🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@KingShawn

Maybe biden should consider actually earning our vote then rather than just relying on him being not trump.

@SkepticalScience Its almost like you describe the same thing with more than the same pair of words all the time... weird how that works.

@freepeoplesfreepress

Its not as simple as forgetfulness.. .it is full on senility. He can no longer speak clearly, sometimes looks confused, there is a video out there showing him constantly trying to shake hands with people who arent there... Whatever experience he has his fine, but the man clearly is in severe mental decline and no longer able to call on that experience effectively.

@TruthSandwich

@AdrianRiskin

I shouldnt need to tell you, these terms are well defined. So it isnt something I or you get to have an opinion on.

Capitalism is where both the means and distribution of production can be privately owned, and free-markets are enforced.

There is of course some room for interpritation of what "free market" means, but generally its accepted as either unregulated, or regulated to ensure all players have equal opportunity in negotiating trade.

Since soviet russia had the means of production as state-owned it is not by definition a capitalism.

> I'm only claiming that capitalists must enclose Capitalism implies enclosure. The fact that the converse is occasionally true is irrelevant.

Still not true by the definition of capitalism. It is enclosed in all societies to some degree whether capitalist or not because it is a good thing for society, something we generally all agree on. But no there is nothing inherent about capitalism that would require it. Land ownership is **not** a requirement of capitalism by definition.

@jeffowski

@AdrianRiskin

You say you understand it, then your explanation proves you dont. Since you dont seem willing to learn ill just leave it there. Thanks for the conversation, best of luck to you.

@jeffowski

@AdrianRiskin

> Soviet Russia was a capitalist society. There are no billionaires without capitalism.

Again, wrong. You only need money, not capitalism, for billionairs.

> Without enclosure there's no reliable labor force to exploit, so no capitalism. This is why there has never in history been a capitalist economy without enclosure. The fact that there can be enclosure without capitalism is a non sequitur. You're confusing my claim with its converse.

Either you really dont understand what enclosure of the commons means or you dont understand what capitalism means.

For starters there has never been **any** form of government that didnt have some degree of enclosure of the commons, capitalism or otherwise.

Second even if you didnt have a closer of the common, you'd still need a labour force. In fact the idea that you wouldnt seems highly ignorant of even the most basic considerations, as if access to land were the only reason people work.

@jeffowski

@TruthSandwich I mean his mental decline is very apparent, that one is very absurd to deny.

@AdrianRiskin

Also not true.. i am sensing some pretty fundemental misunderstanding of how wealth works. It sounds like you probably beleive the common fallacy that wealth is a zero sum game. That someone can only have wealth by taking it from someone else.

@jeffowski

@AdrianRiskin

Wrong on literally all accounts...

> You can't have billionaires without capitalism. Billionaires imply capitalism.

you can have billionaires without capitalism, you only need money to have billionaires and simply having money is not enough to qualify as a capitalism.

Stalin was estimated to be worth 7.5 trillion in todays money, and that was a communistic society.

> You can't have capitalism without enclosure of the commons. Capitalism implies enclosure.

There is also no requirement for one to engage in closure of the commons for capitalism. No capitalism doesnt imply closure. One can have closure of the commons both with and without capitalism. Although generally some degree of this is a good thing anyway, so the fact that it is common both in capitalism and non-capitalism is a good thing.

> You can't have enclosure without homelessness. Enclosure implies homelessness.

You absolutely can. It is entierly possible to have some closure of the commons and still eliminate homelessness. Its also entirely possible to have no closure of the commons and still have homelessness. Having common ground doesnt necessarily mean you have the means to build a home (the resources or ability).

@jeffowski

@admitsWrongIfProven ive been working on it for 20 years, im at the home stretch now.. I might be a lot closer than you realize, lets see in a year :)

@admitsWrongIfProven

The ethics is a top concern for me as I develop it. But I dont expect it to resemble the movie storyline very much even in the worst of cases.

@olives

@lucifargundam

Fair :)

@olives

@olives

The irony is that im one of the few people actually working on a path to human-level ai (though I doubt it will be very human-like emotionally).. That said I havent gotten there yet and its a ways away given current tech.