|
On October 21 2011 04:06 Kiarip wrote:
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?
This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature.
|
On October 21 2011 04:06 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:46 Kiarip 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? 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. 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 continues and then we get corporatism again, like we have right now.
Collusion without government support has been shown to be quite ineffective.
The banks interests are often-times in direct conflict with big corporations, because the banks want to give out loans to starting companies that DON'T fail (otherwise the owner can't pay back the loan and the bank loses money.) But monopolies DO want small companies to fail.
So what happens when there's collusion is someone sees it, and sees it as an oppportunity to make a profit by under-cutting the whole thing, so he goes to the bank, or gathers up other business people possibly from other industrial areas, and they pool resources or take out a loan and start a business that will have a competitive edge against the monopoly, and so will be very successful.
If there's no opportunity to make a profit by under-cutting, then it actually means that things are as expensive as they are because that's how much they're actually worth (eg. too much demand and not enough supply etc.)
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. 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.
Right now corporations are supported by the government, and that's the problem. It makes competitnig with them impossible because they have the unbeatable might of hte government on their side.
Show nested quote +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.
[/quote]
You're arguing a strawman. So you didn't destroy anything.
I said it's the government's function to protect basic human rights, which involves property rights, contract rights, rights to a fair trial, etc etc. The government has the right and duty to implement those things.
You have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about wars i'm not even gonna touch that.
and then more moral babble... lol
People have the right to make a choice. It's not greedy to want to make a profit, because if you don't profit the company goes broke and consumers go without a product. If you're getting greedy by skimping on quality or increasing prices, consumers will take the hint and switch to someone who's less greedy... that's the free market.
Of course what you want is there to be a government so in your case what happens is the guy who was greedy made a little extra money before consumers left him, and he went to the government and offerred them the money so they went ahead an instituted a license that only he may have, thus effectively throwing his competitor who's less greedy out of business, and then all the customers are forced to return to the greedy business-owner...
you're right, your way is much better.
|
On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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 
science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government.
This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature.
those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power...
by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no.
|
On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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
you sound like you're in PR. fun.
The point referenced implicitly by you and others in the last page and a bit is that we don't want government to regulate the economy.
I don't think that holds much sway with the public-- I think people universally recognize that powerful narrow private interests (some of them corporations) dominate the economy and are responsible for the mess we're in right now. The proposal to let them run amuck is wrongheaded, and people know it is, it makes sly rehashings of the position that we should continue allowing them to run rampant just look foolish.
As an ideological corporate extremist, you should be trying to co-opt the conversation and argue that we should only punish the 'bad' corporations or something.
|
On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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 science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. Show nested quote +This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no.
People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many.
|
On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:
science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government.
Americans disregard the Constitution all the time because it is so vaguely written. Example: everyone interprets freedom of speech, freedom of assembly in different ways. And this problem with the document has been debated ever since we had a Federalist Party.
The problem now is that there isn't enough stuff around to make our life crap. We have climate controlled shelters, all the entertainment we could short of interactive porn, and machines that can transport us anywhere in 2 days. Brave New World happens, and everyone in power just has to promise to keep Jersey Shore on the air and pretend to be the savior of the world to get into power and we wonder why our life is crap.
by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no.
Unless we get a government that isn't plutocratic, if we can achieve that then full steam ahead.
---
Anyways, why I'm posting is in this corrupt shithole of a state called New Jersey they've finally started a movement to try and change the governments across the country for better or for worse by just kicking them all out after one term.
http://www.johnatuttle.com/grip.html
|
On October 21 2011 04:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:
science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. Americans disregard the Constitution all the time because it is so vaguely written. Example: everyone interprets freedom of speech, freedom of assembly in different ways. And this problem with the document has been debated ever since we had a Federalist Party. The problem now is that there isn't enough stuff around to make our life crap. We have climate controlled shelters, all the entertainment we could short of interactive porn, and machines that can transport us anywhere in 2 days. Brave New World happens, and everyone in power just has to promise to keep Jersey Shore on the air and pretend to be the savior of the world to get into power and we wonder why our life is crap. Show nested quote +
by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no.
Unless we get a government that isn't plutocratic, if we can achieve that then full steam ahead. --- Anyways, why I'm posting is in this corrupt shithole of a state called New Jersey they've finally started a movement to try and change the governments across the country for better or for worse by just kicking them all out after one term. http://www.johnatuttle.com/grip.html
Voting for this party or that party is less important, nobody should find it coincidental that politicians market for your votes. Then celebrate voting.
Democracy comes from engagement, mobilization, organizing, and is empowering. Not checking a name once every 4 years.
|
On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote: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.
The story is more complicated than that.
First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). We've always had export-led economies highly dependent on foreign trade (that is, international markets) and always having to be very competitive because of it.
The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created).
That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden.
They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education?
But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job.
What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man.
That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get.
|
On October 21 2011 04:32 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:23 DrainX wrote: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. The story is more complicated than that. First of all, Scandinavia grew wealthy from all very uber liberal reforms during the latter half of the 19th century (much like other countries like Japan). The society I guess you're thinking of then started to take shape more and more but up until 1950 the ratio of taxation to total output was always below 20%. After 1950 we got tighter labor market regulations and by 1970 the ratio was above 50%. Incidentally the economy was slowing down all while the ratio increased until we reached stagnation and suffered from horrible political decisions that caved the way for our big crisis - much like this crisis has been created by politicians. It wasn't until the Socia Democrats lead by Göran Persson took som hard decisions and stopped the growth of government and put together the financial framework (which among other things states that the government should aim for a budget surplus and deine a self-imposed spending ceiling for the coming years) that the economy finally turned around and is now one of the best in all of the world. Also worth noting is that Sweden created a net total of 0 new private jobs during the period 1970-2000 (jobs in the public sector were created). That such policies don't work in creating wealth is obvious. Not just from bad countries but from good countries like Sweden. They may work in sharing wealth however. They may work decently, or at least do less harm, in homogenous countries. After all, what problem is a minimum wage (or barriers in general) in a country were everybody looks the same, speaks the same language, comes from roughly the same background has roughly the same education? But look at what happened as soon as Sweden, and other countries, decided (and rightly so in my opinion) to open our borders? Did we gain the same kind of economic boost USA did when people migrated there? Nope. We got trouble and racism pretty much because suddenly people didn't fit into the existing structure and so you get people living here for 10 years before getting a job. What I find especially ironic is how these bureaucratic systems inevitably end up favoring those already on top. Wall Street was bailed out, main street wasn't. CEOs go to Washington/Stockholm and ask for favorable loans or financial aid that common people with small businesses would never get. Jobs aren't competed for, they're given to family members. Knowing the right people is more important than being virtuous and skillful. Rules and reguations are created so complex and convoluted that only the big companies can employ enough lawyers and other non-productive people to navigate the mazes and come out on top. It's always one big giant boot stomping the face of the common man. That's why free societies are important. At least if you want to create wealth and be open to anyone while being able to say that things are as fair as they possibly can get.
who cares about creating wealth if its only created in the hands of a few.
South Africa for example, upon liberalising it's economy underwent a lot of growth, in terms of GDP, but people were almost universally worse off as a result.
'growth' is just another scam, really, people love to advocate growth, but who the hell cares if the top .001% enjoy higher profits if everyone else stagnates. The fortune 500 has more assets. Woop. Meanwhile poverty is up, less people have healthcare, education, the gini index goes through the roof. That's not what growth means to me, but that's what it means in the way you use it.
In a feudal economy do the peasants care if the king raids the treasury of the next kingdom? It would count as growth.
|
On October 21 2011 04:16 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:06 H0i wrote:On October 21 2011 03:46 Kiarip 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? 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. 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 continues and then we get corporatism again, like we have right now. Collusion without government support has been shown to be quite ineffective. The banks interests are often-times in direct conflict with big corporations, because the banks want to give out loans to starting companies that DON'T fail (otherwise the owner can't pay back the loan and the bank loses money.) But monopolies DO want small companies to fail. So what happens when there's collusion is someone sees it, and sees it as an oppportunity to make a profit by under-cutting the whole thing, so he goes to the bank, or gathers up other business people possibly from other industrial areas, and they pool resources or take out a loan and start a business that will have a competitive edge against the monopoly, and so will be very successful. If there's no opportunity to make a profit by under-cutting, then it actually means that things are as expensive as they are because that's how much they're actually worth (eg. too much demand and not enough supply etc.)
You conveniently ignored the part about water, health care and electricity companies and decided to focus on the bank part instead, hmm...
Banks will indeed want safe loans if the government won't bail them out, but the effect is the same. Banks steal wealth by interest, it's simply a money moving scheme from poor to rich which will eventually concentrate every last bit of wealth on a tiny amount of people. Also, the problems in the banking sector are much more because of CEOs going for quick money that will destroy the bank in the long run, because this allows them to give themselves a big bonus.
Right now corporations are supported by the government, and that's the problem. It makes competitnig with them impossible because they have the unbeatable might of hte government on their side.
They are not supported by the government. THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Government existing is not the problem, the problem is that it's no longer in control of the people. Competing with them is irrelevant because it will have the same destructive results regardless of what corporation is doing things. Money is disconnected from what matters, look at the big earners and look at what they do for society: nothing. If I invent a cheaper way of treating a disease, then why would I use it if it gives me less money? Monopolies are the direct effect of a "free" market.
You're arguing a strawman. So you didn't destroy anything.
I said it's the government's function to protect basic human rights, which involves property rights, contract rights, rights to a fair trial, etc etc. The government has the right and duty to implement those things.
You have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about wars i'm not even gonna touch that.
and then more moral babble... lol
People have the right to make a choice. It's not greedy to want to make a profit, because if you don't profit the company goes broke and consumers go without a product. If you're getting greedy by skimping on quality or increasing prices, consumers will take the hint and switch to someone who's less greedy... that's the free market.
Of course what you want is there to be a government so in your case what happens is the guy who was greedy made a little extra money before consumers left him, and he went to the government and offerred them the money so they went ahead an instituted a license that only he may have, thus effectively throwing his competitor who's less greedy out of business, and then all the customers are forced to return to the greedy business-owner...
you're right, your way is much better.
You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame?
And wars, I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why not? You don't want limitations on corporations and/or don't want to admit they are bad because they are infinitely selfish entities that will want to get power, which is the exact reason they want to control the government. IF we allow them to take over the government they will. If the government exists only for protection of the rights you mentioned, they will STILL take over the government IF WE ALLOW THEM TO, and they will use it do get more profit. And if we have no limits, then what stops them from being the law and starting a war against another corporation, literally? After all they are infinitely selfish, it is their definition!
|
On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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 science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no. People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many.
No. We don't have a fair way of doing that in most cases. Nobody that I know of takes the position that democracy is a good system. Being able to vote for theft and call it anything but theft is the sign of an immoral society.
|
On October 21 2011 04:40 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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 science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no. People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many. No. We don't have a fair way of doing that in most cases. Nobody that I know of takes the position that democracy is a good system. Being able to vote for theft and call it anything but theft is the sign of an immoral society.
So we go out and make the system work. We go out to the streets and we organize, and we build movements that takes the needs of the many into consideration. We're all screwed by the system, so we all go out together and fix it.
|
You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame?
He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used.
You basically admitted defeat just now...
|
It was about 27, 28 of us. When we got to the bank, we marched in, and clapped, and had a meeting. We had an open forum, and we actually tried to involve the bank employees, if they wished. And a few people talked about student loans and what debt was doing to them as individuals, and what could be changed about that. Unilike a lot of the reports, it was very respectful. We told the employees that we wanted them to keep their jobs and we were respectful. And they asked us to leave.
But legally, we're allowed to stay until the cops come and say, if you don't leave you'll be arrested. But what was unknown to us and to a lot of people that day, including those in Times Square, was that there were undercover cops already there, paid to be disruptive and to be loud. One undercover cop present [at Citi] was louder than the entire group.
How did you know he was an undercover cop?
He arrested one of the protestors outside, and slammed her into the wall, and pushed her back into the bank. We all saw him at the precinct with us. He was laughing with the fellow white shirt cops, telling them about what we'd been saying, basically. It was a bit startling how inside their information was - how they were being paid to go to these protests and put us in situations where we'd be arrested and not be able to leave.
Anyway, after that, they announced they were closing the doors. But they were closing the doors as they said this. They pushed everyone -
"They" who? Bank security?
Yeah, the bank security, along with the undercover officer, pushed us back and locked the doors. They would not allow us to leave, which is illegal, and said the cops are on the way and you are all arrested.
At that point, right before we left, three people who came with us were gone. That's why it was 24 arrests.
Source
|
On October 21 2011 04:42 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:40 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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 science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no. People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many. No. We don't have a fair way of doing that in most cases. Nobody that I know of takes the position that democracy is a good system. Being able to vote for theft and call it anything but theft is the sign of an immoral society. So we go out and make the system work. We go out to the streets and we organize, and we build movements that takes the needs of the many into consideration. We're all screwed by the system, so we all go out together and fix it.
But people will disagree. It does work in cases were the vast majority (like 95% say?) are in agreement. Perhaps then it's easier to waive the requests of the remaining 5% so long as the motion isn't to murder these 5% or something like that...
Still, majority rules is a very imperfect system. But organizing and discussing and trying to bring society forward are of course valid actions. The hard part is deciding what's OK to vote on and what's not. Where to draw the line so to speak...
|
On October 21 2011 04:42 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +You are still not getting it. Why are you blaming the government for this? Isn't it the corporations who bought the government? The government at this point in time allows the tiny amount of people in control of the world to do what they want because they own it just like they own the corporations. If I shoot you, is it your fault? If the corporations take over government, is it reasonable to say government is to blame? He doesn't care "who's to blame". He just says that the system is bad for the reasons he mentioned. Who takes over who, who shoots who is unimportant. The point is that someone got shot. Alas the system is bad and can't be used. You basically admitted defeat just now...
I don't think he did. I think you misread what he said. Its okay.
Government is problematic, but it is at least construed as a structure that is responsible for providing for the needs of society as a whole. That construal in the minds of the public is a powerful thing, because the public can hold it accountable.
Of course the public can also hold the corporation accountable, but I think we're all just in favour of gutting their ability to screw us all over by imposing stifling regulations on them, and the obvious means of doing this is through the vehicle of government.
|
On October 21 2011 04:06 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 03:46 Kiarip 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? 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. 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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
First response:
1. Companies didn't just form from thin air, they started small and grew to where they are now.
2. Monopolies will only thrive if people continue using the companies services or goods, as soon as they stop, the company will fail.
Second Response:
We aren't a free-market, so until that happens your argument isn't valid.
Third Response:
He didn't say that government should not exist, he said that government and corporations should be separate.
|
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? 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.
How do I answer this so that someone as stupid as you can understand. If people don't like who you work for, they go somewhere else where the work is better, you know, like it is NOW. Because you have the ability and right to post, doesn't mean you should.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 21 2011 04:45 ParasitJonte wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 04:42 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:40 ParasitJonte wrote:On October 21 2011 04:28 caradoc wrote:On October 21 2011 04:18 Kiarip wrote:On October 21 2011 04:16 BlueBird. wrote:On October 21 2011 03:44 Kiarip wrote: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 science and industry doesn't effect how the government is run. there were always peopel taht had al ot of money and those people always had the opportunity to try and bribe government officials, the only difference is back then people still followed the constitution adn believed that government doesn't ahve unlimited power, but today people disregard teh constitution because they think the government will save them from evil corporations if you give ti enough power... which simply corrupts it more and gives more incentives for corporations to bribe the government. This is true to an extent, and I agree with you to a degree.
This is why we need grassroots organization/mobilizing and why we need to build an alternative set of structures that are participatory in nature. those things are equivalent to unions, but once again unions have more power... by the way don't think that I'm saying tehre should be government supported unions... that's another no-no. People should have power. Power is fine if it doesn't screw over society. Power is great if its held by the many. No. We don't have a fair way of doing that in most cases. Nobody that I know of takes the position that democracy is a good system. Being able to vote for theft and call it anything but theft is the sign of an immoral society. So we go out and make the system work. We go out to the streets and we organize, and we build movements that takes the needs of the many into consideration. We're all screwed by the system, so we all go out together and fix it. But people will disagree. It does work in cases were the vast majority (like 95% say?) are in agreement. Perhaps then it's easier to waive the requests of the remaining 5% so long as the motion isn't to murder these 5% or something like that... Still, majority rules is a very imperfect system. But organizing and discussing and trying to bring society forward are of course valid actions. The hard part is deciding what's OK to vote on and what's not. Where to draw the line so to speak...
Majority rules is possibly a bad system in some cases yes. So we go out and create local solutions, through forming parallel organizations. Reduce the scope of some decisions. People have a say in things they have a stake in. In order to do that, we start by organizing and mobilizing, and discussing it on an issue by issue basis. again, same solution.
It takes a drastic restructuring of society.
|
On October 21 2011 04:47 Ercster 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? 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. How do I answer this so that someone as stupid as you can understand. If people don't like who you work for, they go somewhere else where the work is better, you know, like it is NOW. Because you have the ability and right to post, doesn't mean you should.
This is wrongheaded.
Who do I work for, sweatshop A or B? errr... I choose neither. Okay. Now I starve.
I have money, do I buy the Halliburton widget, or the Monsanto widget? ooo... I don't like either of them... I'll start a widget company.
Oh, Halliburton is now suing me for making widgets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
