|
Thats some serious cherry picking. Why not mention Scandinavia? Why I think it will work? Because it already does work where I live. Sure, the system isn't perfect but equality and social mobility are a lot better over here.
|
On October 21 2011 03:19 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:15 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:58 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market. I think you have it backwards. If you conceptualize 'government' as the collective will of society, then you arguing it should be steered clear from the economy is equivalent to you arguing that narrow private interests are the only ones which should have access to the economy. I don't conceptualize it like that, because when you do it leads to a majority rule which tends to oppress the rights of minority without reprecussions. I think the government is there to defend personal liberties, rights. I believe in the human rights of: speech, worship, property, pursuit of happiness (that doesn't infringe on the rights of others,) and contract rights. Pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market is the direct result of combination of: Property rights, contract rights, and pursuit of happiness. by having the government empower itself to be able to be involved in the free market it not only damages the productivity of the market, but it also in one way or another infringes on one of these 3 rights.
Obviously the end result of that scenario is an even worse one than what we have now.
If by even worse you state where everyone takes responsibilities for the consequences of their own actions, and are judged on the merit of their work... then yes it's much worse.
Currently the collective will of the people is fragmented, unfocused, severely marginalized and co-opted by private interests which enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring society, resulting in distortions, abuses, environmental destruction, poverty, etc. A better solution would be an organized means for every segment of society to regulate itself, by definition that makes the most use of human potential.
THE REASON that the private interests enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring the society, is that the Corporatists are in bed with the government, and the only reason they can have a mutually beneficial relationship is because, the corporatists can give the government money, and the government can legistlate in favor of the coporatists... The only way to avoid this positive feedback resulting from corruption is to take away the government's power to legislate in favor of private interests... You can't stop private interests from making money, but you can make sure they have to do it fairly without the big brother helping them. In the end it's true that if someone has a lot of money he can give it to whatever cause he wishes, or he could use it to run a campaign to get himself elected, which is why it's so important that the government doesn't have the power to manipulate the economy because then instead of having a fair competition that results in better quality and lower prices you have a situation where money => government control => unfair advantage => more money. The only obstacle is organizing such a thing, but people protesting are on the right track, it starts with the collective will of society, and it starts both globally and locally at the same time. I'm going to give you a moment to look at one of my previous posts where I pointed out that all experiments in unregulated capitalism lead to disaster, giving the specific examples of Russia, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa. Then I'm going to let you respond with specific points. I don't think that arguing generalities here is useful for either of us. Your arguments seem to rely on statements such as 'if only' x 'then' y. But this is all hypothetical.
This wasn't unregulated capitalism. Definitely not in Russia, I lived in Russia for 10 years after the break-down of USSR, as did my parents, and in fact speaking for my dad it is that experience living in Soviet, and Post-Soviet Russia that convinces him most to support libertarianism and the free market.
You didn't have free-market in russia... You seem to think that free-market is synonymous with corruption, because that's what it was there. It's not free market, the government was HEAVILY involved in the economy, it just didn't PLAN it directly, but it gave out lots of contracts to "rebuild" the nation, and picked a lot of winners and losers, and that is how you get the huge disparity of wealth.
This is a similar situation to what is occurring in the banking industry. The too-big-to-fail banks are a perfect example of this... How is that free market if they get bail-outs? It's not free market, the government should not have the power to pick sides the way that it does back in Russia, and the way that it now does here.
My argument is sound, because you keep confusing Capitalism with Corporatism ,and there's a hueg difference.
It's not the lack of regulation that results in the huge wealth disparity, it's the corruption resulting from the government having the power to give some corporations unfair advantages, which makes it easier for those companies to make profits outside the laws of the free market.
|
such bullshit.
This pamphlet was not approved by the group, and first surfaced on a conservative blogger's site.
Did you even read the article you posted?
Actions by individuals do not equate to actions by the group. Someone distributing pamphlets is maybe an example of ideology gone awry-- we don't know because we can't see the pamphlet, but its not the protest itself, it's an individual.
|
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement?
|
On October 21 2011 03:25 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:19 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 03:15 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:58 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market. I think you have it backwards. If you conceptualize 'government' as the collective will of society, then you arguing it should be steered clear from the economy is equivalent to you arguing that narrow private interests are the only ones which should have access to the economy. I don't conceptualize it like that, because when you do it leads to a majority rule which tends to oppress the rights of minority without reprecussions. I think the government is there to defend personal liberties, rights. I believe in the human rights of: speech, worship, property, pursuit of happiness (that doesn't infringe on the rights of others,) and contract rights. Pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market is the direct result of combination of: Property rights, contract rights, and pursuit of happiness. by having the government empower itself to be able to be involved in the free market it not only damages the productivity of the market, but it also in one way or another infringes on one of these 3 rights.
Obviously the end result of that scenario is an even worse one than what we have now.
If by even worse you state where everyone takes responsibilities for the consequences of their own actions, and are judged on the merit of their work... then yes it's much worse.
Currently the collective will of the people is fragmented, unfocused, severely marginalized and co-opted by private interests which enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring society, resulting in distortions, abuses, environmental destruction, poverty, etc. A better solution would be an organized means for every segment of society to regulate itself, by definition that makes the most use of human potential.
THE REASON that the private interests enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring the society, is that the Corporatists are in bed with the government, and the only reason they can have a mutually beneficial relationship is because, the corporatists can give the government money, and the government can legistlate in favor of the coporatists... The only way to avoid this positive feedback resulting from corruption is to take away the government's power to legislate in favor of private interests... You can't stop private interests from making money, but you can make sure they have to do it fairly without the big brother helping them. In the end it's true that if someone has a lot of money he can give it to whatever cause he wishes, or he could use it to run a campaign to get himself elected, which is why it's so important that the government doesn't have the power to manipulate the economy because then instead of having a fair competition that results in better quality and lower prices you have a situation where money => government control => unfair advantage => more money. The only obstacle is organizing such a thing, but people protesting are on the right track, it starts with the collective will of society, and it starts both globally and locally at the same time. I'm going to give you a moment to look at one of my previous posts where I pointed out that all experiments in unregulated capitalism lead to disaster, giving the specific examples of Russia, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa. Then I'm going to let you respond with specific points. I don't think that arguing generalities here is useful for either of us. Your arguments seem to rely on statements such as 'if only' x 'then' y. But this is all hypothetical. This wasn't unregulated capitalism. Definitely not in Russia, I lived in Russia for 10 years after the break-down of USSR, as did my parents, and in fact speaking for my dad it is that experience living in Soviet, and Post-Soviet Russia that convinces him most to support libertarianism and the free market. You didn't have free-market in russia... You seem to think that free-market is synonymous with corruption, because that's what it was there. It's not free market, the government was HEAVILY involved in the economy, it just didn't PLAN it directly, but it gave out lots of contracts to "rebuild" the nation, and picked a lot of winners and losers, and that is how you get the huge disparity of wealth. This is a similar situation to what is occurring in the banking industry. The too-big-to-fail banks are a perfect example of this... How is that free market if they get bail-outs? It's not free market, the government should not have the power to pick sides the way that it does back in Russia, and the way that it now does here. My argument is sound, because you keep confusing Capitalism with Corporatism ,and there's a hueg difference. It's not the lack of regulation that results in the huge wealth disparity, it's the corruption resulting from the government having the power to give some corporations unfair advantages, which makes it easier for those companies to make profits outside the laws of the free market.
You are right in your description of Russia, it is a good example of a corporatist system.
unrestrained capitalism leads to corporatism. The speed at which it does is directly proportional to the degree to which it is unrestrained.
1) Some form of government is always present in a society.
2) The mathematical outcome of unrestrained capitalism is the domination of a few large corporations due to economies of scale and the fact that wealth equates to influence over the overall structure of the playing field.
3) Said few corporations co-opt government.
4) Corporatism.
I will go further and say that the proliferation of the idea that free markets are beneficial is the RESULT of corporatism. Corporations benefit the most from lesser influence of the public or of government on the economy.
|
You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society
yeah we are on the same page.
You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations.
And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government.
The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions.
You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace.
Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed.
|
I got on word for you people.
ZEITGEIST.
Google it.
__________
The stock trade market is an entity that needs to be oblitarated from this society for ever.
Is nothing but a corrupt system that only makes the poor poorer and the rich richer, by transactioning money that doesn't exist from thin air, and that you in the end will pay.
Nuff said.
|
On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society yeah we are on the same page. You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations. And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government. The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions. You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace. Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed.
I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class.
|
On October 21 2011 03:31 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:25 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 03:19 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 03:15 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:58 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 02:52 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 02:50 Traeon wrote:
Inequality of income is diametrically opposite to the idea of democracy as long as money equals power and wealth. Which is why the government should be steered clear from the economy. Politicians will not be bribed by Corporations with a lot of wealth if the government is powerless in helping them compete in the market. I think you have it backwards. If you conceptualize 'government' as the collective will of society, then you arguing it should be steered clear from the economy is equivalent to you arguing that narrow private interests are the only ones which should have access to the economy. I don't conceptualize it like that, because when you do it leads to a majority rule which tends to oppress the rights of minority without reprecussions. I think the government is there to defend personal liberties, rights. I believe in the human rights of: speech, worship, property, pursuit of happiness (that doesn't infringe on the rights of others,) and contract rights. Pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market is the direct result of combination of: Property rights, contract rights, and pursuit of happiness. by having the government empower itself to be able to be involved in the free market it not only damages the productivity of the market, but it also in one way or another infringes on one of these 3 rights.
Obviously the end result of that scenario is an even worse one than what we have now.
If by even worse you state where everyone takes responsibilities for the consequences of their own actions, and are judged on the merit of their work... then yes it's much worse.
Currently the collective will of the people is fragmented, unfocused, severely marginalized and co-opted by private interests which enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring society, resulting in distortions, abuses, environmental destruction, poverty, etc. A better solution would be an organized means for every segment of society to regulate itself, by definition that makes the most use of human potential.
THE REASON that the private interests enjoy a disproportionate amount of power in structuring the society, is that the Corporatists are in bed with the government, and the only reason they can have a mutually beneficial relationship is because, the corporatists can give the government money, and the government can legistlate in favor of the coporatists... The only way to avoid this positive feedback resulting from corruption is to take away the government's power to legislate in favor of private interests... You can't stop private interests from making money, but you can make sure they have to do it fairly without the big brother helping them. In the end it's true that if someone has a lot of money he can give it to whatever cause he wishes, or he could use it to run a campaign to get himself elected, which is why it's so important that the government doesn't have the power to manipulate the economy because then instead of having a fair competition that results in better quality and lower prices you have a situation where money => government control => unfair advantage => more money. The only obstacle is organizing such a thing, but people protesting are on the right track, it starts with the collective will of society, and it starts both globally and locally at the same time. I'm going to give you a moment to look at one of my previous posts where I pointed out that all experiments in unregulated capitalism lead to disaster, giving the specific examples of Russia, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa. Then I'm going to let you respond with specific points. I don't think that arguing generalities here is useful for either of us. Your arguments seem to rely on statements such as 'if only' x 'then' y. But this is all hypothetical. This wasn't unregulated capitalism. Definitely not in Russia, I lived in Russia for 10 years after the break-down of USSR, as did my parents, and in fact speaking for my dad it is that experience living in Soviet, and Post-Soviet Russia that convinces him most to support libertarianism and the free market. You didn't have free-market in russia... You seem to think that free-market is synonymous with corruption, because that's what it was there. It's not free market, the government was HEAVILY involved in the economy, it just didn't PLAN it directly, but it gave out lots of contracts to "rebuild" the nation, and picked a lot of winners and losers, and that is how you get the huge disparity of wealth. This is a similar situation to what is occurring in the banking industry. The too-big-to-fail banks are a perfect example of this... How is that free market if they get bail-outs? It's not free market, the government should not have the power to pick sides the way that it does back in Russia, and the way that it now does here. My argument is sound, because you keep confusing Capitalism with Corporatism ,and there's a hueg difference. It's not the lack of regulation that results in the huge wealth disparity, it's the corruption resulting from the government having the power to give some corporations unfair advantages, which makes it easier for those companies to make profits outside the laws of the free market. unrestrained capitalism leads to corporatism. The speed at which it does is directly proportional to the degree to which it is unrestrained. 1) Some form of government is always present in a society. 2) The mathematical outcome of unrestrained capitalism is the domination of a few large corporations due to economies of scale and the fact that wealth equates to influence over the overall structure of the playing field. 3) Said few corporations co-opt government. 4) Corporatism.
... That's the whole problem. Wealth should not equate to influence over the overall structure of the playing field, and it DOESN'T if you don't give the government the power to do it.
That's why you have a consitution (at least america has,) it's not to say what the governemnt SHOULD do.
It's to limit what the government CAN do. You're coming in with an ideology, where you believe if enough people vote for anything should be possible.
I'm coming with the idea that there are some things that CAN NOT become laws if they contradict the basic axioms that are set up in place in order to control the scope of the government.
Managing the economy SHOULD NOT be in the scope of the power of the government, and if it's not then corporatism will not occur.
|
On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement?
The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works.
|
On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society yeah we are on the same page. You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations. And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government. The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions. You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace. Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed. I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class.
Yeah... I know there's a ton of literature about how free market fails.
But ALL of that literature relies on the idea that the government should be the supreme legislative power of the nation.
But any time you give the government supreme legislative power nothing good will come of it. This is why a government needs a consitution the rules of which it can not cross.
This is why a Constitution is so important. It defines the role of the government as a body whose purpose is to protect the Human rights defined/established in it, and managing the economy is NOT in the scope of protecting human rights in fact it directly VIOLATES property rights.
|
On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society yeah we are on the same page. You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations. And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government. The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions. You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace. Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed. I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class.
And the creation and growth of unions and the passage of laws regarding safe workplaces. You're ignoring that a free people improved their lot in life. Pendulum swung back in reverse, and there were both good reforms and bad in their wake. The excesses of government that is given great control over an economy in deciding who profits and who fails are much, much greater than anything corporations have wielded or can wield with a very limited government.
|
On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement?
First you open free trade. if you have a company in 1 nation that's a monopoly, opening free trade allows other companies to compete from across the world. If the entire world's industry in monopolized into one company, then it will run huge costs to supply its services across the world, this will open up an opportunity for a more local company to make a profit.
|
On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works.
What happens if the people become tired of working in a modern version of slavery? They move to a new job where things are done the exact same way in order to keep expenses low and stay competitive with their old employer? How do they deal with that?
This is the part that is absurd to me - you want to reduce control and influence of the government, but by doing that you're reducing YOUR OWN control over the society YOU LIVE IN. Given that governments are corrupt and do a piss poor job at being your representative, but it's still a tool that exists and as long as it exists, you have a method to control and change things.
What you're saying is "no, I don't want to have any direct control over the society I live in". You're cutting your options, making yourself less influental, less powerful, and ultimately less valuable. Unless you're at the top of the food chain (which I don't think anyone here is or will ever have a chance to be) - it's literally a social suicide. Which quite simply is a stance I can't take very seriously.
|
On October 21 2011 03:46 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? First you open free trade. if you have a company in 1 nation that's a monopoly, opening free trade allows other companies to compete from across the world. If the entire world's industry in monopolized into one company, then it will run huge costs to supply its services across the world, this will open up an opportunity for a more local company to make a profit.
Question.
How are for example water supply companies going to compete? Or health care? Or banks? Or electricity? Creating such a company requires a MAJOR investment, which you can only afford if you are... rich. Also many of the investments would be highly inefficient, like a lot of the things we're doing right now. For a new water/electricity company to form and compete, they would, for example need to build a completely new pipeline/cable system because they are not allowed to use the available one because it is owned by another corporation. This naturally means those areas, and similar ones, will be in control of a tiny amount of companies (that make deals with each other), or just one. The corporation will then grow and grow and grow, especially because of it's monopoly, and it will then go into other areas and destroy small businesses. They could create, for example a huge company like wal mart, which out-competes every smaller business and thus focuses the power even more, forming yet another monopoly. These kind of events continue and then we get corporatism again, like we have right now.
On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works.
People will deal with it? Like they are dealing with it right now? Are they? No, those companies are destroying them and taking all their wealth, and many people are doing nothing about it because they're not even aware of it. The corporations and elite control many people through media, etc. They create an environment where many raise their children with a toxic mindset designed to reject anything that tries to attack the corporate power and wrongdoings, do you not see it? Many people are brainwashed. People are waking up though, so I guess we could say people are dealing with it. This is a very good thing.
On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:
You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace.
Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed.
I sort of destroyed this argument above and I can do it in many more ways, but you're basically saying government should not exist because corporations can make it corrupt? So, you think governments shouldn't exist? No police, no laws? Then what stops the corporations from doing "illegal" things like building a private army, if there are no laws? They are an infinitely greedy and selfish entity after all. Do we really want to live in a world where wars will be fought to determine what is the ultimate corporation? Crazy.
Stop corporatism, stop greed, stop corruption and stop brainwashing humanity. Human "nature" is not an excuse. There is no human nature, there is only that which some falsely believe to be human nature, and the bad mindset of some people is the direct result of an ideology of greed, hate and darkness, instead of love and light.
|
On October 21 2011 03:56 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works. What happens if the people become tired of working in a modern version of slavery? They move to a new job where things are done the exact same way in order to keep expenses low and stay competitive with their old employer? How do they deal with that?
competition for labor deals with that.
This is the part that is absurd to me - you want to reduce control and influence of the government, but by doing that you're reducing YOUR OWN control over the society YOU LIVE IN. Given that governments are corrupt and do a piss poor job at being your representative, but it's still a tool that exists and as long as it exists, you have a method to control and change things.
no you're not. Corruption of the government is the direct result of its power. The more power you give it the more corrupt it becomes. If the purpose of the government is well defined, such as to defend the rights and liberties of its citizens (and those rights and liberties are also well defined,) then the government can do it's job and the people can pursue their goals in life, and the free market simply be what it is, the direct consequence of people's pursuit of happiness and Property rights, meanign a) people want stuff b) you can't take something from someone unless he gives it to you, also c) fraud is illegal (contract rights)
That's all, to undermine the free market with government control is to have the government take away one of those three human rights. In general the right that gets shitted on the most is actually the property right, pretty much any forced redistribution of wealth is a violation of humans' property rights.
What you're saying is "no, I don't want to have any direct control over the society I live in". You're cutting your options, making yourself less influental, less powerful, and ultimately less valuable. It's literally a social suicide. Which quite simply is a stance I can't take very seriously.
That's bullshit. The government isn't the will of the people any more so than corporations are the will of the people.
At the end of the day a single customer actually has more bargaining power with the largest company, than a single voter does with the government, so what makes you think that the government represents the will of the people?
|
On October 21 2011 03:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society yeah we are on the same page. You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations. And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government. The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions. You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace. Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed. I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class. And the creation and growth of unions and the passage of laws regarding safe workplaces. You're ignoring that a free people improved their lot in life. Pendulum swung back in reverse, and there were both good reforms and bad in their wake. The excesses of government that is given great control over an economy in deciding who profits and who fails are much, much greater than anything corporations have wielded or can wield with a very limited government.
yes, and free people legislated government into existence.
|
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:
That's bullshit. The government isn't the will of the people any more so than corporations are the will of the people.
At the end of the day a single customer actually has more bargaining power with the largest company, than a single voter does with the government, so what makes you think that the government represents the will of the people?
While certainly the government is corrupt, this is not what pro government people want. We want to have a government that is not corrupt, we want it to be controlled by the people and used to benefit the people. For the people and by the people. This also means we need to guard it from corruption.
|
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:56 Talin wrote:On October 21 2011 03:41 Ercster wrote:On October 21 2011 03:30 InRaged wrote:
Kiarip, here's a question that should be relatively simple for you to answer: how your "pure un-adulterated capitalism/free-market" is gonna deal with monopolism/oligopolism without government involvement? The people will deal with it. If the people become tired of buying from that company, then they make a new one. That is a how a free market works. What happens if the people become tired of working in a modern version of slavery? They move to a new job where things are done the exact same way in order to keep expenses low and stay competitive with their old employer? How do they deal with that? competition for labor deals with that. Show nested quote +
This is the part that is absurd to me - you want to reduce control and influence of the government, but by doing that you're reducing YOUR OWN control over the society YOU LIVE IN. Given that governments are corrupt and do a piss poor job at being your representative, but it's still a tool that exists and as long as it exists, you have a method to control and change things.
no you're not. Corruption of the government is the direct result of its power. The more power you give it the more corrupt it becomes. If the purpose of the government is well defined, such as to defend the rights and liberties of its citizens (and those rights and liberties are also well defined,) then the government can do it's job and the people can pursue their goals in life, and the free market simply be what it is, the direct consequence of people's pursuit of happiness and Property rights, meanign a) people want stuff b) you can't take something from someone unless he gives it to you, also c) fraud is illegal (contract rights) That's all, to undermine the free market with government control is to have the government take away one of those three human rights. In general the right that gets shitted on the most is actually the property right, pretty much any forced redistribution of wealth is a violation of humans' property rights. Show nested quote +
What you're saying is "no, I don't want to have any direct control over the society I live in". You're cutting your options, making yourself less influental, less powerful, and ultimately less valuable. It's literally a social suicide. Which quite simply is a stance I can't take very seriously.
That's bullshit. The government isn't the will of the people any more so than corporations are the will of the people. At the end of the day a single customer actually has more bargaining power with the largest company, than a single voter does with the government, so what makes you think that the government represents the will of the people?
I don't understand how you propose to fix the problem.
Mot people agree that government in its current form is problematic.
Everyone agrees that corporate abuses, excesses, and influence are problematic.
How do you propose to restrain corporate power without some form of counterbalance?
Saying 'oh other corporations will take care of it' is not a solution--
Free market is just another term for 'lets not regulate and let wealth do as wealth pleases'.
But really, how is that different from feudalism?
What many are proposing as a solution, is a form of grassroots participatory self regulation (google parecon or participatory economics if you're actually curious and not just attempting to ideologically sway the discussion with obfuscations and half-truths as some suspect) -- this has elements of what you are talking about, but it eleminates the ability of corporations to exert the influence they do.
|
On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:34 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 03:32 Kiarip wrote:You can't make generalized statements about human nature that not everyone would agree with, and then use those as the foundation of your argument-- nobody will agree with you, and the argument will go around in circles. This is not an ideological assertion, its simply good practice in having a discussion.
In general, we are on the same page in one sense-- we don't want oligarchs and corporations controlling society yeah we are on the same page. You want to give the governmetn so much power that it doesn't need anything from the corporations. And I want to limit the government's power that the corporations don't need anything from the government. The problem with the first is that since government officials are still people, you can't have them not need anything from the market without them having the right to take whatever they want with no reprecussions. You think that the problem with my idea is that without the government the corporations will run amuck, however you're ignoring pretty much all historical evidence, that the only time that corporations HAVE been able to run amuck is when they are able to manipulate legislature to give them unfair competitive advantages in the marketplace. Without the unfair competitive advantage that they get from the government they will be forced by the rules of the free market to improve quality and reduce prices in order to not be out-competed. I encourage you to go read about the industrial revolution. Particularly, the plight of the working class. Yeah... I know there's a ton of literature about how free market fails. But ALL of that literature relies on the idea that the government should be the supreme legislative power of the nation. But any time you give the government supreme legislative power nothing good will come of it. This is why a government needs a consitution the rules of which it can not cross. This is why a Constitution is so important. It defines the role of the government as a body whose purpose is to protect the Human rights defined/established in it, and managing the economy is NOT in the scope of protecting human rights in fact it directly VIOLATES property rights.
I actually went to the archives and saw the constitution last week, you can't even read the original document anymore just a bunch of scribbles and smudges(been like this for quite some time), the people that worked on it didn't really know how science/industry/population growth would make this country change.. it's a different world, and a different time. The document itself is magnificent, and stands for some really awesome stuff, but to say that it's not a little outdated? That's why the constitution allows the supreme court to mess with it, it's pretty much in the constitution that they get to interpret it, and for quite some time( at least as long as I've been alive, not a history major) we've been using the government to regulate, or even help big business and the economy.
We also can make amendments, etc. Fun 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
