A topic for traders. - page 227
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
What is the problem, when a child is born it is clear who its mother is, the family (if not in the forest or field). Why should society let go of the identification of its individuals. It is toxic to society. And what is digital slavery? I don't believe in profiling criminals, though. Too much money spent on research with no result, well or a deplorable mistaken result in real life.
Identification is useful, but now it's already going way beyond identification itself, growing to universal tracking, with the associated risks of abuse.
Ha ha, a pact between wolves and lambs?
Well, at least in theory: the individual entering society accepts some restrictions, but not for nothing, but for the purpose of winning, to increase the eventual comfort/security of his life. If he does not like it, he simply leaves that society. In practice, the states have grown so big that there is actually nowhere to go, and the exit itself is bureaucratically complicated, so that in fact the states take advantage of their citizens, taking advantage of the fact that most of them cannot vote with their feet. So the social contract becomes a fiction for the majority and free competition is broken.
And what is changing, when I studied history at school, I also believed that the differences were significant, but for some reason without an analysis of living standards, rights and property ownership. Compare yourself, the Eastern despotisms and the same Greek democracy, in terms of rights there is a qualitative difference, but in terms of the relative living standards of the strata of society of both, the differences are within reasonable limits. The standard of living is more influenced by the development of the society itself in various aspects, rather than by the system. And yes, both there and there, everywhere the society is heterogeneous. The institution of coercion is everywhere and always. Sometimes it is a tyrant dictator, sometimes it is the majority, sometimes it is the law. What is the difference? Coercion is everywhere coercion.
Would it be strange to expect the ancient Persians to drive cars and communicate with iPhones, while the Greeks were running around with spears at the same time? Nevertheless, if we deviate to the north, we could find cannibalism and other atrocities among wild peoples living in dugouts and yurts at the same time. Also Persians were much richer than Macedonians-Greeks, it seems it was a funny episode, when Alexander after the battle captured once so much gold, that it was estimated more than the value of his state, but I can't remember the exact reference about who wrote/told that. OK, let's now compare the average income and standard of living somewhere in Bangladesh and in a decent country. The social structure is also very different everywhere, you wouldn't say that Congo today (a republic, by the way!) is the same as France (also a republic!) - well, that's ridiculous, and I actually don't even know what you are hoping for, trying to equalize all types of social structure.
Yes, conflict-free AND motivating, not OR. Apparently I've got it wrong. Slaves had little motivation)
And of course motivation and development leads to conflict, so it is also correct that conflict from development is not toxic to society.
What is toxic to society, can you clearly explain?
Well to our sheep) The pack is just an example of the different rights of pack members.
Not exactly, a pack has a leader, there are alpha males, and also look for example at the relationships within the monkey pack, there are clips on youtube, there are hierarchies.
How is it that there are no legal foundations in a tribe, but chiefs, wives, hunters, etc. Or according to you rights can only be printed and without writing they didn't exist at all? Or were they only needed for property conflicts? Rights started with wives and a better life for everybody, property was still a long way off. And then, with the development of society, these rights started to be protected by laws.
As far as I know there is no such official scholarly concept as a legal tradition, there is a concept of customary law, but it is far from a codified law, such as the Russian Pravda or the Hammurabi or Codex Runicus of the Danites-Normans, there is a difference. Without writing as a rule there are no laws, because without writing there is no state. For a state is an accounting and control of resources, which is impossible without writing. Try to remember one state without writing, hmm? The only unique example is the Incas, but they had a knotty handwriting too. Every new state either borrows writing from their more developed neighbours or uses an established traditional writing system. That should be obvious. As for the emergence of writing, on the example of Sumerian cuneiform, it is noted that at first they were notations for household and trade needs, which gradually evolved into abstract signs. Thus, even here we see that trade precedes the emergence of a full-fledged state and law. Not to say that wild peoples traded without any law. Property and a satiated life as well as women - in ancient times, it was all on a par with property, you have to understand that. Nourishment does not just come by chance, food is also property, all of a sudden.
The personal problem of the individual proletarian is not interesting, and I don't agree that it is THEIR problem. It could also lead to cataclysms if you put everything on the proletariat. They do not decide their own fate.))
In order to ensure that the proletariat does 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 is nothing special about that.
What is a mediocre life? Who defines the criteria for mediocrity? What about the fact that different people may have different criteria? How fair/admissible is it to evaluate life as an outcome, and is not life itself self-sufficient? I also suggest that we reflect on the fact that a reasonable creature may have been "created" for happiness as a supreme value and not for labour as a necessity. By placing man in a compulsory labour context, you are treating man as a tool if you oblige him to work.
Public opinion apparently determines the level of success or mediocrity after the obituaries) For some reason it is considered that to leave nothing behind is either not fully lived or mediocre, but further, hard and mediocre, full and happy and mediocre.
Of course, man as a part of society is placed in the obligatory context of obligations to society. On this statement, everybody seems to have noted in different variations. Without these obligations/restrictions of freedoms, there will be no society.
Public opinion apparently determines the level of success or mediocrity after the obituaries) For some reason it is considered that leaving nothing behind is either not fully lived or mediocre, but further in particular, hard and mediocre, fed up and happy and mediocre.
Yes, understandably, it's respect for outstanding representatives, but in no way the value/meaning of life and nothing to do with sins.
Let me write more directly for you personally: - do you condemn the status of a rentier/investor for example and why? (and then there will be a special conundrum, 😉 )
Of course, the individual as part of society is placed in the obligatory context of obligations to society. Everyone seems to have checked in on this assertion in different variations. Without these obligations/restrictions on freedoms, there would be no society.
Well, do you think society's obligations to the individual exist, or is it unimportant? 😀
Yes, it is clear that in practice, it is easier to simply change jurisdiction to a more comfortable one, or to become financially independent of the territory, than to stage revolutions.
This is, of course, wrong. There is, for example, a black market among bandits, what legitimacy is there? There may, of course, be some concepts and some tacit agreements, but it is not a full-fledged law. Or the Chukchi come to the Eskimos to trade: there is trade, no laws.
In practice, it is better not, but things do not always work out equally well for most non-bad individuals.)) The law of non-uniform sets.
It is incorrect of you to give theses that only work in an ideal society/market, and then call a gangland showdown a market.
The black market has as much to do with the market as the life of embryos on their way to the egg.))
Identification is useful, but it now goes far beyond identification itself, growing into universal tracking, with the corresponding risks of abuse.
Well, at least in theory: an individual entering society accepts some restrictions, but not for nothing, but in order to win, to increase the comfort/security of his life in the end. If he does not like it, he simply leaves that society. In practice, the states have grown so large that there is actually nowhere to leave, and the exit itself is bureaucratically complicated, so that in fact the states take advantage of their citizens, taking advantage of the fact that most of them cannot vote with their feet. So the social contract becomes a fiction for the majority, and free competition is broken.
We are talking about identification, and the side effects are of course harmful, but it also has many benefits. Laws are just being formed for side effects.
About leaving... Even the wolf from the pack is difficult to leave, the hunter from the tribe is also forbidden to enter freely, and you about the states) Citizenship is given like a good thing and refusal is perceived as a betrayal.... It's normal for any community to care about its numbers).
In practice, it's better not to squares, but things don't always work out equally well for most non-fleshly individuals.)) The law of non-uniform sets.
It is incorrect of you to give theses which only work in an ideal society/market, and then call a gangland showdown a market.
The black market has as much to do with the market as the life of embryos on their way to the egg.))
Don't get your head in a twist, I was just giving an example where there is no law and there is a market.
What's gangsterism got to do with it at all? You're trying to skip over with the switch of terms, it's not nice. There's a gang war on the organised market too, then.
There's supply and demand in the black market, it all works the same way.
Your argument is powerless.
We are talking about identification and the side effects are certainly harmful, but it also has many benefits. For the side effects, the laws are just being formed.
I agree that there are pluses, but man is gradually turning into a bio-unit, and it is sad.
As for leaving... Even the wolf from the pack is difficult to leave, the hunter from the tribe is also forbidden to enter freely, and you about states) Citizenship is given like a good thing and refusal is perceived as a betrayal.... It's normal for any community to be concerned about its numbers).
It's hard for a wolf, and there are animals that don't live collectively. Leaving the tribe before is not the same as emigration today. Athens, for example, used to expel citizens, a well-known fact, and generally ostracism is a well known topic. And citizenship of different countries has objectively different value, and therefore different cost. I won't even comment on betrayal, 😁 it's some archaic remnants you have...
Would it be strange to expect the ancient Persians to be driving around in cars and communicating with iPhones, while the Greeks were running around with spears at the same time? Nevertheless, if we deviate to the north, we could find cannibalism and other atrocities among the wild peoples living in dugouts and yurts at the same time. Also Persians were much richer than Macedonians-Greeks, it seems it was a funny episode, when Alexander after the battle captured once so much gold, that it was estimated more than the value of his state, but I can't remember the exact reference about who wrote/told that. OK, let's now compare the average income and standard of living somewhere in Bangladesh and in a decent country. The social structure is also very different everywhere, you won't say that Congo today (a republic, by the way!) is no different than France (also a republic!) - well that's just ridiculous, and I actually don't even understand what you are hoping for, trying to equalize all kinds of social structure.
What is toxicity to society, can you explain it clearly?
Not really, in a pack there is a leader, there are alpha males, and also look for example at the relationships within a monkey pack, there are clips on youtube, there are hierarchies.
As far as I know there is no such thing as a legal tradition, there is a concept of customary law, but it is far from a codified law like the Russian Pravda or the Hammurabi or Codex Runicus of the Danites - there is a difference. Without writing as a rule there are no laws, because without writing there is no state. For a state is an accounting and control of resources, which is impossible without writing. Try to remember one state without writing, hmm? The only unique example is the Incas, but they had a knotty handwriting too. Every new state either borrows writing from their more developed neighbours or uses an established traditional writing system. That should be obvious. As for the emergence of writing, on the example of Sumerian cuneiform, it is noted that at first they were notations for household and trade needs, which gradually evolved into abstract signs. Thus, even here we see that trade precedes the emergence of a full-fledged state and law. Not to say that wild peoples traded without any law. Property and a satiated life as well as women - in ancient times, it was all on a par with property, you have to understand that. Nourishment doesn't just come for nothing, food is also property, all of a sudden.
If the development of society in the Congo wasn't different from France, there wouldn't be much difference. But given that development is different, so are the arrangements and standards of living. But there are many things 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 the structure of society as a result of the standard of living of the layers of society, especially if they are relatively compared.
Toxicity is destructive / harmful.
Well we have antagonism here. The legal foundations / customs of a tribe are certainly not codified, but are the progenitors of codified laws. One proof is that the first laws are aimed at preserving the power of the rulers. The state is a concept given by scientists, and for some reason they have defined it to societies with writing, apparently because without it there is no clarity in the structure of society. But this is only a concept. And you're right about serifs. That is current a clear transition, were serifs, appeared the written language nobody has fixed while, because understand that this transition long enough that it can be fixated. As well as the statement that the state appeared with writing has no proof.
Yes, wives and a good life is a pleasure, it is what one gets from possessions, spears, weapons, animals, slaves, soldiers, houses, lands. These are the possessions. If we classify property as a means of obtaining goods and pleasures