On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote: Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up.
/facepalm
There are levels of ignorance that astound me.
Well fine. Monopolies always screw things up. Happy?
The state is the biggest monopoly of all.. and not because they're efficient. It is the one monopoly who controls all others, like the One ring of power! That can't be good, right? Are you pro-Sauron?!? Are you?!? You scum! lol
There's a difference between corporations that are owned by private individuals versus the government that is essentially the people. Don't look at government as anything else.
On February 02 2010 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 02 2010 04:24 Yurebis wrote: I don't think communism by itself implies statelessness, that would be anarcho-communism as I said b4, but I won't argue semantics and instead I'll agree with that, the ends of communism may be an anarchical society after all and that's great. Edit: By that's great, I mean, it stops there. At the ends. Because every means that use state force fail in my book, by my subjective principles... I don't use historical interpretations as premises for anything. You lost me where you said that a society can be ruled by greed. Tell me, how can you discern between a greedy person and a non-greedy person? And how can you discern someone that has self-interest for one who does not?
Because you see, I don't see any difference. Greed and egoism to me are inherent characteristics of rational beings, for they cannot be, feel, or think what others do. He can only be himself. Even the most altruistic person is only acting on his own perception of what is the world he is trying to help. He can only estimate what others want, only guess what they need. I think a better criteria that would separate the "greedy" for the "non-greedy" the popular way, is someone who's short-sighted versus long-sighted. I think the more "altruistic" people realize that in the long run, collaboration trumps defection (prisoner's dilemma, etc.) and so they work for that future, while the more "greedy" ones might just see short term goals and forget that people are able to retaliate, hold grudges, ostracize him back.
A second point is that, how can someone you deem to be "non-greedy" possibly be justified in enforcing that which is good for the common good through statist violence? If that which is good for the common good was really good for everyone, then how come everyone isn't already up-in-arms against the bourgeois, or the state already? It would be anarcho-communism as is. Well, forget it, it's too much praxeology aka libertarian bullshit for one post...
Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. It's not about "I think that Communism is". Communism is an invention of Marx. Go read Marx. If you haven't, don't tell someone who has read it all what Communism is or is not. Communism is society without class and without state. Period. And it ahs nothing to do with anarchy.
I've read some of the communist manifesto and I have some contentions against your claim that communism (as Marx described it) is stateless and classless. Reading this part is enough to see why that is not so. This is from page 20: + Show Spoiler +
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
My complaint starts with step number 2. How can you enforce an income tax, if no class has political power over another? If it was voluntary, it can't be called a tax, it's a voluntary donation for a cause, or maybe even an implicit purchase for a service. If it's a tax, then it's not voluntary, it's you requesting that I give you a fraction of my earnings or transactions. How can the person Bob who is in the same class as James force James to pay for something he does not want? It can't be done. And if it can, then what is to stop James from forcing Bob to pay him back that which was taxed in the first place? It's a logical contradiction. To have a tax and enforceable, positivist procedures, you have to acknowledge the justifications of a superior planning class.
Now step 4. Note the use of the word "confiscate". When you confiscate, you take something from someone and it then becomes someone else's property. In this case, it seems a transfer of wealth from the emigrants and rebels, to the proletariat class (which = the new government basically).
5,6,7 clearly denominates that there is a state, so your initial declaration that communism as marx describes it is a society without state is false by marx's own words.. There is a state, but it's a kind and loving state that takes care of the proletariat class and makes everything better. I doubt it, for reasons I've said before... not going to say them again.
8, and 10. Again, how do you enforce that if everyone's the same class? Bob can't tell James to go to work, or order him to go teach the kids for free. Bob is the same class as James, if Bob can order James to go do X, James can order Bob to go fuck himself. So communism in this marxist conception is hardly stateless, hardly classless. There has to be a state and a planner class to determine what is the "common good", what factories have to be built, what needs to be done.
I don't feel like reading it anymore... it's too contradictory and arbitrary for me. It seems communism wants to justify a capital takeover from the "bourgeois" to the state by asserting property rights don't exist, when in fact they are still maintaining property rights, only transferring all property to the state. So there are classes still, there is a state still...
Anarcho-communism however is a different species that I could come to respect, since it can exist within an anarcho-capitalist society, and (sometimes, depending on the property claim) vice-versa. Your state would just have to earn that property and capital voluntarily.
May I suggest that you look up, this time, what I mean by anarchy? Or have I misunderstood something?
I won't respond to your post point by point. I'll just say that Marx is enumerating the steps that will take place during a transition from a capitalist to a communist society. The list is not referring to what Marx defines Communism as. In fact, Marx never defines communism once during the entire manifesto, so don't bother looking for it.
On January 29 2010 16:38 Mystlord wrote: Socialist. Free market economies never work. Corporations always screw things up.
/facepalm
There are levels of ignorance that astound me.
Well fine. Monopolies always screw things up. Happy?
The state is the biggest monopoly of all.. and not because they're efficient. It is the one monopoly who controls all others, like the One ring of power! That can't be good, right? Are you pro-Sauron?!? Are you?!? You scum! lol
There's a difference between corporations that are owned by private individuals versus the government that is essentially the people. Don't look at government as anything else.
That's fine, let's assume the state is a perfect representation of the people's aggregate political thought (just made that term up). Even in a direct 100% perfect democracy, you're going to have to put up with the decisions of the majority. The majority forms a monopoly. Think about it. When a majority elects a president and legislative body, you got no choice but to accept them as your leaders. You can't go to another court, another police station, use another set of laws, etc. Well, you could if you move to another country, and sometimes another state would suffice, but still, you're just transiting from one majority monopoly to another. There's no real choice there, there's the state, the people who elected it, and you trying to convince some 50% of the population to vote for those you want in power of the monopoly.
Economy exercise: Why are government jobs so sought after? Because they're monopolized, so its employees can be laid back and not have to compete with the market at large. Fixed wages and lazy bosses, makes a hell of a good job. Better still, if you do a poor enough job and lobby for a raise in the senate and the media, you might just get it. The dispersed majority has less of an incentive to fight against a 1% tax increase than you whos going to get a 10% increase. Thats why labor unions and statist certifications are so common - people are cartelizing and monopolizing their jobs, raising the barriers of entry so their wages can go up.
Edit: I'm not against labor unions by themselves, I think they're great. Just not when they use the gun (state) to enforce a raise in wages or benefits, at the cost of the consumers->"bourgeois"(free market) and/or taxpayers
On February 02 2010 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On February 02 2010 04:24 Yurebis wrote: I don't think communism by itself implies statelessness, that would be anarcho-communism as I said b4, but I won't argue semantics and instead I'll agree with that, the ends of communism may be an anarchical society after all and that's great. Edit: By that's great, I mean, it stops there. At the ends. Because every means that use state force fail in my book, by my subjective principles... I don't use historical interpretations as premises for anything. You lost me where you said that a society can be ruled by greed. Tell me, how can you discern between a greedy person and a non-greedy person? And how can you discern someone that has self-interest for one who does not?
Because you see, I don't see any difference. Greed and egoism to me are inherent characteristics of rational beings, for they cannot be, feel, or think what others do. He can only be himself. Even the most altruistic person is only acting on his own perception of what is the world he is trying to help. He can only estimate what others want, only guess what they need. I think a better criteria that would separate the "greedy" for the "non-greedy" the popular way, is someone who's short-sighted versus long-sighted. I think the more "altruistic" people realize that in the long run, collaboration trumps defection (prisoner's dilemma, etc.) and so they work for that future, while the more "greedy" ones might just see short term goals and forget that people are able to retaliate, hold grudges, ostracize him back.
A second point is that, how can someone you deem to be "non-greedy" possibly be justified in enforcing that which is good for the common good through statist violence? If that which is good for the common good was really good for everyone, then how come everyone isn't already up-in-arms against the bourgeois, or the state already? It would be anarcho-communism as is. Well, forget it, it's too much praxeology aka libertarian bullshit for one post...
Sorry but you don't know what you are talking about. It's not about "I think that Communism is". Communism is an invention of Marx. Go read Marx. If you haven't, don't tell someone who has read it all what Communism is or is not. Communism is society without class and without state. Period. And it ahs nothing to do with anarchy.
I've read some of the communist manifesto and I have some contentions against your claim that communism (as Marx described it) is stateless and classless. Reading this part is enough to see why that is not so. This is from page 20: + Show Spoiler +
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.
Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
My complaint starts with step number 2. How can you enforce an income tax, if no class has political power over another? If it was voluntary, it can't be called a tax, it's a voluntary donation for a cause, or maybe even an implicit purchase for a service. If it's a tax, then it's not voluntary, it's you requesting that I give you a fraction of my earnings or transactions. How can the person Bob who is in the same class as James force James to pay for something he does not want? It can't be done. And if it can, then what is to stop James from forcing Bob to pay him back that which was taxed in the first place? It's a logical contradiction. To have a tax and enforceable, positivist procedures, you have to acknowledge the justifications of a superior planning class.
Now step 4. Note the use of the word "confiscate". When you confiscate, you take something from someone and it then becomes someone else's property. In this case, it seems a transfer of wealth from the emigrants and rebels, to the proletariat class (which = the new government basically).
5,6,7 clearly denominates that there is a state, so your initial declaration that communism as marx describes it is a society without state is false by marx's own words.. There is a state, but it's a kind and loving state that takes care of the proletariat class and makes everything better. I doubt it, for reasons I've said before... not going to say them again.
8, and 10. Again, how do you enforce that if everyone's the same class? Bob can't tell James to go to work, or order him to go teach the kids for free. Bob is the same class as James, if Bob can order James to go do X, James can order Bob to go fuck himself. So communism in this marxist conception is hardly stateless, hardly classless. There has to be a state and a planner class to determine what is the "common good", what factories have to be built, what needs to be done.
I don't feel like reading it anymore... it's too contradictory and arbitrary for me. It seems communism wants to justify a capital takeover from the "bourgeois" to the state by asserting property rights don't exist, when in fact they are still maintaining property rights, only transferring all property to the state. So there are classes still, there is a state still...
Anarcho-communism however is a different species that I could come to respect, since it can exist within an anarcho-capitalist society, and (sometimes, depending on the property claim) vice-versa. Your state would just have to earn that property and capital voluntarily.
May I suggest that you look up, this time, what I mean by anarchy? Or have I misunderstood something?
I won't respond to your post point by point. I'll just say that Marx is enumerating the steps that will take place during a transition from a capitalist to a communist society. The list is not referring to what Marx defines Communism as. In fact, Marx never defines communism once during the entire manifesto, so don't bother looking for it.
Yeah I really don't know exactly what communism is, but I was answering to Biff who explicitly said Marx defined it so I went with that. Perhaps the correct term would be marxism but I've heard socialists say that not even marxism was created by marx so wtf. I am often confused when talking to socialists, theres almost always lack of clear definitions for... "common good", "oppression", "state", "classes" etc. Until these are better defined, I just can't understand how is it not self-refuting to say you're doing one thing yet doing the exact opposite...
I would define Communism is a subsection of anarchy wherein there is no class. And also no private property. So what Marx was describing was the transition from capitalism to communism, which is socialism. In which there is a state. I guess it would be a two step process. Capitalism > Socialism, then Socialism > Communism. Too bad step two never really happens because the people in power don't really want to give up their power. Maybe this definition helps? (Sometimes even Socialists get mixed up between the definitions of Socialism and Communism I think, which doesn't help either)
The problem with the government = the people is that the people is plural and you're trying to make it singular. Would be nice if it was that way, but it isn't. (Overmind anyone?) So the government is owned by a majority of private individuals, which is still private individuals, just a large number of them. A government is a corporation.
On February 04 2010 09:14 Yurebis wrote: There's no real choice there, there's the state, the people who elected it, and you trying to convince some 50% of the population to vote for those you want in power of the monopoly.
What's your point?
If the Government is, as you so nicely put it, a "perfect representation of the people's aggregate political thought" then the Government is the people. Why would you need to "convince 50% of the population" when the Government itself would already be 100% of the population?
Economy exercise: Why are government jobs so sought after? Because they're monopolized, so its employees can be laid back and not have to compete with the market at large.
You argue that Government jobs are highly wanted, yet then say the employees have no need to worry about losing their job. Surely... that's competition? Hmm.
Edit: I'm not against labor unions by themselves, I think they're great. Just not when they use the gun (state) to enforce a raise in wages or benefits, at the cost of the consumers->"bourgeois"(free market)
Who do you think unions are supposed to represent? Themselves? Although they are their own entity, they fight for the people who belong to them for better working conditions. If they're fighting for an increased pay rise, it's generally because they need it. If THE CONSUMERS don't like it then they can, I don't know, shop elsewhere?
Yeah I really don't know exactly what communism is, but I was answering to Biff who explicitly said Marx defined it so I went with that. Perhaps the correct term would be marxism but I've heard socialists say that not even marxism was created by marx so wtf. I am often confused when talking to socialists, theres almost always lack of clear definitions for... "common good", "oppression", "state", "classes" etc. Until these are better defined, I just can't understand how is it not self-refuting to say you're doing one thing yet doing the exact opposite...
There are tonnes of definitions for those things because politics is a science.
"Common good" is a stupid phrase in my opinion; "good" is subjective. But hey, that's also subjective.
"Oppression": Unjust authority? Of course, again, "unjust" is subjective. An anarchist would argue that all government is oppressive, whereas say a conservative might argue that a police man beating up an innocent (in the eyes of that state's laws) person is oppressive.
"State": You'd have to read up on state theory. Most people would argue "state" refers to the governing body of an area of land with clearly marked borders. Personally, I love Weber's definition (of the top of my head, so sorry if it's inverbatim): "a state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence" (since citizens can't, generally, legally hurt each other where as "THE STATE" is in control of the police, army etc. which CAN legally hurt you).
"Classes": Well, this again depends on your political view. I'll give you the general Marxist view though since that's what you were referring to before. Essentially, Marx argued that society is split up into "classes" which are defined by who owns the means of production (keep in mind this was all written in the 1800s when 99% of the people were working class, proletariats, and 1% would be high the ruling class, the bourgeoisie).
In Marx's case, the proletariats were the ones who did all the work and got paid for the work but all the fruits of their labour (i.e. whatever they were actually making) was given to the bourgouise, the owners of the means to production. Simply put, the proletariats were essentially slightly better slaves, whereas the bourgouise did absolutely nothing and got a ton of money for it.
The definitions are actually still pretty accurate (with "middle class" being, you guessed it, somewhere in the middle).
Incognito wrote: I would define Communism is a subsection of anarchy wherein there is no class. And also no private property. So what Marx was describing was the transition from capitalism to communism, which is socialism. In which there is a state. I guess it would be a two step process. Capitalism > Socialism, then Socialism > Communism. Too bad step two never really happens because the people in power don't really want to give up their power. Maybe this definition helps? (Sometimes even Socialists get mixed up between the definitions of Socialism and Communism I think, which doesn't help either)
This is pretty much completely right. However, just to add a bit more:
Essentially, Marx said as a "society"/"state" we naturally go through 5 stages: -Basic tribal stage -Feudalism -Capitalism -Socialism -Communism
You got the Communism definition pretty much bang on so I won't bother reiterating it. The problem is that in every "Communist" (there's never been a Communist country... been a few successful examples of Communist societies though, see the Spanish Civil War) they were never Capitalist to begin with. Look at Russia, for example. When they had their revolution they were still essentially in the Feudalism stage. It is believed by some that the complete "skip" of one stage may have a lot to do with a lack of any real Communist country.
The problem with the government = the people is that the people is plural and you're trying to make it singular. Would be nice if it was that way, but it isn't. (Overmind anyone?) So the government is owned by a majority of private individuals, which is still private individuals, just a large number of them. A government is a corporation.
Yes, the government is still essentially a corporation however they're ideally self-regulating to prevent abuse seen in corporations. See checks and balances system (which isn't entirely successful but still better than most) in the USA.
Just clicked preview, holy crap I wrote a lot. Guess that's what I got for doing politics for 2 years. Sorry if some of what I wrote comes off as condescending, hostile etc. it's just how I argue when it comes to politics. I'm generally not such a dick (I hope).
On February 04 2010 18:10 Jimmeh wrote:Just clicked preview, holy crap I wrote a lot. Guess that's what I got for doing politics for 2 years. Sorry if some of what I wrote comes off as condescending, hostile etc. it's just how I argue when it comes to politics. I'm generally not such a dick (I hope).
Nope you were good and your definitions are compatible with mine. I didn't mean I didn't have my own definitions for them words, I meant that communists often don't, because they use them but not often describe what they mean. They just throw it out there like memes.
Common good - can't logically be defined. Oppression - physical aggression or the threat of. Non-objective, claims of aggression have to be debated case-by-case, but in general, thats it. The State - perfect, a legitimized monopoly of aggression in a geographical area. Classes - meaningless unless you're talking about classes in a context of opression. State officials could be considered in a superior class since they often coerce without any resistance. And I forgot a couple more that communists obviously don't talk about: property rights - the (perceived) right to ones own labor and fruits thereof. Subjective, better claim wins over worse, homesteading, blablabla. self-ownership - the (perceived) right to ones own body (or person if you're not a dualist).
Now, to your replies on my interpretation of democracy
On February 04 2010 09:14 Yurebis wrote: There's no real choice there, there's the state, the people who elected it, and you trying to convince some 50% of the population to vote for those you want in power of the monopoly.
What's your point?
If the Government is, as you so nicely put it, a "perfect representation of the people's aggregate political thought" then the Government is the people. Why would you need to "convince 50% of the population" when the Government itself would already be 100% of the population?
Economy exercise: Why are government jobs so sought after? Because they're monopolized, so its employees can be laid back and not have to compete with the market at large.
You argue that Government jobs are highly wanted, yet then say the employees have no need to worry about losing their job. Surely... that's competition? Hmm.
Edit: I'm not against labor unions by themselves, I think they're great. Just not when they use the gun (state) to enforce a raise in wages or benefits, at the cost of the consumers->"bourgeois"(free market)
Who do you think unions are supposed to represent? Themselves? Although they are their own entity, they fight for the people who belong to them for better working conditions. If they're fighting for an increased pay rise, it's generally because they need it. If THE CONSUMERS don't like it then they can, I don't know, shop elsewhere?
No, it's not 100% of the population, I meant 100% effective in the transition between electorate -> politicians, like, the politicians being 100% trustworthy and efficient. You still have the problem of a majority of people having to vote on issues they may or may not understand, to offset bad neighbors. Its a constant inefficient fight to use taxpayer money the way each person wants, when such fight shouldn't exist in the first place. How about you pay for what you want, and I pay for what I want? If we want the same thing, then institutions can be formed voluntarily doing what we want, sure. But why do it involuntarily?
In the case of an unanimous consent for political issues, thats awesome, because in that case, no state is needed. Each person will be able to voluntarily organize how they expect to, I don't know, manage healthcare or education in their own, since they all consider it to be important. Why would a group of people that unanimously considers X to be important, suddenly decide that X has to be enforced by the point of a gun? It makes no sense, since everyone agrees! Then everyone will surely be willing to pay for it at their own will.
It doesn't happen that way however. The majority knows that the minority doesn't want X. So what they want is to force the minority to pay for X. The justification being? The majority knows whats best for the minority, or, it is necessary for the common good. Well. I don't buy it, and I've exposed some reasons why that's a cop-out. There's no need to tax everyone, aka, steal from those who don't want X, to have X. Just go buy X on your own and with other people who want X, and don't supply X for those who didn't buy it. Ain't rocket science. The free market is pretty simple!
About them labor unions. Labor unions represent the stick power labors have if they wish to quit their jobs and join another company. They are utterly desnecessary and powerless past that stick power. It is on the employers best interest to satisfy good employees by giving them raise when the work structure of their company is going well, when everyone inside is trustworthy and efficient, because if they quit, he'd have to find "scabs" which will have to get practice and trustiness over time, and thats no good. So what the labor union does is, show it to the employer that the experienced employees have a slightly (very slightly) higher worthiness than the workers in the market at large, and should be payed higher. It can't increase people's salaries higher than that margin (for demonstrative purposes I assume it to be <10%)
To get the employer to raise more than 10% would be silly, because he would rather hire scabs and start over the development of a new business structure with new people than to pay an outrageous ammount to the workers he has now. The employer also knows that its unlikely anyone in the market would pay his workers better than that already, as the goods and services produced would end up being way higher priced in the market, and consumers wouldn't want to buy it from them, but rather at the non-unionized companies.
The only way to get the employer to raise it beyond the "market stick value" would be to enforce a monopoly on labor unions through government mandates, requiring all employees of a specific market to join them, and forbidding employers to hire scabs. That is a ridiculous artificial scarcity mechanics that I don't know how can anyone agree with. To agree with this is the same as begging people to steal money from you as a consumer, because you're going to be buying those more expensive cars, expensive education, healthcare, anything thats got it's barriers of entry elevated by the gun (state).
So basically, when the employer get a gun to his head, the consumers get a gun to their head, and the only people winning there are those few statist labor unions, and the state who gets to hire more bureaucrats. Everyone else is paying a higher price for goods that aren't any better.
i know that u right know disccues about something else but imo we now live in socialist time all western culture... and i dont like because im libertarian and i like austrian economy school. i know politics and economy is quite differnt but this video rox :
On February 05 2010 00:46 kulik- wrote: i know that u right know disccues about something else but imo we now live in socialist time all western culture... and i dont like because im libertarian and i like austrian economy school. i know politics and economy is quite differnt but this video rox :
It's certainly not that different for Austrian Economists, since both pertain to the realm of human choices! That video has been posted only about 3 or 4 times in the whole forum, but thanks for the fifth. Never gets old.
On February 05 2010 03:29 kulik- wrote: i read this forum from start to end and havent seen that...
That's because they've been locked. It seems the admins want every youtube video inside one thread. One Thread to rule them all, One Thread to find them.
The only way to get the employer to raise it beyond the "market stick value" would be to enforce a monopoly on labor unions through government mandates, requiring all employees of a specific market to join them, and forbidding employers to hire scabs. That is a ridiculous artificial scarcity mechanics that I don't know how can anyone agree with.
EPT
:
