force Capitalism
Jimmy Pena (rand@starlight.ingress.com) wrote:
Challenge
You are correct that I don't need to know how a computer works to use it, but I am still just a parrot, typing on the keys, using something that I don't understand. I do, however, need to know what capitalism is, and its justification, in order to be a capitalist. If I practice capitalism, but base it upon my belief in god's will, for example, then I'm only doing what my god says, not capitalism.
Response
I understand you're point, but think it's irrelevant in practice. The essence of capitalism is non-force. If you base it upon your belief in god's will, what the hell do *I* care? As long as you continue to subscribe to it (and its inherent base of non-force).
If you can rejuvenate the cells or preserve the youthful qualities of the physical body, then there is no rational reason not to.
If someone is dying or dead.
Challenge
"If someone is dying or dead" what?
Response
The debate you're carrying on with yourself is aimed at the cells and the physical body itself. My contention is that your debate should broaden to include (and primarily so) your consciousness itself, as it is what gives you the capacity to even have the debate in the first place. Of what value would losing it be?
Challenge
You're equivocating on the meaning of the word value. It's the same thing as the anarchy debate: Are competing pharmacies the same thing as competing governments? Similarly, can value be taken away from the natural world its in and put into situations it doesn't apply? Or rather, since death is a disvalue, we should eliminate it? Maybe I could make my criticism simpler to those reading this if I said that earthquakes are a disvalue, so we must eliminate them. But that's confusing the metaphysical with the man-made. Natural phenomena (or disasters) can't be fully eliminated, except in a deterministic universe. The best we can do is minimize the threats created by natural disasters and emergencies. We can eliminate the human-made, but not the metaphysical.
Response
Well, frankly, you've got tunnel vision. You see the future as being the same as today, only with fancier cars and quicker computers. The reality is that given sufficient time and knowledge gathering, we will be able to prevent or protect ourselves from the natural disasters you're mentioning. If you disagree, I ask "why not"?
Regarding value and disvalue, here's the bottom line: Death is a disvalue to me, for if it occurs in my life, I will have no further opportunity for happiness. So I will do whatever I can to eliminate it.
(If our entire earth population thought this way with only a few fringe groups thinking otherwise, how long do you expect it would take to double human life span? Triple it? Quadruple it?)
Challenge
Calling someone a "capitalist" presupposes that they understand capitalism. Otherwise, they aren't capitalists. You can't use it or know it if you don't understand its context.
Response
I disagree. If two people freely trade their goods by mutual consent, they are capitalists, whether they even have words to describe the process.
Capitalism, if you know what it means, is based upon individual rights.
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com