US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1941

On May 09 2015 16:21 IgnE wrote:


What are you even talking about? Some fictional universe where everyone starts with an equal amount of resources at t=0? Are you just complaining about the nature of democracy?

On May 09 2015 16:32 puerk wrote:
It is curious how people discover an over hundred year old thought, that works in an isolated logical framework, get almost religiously attached to it, and then claim if we would just listen to them, get rid of every social structure we developed over centuries, don't change the distribution of resources one bit and hope that everyone plays fair afterwards, all will be good.
The amount of arrogance and exceptionalism displayed in this overwhelming assumptiveness is mindboggling.

On May 09 2015 16:47 cLutZ wrote:

I was saying his hypothetical was strange. Because the definition of the "bad" anarcho-capitalist result, was just a corrupt government that had taken hold by a nearly implausible means. Two simpler means that readily come to mind are just being corrupting an already-existing government and overthrowing an already-existing government by force. And another would be establishing a government by force, if none already existed. Moreover, all of the other worst case scenarios (of corruption) seem very unlikely in a more feasible world with a small government that does stop invasions of private property.

In other words, I find it unlikely that in a relatively free market with a bare-bones police/courts system that a corporation would overthrow said government and establish some sort of autocracy.

I do think Democracy has many flaws, which is why most places have a constitution to prevent popular tyranny. Mostly I think of government as a necessary evil, which is why I advocate smaller government.

On May 09 2015 16:48 Introvert wrote:



That's more true of hardcore libertarians (perhaps better labeled as anarchocapitalists? There is significant overlap) and communists than most people here, I think.

Edit: I suppose "hardcore libertarian" is kind of nebulous and vague, but hopefully you get my point.

On May 09 2015 17:19 IgnE wrote:


A corporation "overthrowing" the government to establish another "government" is not what we are talking about here. That's like an entirely separate and comparatively uninteresting issue. Private tyranny refers primarily to economic compulsion and ordering of social structures through non-governmental institutions and cultures. That kind of tyranny destroys freedom rightly conceived, which to some extent depends on meaningful equality. What free market proselytizers always ignore is that the freedom to contract is not a freedom unless there is meaningful parity between the parties.

On May 09 2015 17:32 cLutZ wrote:


What is the mechanism, for lack of a better word, that this would occur through? We have, for instance, Wal Mart, which is a very large employer, that is still an order of magnitude too small to do what you are talking about.

On May 09 2015 17:50 puerk wrote:

May i ask you: are you arguing in good faith?

On May 09 2015 18:55 puerk wrote:
Are you actually saying that you believe there will be no problems in a society without governmental wealth transfers or economic regulation of any kind, because you have not been presented problems already in existence during law school?

On May 09 2015 19:13 cLutZ wrote:


No, I just pointed those things out because they were relevant to the questions presented. I think there are problems with societies both wit hand without wealth transfer and economic regulation. But some sort of oppressive hegemony by corporations is not one of them. That is a creation of big government, and its enabling of rent-seeking.

The actual problems of a mostly-free market are 1) Failure to internalize externalities; and 2) That certain persons within the system will not be capable of competing within the marketplace, and will end up perpetually impoverished. History, however, seems to indicated that government attempts to rectify these two, real, issues, actually make those issues worse, and create other, even more serious issues.

On May 09 2015 17:19 IgnE wrote:


+ Show Spoiler +



You seem to have missed the part about changing the distribution of resources when you refer to "communists."

On May 09 2015 19:41 Introvert wrote:


I was responding to the overall point he was making. I think both ideas fit into the narrow-ideology-religious-attachment category.

At least that's how I read it, since I think both are pie-in-the-sky scenarios. I don't think either would work even with a change in resource distribution.

On May 09 2015 18:34 cLutZ wrote:


Of course. Here is my POV: Yes "take it or leave it" offers exist, but today we have an environment that is actually very corporatist (traditionally known as Facist or Statist) and benefits large businesses via government policy, and yet most people have an option of where to buy necessities or where to find employment. Exceptions to this rule are in rural, sparsely populated, areas, or in enterprises that are highly regulated/subsidized (Roads, Utilities, Internet/Cable, Healthcare). The rural areas could implement localized regulations if those situations turned out to be too bad, and even a relatively miniscule federal government can deal with national monopolies in an essential area (Standard Oil).

When I was in law school, I saw a lot of contracts and contracts cases that had these "unequal bargaining position" or "unconscionable contract" problems. I would say the overwhelming majority are logical provisions, without which the price demanded would have been at least 20% higher. The classic case involves a secured debt and furniture, where the store extended its lien to all unpaid furniture that the person had bought using a line of credit (Williams v. Walker-Thomas). The court found this contract unconscionable when they took all the furniture after a person defaulted. The problem with this determination is that used furniture is probably hard to resell. Most are usually about warranties, and the limitations are often regarding huge liabilities which would basically make the product unmarketable without.

I think many people most often encounter this in things like Cell Phone Contracts. They are often fairly crappy for the consumer on first glance, however, if you actually look at them, without the liquidation clauses and the "lock ins" you would be paying much more for both your cell phone, and the service.

On May 09 2015 23:19 IgnE wrote:


Oh ok, now I see the problem. You think people being offered employment at Walmart have real choices about where else they can work in order to sustain their survival. It's not a "take it or leave it offer" because they can go work at McDonalds or some other corporation. And likewise, even if Walmart is the cheapest option in the area, it's not a "take it or leave it" option because the inhabitants there can always survive on milk and bread from the 7-11. I'm not talking about this narrow conception of a "take it or leave it offer" because I think wage slavery at McDonalds or at Walmart or at Target is the "take it or leave it offer," even if there isn't a justiciable remedy for it. Having "options" about where to rent yourself out as a low-wage worker is a joke because the only "freedom" there is deciding who your master is. If we refer back to the concept of freedom rightly conceived this entire discussion becomes irrelevant, because a low-wage worker in retail cannot develop his human capacities; he is essentially a machine performing labor power.

On May 10 2015 03:39 IgnE wrote:
No, many don't. You can't spend the greater part of your waking hours renting yourself out as labor power, alienating the products of your labor, and still maximally develop your human capacities in all their forms because freedom rightly conceived is a prerequisite. Working in retail robs people of purposive, planned creation, because they are spending so much time and energy simply selling their labor power to the highest bidder in return for wages that hopefully cover the bare necessities of reproduction, but often don't.

Many slaves still had fulfilling family lives, and even animals know how to relax. I'm not talking about learning the chords to Taylor Swift songs, and building a deck onto your mortgaged house on the weekend comes in spite of, not because of, the conditions of economic life.

On May 10 2015 03:39 IgnE wrote:
No, many don't. You can't spend the greater part of your waking hours renting yourself out as labor power, alienating the products of your labor, and still maximally develop your human capacities in all their forms because freedom rightly conceived is a prerequisite. Working in retail robs people of purposive, planned creation, because they are spending so much time and energy simply selling their labor power to the highest bidder in return for wages that hopefully cover the bare necessities of reproduction, but often don't.

Many slaves still had fulfilling family lives, and even animals know how to relax. I'm not talking about learning the chords to Taylor Swift songs, and building a deck onto your mortgaged house on the weekend comes in spite of, not because of, the conditions of economic life.

The funny thing is that Americans actually sense this, because the American Dream is wrapped up in fantasies of owning your own small business, having your American castle on a nice plot of land, and being self-sufficient. But Marx (and others) have been taboo so long that they don't even know why the career paths they've embarked on, providing surplus labor free of charge to the benefit of their employers, are so unfulfilling.

On May 10 2015 05:42 corumjhaelen wrote:
Jonny's ability to flip to his "hey this is commie talk, it's nonsense" persona and to as a follow-up answer nonsensically will always amaze me.

On May 10 2015 05:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

commie talk IS nonsense.