US Politics Mega-thread - Page 275

On June 03 2013 12:39 Ingsoc101 wrote:

My argument hasn't changed either, whether we are talking about an imaginary society or the current one.

In neither can voluntary work be called slavery, so long as the only coercion that is applied is applied by nature itself, and not by man. Because if we define the coercion of nature to be slavery, then slavery has no meaning. Slavery only has meaning if it is induced purely by human action and/or institutions.

On June 03 2013 12:41 KwarK wrote:

I don't have a problem with the general principles of capitalism, nor free trade, nor the invisible hand. However I believe that circumstances can naturally occur in which the natural running of the system would enslave and degrade the workers and that in those situations government intervention is required to artificially empower the workers. A voluntary exchange relies upon a degree of parity between both parties which is not always the case. Furthermore I believe that without these government interventions the workers will end up simply murdering the capitalist class which is no good for anyone.

I don't believe the government could pass a law to make everyone wealthy.

On June 03 2013 12:36 KwarK wrote:

My argument hasn't changed once. We have always been arguing against a pure free market which has no basis in reality due to government intervention. I discuss reality quite often, I just wasn't this time. You're being evasive about the difference between wage slavery in a scenario that allows for worker exploitation (like the city with the failed industry mentioned earlier) and actual slavery when there are no government protection, seeing as you have thrown yourself into this argument and my belief is that you have lost it I'd like a conclusion if you're willing. All you have done thus far is misunderstand the question being posed. If you'd like I can repeat it.

On June 03 2013 12:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Depends on how pure and free you want your free market to be. If workers are being exploited then they should just quit and open up their own shop. If they can't (for whatever reason) than you can make the argument that the market isn't free enough.

On June 03 2013 12:49 Wegandi wrote:


I don't, because it's never happened, anywhere, not even in the so-called Wild Wild West (which wasn't so wild and was pretty anarcho-capitalist in nature). Besides that though, a voluntary exchange doesn't require parity, it requires liberty on the part of both parties (self-propriety), and the absence of aggressive coercion/violence. Not even the Government recognizes your definition of 'voluntary', though, for Harry Reid he has a pretty effed up definition calling taxation voluntary.

Also, Government has depressed wages, and artificially increased natural inequality. These 'safety systems' or 'interventions' were lobbied by the same businesses that you feel are enslaving the people. You don't even realize it, but you and the type of people like you are the useful idiots for these people. By artificially raising the cost of doing business you're not hurting the giant megolith's, but the little guy, average person who is now priced out of competing with these firms. This is why the economic boobus is his own worst enemy.

On June 03 2013 12:51 farvacola wrote:

There's a third option here.....

On June 03 2013 12:55 KwarK wrote:

I feel much less like my own worst enemy than the libertarian zealots who, if their dream came true, would most likely find themselves in the underclass until they saw through their invisible hand God and his doctrine of private property and revolted. You lot need protecting from yourselves, it's alright when it's an intellectual exercise but like any religion it shouldn't be mixed up with politics. But now we're just calling each other names.

On June 03 2013 12:46 KwarK wrote:

Then I feel we have reached a natural conclusion in which you argue that a man who is forced by hunger to work from dawn to dusk in exchange for food and a bed for the profit of someone else until he dies is different from a man who works dawn to dusk, receives food and a bed for the profit of someone else and will be left to starve should he refuse because you don't define things by their attributes. I find your stance laughable and I hope other readers do too but it is a conclusion. Thank you.

On June 03 2013 13:01 Wegandi wrote:


How do you reconcile the fact that the life of the average American in the late 1800s and early 1900s more than quadrupled in standard? Contrary to your belief that the lot of the common folk would be even worse, markets raise people out of poverty, not impoverish them. Socialism, Fascism, Communism, Mercantilism, Feudalism all elements of the same horrid Statism impoverish and make worse the life of the common man. You have your history and theory completely backwards.

This is why you have to resort to hypotheticals. Hypotheticals that are pretty crazy and have no basis in reality, for such a realist as yourself.

Besides, if you knew anything about libertarianism you would realize none of us consider Adam Smith to be capitalist, or libertarian. We all much rather like Turgot (as did Jefferson) from that time period. French were always superior to the British.

(For the funsies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Robert-Jacques_Turgot,_Baron_de_Laune)

An unusually harsh and personal war of words erupted on Sunday, even for the current hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington, DC, with one of President Obama's top advisers bringing up the 40-year-old criminal record of the Republican congressman leading the investigation into alleged IRS abuses.

"Strong words from Mr Grand Theft Auto and suspected arsonist/insurance swindler," tweeted David Plouffe, the political guru (and unofficial adviser) for President Obama, referring to the chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

"And loose ethically today," Plouffe ended his tweet, linking to a story about Issa answering questions on CNN's “State of the Union” with Candy Crowley about the controversy over IRS staffers targeting conservative groups for scrutiny, in which Issa referred to White House press secretary Jay Carney as a "paid liar."

Asked for a response to Plouffe's tweet, Issa's spokesman Frederick Hill told CNN, "Looks like the Chairman hit a nerve today. Hopefully President Obama follows Plouffe on Twitter and may finally see some information from a senior advisor about what's going on at the IRS."

Issa using the "L" word - liar - is unusual in a town where pols and members of the media regularly dance around such a direct accusation, preferring words that allow for the possibility of misspeaking or misleading, but not deliberately speaking an untruth. Plouffe's reference to charges and suspicions against Issa from a generation and two generations ago is also unusual in a city where such mentions are considered gauche and uncollegial.

On June 03 2013 12:46 KwarK wrote:

Then I feel we have reached a natural conclusion in which you argue that a man who is forced by hunger to work from dawn to dusk in exchange for food and a bed for the profit of someone else until he dies is different from a man who works dawn to dusk, receives food and a bed for the profit of someone else and will be left to starve should he refuse because you don't define things by their attributes. I find your stance laughable and I hope other readers do too but it is a conclusion. Thank you.

On June 03 2013 14:30 Ingsoc101 wrote:

You want to define slavery by those attributes? Fine.

Then you must admit that the cavemen and other early humans lived a life of slavery. After all, they were forced to work by hunger from dawn to dusk for food, a bed, everything, and would be left to starve should they refuse. So we've established that all early humanity and pretty much all of humanity still existing are living lives of slavery.

Now tell me, in the absence of government, laws, markets, economic systems, who exactly had the caveman and other early humans enslaved? There is no greedy capitalist to blame here. No employer to blame here. The only conclusion is that they were enslaved by their natural condition of life on Earth.

Since the conclusions we are reaching here are absurd, we can conclude via reductio ad absurdum that your attributes for defining slavery are likewise absurd. Hopefully you don't get so desperate as to define third party benefit as the primary distinguishing attribute of slavery.

On June 03 2013 14:34 KwarK wrote:

"for the profit of someone else"
"Then you must admit that the cavemen"

You show me that cavemen were exploited by the capitalist class and I'll admit that they were slaves.

I honestly don't think you're reading my posts at all.

On June 03 2013 14:36 Ingsoc101 wrote:

Ah, so you are so desperate.

Then let me remind you that no one has been forced to work for a capitalist. Everyone is free to try and survive on their own without taking anyone's job. Just because the capitalists option is superior to the caveman's option does not mean that the modern condition is worse. It means that the modern condition is better, because they are added alternatives. Now hopefully you don't go completely off the deep end by claiming that property has rendered all hope of survival impossible without capital.

On June 03 2013 14:34 KwarK wrote:

"for the profit of someone else"
"Then you must admit that the cavemen"

You show me that cavemen were exploited by the capitalist class and I'll admit that they were slaves.

I honestly don't think you're reading my posts at all.

On June 03 2013 14:41 KwarK wrote:

I'm being desperate by showing that your "well why doesn't it apply to cavemen then" point bore no relevance to anything I wrote because nothing I wrote was about cavemen?

I have consistently described a hypothetical over and over and you consistently try and disprove it with scenarios which bear no relevance to that hypothetical. Modern America with its social welfare schemes and employment laws does not provide counterexamples. Cavemen do not provide counterexamples. Please keep your arguments relevant. To do that I recommend you read what I'm actually talking about, a situation in which a surplus of immobile labour and the absence of regulation allows competition between workers to drive them to accept their only basic biological needs being met in exchange for the profits of their labour and where not working will result in death due to their basic biological needs not being met.

On June 03 2013 14:41 KwarK wrote:

I'm being desperate by showing that your "well why doesn't it apply to cavemen then" point bore no relevance to anything I wrote because nothing I wrote was about cavemen?

I have consistently described a hypothetical over and over and you consistently try and disprove it with scenarios which bear no relevance to that hypothetical. Modern America with its social welfare schemes and employment laws does not provide counterexamples. Cavemen do not provide counterexamples. Please keep your arguments relevant. To do that I recommend you read what I'm actually talking about, a situation in which a surplus of immobile labour and the absence of regulation allows competition between workers to drive them to accept their only basic biological needs being met in exchange for the profits of their labour and where not working will result in death due to their basic biological needs not being met.

On June 03 2013 14:49 Wegandi wrote:


You have to resort to hypotheticals because it is the only way for you to try and make a point, because such a situation has never existed, and will never exist. Free societies enrich communities, individuals, and all alike. Statism drives people into slavery conditions.