US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1921

On December 03 2019 13:48 IgnE wrote:
What do you mean? You think they were just making shit up?

On December 03 2019 08:38 Foxxan wrote:
We dont have capitalism anywhere in the world today. What we have today is more in alignment with Cronyism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism


Capitalism is freedom. The individual owning the means of production and the fruit of ones labor. Which would and is freetrading.

It goes by the selfownership principle. Meaning, the individual owns ones own body, energy, emotions, actions etc.
In context, I own my self, I do not own you. If you attack me you do wrong since you dont own me. If I attack you I do wrong since i dont own you. I can decide what to do with my own property, i dont have the right to decide what to do with other peoples property. All individuals are equal to the law(natural law)

Goes hand in hand with consent and volyntarism.

There is no third party involved here, today a third party is involved all the time (Government.. The elephant in the room).
If I go to a boss of a corporation, and i want him to hire me. I can come up with a good or bad deal deponding on the circumstances and so forth.

If i am forced to make a deal. Is this the corporations fault? Its not. Its not the corporation that makes life miserable for you, its the GOVERNMENT. Instead of blaming the corporation, blame the real deal, GOVERNMENT!


(short read with concrete pictures)
https://www.capitalism.org/

This 8min video explains it better, good tempo with a lot of visuals about SELF-OWNERSHIP, the videos title is:
Philosophy of Liberty = Liberty in etymology; "free choice, freedom to do as one chooses,"



The self-ownership principle goes hand in hand with the homestead-principle.
To put it simple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_principle


https://www.panarchy.org/rothbard/confiscation.html


Think about it, i cant point my finger at unoccupied/unseen land and say "i now own this land" and then get money if someone steps on there..
I need to buy it first, right? With real cash, real paper money. Correct?
From whom??? Who to buy it from? If I do not have the right to point my finger to this land and claim ownership of it, then that means I cant buy the land from someone else since.. No one can claim ownership of it that way.

An example of homesteady principle:

If i see unoccopied land. I create my own house at one spot, and I plant tomatoes in a small yard. And i now use this house and this land of tomatoes. I now own this house and this land and these tomatoes. Its mine. I can do what i please with it unless i cause harm to other peoples property(including their bodies and their material property).

My energy is around this house, and these tomatoes. So even if i travel on a vacation for lets say 1month, the energy will still linger.. However, if i walk away from the house for lets say 3years, my energy will vanish from this place.. And i therefore no longer own it..
Can someone else now claim ownership of this house and this yard? Of course. But the individual needs to use it.. Same principle applies to us all.. We are all equal the law(natural law)

You can only own what you work/use etc.

So if i plant tomatoes 3miles long.. I will not own this land since i cant use this land.
If i plant tomatoes 3miles long, and only use 5meters of this plantation. I now own all tomatoes within this 5meters, the rest of the tomatoes become public, anyone can take it.


What we have just gone through are natural laws, all natural laws are objective.

Socialism, communism, democracy are all based in violence and coercion.
Manmade law;
Based on dogmatic beliefs (constructs of the mind)
Complied with due to fear of punishment.
Differs in location due to whims of legislators (moral relativism)
Changes over time due to whims of legislators (moral relativism)


Natural law:

Based upon Principles and Truth (inherent to Creation)
Harmonized with, due to Knowledge and Understanding.
Universal; applies anywhere in the universe regardless of location.
Eternal and immutable: exists and applies as long as the universe exists, and cannot be changed.


The self ownership principle, makes it our right, the individual right to damage one self if one so choose.
Meaning, using drugs, alcohol and other substances are all a natural right.

Government removes that right, and if you dont obey you get thrown into a cage(prison).
Government also tax "property" and claim ownership of land like it see fits.
It also steals money from the individuals each month(usually.. called taxes..)

What is theft?

Taxation=Theft.

On December 03 2019 19:21 PoulsenB wrote:
In my opinion there's no such thing as "natural law" (besides maybe behaviours governed by instinct, such as self-preservation or the drive to procreate), all laws are made by people and therefore cannot be 100% objective and "natural". Even very primitive societies and tribes have power structures and people in charge, be it chieftains, elders, tribal councils, shamans etc., as well as rules and laws the group follows as a whole. To say that there is some abstract set of "natural" laws that are 100% pure and virtuous and objective is rather silly, to put is lightly.

On December 03 2019 08:58 KwarK wrote:
You’ve got them mixed up. Socialism is the one where the worker owns his own labour and benefits from it. Capitalism is the one where some other guy gets the value created by the labour and the labourer gets a pittance based on market forces completely unrelated to how much value is created from his labour. For example a farm owner working hard and creating an exceptionally large harvest would reap the profits of owning the means of production, labour and ownership go hand in hand. That’s socialism. A farm labourer working hard and creating an extra big harvest may actually find his pay cut, despite the farm creating more wealth than ever, if additional farm labour becomes available and there is a glut in the labour market. That’s capitalism because the owner and the labourer are different people.

On December 03 2019 09:38 IgnE wrote:
I am following you up to the part about growing tomatoes. How does a homesteading society make capital intensive products like the computer or phone you are posting from though?

On December 03 2019 17:33 Broetchenholer wrote:
I would be interested to know who you think is protecting you against a neighbor with a Flintstone axe that believes him investing energy in bashing your skull in means he invested more energy into obtaining those tomatoes as you and therefor should have them. For as long as humans have lived in groups, there was some Form of government. Please name a time frame without one or a time frame with that you would rather like to live in.

On December 03 2019 19:01 ShambhalaWar wrote:

These arguments are so over simplified, that they are full of holes when you would actually try to practically apply any of these principles.

For example, the video discusses mutual consent (the irony of this is not lost on me)... "government" is literally the product of mutual consent (at least in a democracy). The people of a society get together and decide mutually who they want to represent them in many different positions... based on the majority consensus, we chose the best fit people.

Taxes are literally the mutually agreed upon $ amount of a society, which is agreed upon to pay for the roads, police, infrastructure, etc... a society needs to thrive.

Imagine a football game with no referees, or rules that were enforced. It would be a terrible game, which no-one would want to play... without rules there would be cheating, violence, and abuses.

There are countless examples of corporations fucking people over for greed, it really isn't hard to research them. Marin Skrelli is a prime example of so-called ownership of property/value and the abuse that follows when it is leveled against sick peoples' need for medicine... someone hikes the cost of his product by 5,000% as if anything could justify that... and sick people who need the drug don't have a choice but to pay whatever insane price is offered.

That is "freedom"?

If you can't afford to pay for a 5,000% hike in the cost of a drug you need to live, that is freedom? If society has the cure for your illness, but refuses to give it too you unless you pay the ransom, is that not the taking of your life?

If you can't afford to pay for a 5,000% hike in the cost of a drug you need to live, that is freedom? If society has the cure for your illness, but refuses to give it too you unless you pay the ransom, is that not the taking of your life?

If you can't afford to pay for a 5,000% hike in the cost of a drug you need to live, that is freedom? If society has the cure for your illness, but refuses to give it too you unless you pay the ransom, is that not the taking of your life?

The owner of the capital and the labourer do not have do be different people. If i own a shoe store, what forces me to not work in this shoe store? Nothing at all.

I would shoot this evil bastard in the head so the blood splatters, hopefully someone video tapes it so i can go to my neibours and say "If you ever see evil, call me. Here is proof". My neibour might say "nah no worries, i have my own protection (shows a ak47), "if i ever see evil" i will be the first to act".

In return every neibour might have a gun to protect them self and other people.

On December 03 2019 20:34 Foxxan wrote:

Socialism=Collective over individual
Capitalism=Individual over Collective

With this definition alone, one can see that in socialism you do not own your labour since you are forced to give away parts of it.
The owner of the capital and the labourer do not have do be different people. If i own a shoe store, what forces me to not work in this shoe store? Nothing at all.

You say that in Socialism is where the worker owns his own labour and benefits from it. As said above, you never own your labour in a socialism. Ever.
Second of all, you say benefits from it.

Why would an individual make a deal that doesnt benefit the individual? This only happens in a world where the system is messed up, and as i said in the text you quoted, its the government that is the elephant in the room. Its the government that forces individuals to make shit deals, not corporations.

When I trade with someone in a free market, why would i ever make a trade that i dont benefit from?
Just because people are forced to make shit deals today, doesnt change the very fact that a mutual trading in its core is based upon profit for both.

Furhter more, If i make a deal with someone and this person breaks this deal. This is wrong. If you make a deal the moral act is to see through with the deal. Otherwise, this is considered theft since you steal ones energy.
You and I make a deal, I go and cook food to you and in return I get to borrow a movie from you.

I cook the food, give it to you, now you say "Nah, i wont burrow you the movie". I have now wasted my labor, my energy for nothing. This is theft.

Further more yet again, what is moral with this example:
I create a fishing pole. You want to fish, you are hungry. You want to burrow my fishing pole. Do i have the right to say no? Of course I do.
I yes Ok, you can burrow this fishing pole, but in return, i want 25% of all the fish. You say yes.

In your argument here, You who burrow the fishing pole should now own this fishing pole? Even though you didnt make it, you didnt work on it.
This is not moral.

Further more, if you and I both own the fishing pole, how does this make any sense? If you want to fish at x place, and i want to fish at y place. Since we both "own" this fishing pole, who gets to decide what to do? Where should we go and fish?
What happens in scenarios like this is that there will be no fishing since we both cant own it. If we both can own it, it would then mean we need to cut the fishing pole in half. But then there is no longer a fishing pole. For the arguments sake, lets say one half can still fish. Then who gets that half? Who decides since both "own" it?.

Two people cant own something, and its immoral to believe that just because you work on something, you should own the capitalism as well.

If i want to fish, i dont have a fishing pole. I get to burrow a fishing pole for lets say 2hours and in return 25% of all fishes to the capitalist.
Why would i ever make this deal if i didnt benefit from it? I make this deal since i benefit from it. No deal, no fish, no food. A deal=Food.

I benefit from it, the capitalist benefit from it.

And since i fish so got damn good, and the capitalist appreciates this, next time i burrow it i might just have to give 20% or no deal.
If he says he want 40% next time, i can give a consent or i can say no and go to another fisher if available.



Same principle as today, but instead of people making shit deals by force(because government make shit systems for the individual) the corporation, the capitalist might have to make much better and more friendly work environment.
Every humans might say no to go down the earth and dig up some toxic material for use in computers etc.

Or someone might agree, if it gets a very protective suit.

Either make it a very good work environment since we are dealing with toxins here, or make an efficient machine to dig up toxic material.




I would shoot this evil bastard in the head so the blood splatters, hopefully someone video tapes it so i can go to my neibours and say "If you ever see evil, call me. Here is proof". My neibour might say "nah no worries, i have my own protection (shows a ak47), "if i ever see evil" i will be the first to act".

In return every neibour might have a gun to protect them self and other people.

ANSWER; Who protects against evil? Individuals. Life requires responsibility, Life requires energy.
Who protects better against evil. People on the spot that sees evil with their own eyes and therefore can defend against it immediately while at the same time, these individuals priorities freedom over money any day in the week for ones own self and other people in danger.

Or the cops that are far away, and that needs "evidence", and that needs money? "Evil is at our door steps...do something", "Fuck you, pay me."

Direct answer: Individuals in society. Evil would have a very hard time thriving, or even existing.



2 wolfes and a sheep asks what is for dinner. The wolfs say "sheep". The sheep gets eaten. In the name of the "law".
According to democracy, this is a moral behavior.

I never gave consent to being governed, i was born into this. Do i have the right to say "i support iraq in war, and then fight for iraq" over sweden? That would be called treason.
I am forced into this culture, this nationality and this government.

A lot of people dont vote today, yet, they are still governed. What right do an individual have to govern other people that didnt give consent? How can man become authority?
You and me dont have these rights, so how come, if we both vote - Now all of a sudden an individual gets powers that you and I dont possess our self? Its impossible.

In real life it doesnt work.

You can be governed all you want, but you dont have any right to force that upon other people.


Playing football is based upon rules, not laws. You have the right to say "i dont want to play football" and thats that.
If you decide to not pay taxes, you get thrown into a cage.

Completely different things. Football is based upon voluntary and consent, while government is not. As is clearly seen when government governs people that didnt even vote.

Besides, you call it a "mutual consent", which is false. But for your arguments sake lets say its real;
If a politician says he will do X, y and o but ends up doing n, m and a instead.
What should happen is this politican should be fired since you had an "agreement" with each other which this politician broke.


This is not what happens today. Besides, government can do a shit job today and that is exactly what it do and always will do and still keeps its "job".
While if a corporation do a bad job, and people decide to not buy their service, they gets shut down. In real life, thats how it works. Do a good job, and people want your service, do a bad job and people dont want your service.

Government goes against even this concept.

I wil repeat what i said before;
I cant give rights I dont possess my self to other individuals. Yet in the illusionary mind, people believe that is possible. That is democracy in a nutshell, its based in illusion and fantasies over reality. And that is always a dangerous path, evidence for that? Observe the world around you. War, poverty, miserable life etc. These are not the capitalist's fault, its the governments fault.

Government make laws for corporations. Government protects these laws, government literally protects evil deeds by corporations. This is cronyism in a nutshell.
If an individual put a lot of waste in the ocean so a lot of fish dies, that individual would get prison. A corporation on the other hand gets away with it.


Besides all this junk in the world, poverty is actually decreasing in the world by a big margin even in this shit system. Thanks to corporations.


The ones that own the capitalist decides the price. What right do you have to decide what i should sell my shoe for? You have no right what so ever to decide the price of my capitalism. Maybe start taking responsible over your behavior and start condone and support government.

Freedom is the selfowner ship principle. Everything outside of this is slavery.

And in this argument of yours, what you fail to realise is that government is helping the medical care have monopoly on health. That in itself is immoral as fuck.
Government has monopoly on violence today, and government helps corporations get monopoly all the time.
Alcohol is a fine example, the food seems to be in alignment as well, whatever food store i go to its the same products. I wouldnt be surprised if they go by the same delivery principle as well. Example, why dont a store have ripe fruit? Delivers by plane two days afters its picked?

Observe the world, there are pharmacuticals everywhere, same medicine and same treatments. And governments helps with making it hard for other healthcommodies to rise to the surface.

In 1993, the "agricultural adjustment act" happened, a federal law, The farmer would get "subsidies" in exhange for limiting certain crops. So the price could rise making it harder for the average individual, and also starvation(potential) at the same time.

Government is also the one that makes it possible to have "patents". This encourage monopoly as well.

Did you know that government in the name of "national security" have the right to cease patents of individuals? Again this supports making it harder for the average individual.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/the-thousands-of-secret-patents-that-the-u-s-government-refuses-to-make-public.html

It has stolen over 200 patents already, and these people that gets their patent stolen cant talk about it. In the name of the "law".
Patents in itself is immoral trash, has no bearing in selfowner-ship principle, supports monopoly, making it harder for the average individual, on top of this, its immoral trash yet again to silence someone like this.
I dont have the right to make someone not talk about x. And therefore since we are all equal to the law(isnt that what government tells you anyway) no politician, no none has that right.

Government also have the "eminent domain", meaning, there are no property rights today. Government can when it wants to, take your house at whim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

On December 03 2019 20:58 PoulsenB wrote:
I like how he talks about how transactions need to be "moral" but then advocates for a society where might makes right and where capitalists can arbitrarily hike up prices for life-saving goods (people don't exactly get sick by choice, you know). Also the argument about the government being bad and corporations being good is super flawed, as it is usually the corporations lobbying and corrupting public officials for their monetary gain (be it to get tax exemptions or setting up laws that help them get a monopoly or patents to be exploited for profit).

On December 03 2019 20:51 Simberto wrote:
Oh, good, we have been really lacking in libertarian drivel for a while. It is amazing how i can look at any part of what you write, and it is all bullshit nonsense.

I think i am going to stop here. This is amazing bullshit, but i don't want to spend hours responding to every single of your inane ideas. Consider thinking stuff through a bit further. Maybe not to the end, but to the next obvious step. Once.

On December 03 2019 09:17 KwarK wrote:

Because being a farmer on the farm your great great grandfather bought and living in the house he built and being the one in a long line of farmers to lose the farm is tough, especially when your kids aren’t interested in farming for a loss and you’re working 18 hours a day to try to keep it going but the bills just keep mounting and the price of milk has dropped below the price of feed to get that milk but it’s not like you can just stop getting milk because the farm is mortgaged and you can’t scale production to the market that way so you just ask if the feed store will give you credit which is humiliating but you gotta do it but they won’t because everyone is asking for credit and they know as well as you do that things aren’t getting better and this isn’t just a bad year, it’s that the economics don’t make sense.

Farmers are killing themselves because within a capitalist economy that is the correct thing to do when the value of your labour goes negative. This is the market based solution. When enough of them kill themselves there will be less supply and we can reach the supply/suicide equilibrium as Adam Smith always wanted us to.

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/27/586586267/as-milk-prices-decline-worries-about-dairy-farmer-suicides-rise

On December 03 2019 22:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
It is as you say, this is a world with people starving. It shouldn't be the government's problem, or anybody else's if someone self indoctrinated themselves into a myth that when it is shattered they see no way out but to take the most selfish recourse when they are living a reasonable life. Their children they leave behind, will have to be the ones continuing living life.

That news article is just sensationalist click bait. The man is well built, has a healthy complexion, wears good quality clothes and has a home. What I see are independent self sufficient people who have good shelter, good clothes, plentiful food and water, living in an unpolluted air, no matter what the value of their labour may be. Who cares if they cannot afford an iphone? Life is more than purchasing power. They are living the life that half the world's population can only dream of. Food sufficiency and a well built home. If they choose to take their own lives, (they aren't, it's just a small sample), the problem isn't that they are starving and have no recourse to kill themselves to not prolong the inevitable end, but that they have chosen to kill themselves unnecessarily. What I think is gross is comparing starving people with well fed, sheltered people, as if they are comparable. It's literally a first world problem. They lack context to realise how fortunate they really are, if they really are suiciding over milk prices.

Also, looking into it, the report about suicides has been retracted on 15/11/2018.

On December 03 2019 23:17 KwarK wrote:

They are losing their homes, livelihoods, and way of lives and you’re saying “well there’s more to life than money”. They don’t have good shelter, the farm is mortgaged and they can’t make the payments. You’re right that they probably have nice homes, I bet they wish they could stay in them.

Could you miss the point any more?

On December 03 2019 23:25 Wombat_NI wrote:

Humans aren’t absolute in their worldview, we judge ourselves in relation to those around us in all sorts of ways, absolutely.

If that weren’t the case folks in the West would all be extremely happy and well-adjusted and able to look at things in that perspective, and people in poorer countries would all be completely miserable all the time.

As you say, you can’t just say ‘there’s more to life than money’ when, happy participant or not your worth is judge on money or your ability to generate it your whole life.

To fail financially if you’ve internalised your worth in financial/providing terms means you yourself are a failure and some will take the suicide option accordingly.

The White House has said US President Donald Trump and his lawyers will not attend an impeachment hearing on Wednesday, citing a lack of "fairness".
The hearing by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee marks the next stage of the probe, with legal experts giving testimony that could lead to a vote of impeachment.
It is alleged the president pressured Ukraine to conduct two investigations for his own political gain.
Mr Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
After weeks of closed-door witness interviews and public hearings, the process will now focus on possible charges of misconduct, which could lead to an impeachment vote in the House and trial in the Republican-led Senate.
The Democratic-led inquiry centres on a phone call in July between Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr Trump has dismissed the process as a "witch hunt".
Last Wednesday, Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, invited Mr Trump to attend this week's hearing, "directly or through a counsel", saying it would be an opportunity to discuss the historical and constitutional basis for impeachment.
But in a letter to the committee, White House counsel Pat Cipollone accused the committee of a "complete lack of due process and fundamental fairness", saying the invitation would fail to give the White House adequate time to prepare and did not give information about the witnesses.
Reports suggested witnesses were "apparently all academics" and would include "no fact witnesses", Mr Cipollone said. A fact witness testifies their personal knowledge of events while an expert witness assists the judge by offering an opinion.
Mr Cipollone also said the committee had called three witnesses but allowed Republicans to call just one, and lambasted Mr Nadler's claim that the process was "consistent" with historical impeachment inquiries, arguing that President Bill Clinton had a fairer hearing in 1998.