A topic for traders. - page 228
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
So that the proletarians do not revolt, they are given enough to eat and live more or less comfortably, as you wrote above. Of course, no one wants to go overboard, everyone understands that, so they feed them. At every point in time in every era, resources are unevenly distributed, with the best getting the best. There's nothing special about it.
You yourself believe it) The distribution of non-uniform dynamic sets is random. And you argue that we apparently have a uniform dynamic set of individuals, maybe even with linear dynamic laws, so only the best can live well))))
I have nothing against the well-fed living, but I can't call them the best because of a rather random distribution).
You yourself believe it) The distribution of non-uniform dynamic sets is random. And you argue that we have apparently a uniform dynamic set of individuals, maybe even with linear dynamic laws, so only the best can live well))))
I have nothing against the well-fed living, but I can't call them the best because of a rather random distribution).
The half-wit son of a deputy lives contentedly, but a clever worker with higher education during 20 years of work in a factory can't take the place of a foreman - the management has enough of their own.
Such is the distribution.
The half-wit son of a deputy lives well, but a smart worker with a university degree in 20 years of work in a factory can't take the place of a foreman - the management has enough of their own.
Such is the distribution.
Vitaly, is there lawlessness in Vinnitsa?
If the development of society in the Congo was not different from that in France, there would not be much difference. But given that the development is different, so are the arrangements and standards of living. But they have a lot in common. Societies are not stratified, they have the upper strata, the middle strata and the lower strata. There are no cardinal differences. Cannibalism or election is not a difference in social structure as a result of living standards of layers of society, especially if they are relatively comparable.
OK, so now you acknowledge the differences after all, whereas previously you said that all societies have "roughly the same structure". 😉
Toxicity is destructive / harmful.
What exactly is destructive / harmful?
Well we have an antagonism here. The legal foundations / customs of a tribe are of course not codified, but are the progenitors of codified laws.
Right.
One of the proofs is that the first laws are aimed at maintaining the power of the rulers. The state is a concept given by scientists, and for some reason they have defined it to the societies with writing, apparently because without it there is no clarity in the structure of society. But this is only a concept.
In science, a notion is endowed with concrete sense and it is compared with the objective phenomenon. Nobody argues that the first primitive monarchies, and not only the first ones, tried to strengthen their power. And what is the need for power, other than the possession/control of resources or lands or people? The word "power", as you can see, is in the Russian language, even one-kin to the verb "to possess", for a second. There is no power without a resource base, otherwise power is meaningless. In other languages, you may notice that the word "power" is almost synonymous to the word "force", e.g. in German, English and most languages, it is either "power" or "possession". Let's say you have power, you have gathered a force of 500 loyal warriors and what are you going to do? Of course you are going to take the neighbouring region by force, then the whole region. Why would you do that? There is only one answer: to own resources. So the relation of ownership is primary to the law. There is no law yet, but you already own what you have seized. The relation of ownership is an economic category. Economics always precedes law.
You are walking on this rake every time...
Vitaly, is there lawlessness in Vinnitsa?
I don't know, I was there last time in May 2012.
Do you believe it yourself) The distribution of non-uniform dynamic sets is random.
Why would it be? What do you mean by random? And what exactly are"irregular dynamic sets"? Do you think that people's income levels arise by chance?
And you argue that we apparently have a uniform dynamic set of individuals, maybe even with linear dynamic laws, so only the best can live well))))
On the contrary, I'm just saying that the best get the best, i.e. those with more skills and talents have a better chance of becoming richer/more successful. That should be obvious.
I have nothing against the well-fed living, except that I can't call them the best due to a rather random distribution).
Define "the best" first, what do you mean by it? Perhaps you are trying to move into moral and ethical categories? That's another thing altogether.
OK, so now you acknowledge the differences after all, and earlier you said that all societies have "roughly the same structure". 😉
What exactly is destructive/harmful?
Correct.
A concept in science is endowed with a specific meaning and juxtaposed to an objective phenomenon. No one disputes that the first primitive monarchies, and not just the first ones, sought to consolidate their power. And what is the need for power, other than the possession/control of resources or lands or people? The word "power", as you can see, is in the Russian language, even one-kin to the verb "to possess", for a second. There is no power without a resource base, otherwise power is meaningless. In other languages, you may notice that the word "power" is almost synonymous to the word "force", e.g. in German, English and most languages, it is either "power" or "possession". Let's say you have power, you have gathered a force of 500 loyal warriors and what are you going to do? Of course you are going to take the neighbouring region by force, then the whole region. Why would you do that? There is only one answer: to own resources. So the relation of ownership is primary to the law. There is no law yet, but you already own what you have seized. The relation of ownership is an economic category. Economics always precedes law.
You keep walking on these rakes...
I wonder why you and Valeriy Yastremskiy are so annoying in this thread.
И правильно заметили про засечки. Вот тока четкого перехода, были засечки, появилось письменность никто не зафиксил пока, потому что понимают, что этот переход достаточно долгий, что бы его можно зафикисить.
Maybe you don't know, but modern archaeology knows quite clearly. 😁
Just like the claim that the state came into existence with writing has no proof.
It's a shame that you're spouting such pearl-lapses... 😥😫
Read the history of the ancient world... Sure proto-states like tribal unions were without writing, but if you trace carefully you will see that they quickly acquire writing.
Yes, wives and a contented life is a pleasure, that's what one gets from possessions, spears, weapons, animals, slaves, soldiers, houses, lands. These are possessions. If you classify property as a means of obtaining goods and pleasures
Well, now you will be forced to admit that property, objects of possession in the general sense, including wives and slaves, along with other objects of possession, being a value and an economic category - are primary before the formation of laws that regulate relations of possession.
Excellent, you have refuted your own original thesis yourself, congratulations.
😉
I wonder why you and Valeriy Yastremskiy are being so annoying in this thread.
Why not. Who doesn't like it, don't read it. Go back to the factory.
Why not? If you don't like it, don't read it. Go back to the factory.
I mean, you can't just do that. You need something else.