Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Of course there is an ongoing dialectic between something and nothing. The dialectic that lies at the heart of computing and of genetics: without the absences – such as the white bits around the letters in this comment – there would be no positive meaning. The human mind also structures its apprehensions throught relational methods between object/non object. Leaving aside the bendier aspects of relativity which suggest that light may well be everywhere at once (IIRC), if the Big Bang theory holds, then everything in space/time is related and is just the ongoing expression of the initial explosion of energy constantly transforming itself into higher and lower concentrations of entropy.
Morning,these are good questions, and I’m afraid the short answer to them is, we’d just have to debate and decide.Longer answer: see, even Von Mises et al. didn’t dispute that we could as a community simply decide what it was we wanted to consume, the basis of the argument of economic calculation rests not on end goods, but intermediates. To take your bread v. beer example, both are using wheat, and one formula, say, for beer uses 5 parts wheat whilst another uses 3 parts wheat (but uses, say, a synthetic chemical).Our opponents say we wouldn’t be able to choose between the different formulas of beer, and so we couldn’t rationally choose how to allocate our wheat (after all, opting for the synthetic chemical may commit a lot of energy and resources, far outweighing the putative savings of wheat).So, what we need to add is the idea that because information flows freely through the system, we would know the true state of supply and demand (i.e. how much wheat there is, how much demand there is for wheat, and the amount of synthetic substitute available). After all, that is all the market is meant to do already. Except where the market measures effective demand marked in money (which is subject to manipulation) we’d have real demand expressed in real units upon which to make our decisions.I hope that answers your question.
I think we are in a different position.1) Our members were able to avoid conscription by arguing a conscientious objection to war. This is a strong legal precedent.2) Our commitment to democracy obviates a lot of the tribunals objections. Even their misuse of the word revolution can be met with the example of William Hague’s “Conservative Revolution” slogan to sow that our views are compatable with a democratic society.3) As Adam says, we’re not out to take anyone’s home, or prperty, our position is we will dismantle /render useless the system of property in the first isntance. We have no intentuion of having private property of the state ‘allocated’ to people by the state. In fact, in many ways, this ruling vindicates us. Bill M.
