On October 23 2011 19:58 OsoVega wrote: And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
That's a false statement, unless by many you count on pure number only and not relative percentages.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they don't have the tools to do so. Anyway, I'm going to bed for now.
[sarcasm]You're right, between using tools that are there for them to give themselves upwards mobility to live easier and nicer lives, instead people CHOSE to live in shitholes and ghettos due to laziness/WANTING to be poor/craziness.[/sacasm]
God, go educate yourself before sprouting out stupid shit like that. Or go jump into a whale's mouth. Either would be cool with me.
On October 23 2011 19:58 OsoVega wrote: And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
That's a false statement, unless by many you count on pure number only and not relative percentages.
Just because they don't doesn't mean they don't have the tools to do so. Anyway, I'm going to bed for now.
[sarcasm]You're right, between using tools that are there for them to give themselves upwards mobility to live easier and nicer lives, instead people CHOSE to live in shitholes and ghettos due to laziness/WANTING to be poor/craziness.[/sacasm]
God, go educate yourself before sprouting out stupid shit like that. Or go jump into a whale's mouth. Either would be cool with me.
Sanders is unique in American politics. In a country dominated by a two-party system, he is the lone independent in the Senate. In a political landscape where "socialist" is essentially a curse word, he has carved out a successful political career, with a solid base of support in his home state. Tall, with a shock of white hair and a slightly dishevelled appearance even when wearing a smart suit, he speaks with the thick Brooklyn accent of his working-class childhood, even while inhabiting the rarefied atmosphere of the Senate.
Sanders also pounds out the same message every day: the middle class is being destroyed, the government needs to create jobs, the banks are corrupt and big money has bought both political parties and made a mockery of American democracy. His Twitter feed features a constant repetition of economic facts. A few samples from recent days:
"Corporate tax revenue in 2010 was 27% lower than 2000, even though corporate profits are up 60% over the last decade."
"Since 2000, over 12 million Americans have lost their health insurance."
"Since 2000, nearly 12 million Americans have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty."
Such opinions would hardly make Sanders stand out in much of the rest of the world. His beliefs – which idolise Scandinavian-style social democracy – would fit comfortably in the middle left of Britain's Labour party or Germany's SPD. But it is impossible to over-state just how much of a political death sentence being called a "socialist" – nevermind actually proudly proclaiming it – usually is in America.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part.
It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
Uh, what? I guess back at the beginning of time everything was equal and people either chose to create or not create. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
Since when did people choose their parents? Who would choose to be born into poverty? I guess they just get shat all over for having poor luck. That way we can make sure that rich parents can continue to pass on the capital they got from their rich parents.
It's about Freedom™. The freedom to have rich kids.
You do realize not all wealth is inherited? It seems you've just been criticizing inherited wealth this whole time. At some point somebody chose to create wealth.
I've never claimed that people choose their parents. All I'm saying is that parents should be free to do with their property as they please even if that means giving it to their children. It's about the freedom to do with your property as you so please as long as you aren't violating anyone's rights.
On October 23 2011 22:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
Ah good. So you are saying yourself that the state then is owned by the rich, because no one else has the money to freely sponsor the military and police power. So what's holding them from enforcing their will on the population?
Everyone with any capital can choose to pay a tax. It's not like it's only the rich who pay taxes now. Who pays the tax does not matter. Paying tax would not give you ownership over the government. It would still be limited by constitution and controlled by constitutionally limited democracy. The government would still be tasked with protecting individual rights.
What's to prevent the rich from buying the military and police in our society? Nothing that wouldn't also prevent them in a free society.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Noam Chomsky answer:
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
You are right, it basically doesn't make sense. And the comparison with Stalinist is a fine one: people fighting for their own enslavement in the name of a principle.
Nothing about a capitalist society would allow enslavement, especially since coercive monopolies could no longer exist, unlike under our current mixed market. A capitalist system is the only system which respects individual rights. Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t.
On October 23 2011 17:50 Krehlmar wrote: It's an american think-tank sponsored by capitalism that has fooled people to believe that anyone on this earth has become rich purely and solely on his or her own work.
No one is an island unto themselves, everyone is in need of others.
Capitalism doesn't adress any of that.
Capitalism simply means that the people get to largely run the economy, being able to form their own companies and be entiteld to most of the profits these companies produce.
Ideas that are not capitalist are infact rather extreme changes of the status quo like communism.
Taxing business more to fund socialist programs is still capitalism. At it's core capitalism just means that the economy is largely owned and operated by the private market.
That's not true. Capitalism means that force is banished from all legal relationships. The only true capitalism is complete, unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. What you are referring to is a mixed market which mixes capitalism with regulation and force.
Well in that case, capitalism has never existed and isn't supported by any large political party anywhere in the world. A mixed market is the only way to get capitalism to work. Market fundamentalism is just as bad as a completely planned economy.
You're correct in your first sentence. You're wrong in two ways in your second sentence. A mixed market getting capitalism to work is just an oxymoron. A mixed market and capitalism are just two fundamentally different things which are mutually exclusive. A market can not be both mixed and capitalist. The other way that you're wrong is that it isn't true that true capitalism can't work but right now, I'm not up to that debate so I'll agree to disagree here for now.
To quote myself a few pages ago
"Capitalism can't exist without some form of government anyway. You need the monopoly of violence to protect the privatization of production, and private property in general. Without it, no ones stopping Corporations of either war with each other, or that people, rebel, revolutionaries, whatever take whatever they think is due to them. You wage war until either a a corporation is powerful enough to assert hegemony and build a dictatorship or "revolutionaries" win and put the form of government in charge that they want.
Look up how territorial states came into beeing in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. It's the same game, just different players.
I don't even tackle the point that a libertarian society would be destroyed within years or even less because rebels and revolutionaries would spread like a wildfire because nobody sane wants to live in a capitalistic society without rules. In the end it's aiding the communists you hate so much, why do you think the European welfare states ever came into being? Because people were asking nicely, and the people in power felt generous?"
I agree that there needs a government with a monopoly over retaliatory force (self defense force would still be legal) which is tasked with protecting individual rights. You need a government to enforce the banishment of force from relationships. A libertarian society would have a strong military, police force and judicial branch tasked with protecting individual rights and responding to any initiations of force. Remember, a government doesn't have to be funded by involuntary tax, it can be funded by voluntary tax. Are you confusing a libertarian society for an anarchy? That's never been what I've supported.
If you want to be technical, the government having control over the military and police would have some impacts on the economy but it just doesn't make semantic sense to consider those a violation of laissez-faire capitalism.
Ah good. So you are saying yourself that the state then is owned by the rich, because no one else has the money to freely sponsor the military and police power. So what's holding them from enforcing their will on the population?
Everyone with any capital can choose to pay a tax. It's not like it's only the rich who pay taxes now. Who pays the tax does not matter. Paying tax would not give you ownership over the government. It would still be limited by constitution and controlled by constitutionally limited democracy. The government would still be tasked with protecting individual rights.
What's to prevent the rich from buying the military and police in our society? Nothing that wouldn't also prevent them in a free society.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
My last paragraph may be the case but the vice versa is not. In a free society, all violations of rights and all initiations of force would be outlawed. If, for example a corporation tried to lobby the government to initiate force and violate the rights of a competitor, this would stand out and people would take notice of this misuse of their government. This isn't like today's society where the violation of rights and initiation of force by the government is the norm. People would have to be vigilant but it would be easier to keep something clean that isn't already terribly dirty like our current government.
There may be less and less people able to give away money nowadays but a capitalist society would be much more prosperous. In the capitalist system, if a politician tries to favor someone who has donated to them by violating someone elses rights it would be apparent as no excuse to violate rights would be accepted. If it was accepted, it would not be a capitalist society. Yes, it's possible for a capitalist society to become a non-capitalist society but you've given me no reason as to why it would be more likely to happen, or the results would be any worse than any other system. Today, people don't support capitalism but to bring about a capitalist society, people would have to. If it got that far, I trust that people would remain vigilant and prevent any large government corruption. As for the rich just paying the voluntary tax, it doesn't even make sense that this would win them any favors at the money goes towards protecting rights and not things like getting elected.
Reducing government to the protection of rights does not make political parties obsolete. People would still vote on how to objectively best protect rights. Also, there's nothing wrong with letting corporations and people do as they please, so long as they aren't committing any crimes (violating rights or initiating force) because no other action should be illegal as the other party would always be voluntary.
Ah geez you guys got pulled into the troll's web. I don't know what OsoVega thinks libertarianism is, but I can guarantee that he does not agree with real libertarians. From the Iraq thread, we have a statement of principles regarding foreign policy:
On October 22 2011 16:39 OsoVega wrote: The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
If you extrapolate those courts and laws to their domestic counterparts, you have to wonder how functional our society would be. There are good faith libertarians, like Kiarip, Milton Friedman, and Ron Paul, and there are posers. If you support a foreign policy of imperialism then you are not supporting small government. Friedman actually dedicates a chapter of his book "Capitalism and Freedom" to the ways in which taxes can be used to help alleviate poverty. Our government should dedicate its resources (however limited) to improving lives, not exporting death.
edit: Interesting thing about Friedman too, he doesn't bother trying to argue that wealth distribution in capitalism will be just, or that the rich and poor deserve what they get. He actually uses the analogy of a lottery to illustrate the point. In this way, he sidesteps the problems of arguing that all poor people are just too lazy, or that CEO's really are worth 400 times more than teachers. He even addresses opportunity gaps reasonably but not extensively. The important point to take away is that you can't be egalitarian and (classical) liberal at the same time. That's his perspective anyway, and I think it's a much better way to argue for modern libertarians
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part.
It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
How does a corporation go about fucking everyone in the ass when initiating force is illegal and the government will not initiate force for them? It just can't happen as when force is banned from relationships, all relationships are voluntary.
Sgt. Thomas, as you’ll recall, stood up to the NYPD during the protests in Times Square and told the officers that hurting peacefully protesting American citizens is wrong. His message seemed to work on the officers present since they backed down. Now more members of the military are joining the movement in a strong organizing effort to help the protests get through the winter and beyond.
“#OccupyMARINES Are Currently Assessing The Current Situation To Ascertain What Is Currently Needed To Support OWS America. We Are Humbled At The Substantial Support OWS America Has Provided And Ask That Everyone Continue As You All Do While We Implement Organization Nationwide. As We All Know, ‘Occupy’ Groups Are Being Established Even Now And Would Like To See This Trend Continue. “
Their website OccupyMarines.org, is calling for “Non-Active ‘Occupy’ Military Supporters Only” and they are organizing a dress code which will help identify their branch affiliation. So we should be seeing Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel dressed to impress at Occupy events across the country. Their goal will be to talk sense into police officers and recruit them into supporting the cause.
On October 24 2011 04:59 Senorcuidado wrote: Ah geez you guys got pulled into the troll's web. I don't know what OsoVega thinks libertarianism is, but I can guarantee that he does not agree with real libertarians. From the Iraq thread, we have a statement of principles regarding foreign policy:
On October 22 2011 16:39 OsoVega wrote: The world court doesn't matter if it is wrong. International law doesn't matter if it is wrong. Torture is fine if it is done against those who have forfeited their rights by initiating force directly or indirectly in a serious way. Any initiation of force against another country by a dictator gives the U.S. justification to indiscriminately kill civilians of the aggressor country.
If you extrapolate those courts and laws to their domestic counterparts, you have to wonder how functional our society would be. There are good faith libertarians, like Kiarip, Milton Friedman, and Ron Paul, and there are posers. If you support a foreign policy of imperialism then you are not supporting small government. Friedman actually dedicates a chapter of his book "Capitalism and Freedom" to the ways in which taxes can be used to help alleviate poverty. Our government should dedicate its resources (however limited) to improving lives, not exporting death.
I'm not a libertarian. See, libertarians have no real philosophy at the center of their beliefs. They say things like "you are not supporting small government" and "our government should dedicate it's resources to improving lives, not exporting death". They don't realize that there is nothing inherently good about a government simply being small. It's a government that does nothing but protect individual rights that is good. If a government is small but it does things other than protect rights it's still not a good government and if a government does nothing but protect individual rights it should not be further shrunk. If a government has to attack a rights violator to protect the rights and interests of it's own citizens or allies (which are the interest of it's own citizens), it has the right to do so. There's nothing imperialistic about this. To be clear, I've never supported attacking Iraq.
I also think I edited my post to say any "serious initiation of force (such as becoming a dictatorship ship, nationalizing oil fields, attacking another country, etc.)" and "any legitimate government" instead of just "the US". If I hadn't, that's what I mean.
Sgt. Thomas, as you’ll recall, stood up to the NYPD during the protests in Times Square and told the officers that hurting peacefully protesting American citizens is wrong. His message seemed to work on the officers present since they backed down. Now more members of the military are joining the movement in a strong organizing effort to help the protests get through the winter and beyond.
“#OccupyMARINES Are Currently Assessing The Current Situation To Ascertain What Is Currently Needed To Support OWS America. We Are Humbled At The Substantial Support OWS America Has Provided And Ask That Everyone Continue As You All Do While We Implement Organization Nationwide. As We All Know, ‘Occupy’ Groups Are Being Established Even Now And Would Like To See This Trend Continue. “
Their website OccupyMarines.org, is calling for “Non-Active ‘Occupy’ Military Supporters Only” and they are organizing a dress code which will help identify their branch affiliation. So we should be seeing Marines, Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel dressed to impress at Occupy events across the country. Their goal will be to talk sense into police officers and recruit them into supporting the cause.
Those who earn capital should be free to pass it on to whomever they choose.
Again, what are your alternatives? From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs? In order to believe this you have to accept the initiation and use of force against innocent, non-rights violating people as moral and just. Do you?
You must have some faulty understanding of what "earn capital" means. Being born with capital and the resources to acquire more capital is not "earning" anything. Did you miss how social mobility is all but a fiction?
I don't have to accept the "use of force" against anyone. Who says you own all that capital anyway? What makes it yours? Circumstance of birth? Rofl.
You missed how I was not referring to the children born into wealth, but the rights of the parents who can choose to give their wealth to whomever they choose. It's the parents who earn and own the capital. It's the children who are given rightful ownership of it by their parents as it is their parents right to give them that control and ownership. And no, social mobility is not "all but fiction". Many people are able to make choices that move them up in social classes. Not everyone, but many people.
You don't have to accept the use of force against anyone but you do if you accept the notion of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". I'm not saying that you do accept this notion but you still haven't given any alternatives to sweat shops. I'd appreciate it if you did.
It's not circumstance of birth that gives a child who inherit wealth, ownership of that wealth. It's the choice of the parents who own that wealth to give it to the child that gives them ownership of that wealth. What gives the parents ownership of that wealth? The fact that they either created it or were given it by those who created it.
Uh, what? I guess back at the beginning of time everything was equal and people either chose to create or not create. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
Since when did people choose their parents? Who would choose to be born into poverty? I guess they just get shat all over for having poor luck. That way we can make sure that rich parents can continue to pass on the capital they got from their rich parents.
It's about Freedom™. The freedom to have rich kids.
that's a pretty old argument... You need to have inheritance because it's in people's nature to try to provide their kids with a better future, if inheritance tax was 100% or something like that people would just spend all their money on frivolous things.
That's bullshit. And it's quite insulting to all those people...
Not everyone do the best they can in this world. Is that so hard to believe? I guess you can always use "circumstances" as an excuse for not doing well in school, hanging out on the corner instead of looking for a job, and spending money lavishly instead of living conservatively when your employment isn't very stable.
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Noam Chomsky answer:
There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
You are right, it basically doesn't make sense. And the comparison with Stalinist is a fine one: people fighting for their own enslavement in the name of a principle.
Except how libertarians believe in the free market which has since the beginning of time has been THE tool of innovation, wealth creation, and raising the standard of living in the history of humanity, while strong government has always been the tool of oppression, and war.
So people that are fighting for libertarianism are actually fighting AGAINST slavery, but otherwise you're pretty close (not really, but ok.)
Oh, it's not me, it's Noam Chomsky.
Your dream is a society without rules in which big fishes eat small fishes. That's it.
I don't find it very arousing, but maybe that's just me.
You act like a capitalist society would be completely without rules. It would not. The use of force would be banished from all relationships and if force was initiated the government would respond with a response of force.
On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:
On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part.
It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
How does a corporation go about fucking everyone in the ass when initiating force is illegal and the government will not initiate force for them? It just can't happen as when force is banned from relationships, all relationships are voluntary.
You think that a wage laborer can't be exploited by an abusive company and / or manager if he is not protected by some basic rules?
Do you know what happens in Chinese factories where our precious iphones are being produced?
You think as a consumer you can't be deceived? I already gave the example but a third of your fellow american are obese. A THIRD. Maybe the fact that your food industry is feeding your whole nation with poisonous crap helps a little.
Companies are not good or bad. They seek profit, and that's it. Unfortunately, seeking profit can be beneficial for the people or incredibly detrimental. The company won't care. It will respect the rules and try to make as much as possible.
The State is representing the interest of society as a whole. It makes rules so that these interests are respected.
Get no rule and your companies ruin everything. That's what is happening in America right now, and you advocate to make it much worse.
God I don't know how one can be naive enough to think that no oppression can come from corporations. I mean, what god damn planet do you live on?
I'm going to act like an idiot here and ask everyone if OWS has 1 clear goal...I don't follow it, I don't care if the protest or whatnot. But when I do hear or look into OWS all I see is that they want a million different things?
Can't we move the whole Libertarian/Market fundamentalist discussion to another thread? It isn't really related the Occupy Wall Street and has been taking up most of the posts in the last few pages.
On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:
On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part.
It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
How does a corporation go about fucking everyone in the ass when initiating force is illegal and the government will not initiate force for them? It just can't happen as when force is banned from relationships, all relationships are voluntary.
You think that a wage laborer can't be exploited by an abusive company and / or manager if he is not protected by some basic rules?
Do you know what happens in Chinese factories where our precious iphones are being produced?
You think as a consumer you can't be deceived? I already gave the example but a third of your fellow american are obese. A THIRD. Maybe the fact that your food industry is feeding your whole nation with poisonous crap helps a little.
Companies are not good or bad. They seek profit, and that's it. Unfortunately, seeking profit can be beneficial for the people or incredibly detrimental. The company won't care. It will respect the rules and try to make as much as possible.
The State is representing the interest of society as a whole. It makes rules so that these interests are respected.
Get no rule and your companies ruin everything. That's what is happening in America right now, and you advocate to make it much worse.
God I don't know how one can be naive enough to think that no oppression can come from corporations. I mean, what god damn planet do you live on?
The state does not represent the interests of the people as a whole. With our mixed market it ends up to where government is bought and is regulating in favor of some companies and sacrificing other companies and people, basically crony "capitalism". Without any government regulation this would not be possible. Any attempt to do so would be very clear and it would be stopped.
What is happening right now in America is that some people and corporations are benefiting off of government regulation and intervention while others are being sacrificed by the government. With no intervention into the economy, this can't happen and businesses are forced to make or loose money based off of whether they efficiently provide the consumer with something they will choose to buy or not.
In a capitalist society, a worker could choose whether to work in a factory or not. If the factory was too dangerous or they didn't get enough pay they could always choose to not work there. The worker would get the market value of his work.
People choose to eat food from our food industry. They're not defrauding us because they know what is in that food. If people don't like it, they should choose not to eat food from that company and buy healthier food. If enough people did it, companies would be forced to make healthier food to stay profitable but they don't because people are completely fine with choosing to eat unhealthy food. The government shouldn't be stepping in and forcing more expensive healthier food on people. That would be a violation of those people's rights. If a consumer is really being deceived then that would be fraud and a violation of his rights.
I'll admit that some food companies do deceive people but that is fraud and would be illegal in a capitalist society and should be illegal now.
On October 24 2011 05:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 24 2011 05:01 OsoVega wrote:
On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:
On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part.
It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
How does a corporation go about fucking everyone in the ass when initiating force is illegal and the government will not initiate force for them? It just can't happen as when force is banned from relationships, all relationships are voluntary.
You think that a wage laborer can't be exploited by an abusive company and / or manager if he is not protected by some basic rules?
Do you know what happens in Chinese factories where our precious iphones are being produced?
You think as a consumer you can't be deceived? I already gave the example but a third of your fellow american are obese. A THIRD. Maybe the fact that your food industry is feeding your whole nation with poisonous crap helps a little.
Companies are not good or bad. They seek profit, and that's it. Unfortunately, seeking profit can be beneficial for the people or incredibly detrimental. The company won't care. It will respect the rules and try to make as much as possible.
The State is representing the interest of society as a whole. It makes rules so that these interests are respected.
Get no rule and your companies ruin everything. That's what is happening in America right now, and you advocate to make it much worse.
God I don't know how one can be naive enough to think that no oppression can come from corporations. I mean, what god damn planet do you live on?
The state does not represent the interests of the people as a whole. With our mixed market it ends up to where government is bought and is regulating in favor of some companies and sacrificing other companies and people, basically crony "capitalism". Without any government regulation this would not be possible. Any attempt to do so would be very clear and it would be stopped.
What is happening right now in America is that some people and corporations are benefiting off of government regulation and intervention while others are being sacrificed by the government. With no intervention into the economy, this can't happen and businesses are forced to make or loose money based off of whether they efficiently provide the consumer with something they will choose to buy or not.
In a capitalist society, a worker could choose whether to work in a factory or not. If the factory was too dangerous or they didn't get enough pay they could always choose to not work there. The worker would get the market value of his work.
People choose to eat food from our food industry. They're not defrauding us because they know what is in that food. If people don't like it, they should choose not to eat food from that company and buy healthier food. If enough people did it, companies would be forced to make healthier food to stay profitable but they don't because people are completely fine with choosing to eat unhealthy food. The government shouldn't be stepping in and forcing more expensive healthier food on people. That would be a violation of those people's rights. If a consumer is really being deceived then that would be fraud and a violation of his rights.
I'll admit that some food companies do deceive people but that is fraud and would be illegal in a capitalist society and should be illegal now.
I seriously don't know in what world you are living.
That's fine, need people with all kind of opinions I guess.
On October 24 2011 05:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 24 2011 05:01 OsoVega wrote:
On October 24 2011 04:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 24 2011 03:07 InRaged wrote:
On October 23 2011 23:44 Kiarip wrote:
Yes, if you have enough capital to give away freely you are relativly rich in this world. Many people in Western society can, it's becoming less nowadays. What in this form is different from the lobbying of today? The politicians are payed by those with the most money, in the libertarian system it's just open and not behind curtains. Are there actually elections? I'm asking because they aren't allowed to do anything than lead war (with the military) and govern the police force. It makes political parties pretty obsolet?
And I agree with your last paragraph, nothing prevents them. That's why we're in the shitter.
I don't want to offend, I'm just interested, because I can't understand how people think it will help out a broad base of the population if companies do whatever they do and government just fights crime (and other countries).
Ummm... no. In the libertarian society the government has no right to do things that influence the economy. So businesses can buy politicians but they have no incentive to do so, because politicians can't help them. That's the whole idea of the libertarianism, to limit the power of the government so that the Rich can't use it against the Poor.
Why politicians can't help them? What stops them from doing so? What exactly limits the power of the government?
No the whole idea is that richest or the corporations don't need to do lobbying and buy politicians in order to bend the rules to fuck everybody in the ass: there are no rules and politicians are deprived of any power over the economy so corporations can skip the whole lobbying part.
It's fascinating how much creativity people can have to imagine the worst and most crual society possible.
How does a corporation go about fucking everyone in the ass when initiating force is illegal and the government will not initiate force for them? It just can't happen as when force is banned from relationships, all relationships are voluntary.
You think that a wage laborer can't be exploited by an abusive company and / or manager if he is not protected by some basic rules?
Do you know what happens in Chinese factories where our precious iphones are being produced?
You think as a consumer you can't be deceived? I already gave the example but a third of your fellow american are obese. A THIRD. Maybe the fact that your food industry is feeding your whole nation with poisonous crap helps a little.
Companies are not good or bad. They seek profit, and that's it. Unfortunately, seeking profit can be beneficial for the people or incredibly detrimental. The company won't care. It will respect the rules and try to make as much as possible.
The State is representing the interest of society as a whole. It makes rules so that these interests are respected.
Get no rule and your companies ruin everything. That's what is happening in America right now, and you advocate to make it much worse.
God I don't know how one can be naive enough to think that no oppression can come from corporations. I mean, what god damn planet do you live on?
The state does not represent the interests of the people as a whole. With our mixed market it ends up to where government is bought and is regulating in favor of some companies and sacrificing other companies and people, basically crony "capitalism". Without any government regulation this would not be possible. Any attempt to do so would be very clear and it would be stopped.
What is happening right now in America is that some people and corporations are benefiting off of government regulation and intervention while others are being sacrificed by the government. With no intervention into the economy, this can't happen and businesses are forced to make or loose money based off of whether they efficiently provide the consumer with something they will choose to buy or not.
In a capitalist society, a worker could choose whether to work in a factory or not. If the factory was too dangerous or they didn't get enough pay they could always choose to not work there. The worker would get the market value of his work.
People choose to eat food from our food industry. They're not defrauding us because they know what is in that food. If people don't like it, they should choose not to eat food from that company and buy healthier food. If enough people did it, companies would be forced to make healthier food to stay profitable but they don't because people are completely fine with choosing to eat unhealthy food. The government shouldn't be stepping in and forcing more expensive healthier food on people. That would be a violation of those people's rights. If a consumer is really being deceived then that would be fraud and a violation of his rights.
I'll admit that some food companies do deceive people but that is fraud and would be illegal in a capitalist society and should be illegal now.
I seriously don't know in what world you are living.
That's fine, need people with all kind of opinions I guess.
How am I wrong. Should workers not have the choice to work in factories and employers the choice of whether to employ them or not? Do regulations not sacrifice some people to others by means of force? Do people not choose to eat the food they eat (although when food companies lie about their contents they are violating rights which would be illegal in a capitalist society)?
I've always found it funny how people frame starvation and poverty as a choice as if people would chose that over being treated like shit.
On October 24 2011 05:23 FryktSkyene wrote: I'm going to act like an idiot here and ask everyone if OWS has 1 clear goal...I don't follow it, I don't care if the protest or whatnot. But when I do hear or look into OWS all I see is that they want a million different things?
I think the vast majority would look for a change in government to remove money from politics. OWS is built on the perception that for the majority of americans the government is working for them but working for the rich. Although some people may feel grandiose conspiracy i just like to think of it as considering half the people in congress are millionaire and it takes money to run for office that it's just self preservation.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/koKlV.gif)
