Eat the poor.
Over the last several decades it seems there has been an active political moment in the US, and possibly countries, to actually undermine a variety of social programs that exist to help either people that are poor and/or disabled who for a several reasons may not be able to work in order to help themselves. Some of this includes the closing of mental hospitals, getting rid of welfare, making it very difficult for disabled people to get SSI/SSD, and corruption at the offices of the Veteran Affairs office where they deliberately avoided accepting people who had health issues in order to save money for the VA.
I kind of know that as a mere individual it is heresy to try and claim that either the republicans, certain special interest groups, and/or some wealthy individuals are actively trying to undermine/discriminate those that are poor/disabled seeking help, but at the same time it is kind of hard to ignore the problems these institutions have nor the fact that they are often filled with individuals who really don't want to use their organizations funds to help those in need.
I'm wondering if anyone else on this forum has similar opinions and/or feels that there is some kind of "class warfare" going on where some of the rich and powerful are trying to undermine the poor and disenfranchise who should be getting help but are not.
I kind of know that as a mere individual it is heresy to try and claim that either the republicans, certain special interest groups, and/or some wealthy individuals are actively trying to undermine/discriminate those that are poor/disabled seeking help, but at the same time it is kind of hard to ignore the problems these institutions have nor the fact that they are often filled with individuals who really don't want to use their organizations funds to help those in need.
I'm wondering if anyone else on this forum has similar opinions and/or feels that there is some kind of "class warfare" going on where some of the rich and powerful are trying to undermine the poor and disenfranchise who should be getting help but are not.
Comments (283)
No one should be poor in a nation this wealthy, but we aren't really a nation -- not in the most meaningful sense of the word.
And, yes, a big part of the joy of being elite is to have as many people beneath you suffering as much as possible; that's what gives your privilege substance. Of course they don't want us to be happy. The goal is to keep us only as subjugated as humanly possible without a revolution.
Lift us up, put us down, lift us up, put us down. And we're so saturated with media bliss, we don't even realize how wrong it is that so many of us truly live lives of fear and desperation. We feel alone; everyone else is happy. Most people are so desperate to be positive, because they want so badly to escape their personal hell, they'll even convince themselves everything is okay.
But yeah, this is no nation. We're divided at the core of what makes us human. For the people at the top, "America" is just PR. They feel no allegiance to this country (which is its people, not its resources.)
Again, like I've always said, the flaw is in the system and not the people. Can you blame people for taking bribes if their salaries/pay ain't enough to make ends meet?
I mean, golly gee, what would happen if some dickhead had a home. Pretty soon everybody would be dickheads and we'd have to help them all. We'd go broke.
"The only war is the class war." The rich get richer by making the people poorer.
Workers create wealth through the various processes of their labor. The owners collect a portion of the worker-created wealth and keep it. The workers retain enough to maintain themselves, but not enough to become (even remotely) rich.
What about social and economic mobility?
There is some social and economic mobility in capitalist countries within the working class. Education, skill acquisition, brains, luck, hard work, thrift, and cooperative financial institutions can enable one to move up the economic ladder, but only a few get from the working class into the top tier of wealth. Home equity is one way many families have achieved upward economic mobility. However, there are numerous social and economic institutions making that upward mobility possible.
Post-1930s depression-era legislation and post-WWII programs created a lot of the opportunities that enabled many families to accumulate wealth. Without billions invested in road and infrastructure construction, without billions made available to finance the suburban boom (in the 1950s and 1960s), without FHA and VA loans, without expanded college education opportunities, a lot of upward mobility wouldn't have happened.
We like upward mobility, but there is also downward mobility, a less cheerful topic.
~Warren Buffet (2006)
Interview 2015:
and Thomas Piketty (synopsis)
I'm an economic democrat, so ... :mask:
Quoting Banno
Yeah... some of us have been caught up and fighting in this protracted conflict for some decades. :pray:
It has become more apparent as the working poor have lost their economic power, and the social welfare gains of the C20th are rolled back. But don't worry, it's all going to get much worse.
Another day a government failure, another call for the government to fix it. By now weve relinquished so much social power, and converted what little responsibilities we used to share with one another into state responsibilities, that I fear its too late to do anything about it. So far gone are we that we now pretend voting for this-or-that politician or this-or-that piece of legislation is tantamount helping The Poor, even though politics and charity are wildly divergent activities.
The problem with the class war idea is that it isnt true, and worse, pegs as good or evil one who may be the oppositeits unjust. Better to approach the blame game on an individual basis, to witness if one helps the poor or not, rather than making such determinations from which tax bracket or party they occupy. I wager youd be surprised.
The idea of class war need not demonize the rich but only describe a tendency of the rich to maintain their luxuries and privileges at the expense of outsiders. Indeed, the poor are often encouraged to emulate the class consciousness of the rich. One way to clean my own room as a shrewd prole is to form free associations with other such proles and do what the rich do, team up explicitly in order to better squeeze politicians for tax money, protections, and privileges.
Class war is very real and very damaging to the world. Dont pay attention to those who pretend it doesnt exist theyre unwitting puppets for pure tyranny. Always have been.
I speculate that @NOS4A2 embraces some kind of Randian ideology, conveniently ignoring the capture of the government by the rich. When bombs to drop on strangers are needed, tax money is easy to find or just print. When health care or housing or education is needed, how are we supposed to pay for it?
:snicker:
:up:
Collectivism in a nutshell. Make hasty generalizations and form a politics around it.
Randianism in a nutshell ? Connect everything to the demon collectivism ? We are social animals trying to work out how to thrive together. A ruling class that gluts itself while the system rots is like a brain tumor. It's nothing but superstition to treat private property as eternally sacred.
The conceit is in the idea that so long as you can form a ruling class of your proles all will be right and well. Of course, this idea has ruined every society it has touched. So much for thriving together.
Anti-social personalities generally view doing anything with others as evil, raising individualism to the level of fundamentalist dogma, matched only by their faith in markets. Theyll forever rail against unions and governments while keeping quiet about corporate power, for one reason: they prefer tyranny. Why? They imagine themselves as in charge.
Its nothing other than dressed up justification for greed, the hatred of democracy and, generally, human beings. Who knows how or why they acquired this sick outlook I suspect early experiences and heavy brainwashing.
Not worth getting too worked up about. Leave them to their pathologies.
Except they too often get elected.
It does seem to be the ruling ideology. But I think thats changing as the people become angrier with the state of things. Most are lashing out in silly ways, to the point of electing clowns because they say they like them.
I guess it means we gotta try harder to educate people and listen to them.
Anyway, I was mostly talking about people in this forum.
I think they are electing clowns because clowns appear not to be a product of the system viewed as hopeless, broken and corrupt. A clown like Trump has the right populist enemies (regardless of his real status as a cunt). The cult of 'everything is fucked' is lubricant for demagogues. :wink:
Those who would posit Stalin as a leading light of the left? And who think that the solution to poverty is charity?
And who are against unions because they had a bad experience in one once?
Yeah, something like that.
:up:
:up:
This is a sticking point for me, too. They pretend to themselves to hate tyranny but have no problem with a tiny proportion of the population owning just about everything and all that entails.
Perhaps the choices are clowns or a-holes! In other words, the people's decision in the elections was sagacious and not foolish! C'est la vie!
Zeleneskyy (the comedian)?
Actually I'm strongly influenced by various conservative thinkers, and I don't expect Utopia to ever quite arrive, but we can and should try to do better. Tax the rich more. Invest in health care, education, infrastructure, dealing with the climate crisis. This is like a homeowner fixing things around the house, and some of us prefer to think of citizens owning the 'home' as opposed to a tiny segment of the population.
Since wealth makes it easier to gather and pass on the wealth (and because it's all of us who generate it together, despite uneven reward), there's a tendency for dangerous, anti-democratic accumulation that should be corrected for with tax laws. The point is to build a stable system, in which as many as possible are given a genuine chance at a happy life. This involves no illusions that life can ever be without struggle or competition.)
It looks like our standards have gone up since (real) slavery - the kind where we used to work people to death - was practiced all over the so-called civilized world. It's a good thing though and I for one recommend even more stringent criteria for what is and isn't exploitation. For instance, not given days off is in my humble opinion is gross inhumanity. This is the 21[sup]st[/sup] century for Chrissakes!
Tax laws We know what that means in practice: use the monopoly on violence to exploit the labor of others so you can spend their dollars on your investments, whether its war, infrastructure, or other ineffectual pork. You steal my income, steal it again when I buy something, steal it more when I make some gains. No private man has done that to me or anyone else but a rank thief.
For a moment there I thought you were above the most basic of strawmen.
We've been through this before. The monopoly on violence is not necessary. The government could merely enter your house when you're out and take what it considers to be it's rightful property.
So you'd be happy with the non-violent version of taxation I take it. Where the government uses subterfuge and cunning to get the property it thinks it has a right to?
Necessary or not it has it. I cannot defend my property or take it back by force. At any rate, Id prefer it wouldnt take my wealth in any fashion.
Nor could you without government monopoly. The strongest would simply take whatever they wanted, or the most numerous would, or whatever group could consolidate power. If I think a corporation has taken property I considered mine, what recourse do I have to get it back, government or no?
Quoting NOS4A2
I'd prefer my own private island in the Pacific. Who gives a fuck what you'd prefer. If you have a moral argument, make it. If all you've got is what you'd prefer I can't think why you'd consider some random people on the internet would be in the least bit interested.
I didnt think Id have to explain why theft was wrong. Ill pass, either way.
You could be right. Communal living wouldnt allow the sort of power imbalance and organized exploitation present in modern states.
Theft is the taking of property not legally belonging to you. Taxes legally belong to the government. You'd just prefer they didn't. I could claim I prefer your car didn't belong to you and then declare your possession of it to be theft.
You're just trying to dodge having to defend your flimsy beliefs about property so that you can continue to accrue more wealth.
Not even for national defense?
Right, the government declares it can legally take my money, and it is theirs, therefor they are not taking my money. You probably work for the government, dont you?
How else do you imagine proper ownership of property is determined other than by fiat? Do we ask God whose land it is?
I havent quite worked out a theory of property, but I suppose it would be on the Lockean side. Is your theory of property one of government dictate?
Pretty sure fiat currencies are owned by the government anyway. So technically all of NOS4A2s money is the governments. If he doesnt want them taking any of their money back then he should manufacture his own goods and barter them for the things he needs.
The actual coins and paper are, but the government's backing turns that into money.
Then how the fuck have you determined your pre-tax wages to be your property? Lucky guess?
Quoting NOS4A2
Largely, yes. Rightful property is only meaningful in terms of law, and the government make the law. Underneath that is the relationship of power to enforce, but government is a means of controlling that power. People create governments to leverage their numerical advantage over stronger but less numerous groups.
Quoting Michael
Ha! Indeed. Perhaps @NOS4A2 would prefer the government stay out of his financial affairs entirely and leave him to do whatever he sees fit with his now useless stack of decorated paper.
So the capital levy on Jewish wealth imposed in 1938 proves that it wasnt their property after all?
It wasn't in 1938, no. It is now.
Nothing about property law says anything about the morality of it.
If you want to make an argument about what people ought to possess, that would be interesting, but yours is not such an argument.
That's the wrong answer.
It was their property. One edict was even called Decree for the Reporting of Jewish-Owned Property. Of course, the Nazis would lay claim to it should they need it for the sake of the German economy.
My argument is that it is immoral to take from others, not what they ought to possess. That my money was given to me for services rendered is enough to know that it is mine.
But it was offered to me and given to me for the services my employer and I both agreed upon.
You're missing a premise from which you can then derive the conclusion that you therefore have the legal and/or moral right to that pre-tax income.
I repeat: all of this is, at its core, a hatred of democracy, of social institutions, and of people. The world revolves around me and my self-interests, full stop.
Its just more dressed-up Ayn Rand garbage. A sick and silly outlook indeed.
Of course.
2. Is taxation theft?
It can be, as in the case of the Nazis placing a special tax on Jews, or the British taxing American colonists who had no representation in the British Parliament.
3. Is it always theft?
Not according to the average person. When it pays for government expenditures that are on behalf of the community, and it's levied by a Congress made up of representatives, it's not theft. It's we, the people, paying our bills.
Sorry I'm late in replying.. my home computer isn't really working right now so I usually have to go to the look at and reply to forum messages.
I just wanted to say that I pretty much agree with everything you said in your post.
How can you be sure that it isn't like organized crime in that there is a active conspiracy among certain wealthy people to undermine those that are either poor and/or the working class. I'm not an expert in US history but there has been times when certain business/corporate interests have mobilized much like a small military to undermine those that work and have actively harassed/killed those that have tried to do things like form unions/take actions for worker rights.
West Virginia coal wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars
I agree.
:up:
It's worth noting that the American taxation system is presently reinforcing wealth disparity. Only a fool would let an anarchist paint them into the corner of arguing for a malicious system.
The way to avoid that is: don't focus on the anarchist, focus on your own values (if you have any moral compass at all) and don't give in to the temptation to stray from what you know is right.
Only choose allies who maintain their integrity so you don't accidentally end up on the wrong side of history.
No, I have more or less know this for some time. It has only become more painfully obvious for some time.
We live in a society that often tries to brainwash us into believing that anyone that wants to live the American dream can do it, while if you look at the facts it shows that around 50%-66% of the population either live near or below the poverty level - and this is true of even those that are working a full time job.
And what makes matters worse is that even though Americans are more productive and working harder than any other time in history, US standards of living are constantly getting worse ever year.
So much for Reagan's "Trickle Down Economics" where helping out the rich was supposed to help but the rich and poor at the same time.
The question I wonder about is HOW much worse it has to get before more people realize what is going on.
I could be wrong but many of our current problems are not all that new. In a many ways the issue of "class warfare" has been going on since about the start of the industrial age which I think was about 1850. Because it isn't a new problem, it is plausible that measures taken in the past to help worker rights might hold some insight into what might work today in order to restore some of our rights.
I agree.
I can tell you the answer, but you're not going to like it. People will starve, they will get on the train to the extermination camp, and they will die by the million still believing in their religion, their country, their government and its ideology, and still convinced that they themselves, or Johnny Foreigner are to blame.
Mother Jones - Its the Inequality, Stupid
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
This, in my opinion, is part to the problem. It presents it as if it is simply a matter of competing values. Each side believes it knows what is right. Ranks are closed. Information is treated as if it is polemic and handled selectively.
It has become a form of vicious relativism. Once a point of attack and contention against the "left" by the "right", it is now standard practice on the right, albeit cleverly disguised as championing the truth. It is perpetuated by an acceptance of the belief that the mainstream ("lamestream") media is the enemy of the people. Thus, a significant part of the population is ignorant of what is going on. Or, to the extent they do know, they dismiss it as spin. They have their own sources of news and information, which provide the comforting illusion that they and they alone are informed of the real truth.
I agree. I could be wrong but it seemed like during the Cold War, those in power in capitalist countries like the US were a little more careful in how they treated their workers perhaps out of fear that if socialist ideas spread too much in Western countries it might tip the balance of power a little more in Russia's (and it's allies) favor.
However since the end of the Cold War in certain Western countries values have changed and the powers that be that control the media likes to tell us that the only social/economic model that works is capitalism, even though there has never been (nor can there really ever be) "pure" capitalism since people in power use their resources to manipulate the system to make it do whatever they want it do at any given time.
If I have learned anything from studying philosophy and history is that when one ideology is considered the only thing that "works" (like Abrahamic religions before the modern era), people often become more simple minded and are less objective than they would be otherwise.
Focusing on your own values is relativism?
That is not what I said.
But what is the rich you are describing are acting like demons? Has anyone ever said we shouldn't demonize people like Hitler, the Nazis, or Putin and the Russians?
It is almost a given that whenever the poor/working class "team up" in order for them to better themselves (and have more leverage with those that they work for) those in power put them down as fast as they can. If you don't believe me read up on the West Virginia coal wars where those that owned the coal mines would employ "security forces" that would often go around killing and terrorizing any workers that dare stand up to them.
West Virginia coal wars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_coal_wars
Well then why did you ask? I'm no historian. I made my position quite clear. Property is determined by law. So if you say it wasn't a law then it was their property. But in that case, I'm baffled as to why you mentioned it.
Quoting NOS4A2
So no returning of stolen goods? No legal resolution of land disputes (just fight it out?), no use of communal resources...?
Quoting NOS4A2
So tax taken by tax code prior to you receiving your wage packet is OK? It's just the method you're bothered by?
I disagree. One of the easiest (if not THE MOST EASIEST) to make money today is to find a way to exploit others. By either making others feel like they are not worth anything (or in some way a substandard citizen or human being), one is able to make them live/work in conditions that they would not be willing to deal with otherwise. And even if you can't make them believe as you want them to you can always either violence or the threat of violence in order to make them behave the way you want them to.
It has been going on since the beginning of civilization and will likely continue to go on for the foreseeable future. Western civilization has been built on the backs of the poor and disenfranchised and it will continue to be that way since it seems to be the easiest/profitable way for those in power to run things.
I misunderstood then. Earlier in this thread, NOS4A2 manipulated Isaac into saying that a Nazi attack on Jews was ok.
Amorality on the part of the majority is, in large part, responsible for wealth inequality. So I link Isaac's questionable moral compass to the problem.
If everyone stuck to their moral guns, the world would be different. We don't do that, though. We value strength over morality. Even leftists do that, as this forum demonstrates.
You are partly right, the money in our pockets are merely "IOUs" from the government and they are only worth something if the government and other powers that be say they are worth anything. At any time they can either print out so much currency that the money in your pocket isn't worth anything, or take the money through either taxes or other means.
Also if one is labeled a "enemy of the state" any wealth/property can be confiscated through one of several means. Most private citizens don't really own any real wealth or other resources that can not be taken away in a blink of an eye if they do something that either the government and/or some other power disapproves of. It is also a given that even "if" you are a person in good standing and have a little more wealth then others, you can be charged with fictitious crimes and/or sued into bankruptcy until you have nothing.
Any US citizen that likes to think they are an island unto themselves and could survive whatever the government or someone with power throws at them is just fooling themselves. In reality, they are on a leash just like the rest of us are, and with one little yank of the rope they would be force to come to heel just like any of the rest of us would have to.
Just to clarify. The capital levy appears to have been made law, so it turns out the property did legally belong to the Nazi government.
Quoting Albrecht Ritschl Professor of Economic History, LSE
There are various forms of relativism. If we reject the idea that there is an absolute moral authority that determines right from wrong, good from bad, that is accessible to us, then the alternative is some form of relativism. This differs from "vicious relativism" in that it does not treat all moral claims as equally valid or invalid or dismiss them as undecidable.
Quoting Tate
To what end? A shootout?
Anti-abortion advocates are not only sticking to their guns. They have an array of weapons and are using them effectively, ignoring the collateral damages.
Is it just coincidence that they frame both abortion and gun control in terms of the sacrosanct need to protect the unprotected?
Jane Mayer documents this in her book Dark Money. TLDR: in the last few decades, enormously wealthy billionaire dynasties (the Kochs, for instance) in America have financed countless political action committees, think tanks, lobbying campaigns etc in an effort to abolish government intervention in a ludicrous right-wing libertarian "free-market" capitalism that could easily be described as fascist.
Yes. But dont expect them to read Mayer. Thatll screw up the very neat Government is the problem mantra.
I added it to Amazon wish list and will but it when I get the chance. :D
As things stand, the demagogues propped up by a segment the rich and powerful acting purely out of self-interest have managed to recruit a significant portion of the poor to their cause. It is the age old story of the demagogue posing as savior. It is, however, risky to scapegoat the rich and powerful, since they are behind the demagogue. It is the "elite" who are held up as the problem even though it is a group of elite who attack the elite.
It is relatively safe to attack the elite as opposed to the rich. The only thing they are in danger of losing is their elite status, which is exactly what they require in order to scapegoat others like themselves.
Classic.
https://archive.today/20211025032625/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/technology/amazon-employee-leave-errors.html
https://gizmodo.com/amazons-aggressive-anti-union-tactics-revealed-in-leake-1829305201
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/01/amazon-osha-injury-rate/
https://www.cnet.com/news/amazon-u-k-accused-of-sweatshop-conditions/
https://www.thestar.com/business/2020/06/26/amazon-delivery-drivers-in-canada-launch-200-million-class-action-claiming-unpaid-wages.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20200824215335/https://www.aspi.org.au/report/uyghurs-sale
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/02/new-study-deems-amazon-worst-for-aggressive-tax-avoidance
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/9/9/20857030/amazon-employees-walkout-environmental-policies
... maybe pick another bookseller?
Abortion is an exception to the rule. We generally agree on moral principles like: it's not right to ignore people in need. There's a whole philosophy behind ignoring that duty.
Capitalism did something amazing. It took the old aristocracy out of the picture and made everyone equal under the law.
Immediately, a new aristocracy appeared. They have shaped public opinion to support their agendas.
I think the system needs a revision that will only come when some event breaks the power of the reigning aristocrats.
Will a new elite immediately appear after that?
Nonsense. Even abortion can be rendered down to an agreed moral principle (don't kill innocent people), or expanded out to a disagreement (don't terminate a foetus).
You can make basically any moral rule sound universally agreed by simplifying it, or you can explain disagreements by considering the details. All it reveals is the intentions of whoever is doing the comparison.
:rofl:
Sorry but this is amazing.
A nice fairytale for kids.
Is it? There is a great deal of unresolved disagreement: We cannot even agree on the status of moral principles let alone what they are.
Quoting Tate
They are not aristocrats. They are plutocrats.
We can agree it's not right to ignore people in need without establishing the status of morality, can't we?
Quoting Fooloso4
Pretty much the same thing.
And yet in practice many are ignored.
There is also differences in attitudes as to what "in need" covers and what this obligates us to do.
Quoting Tate
Similar in that the few are in power, but also quite different. Today's plutocrats are not aristocrats in the Greek sense, or by birth, or in the sense meant by the US Founding Fathers.
I think what you're saying is that there is no consensus regarding the morality of ignoring people in need. Therefore we have a lot of them.
Quoting Fooloso4
That's what I meant. Name a culture that didn't have its version of one percenters (or there abouts).
There are some, but not many.
It is not a matter of some "therefore". People have always had different opinions about their obligations to others.
Quoting Tate
What are we to make of that? Is it something we want to eliminate? If there is a need for rulers does it make more sense that they be the few who are most capable? In other words, members of a true aristocracy.
Doesn't this have some impact on the kinds of societies we build?
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't know. What do you think?
:100:
Ah, wisdom dawns!
You only own property if we say you do.
From there, the whole edifice of individual sovereignty collapses.
I think you're saying that property rights only mean something in the context of community.
You don't want to argue that we can't make mistakes and dispossess people immorally. That would be giving a big thumbs up to a lot of gruesome crimes.
NOS4A2 has already made one poster fall ass backwards into that one. Good to see you're not as stupid.
Of course. It is a question of whether we take people as they are or try to change them.
Great harm can come from trying to do great good.
Quoting Tate
Pre-internet I would have said definitely not. Now I think there is the potential for more voices to be heard. This may be preferable to leaving decision making in the hands of a few. But it is not a matter simply of more voices, but of the possibility of hearing the right voices, those with something useful or valuable to say that is being ignored or overlooked. Creative solutions those on the inside are too close to see.
But for this to happen there would have to be gatekeepers, bouncers, moderators. And so, another iteration of the few.
Wikipedia has, despite the misgivings of observers during it's inception, reached a certain level of stability.
Consider a nation in which the laws were constructed by communal editing, as in Wikipedia.
The ultimate democracy?
Great example.
Quoting Banno
Maybe.
Or the ultimate tyranny of the masses.
Wikipedia ought fall into chaos, unless there are more than some critical mass of folk who are willing to put together half-decent text and delete the "Garry is a poof" comments. And it more or less works, in most cases... If there is no critical mass, the Wikipedia will fail; hence, by modus tollens, there must be more than that critical mass who will work for the benefit of the encyclopaedia...
Not advocating it as a system of government, but I'd like to watch...
I suppose if easy money, a quick buck can be made via exploitation then (wealthy) folks will, quite naturally, take this shortcut to riches. However, to my reckoning, this route to big money comes with risks that make it a bad choice. What was the aftermath of the coal wars? I bet the coal companies lost, big time!
Indeed. The poltico-economic environment (conservatism + capitalism) is conducive to exploitation. It looks like a work in progress - the systems we're working under/with need more work obviously and we can see changes made in the right direction. Trust me, we'll get there...someday!
:up:
It is unjust to take the fruits of someone elses work and effort for your own benefit. I have the right to my income simply because it was given to me. I acquired through a just transaction.
The rest of my quote magically disappears.
The morality of who owns what and the legality of who owns what are two different matters which you keep confusing.
Property is about the legality. You own what you own because the law says so. Even if that's the Nazis claiming ownership of Jewish property.
What you ought to have is a matter of morality. It has nothing to do with what is legally the case, nor even what is currently made the case by a community (even pre-law). It is to do with what ought to be the case.
The corollary of what you're saying is that every pound in the exchequer is disputed property depending on the exact tax rate each community group out there considers just.
The answer is: yes.
It unambiguously isn't. Try taking your state to court for theft on the grounds that you don't think it's property law is what it ought to be and see how far you get.
Courts aren't always necessary:Holocaust reparations
Sometimes it helps: Native American settlement
I've no idea what point you're trying to make. All of the settlements under those agreements were legal and made years after the 1938 laws were repealed (in the German case).
Nothing in either of those agreements says that a current state's laws determining property do not do so.
All you're reaffirming is that sometimes property law isn't what it ought to be. Nowhere have you shown that it isn't the current determinant of who owns what.
Still confusing who owns what with who ought to own what.
That, in a nutshell, is the problem! Well said!
It's quite odd that this is so. In the simplest sense, neither the seller nor the buyer need to be morally upstanding individuals to close a deal.
Yet, I see real change happening over the past dozen or so years. There was a Thai-based company which was blacklisted for using coconuts picked by monkeys; then there's the Xinjiang boycott by America; more instances of the ethicization of economics can be pulled out of the pages of history. These are good signs, wouldn't you say?
Cool. Nearly there then. Just a few billion more exploitative products and services to go.
You repeating it doesnt make it untrue, either.
Do you really think it is just to take the fruits of someone elses labor without their consent?
What you seem to fail to understand is that the state, including such things as infrastructure and legal protections, is a condition that makes possible your labor and its fruits.
Who gets to decide the worth of their labour?
Your mistake is that you believe only the state can lay asphalt and build bridges and protect our dealings.
Consenting parties in the transaction.
The government is party to your employment contract.
Do you live off the grid?
Can you build an interstate transportation system? Can you develop a national and international communication system? Can you protect yourself and your assets from from foreign and domestic attack?
No it isnt.
I cannot nor can anyone else because the state has acquired all power to make decisions in those ventures, even if in most of those cases the contract work out to private people.
Youre using money issued and backed by the government and the government enforces the terms of the contract.
If youre that opposed to reality then establish your own currency, convince like-minded individuals to adopt it as tender, and trust in a gentlemans agreement that youll be paid what has been agreed.
And? They are not a party to the contract.
It is not simple a matter of having acquired the power but of having the ability to do what individuals cannot. You cannot lay asphalt and build bridges on your neighbor's property without their permission.
You might object that the state does not have that right either, and yet these things make it possible for you to live as you do.
The question then is how much are you willing to give up in order to redress what you take to be the injustice of taxation?
People take into account moral considerations, so your market claim is nonsense, worth ignoring.
And it follows that the terms of agreement are only valid within the legal framework established and maintained by the government, and that the government owns the currency.
I am only saying it is wrong to take the fruits of someones labor, not that good statists cannot voluntarily fund the state and its efforts.
But they are not party to the contract.
You do consent, by living in a country with laws. Don't like them? Either leave or try to get them changed. Taxes have a long history. Take it up with the founding fathers and the constitution.
It is what you are not saying that is at issue. You do not live in isolation. It is unjust for you to benefit from all that the state makes possible while at the same time denying it the funds that make it possible.
Once again: how much are you willing to give up in order to redress what you take to be the injustice of taxation?
Ah, the good ol' days.
Always remember what lies at the foundation of all this whining about taxes and government: narcissism and borderline solipsism. Oh -- I mean "freedom," of course.
The freedom to be a callous, selfish asshole.
First its the market doesnt take into account moral considerations, now its the market doesnt result in overall just outcomes. What state has achieved overall just outcomes?
Has my labor and wealth not paid for such benefits? That the slave benefits from the services provided to him by his master does not alter the injustice of such relationship. He is fed, housed, clothedhow dare he opine that the master exploits him.
The market isnt a human being. It doesnt make moral considerations, so we agree. I dont know how we move from that to the argument that the fruits of my labor shouldnt be mine when it was procured via voluntary exchange between two consenting parties, as renumeration for work I performed for someone who wanted to buy it. Whose money should it be, if not mine?
Or, I need a part of my house renovated. I ask three builders for a quote. I select the cheapest. Nowhere did morality come into it. There's no moral argument that the builder winning the job is morally the most deserving. The point is you have no moral claim to be doing that work in the first place. It's merely that we agree that if two people agree on a job, that it should be done and considerations are exchanged but that's not because it's the moral outcome but because it's convenient.
You're so stuck in the procedural aspects of the transaction itself you confuse following the process with morality.
"It's all Obama's fault healthcare is so expensive!" Evil governments!
In what way has your labor and wealth paid for these benefits?
Quoting NOS4A2
Paying taxes does not make you a slave, but not paying taxes does make you a freeloader.
Sorry, but it is moral, right, proper, and virtuous conduct to pay someone for services rendered and to abide by voluntary and mutual agreements. It is immoral to do the opposite. You dont go to the convenience store and walk out without paying, or refuse to pay the builder after hes done.
Why cant it be economical, legal AND moral. Those are not mutually exclusive so why cant it be all 3? Why are you excluding the moral aspects? It would clearly be morally wrong to steal from the store right?
You and your buyer both have acted morally and in good faith. Nevertheless, you have no moral claim to the ownership of the painting because it was stolen from me.
EDIT: the point being, there's a difference between acting morally (upholding a contract, not stealing) and our moral claims to what we own.
This is what I was asking about. Why are you denying morality can be a part of it like economics and legality?
Im not following how your responses answered that.
Also, when we are talking markets are you intending to claim there is no moral aspect to how it works?
Some of those rules overlap with morality, so I do not agree that playing by the rules is the most you can morally claim. The fact there are rules in no way entails that there is no morality.
As to the goal of the system a free market place aims at a fair (a moral goal) exchange of goods and services. Greedy assholes try to game that system and do their best to make it unfair but this is the fault of greedy assholes not the system itself. After all, if greedy assholes can act immorally in a system then surely good folks can act morally in that same system.
But this is simply not true. The market aims at an efficient exchange goods. They were developed for convenience not for moral reasons "let's meet in the town square each week to barter goods" instead of having to visit ten different people and having to travel all the time.
Efficiency is ONE of the goals of the market. Again, efficiency is not mutually exclusive with morality (fair exchange of goods.) Its both.
Additionally, the markets development is not the same as the markets goals. You subtly shifted some language there.
You have not shown that markets do not aim for a fair exchange. Who would want a market that didnt aim for fair exchange? Greedy assholes, people who dont let pesky morality interfere in their money making, yes. Thats a people problem, not a market problem.
The idea of a fair exchange of goods is really plucked out of thin air and I stand by my comment that at most we can say we"played by the rules" but that says nothing about the morality of market outcomes.
Markets are not concerned with fairness at all. We needed regulation to avoid worker exploitation, we needed regulation to combat pollution, we needed regulation to avoid anti-competitive behaviour. Now we need regulations around ESG to avoid the world burning and to hopefully avoid a biodiversity collapse. Why? Because the market mechanism in no way shape or form is concerned with moral outcomes. It never has and it never will.
The fact that people infer morality or a certain impartiality to the market, that whatever the market produces is good and correct is a pox on all our houses.
I am dense, I guess. I cant see how voluntary, consensual cooperation, whether in the market or elsewhere, is not moral behavior. Moral people purchase things in such a manner because against all other forms of exchange (robbery, theft, extortion, forced labor, etc.) it is the moral one.
Your moral behavior seems an infinite regression because it doesnt end, or at least ends where a vast number of improvements could still be made, and thus never be moral enough. Or it must satisfy some moral outcome, or be considered morally optimal, which it never does.
The consensual and voluntary exchange is a just transfer of holdings from one person to another, and thus moral behavior. So long as the property is transferred in such a manner, no one else has any moral right to it because they would have to engage in an unjust transfer in order to attain it.
But they always always ignore externalities. Thats not an accident. Were supposed to forget about the outside world, the community, or other people altogether. What matters is ME and MY transactions.
So it goes for this sick, merchant worldview.
Ill say it as Ive said a hundred times: the quicker these poor saps die out, the better. For the sake of future generations.
Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas
May not be that simple though. What's the origin of avarice? What evolutionary purpose did it serve? Is it a relic of our once solitary lifestyles which now finds itself at odds with social existence? Do we wait for evolution to weed out the offending (selfish) genes? Can the mind override genetic programming i.e. can we defy human nature comprising quite a few antisocial traits? Que sais-je?
You're not reading what I wrote. I'm not saying market actors act immoral but they cannot claim a moral right to market outcomes, because the market does not take into consideration the morality of a specific market transaction.
Just like playing a game of Yathzee has no moral effect (but it would still be immoral to cheat) so does a market transaction not have a moral effect because moral outcomes are not taken into account. Moral outcomes are not incorporated in the price mechanism.
An example, you're a carpenter and so is your neighbour. You build exactly the same chair. I need a chair, you ask 65 USD, the neighbour asks 70 USD. All things equal, I buy yours. The reason the neighbour asks more is because unlike you she doesn't have a spouse bringing in income but has to take care of her kids, which means she needs a slightly higher margin. Me not buying the chair means the kids go hungry this week. The moral outcome might be worth the extra 5 bucks to me but since in everyday life such circumstances aren't known, I'm not capable of making the choice. So morally, we have a suboptimal outcome in almost all market transactions even though I acted morally (since I didn't know better).
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh, so you do understand? So it's not that you can't see it, it's that you won't.
Im reading what you wrote. Were talking past each other. Im arguing about moral behavior; youre arguing about moral outcomes.
Like I said, I think moral outcomes are illusory in the sense that they are never moral enough, an infinite regress, so one neednt concern himself with such thoughts. Had you known the womans kids might go hungry you might buy the more expensive chair. She spends the money on booze instead. She gets drunk and kills a family in an accident. Regardless of the outcome you acted morally.
Then morality is just an arbitrary set of rules.
If the outcome isn't relevant, then why act that way. You might as well say it's 'moral' to put a pineapple on your head.
We don't know outcomes with certainty, but the whole point of moral behaviour is to have a guess. Otherwise, why?
I will try to look at all of these when I get a chance. If you have more links/sources I'm happy to look into them as well but I will admit it might take some time the more I have..
Anyways, again thank you for posting them. :D
The only thing I think I can add at the moment is say that the other day I watched a movie called "The Brainwashing of My Dad".
The Brainwashing of My Dad
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3771626/
I don't know if what it talks about in the movie directly causes wealthy people wanting to start "class warfare" on the poor but I pretty certain that it may indirectly be a reason for i since in the movie it talks about right-wing think tanks are able to help the conservative make more people think the way they do and it helps them push their agenda -which of course includes destroying/dismantling any and all social programs.
I should imagine you've better things to do with your time! Personally, a company with that many flagrant derelictions of its duty of care has lost, for me, it's place in decent society. I highlighted it, because sometime we can forget the role of ostracisation in maintaining decent standards of community behaviour.
On the contrary. They simply see that their strategy works: using it, they get the upper hand, they win, they get what they want.
And they don't hate human beings in general. They are kind and generous to their own kind, to their ingroup, and they have no qualms about destroying the outgroup.
Quoting Xtrix
"Leaving them to their pathologies" is precisely what makes their strategy so effective. Letting them do what they do is convicing them that they're not doing anything wrong. And so they continue, and grow ever stronger.
But they don't die out: they stick together, they're solidary with one another. They're just not solidary with outsiders.
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
I have no idea who youre talking about. Im talking about anti-social types specifically, NOS.
But feel free to continue playing the contrarian about something you havent read. As usual. :ok:
The difference is that you claim a moral right to the outcomes merely because you followed the rules. My point is that merely following the rules does not result in such a right if that outcome isn't moral. I subsequently put forward that since the market mechanism (or actually the price mechanism) doesn't take into account moral considerations, it will result by definition in immoral outcomes.
Your example above and point about the regress are valid points but then I never claimed acting morally and taking responsibility for the consequences of our choices is easy.
:up: .
I don't think opponents of government intervention are not in favor of improving the lives of their fellow man, they simply see governments as a flawed means of getting there. In fact, you could say that the opponents believe that seeking to solve many such issues is inherently in vain and causes more harm than good.
This characterization to classify people who generally are not in favor of government intervention as selfish is just naive and arrogant.
Proponents of government intervention tend to look at issues very one-sidedly, pointing at one group as the clear victim and thereby justifying their actions, not understanding that government intervention almost always creates new victims elsewhere.
There is no free lunch.
1. prohibited slavery
2. prohibited child labour
3. gender equality
4. welfare
5. healthcare
6. labour laws
7. environmental laws
8. independent courts
9. infrastructure
10. accessible educations
11. anti-trust legislation
12. police
13. fire departments
14. etc.
I could go on but I thought of one every second just now, each institution or law program improving socio-economic circumstances of a lot of people and to the extent it cost money it improved social justice. I don't really care about the motivation of people who are against governmental action toute court, because it's based on a total lack of historic perspective and only driven by ideology.
Anyway, my point was never that governments shouldn't do anything.
But if we're going to keep score, shall we also list the many evils governments have perpetrated?
For a lot of those it is debatable whether they were achieved by [s]government meddling[/s] the free exchange of goods and ideas, or whether their results were at all desirable.
I'd say people who seek to coerce have a much larger burden to defend their actions than people who interact voluntarily.
No it isn't. The free market is not voluntary because agents can abuse monopolies and governments are not coercive because agents can either vote or move.
:snicker:
In Thailand it is now impossible to get insurance without your provider being ultimately Black Rock. They own every single insurance provider in Thailand.
If you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.
If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move.
Explain to me the difference.
Monopolies and large, centralized power whether in the hands of governments or cooperations is mostly bad. I think at least we can agree on that.
However, Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products, or stop you from getting together with other people who are fed up with their business practices and start something new.
[quote="Isaac;728423"If ]you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.
If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move.
Explain to me the difference.[/quote]
The Thai government forces me through threat of violence to comply with its wishes and buy its services. Black Rock doesn't.
Further, the fact that my family could move to make the schoolyard bully stop taking my lunch money does not change the coercive nature of his act. Neither does whether people vote on whether he gets to take my lunch money. For one, why does anyone get to vote on that, and second, if my voting power is not enough to protect my interests, voting does nothing to relieve the coercion I am subjected to.
No, but they can make your life extremely difficult if you don't. Just like governments can.
Quoting Tzeentch
Indeed, just like there's no restriction on you setting up your own government and vying for power.
Quoting Tzeentch
OK, so if the Thai government used other means - theft, coercion, bullying, grooming, punitive treatment... You'd be OK.
When was the last time you know of that the Thai government used violence to enforce its laws? What about the UK government?
I'm not so sure about that.
They can refuse to serve you, which can be problematic. They cannot take your lunch money, or throw you in jail, or send you off to war to kill people for them.
I would argue the evils of government are a whole order of magnitude worse. That isn't to say monopolistic or extremely large cooperations aren't a problem. The question is whether more powerful governments are the solution to that problem. Governments seem more likely to jump in bed with powerful cooperations than they are to curb their power.
Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine. The government could.
Quoting Isaac
Of course there's a restriction for that. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and laws against its use.
If on the other hand you want to get together with your pals to cover each other's insurance, can Black Rock stop you?
Quoting Isaac
No of course not. But it will do all those things if its threats are ignored. Every government functions that way. It's only tools are violence and coercion.
And just because I can threaten you into complying with my wishes, and thereby don't have to be forced violently, that does not change the nature of my act.
Quoting Isaac
I don't live in those countries. But wherever you live, the answer is probably all the time.
I live in what most consider a 'civilized' country, and even here the government uses overt violence against law-abiding citizens with frightening regularity.
They can basically make you destitute.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, this is the question. One you're not even addressing, let alone providing any evidence for a conclusion regarding.
The reason Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine is because the government have made such actions illegal. Otherwise you can be damn sure they'd think of a hundred ways to force you to buy their products within days of any relaxation of those laws.
Quoting Tzeentch
So try harder, get a bigger army. That's the advice given to would-be entrepreneurs going up against the likes of Black Rock. If they say, "it's impossible, Black Rock just have too big a percentage of all the available assets" - try harder, be the American Dream! Gather your own army!
...Or you could just set up a political party and try to attract votes, I suppose.
Either way, what's stopping you! Where that entrepreneurial spirit!
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. So how do you know that corporations wouldn't also do those things if their coercions are ignored? Seems now you're condemning institutions for future crimes they've not yet committed.
Quoting Tzeentch
Like...?
Theoretically, perhaps. I don't think we see that in practice. Are Amazon or Pfizer making people destitute?
Quoting Isaac
In a situation where a company is able to force me to buy their products through violence or threats thereof, they're no longer a company - they've become a de-facto government.
But I'm not advocating anarchy anyway, so I don't see why it matters.
Quoting Isaac
Companies depend on the free will of people to buy their products. If people are fed up with Black Rock they can stop buying their products, and if they want to take care of their own insurance, nothing's stopping them. Black Rock can't do anything about that except try to sway the people back to their side.
With governments and armies it is clearly different. It doesn't depend on people's free will, and governments will protect their monopoly on violence with violence.
Quoting Isaac
In most countries companies aren't allowed to coerce. What can a company threaten you with? That it will no longer serve you? I don't see how that is all that threatening, unless they have monopolized basic needs.
Quoting Isaac
That's a pretty common way to deal with threats of violence.
If I threaten you, I will be sent to court for it.
Quoting Isaac
Beating down peaceful protesters, for example.
Yes. Their employment practices, pricing policies, procurement policies, supply chain decisions, environmental policies... all contribution to the destitution of those suffering from their decisions.
Quoting Tzeentch
Nice. so you just make your argument true by redefining 'government' to 'anything which forces' Your argument 'governments are worse than corporations' then becomes just a tautology.
Quoting Tzeentch
It matters because the opposite of anarchy is government intervention. the one thing you're arguing against.
Quoting Tzeentch
We've just been through this. This isn't going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write an repeat the same thing over again.
Quoting Tzeentch
Of course it does. Government's are elected. Governments can be overthrown.
Quoting Tzeentch
The normalcy is not the issue. It's that you're judging governments on what they would do, but corporations only on what they do do. You're not comparing like with like.
What concrete example do you have of either of those companies making people destitute?
Quoting Isaac
Governments are essentially bodies that hold monopolies on violence. There was no need to redefine.
Quoting Isaac
On the whole I am highly critical of government interventions, but I'm not categorically against it.
Quoting Isaac
What you wrote makes no sense, equating a body that protects its monopoly on violence with violence to a body that protects its market position through the free will of its customers.
Quoting Isaac
Democracy does not mean a government depends on the free will of its people. It means it seeks to gain some form of legitimacy by seeking approval for its coercive practices among a section of its citizens.
Quoting Isaac
Companies do not need to be overthrown. If people are fed up, they stop buying products and the company will go out of business or offer its services some place else. No violence necessary, just people making decisions freely.
Quoting Isaac
I'm judging governments for threatening me with violence to comply with its wishes - something it does every day, by its very nature. That is what law is.
I'm not judging companies for the same, because I've never been threatened by one.
I've given examples, I'm not sure what more I can provide. Amazon's pricing policy means that it's suppliers are kept destitute. It doesn't pay them enough to live off.
Quoting Tzeentch
I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'?
Quoting Tzeentch
Yeah. Didn't think it would take long before this deteriorated into "the government ought to make the laws I benefit from, but not the ones where others benefit"
Quoting Tzeentch
Government doesn't protect its position with violence. It could. But it doesn't. Most people allow it willingly to do what it does, some even work for it. Occasionally it will take money, or force people to to do stuff, but that's right at the very extreme. It's hardly as if half the population are prisoners or political refugees.
Government does what it does the same way corporations do, control of capital.
Quoting Tzeentch
Same for a corporation then. It's not like Amazon gained it's right to pollute my environment by my consent. I've never shopped there. It gained that right by enough other people shopping there to become big enough to control that much of the ecosystem. I never gave my consent.
Same with Facebook, Google, Tesla... I didn't give my consent for them to have the influence over my environment, my community, my children... that they do. they gained that by getting the support of enough other people. Just like governments. As you prove with...
Quoting Tzeentch
...enough people. Just like governments.
Your purile notion of how businesses work is bordering on the absurd. They don't just freely offer products to people who freely buy them if they want. They monopolise, cheat, steal, coerce, occasionally outright kill or violently oppress to make sure that you can only buy their product, that you have anything but a free choice.
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, no government threatens you with violence. They just could.
Pure fantasy without a shred of evidence.
Just too hard to let go of this belief. Dogma dies hard I guess.
Yet they work for Amazon, so apparently however unsatisfying the conditions its better than the alternative.
Amazon may take advantage of poverty, and that may or may not be immoral, but that is not the same as creating it. Likely those people would be worse off if Amazon disappeared. You simply believe Amazon should offer them a better deal.
Quoting Isaac
I can't take this argument seriously.
Quoting Isaac
If that's how you want to mischaracterize my position, we will soon be done here.
Quoting Isaac
Of course it does. It does so in war, stopping violent protests, etc. And when it doesn't use physical violence it uses threats of violence. How many people do you think would continue to pay taxes if they weren't threatened with jail (which is a threat of violence) for not doing so?
Quoting Isaac
Governments function through violence, the free market does not. They're not even remotely the same.
Quoting Isaac
Nonsense. Two people could agree to cover each other's insurance and deprive Black Rock. Black Rock wouldn't care, and this two-person deal may not be as cost effective as what Black Rock offers, but the option is there. All Black Rock could do to stop you, is try to persuade your business partner.
Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products (like governments can) and they cannot stop you from competing on the market (like governments can).
Government and business function fundamentally differently.
What can happen is that government and business form an unholy alliance against the common man, which is exactly why specifically governments need to be kept small and relatively weak in their power over people and business.
Quoting Isaac
In an anarchy or corrupt system perhaps, which is not what I am advocating at all. In a world where businesses are also warlords I think it is safe to say we have departed from the context of this discussion.
Quoting Isaac
It threatens me with violence every day. Every law is enforced by threat of violence. If I don't pay my taxes I get thrown in jail - violence. If I don't stay indoors during the pandemic, I get thrown in jail - violence. Etc.
They're overt threats of violence too, it is all written down in laws so no one has to guess whether the government will get violent if one of its laws are broken - they basically guarantee it. Those are threats.
So? Amazon constrain what the alternatives are.
Or we could just suggest that if you don't like your government, you just seek an alternative country.
Quoting Tzeentch
I can't take this argument seriously.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's not an argument, it's a question. How do governments monopolise violence? I seem quite capable of being violent.
Quoting Tzeentch
Loads. This may come as a shock to you, but we're not all sociopaths.
Quoting Tzeentch
I can't take this argument seriously.
Quoting Tzeentch
Oh, OK. Give me a few examples of laws which benefit others at your expense that you agree with.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, so I gather. Laws you like but not the ones you don't.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then you need to take your case to the ECHR. It's illegal for your government to arbitrarily threaten you with violence.
Its gained the old fashioned way: by brute force and conquest. Its maintained and made legitimate by law, for instance the use of force doctrines in policing. If you or I armed ourselves and forced our way into someones home, or pointed our weapons at someone, or cuffed someone and threw them in the back of our car, wed be criminally charged. The state, however, is well within their legal right to do the exact same thing. This distinction is peculiar to states, but when it isnt it is only because the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it (Max Weber).
That's a consequence of violence. The question was how states had the monopoly on violence.
At the moment all you've shown is that they're better at it.
So do Amazon have the monopoly on internet sales?
Yes, the monopoly on violence is seized and held through violence, essentially. Im not sure might equals better, in this instance.
No, Amazon does not have the monopoly on internet sales.
Which is what all the small government bullshit boils down to: a view that human beings are essentially sociopathic. Free-market fantasies included.
But I can be violent. Am I the exception? Do you find it impossible to be violent? The government do not seem to me to have the monopoly at all.
If I were violent, there would be consequences, it would be difficult...
But if 'difficult' is the criteria for holding a monopoly, then certainly large corporations hold several monopolies.
Quoting Xtrix
Seem so. It's the twists and turns taken to avoid just admitting that which fascinate me.
Which sort of violence can you do?
Murder, torture, beatings...the usual. Do you live in Utopia by any chance?
You've got it exactly backwards.
Individuals are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, and a government is not needed to tell them what to do, what to spend their money on, etc. It needs to create a framework where individuals can cooperate voluntarily, without coercion. And fundamentally, it needs to be understood that government is itself a tool for coercion, which is exactly why its application must be done sparingly and carefully. That's essentially the basis of all of liberalism - true liberalism, not the poorly-hidden authoritarianism that modern liberalism parades as.
It's the lovers of big government that believe governments should tell people what to do, how to act, what to say, what to think and what to spend their money on, and don't you forget it.
Cut away all the fluffy language, and the lovers of big government are doing nothing less than asking said government to impose their ideals on other people. Because apparently those people need to be told what to do, think, etc. so perhaps a look in the mirror would be appropriate.
Those are crimes, though. Youd be tried and imprisoned should you commit that violence. Youd be tried and imprisoned by those who have the monopoly on violence.
Yep, there are consequences. And I might fail.
As it is with setting up an internet market. So tell me again how it's different.
I can be violent, the government might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. The government apparently thereby have the monopoly on violence.
I can set up an internet sales company. Amazon might stop me, or there might be consequences I don't like. Amazon apparently don't thereby have the monopoly on internet sales companies.
Can you arrest a police officer or any government agent and jail him for committing violence? You cannot.
The people or institution that claim the monopoly on violence has what Weber called the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. The term legitimate underlies the principle. The principle does not imply that the state is the only entity committing violence, but it is the only entity authorized to commit violence.
Again, I can try.
What I'm asking is why failure against government is called monopoly, but failure against a corporation is just 'free market competition'.
Quoting NOS4A2
See above. I'm not looking for an etymology lesson. I'm asking you what the difference is.
Probably because a monopoly in trade has nothing to do with a monopoly on violence.
Amazon cannot stop you from setting up an internet sales company, and any consequences that may arise from your attempt is a result of either your product not being good, too costly to produce, or people not wanting to buy it.
If people want to buy your product, and your business can at least break even, there is nothing Amazon can do to stop your business from competing with theirs.
Sure, Amazon may leverage the fact people find their offer more attractive than yours, but that has nothing to do with your attempt at setting up your own company.
It seems like what you're doing is blaming Amazon for your failed enterprise, when it is you yourself who is to blame for not being able to provide a better or cheaper product that people want to buy from you.
This has already been demonstrated with the Black Rock example of insurance - which predictably was ignored.
Now, let's compare this with a government and its monopoly on violence:
Does a government let you compete freely on the market? No. Under no circumstance. It won't even allow you to offer your product, let alone compete.
It doesn't matter if you're able to provide a better product than the government, as soon as you try to put it on the market, you are stopped either by law or by force.
You then try to make an argument that if only you're able to get above a certain threshold of customers, you would be able to violently overthrow the government, implying this is the same as how companies compete on the market. This is of course not the case, and no such threshold is necessary for a normal business to compete on the market.
You'll find that it's perfectly possible for large and small companies to exist alongside each other. That's called free competition. Smaller companies often enjoy benefits that make their products cheaper to produce or more attractive locally, and they may compete on that basis. For the government's monopoly on violence that is not so.
An 8-year old could understand the difference, and this is peak pedanticism.
So they're different because they're different. Great explanation!
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, it can. It can leverage it's capital to prevent you from gaining any market share, it can use it's army of corporate lawyers to prevent you from competing fairly, it can use it's cross-domain power to make it difficult for you to obtain the subsidiary services you need (like servers, or smart devices for example). There are tons of ways Amazon can prevent me from setting up a competing service.
The difference here is that you've arbitrarily decided to call al those ways 'fair competition'.
Quoting Tzeentch
Seems to me you're blaming the government for your failure to rouse a bigger, more loyal army, when it's you who simply isn't charismatic enough to develop such a loyal following.
Quoting Tzeentch
Does Amazon let me compete freely? No, it does everything in its power to maintain its market dominance.
Quoting Tzeentch
Violence is not a product.
Quoting Tzeentch
You're saying that a corporation does not need customers to compete?
Quoting Tzeentch
So the only people who commit violence are the government? Where the hell do you live?
To be fair, it was a shit question based on a false analogy.
Anyone can claim this. And yes, Im sure you dont consciously aim to harm people. Nevertheless, what you think is a means to, say, freedom, is in reality a fantasy a useful fantasy to cover the policies of an extreme and rather savage version of capitalism.
Incidentally, Im not in favor of big government or whatever conventional view of present-day liberals you want to ascribe to me. Im just not fooled by the myths of free markets, individualism, and liberty offered by neoliberals as justification for the massive transfer of wealth thats occurred these last 40 years. Thats certainly not getting us anywhere. So yes, given the choice I would definitely choose the New Deal era.
I think everyone was quite clear you thought it a false analogy from your opening remark.
This is a discussion forum. If you're wanting somewhere just to keep a record of 'stuff you think' might I suggest a notepad?
That is the essence of free competition. You understand that competition entails using power to compete?
Quoting Isaac
Nice try, but crime rings are not participating in a free market. If you think they do, see what happens when you offer your services for violence publicly.
Got any more pedanticism in you? You seem to possess an inexhaustible supply.
So what? Declaring it 'free competition' is begging the question. I'm asking about why violence is not seen the same way and the answer you're giving me is "because we give it a different name".
Quoting Tzeentch
Same as government's. Or are you just too weak and lazy to muster your own army and compete?
Quoting Tzeentch
I never said they did. They compete for control by violence. They gain it in some small areas but can't compete with the power of the government to reach whole cities. Just like small bookshops vs Amazon.
I only tried to answer the question How do governments monopolise violence?
If you want to keep asking questions in a discussion forum, dont be surprised when you get answers.
I don't think what created this massive transfer of wealth is a result of classical liberal ideas.
It seems to me the result of big business jumping into bed with corrupt, bureaucratic government in an unholy alliance against the common man - crony capitalism.
By steadily feeding the beast for decades, we've created the worst of both worlds. Government spending in the US is now equal to roughly 30% of GDP. As far as classical liberal ideas go, this state of affairs could hardly be more antithetical.
Quoting Isaac
This has already been answered.
The government will not let you compete.
For example, it's quite conceivable that if you lived in a small rural town far away from law enforcement, a local protection service would serve you better than what the state provides.
Now lets say the people in the town want you to offer this service, and you have a group of burly, armed men who are willing to provide it, then that would seem like a perfectly good way to set up a business.
However, the government will not let you do this. It will throw you jail, and punish you for even trying.
You say this is the same as what a hypothetical bigger security company would do to you on the free market (ignoring for a moment the government's monopoly), but that's clearly not the case.
The only thing a bigger security firm could do in order to stop you is to compete with you. To offer better services at a lower cost, in order to persuade the townsfolk to voluntarily choose their services over the local services. It cannot force people to buy its services, force people to stop buying other services than theirs, or force people to stop offering their services - the government can.
OK. What is the difference between Amazon competing for control over internet sales and government competing for control over violence?
You say one is a monopoly, the other isn't.
Quoting Tzeentch
This has already been answered. Your miserable lack of success at competing is not the same as the government not letting you compete. If you want some of the share of the ability to use violence, get a bigger army. Loser!
Quoting Tzeentch
That's the competition. If your security force can't compete with the government's that's their weakness. Toughen up!
Quoting Tzeentch
Where do you get this garbage from? Have you been at the Ayn Rand again?
Quoting Isaac
You don't seem to understand the idea a free market.
A free market is free of coercion. That's why we call it free.
What is the government doing to stop you from competing? Coercing you.
I'm not talking about a free market. I'm talking about competition for the ability to use violence. You claim the government has a monopoly in that competition.
They don't. They're just doing better in it than you.
I think we're done here.
What?
A random quote from pages back and we're done?
I've curated quite a number of odd ways to avoid conceding a point in an argument here (though curiously never "I see, you're right"), but this one is a corker.
Now you've been told the difference, and suddenly it is no longer about free markets. Funny how that works.
Quoting Isaac
I guess that's your problem. Your tendency to resort to pedantics to try and "win" an argument has been noted, and not just by me.
This discussion was about the difference between how 1 governments behaved and 2 the free market.
You see how that's two things, yes?
How governments maintain their control over the ability to use violence (1)
How corporations maintain their control over free markets (2)
You call (1) a monopoly because you failed to compete successfully of the ability to use violence.
You don't call (2) a monopoly when people fail to compete successfully for control of markets.
I'm asking why.
Sure and take a look at the rhetoric. All of it done under the guise of Government is the problem and the era of big government is over. We have to shrink the government, because its to blame for everything. Deregulate, privatize, cut taxes, etc. We see the results.
Again, Ill take the New Deal era, when the zeitgeist wasnt dominated by Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman.
Well, I don't know about the rhetoric, but policy guided by classical liberalism hasn't been seen in the United States for a very long time.
Government spending in the US has been on a steady rise since the early 20th century and has never made any significant move towards the opposite. And that's no surprise, because that would derive a lot of powerful people of their power.
If politicians sell more government under the guise of less government, then that is a different problem.
Free market capitalism and libertarianism seem very popular patsies, but I don't think that's justified.
The government has jurisdiction in a given territory over which it has the supreme and final authority. Amazon doesnt. The motives, the commodities and services, and the scope of control are entirely different.
Dont think whats justified?
Ah! so now we're talking about control over jurisdiction.
Well, if you want control over some jurisdiction, then get off your lazy arse and compete for it! Start a political party, start a separatist campaign, maybe orchestrate a revolution, or an invasion... If you can't stand the heat of the competition though...that's not their fault is it?
Or do we have different message now to the independent booksellers trying to compete with Amazon?
@Xtrix was talking about the scale of government (interventions, taxation, regulation). Why are you talking about spending?
A government of one person could have a single law which completely empties the treasury and gives it all to Jeff Bezos. How is that not a 'small government'? Spending is not a measure of government size, the quantity of governing is.
For libertarian or classic liberal ideas to be considered responsible for our current predicament, when the US government hasn't embodied those ideas for a very long time and has essentially moved in the opposite direction uninterrupted.
A good state for humanity is that everyone leads a flourishing life and we therefore have less crime, better education and health and generally a better society which needs less intervention from governments.
The vast majority of people will seek to protect their wealth, this includes the very wealthy, so very few people will give up any more than they absolutely have to even though there is an enlightened self interest to do so. If you earn 100k per year, in 10 years you will have earned 1 million of whatever currency you are being paid. It would take you 10,000 years to earn 1 billion, yes that's ten thousand years! No one needs to have 1 billion, even 100 million looks excessive.
It is in everyone's interest to have a stable society and not have wild economic fluctuations, bubbles, wars, market crashes, revolutions. Therefore there needs to be regulation and taxation to create a society that is seen as fair and allows everyone to flourish and to do that by curbing the worst excesses of the most acquisitive. The difficulty is that the wealthy have the power but the causal chain between the societal problems of the poor and the effects those have on the wealthy is very long and complex so convincing the wealthy-powerful to accept constraints is very unlikely.
It is very questionable whether large governments produce these things, and whether large governments will ever cede their power when they become superfluous.
Quoting TheVeryIdea
Judging other people's wealth to be excessive is a very typical thing. Suppose an ascetic came along and started to judge your wealth. They judge that you could do without all of that fancy food, nice-looking clothes, your car, your house, warm showers, etc. After all, they don't need those things so why should you?
Greed is something that only other people ever seem to be guilty of, and excessive wealth only applies to people who are wealthier than ourselves. The irony is that much of that 'excessive wealth' is created by providing goods and services that benefit society, and that those 'excessively rich' people also pay more taxes and thus contribute more to other people's well-being already.
Quoting TheVeryIdea
It is not evident that big government prevents such things. In fact, government intervention often leads to unexpected consequences down the line which arguably are worse than what it sought to mend.
In my view, governments seem to often trade small, short-term problems for large, long-term ones - partly due to ignorance and partly due to election politics.
Let the economy run its course and there will be ups and downs, crises, of course. However, what government intervention often does is it tries to prevent these natural fluctuations, resulting in ultimately a bigger crisis.
One example would be how the US government has gotten into the habit of extending guarantees to large banks who they deemed 'too big to fail', which predictably caused those large banks to exhibit more and more problematic behavior now that their risk is essentially carried by the government.
Perhaps that first bank should have just been allowed to fail. That would be a disaster for some people, of course. But that would be the end of it. From that point onward it would be clear to all that risky business practices bring along real risks, and that no one is going to bail them out. Further, it would've perhaps lead to a greater deal of consciousness among the people that they need to be critical of their banks' business practices, because they are also the bearers of that risk.
I'm sure they don't at the moment and voters are rarely presented with a choice at elections for a government that would.
Quoting Tzeentch
We can base those judgements on the median or mode of wealth. There is a joke in the UK (the "tories" are the right-wing pro-capital, supposedly anti regulation party, the daily mail is a right wing news paper)
[i]A tory party donor, a daily mail reader and an immigrant go to a meeting and there is a plate of biscuits
The tory donor takes all the biscuits except one then whispers to the daily mail readier "keep an eye on that immigrant they are trying to steal you biscuit"[/i]
I agree that governments don't currently provide these things, at least in the UK and US, places like Denmark might be better but I do think it should be an aim of government. I also agree that banks should allowed to fail and people who lose out should be compensated directly by the government from money taken from the profits of other banks, even the threat of that happening would change the focus of banking shareholders.
Those ideas are mostly nonsense anyway, and would be a disaster if implemented as all capitalists know. They need a strong state to exist.
Regardless, I dont see much reservation from libertarians when it comes to attributing Venezuelas economic problems to socialism. Everyone can claim its not the true policy being implemented and theres plenty of truth in it. But lets be consistent.
They seemed to have worked well for the United States and its capitalists in the era between its conception and the second world war in which government expenditure was about 3-5% of GDP.
You mean the era of Railway Labor Act, Davis-Bacon (prevailing wage) Act, the National Labor Relations Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Fair Employment Practice Commission...?
The era of major breakthroughs in government legislation controlling how corporations can act.
The era of the gift tax, sales taxes...
The era when Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act.
The era with the fastest rise in marginal tax rates in US history to it's peak in 1944.
That era...?
It did? Check out the 1780s and see how well it worked. The era of true small government. Didnt work so well.
In any case, youre talking about a state-capitalist system of the 1800s? (Which is all weve ever had: state capitalism.) Yes, crash after crash and panic after panic. Theres a reason for the federal reserve system, anti-trust legislation, and eventually Bretton Woods. I dont consider the days of child labor, robber barons, and enormous monopolies to be a golden age. Gilded Age, sure.
On the other hand, take a look at the New Deal/Bretton Woods era, when the state-capitalist system leaned much more into regulations (regimented capitalism). That era from 40s to early 70s is what most people mean by Americas golden age. Real wages, GDP growth, etc. And no major crash. Corporations especially the financial sector all heavily regulated. No stock buybacks, no Friedman Doctrine. The era of corporate managerialism. What was the result there? Better for the employees and for the companies themselves. Much more egalitarian society at least for white people.
It does no good believing in fantasies of free markets or small government. All it translates to is small government for everyone else except those in power and with wealth. The problem with the New Deal era is that it didnt go far enough it was still capitalism.
In fairness, I knew he was referring to the era prior to FDR. Thats often how its taught, with some merit. The federal governments role did indeed expand in the 30s. But so what? Given that we were in a depression, it was needed. Look at the results, more importantly.
The opposing argument is that it was the Fed that caused the depression and that it was the war, not the new deal, that accounts for the greatness of the post war era. :snicker:
Theres really no convincing Government is the problem junkies.
Probably (though I wouldn't be confident, given the quality of arguments), but yeah, I was just Rand-baiting. It's not for the convincing, it's to see what possible twists and turns people take to defend a belief they hold dear. A difficult thing to observe in one's self, only really observable in others, usually the more dogmatic the better.
The interesting point to craw out here, I think, is the way this is all about money and effort. Just basic greed and laziness - really classic stuff.
@Tzeentch's talk of 'Big Government' is a euphemism for 'government which takes money from me or makes be put effort in'
That's the takeaway from the use of...
Quoting Tzeentch
...as an indicator of Small Government.
That's why certain labour laws (to a point), massive bailouts, and government investment are never considered signs of 'Big Government'. Only social welfare, taxation and progressive legislation are. Because these latter take money and impose duties.
We always, in these discussions, end up with the neo-liberals saying that they don't want No Government, only Small Government. When we dig into what that means, it inevitably means that government should maintain all the laws and regulation which help the neo-liberal get rich without constraint, but ditch all the laws which help others.
We're both Dutch. You're welcome to share everything that you think is going wrong and we can talk about how those specific issues would be best solved over a beer.
I have plenty of problems with the Dutch government but that's not really the point between us at this moment. Where "evils" were perpetrated, you have to show this is the result of government functioning or the result of politics. It's almost always the latter, although I'd argue the US governmental institutions and their relations are set up in such a way that they invite abuse with too little in the way of counterveiling forces. So there are definitely systems that are better than others. I think the Dutch system is one of the best - one of my favourites is the easy access for new parties that allow for the introduction of new issues in political discourse that are relevant to society but ignored by mainstream parties. The better the system, the less corruption or "special interest" have a chance to influence decision making. But at the end of the day, to me it's mostly about political culture.
I might be mistaken and it's just because I'm older and notice it more, but I feel that Dutch political parties have become more corrupt than say 20 years ago, with political leaders not taking responsibility for governmental failures, a focus on political symbolism and point-scoring in media. Just look at the toeslagenaffaire, how Pieter Omtzigt was treated and the talk about a new "culture of transparancy" but nobody following it through. Just windowdressing.
And this has influence on how ministries are run and act. They are increasingly in the business of keeping elected officials out of trouble. So they avoid taking difficult decisions because the minister is not going to sign off on it any way.
Let's keep the conversation honest. The birth of the United States was a period full of conflict and wars against nations that were at that time much more powerful. To just chalk that all up to "small government" is very convenient for you, and in my opinion bereft of any reason.
Quoting Xtrix
Ups and downs is the nature of economics. It's exactly the desire to forcefully stop that fluctuation that makes government interventions so problematic.
It creates unnatural incentives and as a result essentially forces the government to stay involved. It only worsens the problem in the long run as people are lured into businesses that would not be able to stay afloat naturally.
That goes on until the power of government is no longer enough to support this unnatural situation. The house of cards always comes tumbling down at some point, the question is how long we allow ourselves to keep building on crumbling foundations - government interventions can drag this on for a very long time, as we've seen with the banking crises, the finale of which we're still due.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm sure there are, and not all of them without merit, though the federal reserve has certainly done more harm than good.
Quoting Xtrix
Every system and policy has its benefits and detractors. To me the question would be how much of that prosperity was made possible by the fact virtually every other country in the world lay in ruins and the United States had near-unlimited global reign as a result of World War 2. You're pointing at a 30-year period - that is not a very long time. What happens after that period, when the rest of the world is once again able to compete with the US economy?
Quoting Xtrix
You may believe this, but the world disagreed, and people came from all over the world to live under this 'terrible' system. You are dismissing classic liberal ideas and libertarianism as "nonsense" and fantasy - it's crazy. The proof is in the pudding.
Maybe you've mistaken me as arguing for some kind of libertarian utopia on practical grounds - I'm certainly not doing that. Imperfect man will always need some government, but too often we forget that its the same imperfect man that takes the reigns in government.
I'll happily take the good with the bad. No system is perfect. It seems you're keen on pointing at all the things that go well as a sign of success of your ideas, but ignore the flipside of the coin, so it's a bit unfair you're accusing me of harboring fantasies.
Quoting Benkei
Strong governments produce the vessel by which politics can do its damage. I agree, if we were somehow able to seperate governance from imperfect man perhaps we'd be in agreement.
That power finds its way into the hands of powerful and often corrupt individuals anyway, however the question is whether they get to use and abuse their power on the market through economic force, or through government through coercion, or worse yet, both.
That's why I believe governments should be small, with very limited mandates: because malignant power exercised through economics, while it can also be very unpleasant, is of a different order of magnitude than malignant power excercised through government.
Quoting Benkei
Had you asked me five or six years ago, I would have agreed. I don't know what exactly changed, but if I had to guess (and a guess is all it is) is that multinational business has grown so powerful that it can use all these mandates governments have given themselves to further assert their power - crony capitalism at its worst.
However, where we may differ in views is that I do not believe governments are able to resist against this phenomenon, and giving governments further mandates to fight private business will only result in larger, more unaffordable behemoth government, and more mandates that will be in the end abused against the citizen.
Being exploited by private business is of course equally unpleasant, but at least private business will always have to contend with law and a government's monopoly on violence - its evils and power over citizens is at least limited to a degree. Government has no such boundaries.
Quoting Benkei
I agree. It's one of many instances that contributed to my disillusionment.
I've come to regard this process by which a system corrupts over time as an inevitability, which is exactly the reason why I feel the power of such systems should be kept small by its very structure.
Perhaps this trend may reverse itself naturally by the integrity of our system, if indeed it still possesses any. Maybe. But that remains to be seen and I am skeptical.
Quoting Benkei
It seems to me most political parties in the Netherlands are occupied with staying friendly with one another, which essentially ensures the role of opposition is no longer carried out the way it should, with some individuals being the exception.
I suppose this is one advantage the United States has with their two party system: they hate each other's guts so when one party does something questionable or unlawful, the other party will expose it ruthlessly, thereby at least the function of opposition is still carried out. In the Netherlands it is swept under the rug. Some people who take their role as statesmen and -women seriously will still call attention to it, but their power simply does not compare to that of the political order.
I mentioned the 1780s. This was the time of the articles of confederation. Almost no central government an extremely weak one. It couldnt impose taxes, it couldnt raise an army, it needed unanimous or near-unanimous approval of the states to do anything. Yes, Id say thats small government. And I dont see anything dishonest about it.
As for the 1800s, I went over that as well.
Quoting Tzeentch
You call it natural, but thats really no excuse. As I mentioned, there were no major crashes during the Bretton Woods era when the financial sector was actually regulated.
So perhaps natural when left to their own devices.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yes, and reducing human purpose to competition in markets is insane.
Can you explain to me the economic mechanism that ensured, as you say, no major crashes took place during this period, and why we are not utilizing this mechanism today?
Quoting Xtrix
I truly hope you don't view classical liberalism as espousing such a view. Classical liberalism elevated the common man from a slave to autocrats, viewed as little more than a barn animal, to a sovereign being, with inherent rights and moral value.
If you believe I'm arguing from a standpoint as you just described, you must think I am some sort of monster and I don't believe there is any point in continuing this discussion.
Yes, we definitely diverge there. We know from history that smaller government leads to worse abuse by capitalists (exploitation). Especially in light of modern corporate power, the state is the only entity capable of being a counterveiling force to capitalist power. Trust in the Dutch governments was highest with "vadertje Drees", a social Democrat. The last politician we had that was respected across party lines when the ontzuiling wasn't even fully accomplished. Because back then his breed of politicians at least tried to do what was best for most citizens, instead of catering to special interests.
Since then we've seen the slow erosion of the welfare state due to liberal theory's narrow idea of freedom (as only negative freedom). Without financial solidarity, there's no social solidarity. And when a government isn't seen to combat social injustice, you get distrust of the government. If that distrust isn't addressed but instead exacerbated due to an immoral shift in political culture, you get the what we have now. Combined with a rising power of corporations due to internationalisation, concentration and financial deregulation, they are also more prone to be influenced by special interests.
In this day and age while I'll always be more of a socialist, I think it's no longer about party ideology but personal character. We need representatives that can ignore party politics, set aside their ego and sincerely think about "what is best" instead of technocratic adjustments and I don't really care if he's a liberal or a socialist deep down. Both ideologies brought a lot of good and probably reflect in a sense a basic human contradiction: that of belonging (socialism) and being yourself (liberalism).
I consider capitalism as it's ordered at this point in time to be an affront to both. Wage slavery, attacks on labour unions in the US, liberalisation of international markets meaning that people are slowly all become flex workers with related deterioration in labour protections and room and freedom for personal development, etc.
There was government regulation of the financial sector. The banks were highly regulated. Thats why I referred to Bretton Woods. Youre free to Google those various regulations.
Quoting Tzeentch
Classical liberalism in the example of Adam Smith developed in a radically different world. What Smith describes is often completely ignored, particularly about markets. Its not like Friedman or Sowell or Von Mises or Hayek or Rand or any of these other people youre undoubtedly influenced by.
Sure. But you won't get off that easily. You quite confidently proclaim that the lack of market troubles in this time period was due to the measures government took, and not, as I suggested, may also be attributed to the United States' position in the world as the only country that wasn't in complete ruins.
What makes you so confident about that? What mechanisms do you believe were at play that caused this success? Why were these successful policies later abandoned?
"Figure it out yourself" won't do.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not familiar with Von Mises, and Rand is a bit of an oddball. She was more a philosopher than an economist, and I tend to read her works as such. Kind of like how one may read Nietzsche, but not to get ideas on how to model society.
I am of course familiar with the others, and I think your observation that these ignore the core ideals of classical liberalism is incorrect.
What flows forth from the idea that man has inherent moral value and rights, is that he should be, as much as is feasible, free from coercion and should to the greatest degree be able to pursue his own goals in life. Most, perhaps all, liberal thinkers recognize government as a form of coercion, therefore it stands to reason that a central question in liberal thought is what is the legitimate role of government.
Further, one of the greatest tools with which governments exert power over people is economic means, which is why almost every liberal thinker believes in the importance of economic freedom.
You suggest to view these men as inhuman monsters that reduce human beings to cogs in a market machine, but nothing could be further from the truth. While you may disagree with their ideas, I honestly don't know how someone could read their work and come to that conclusion - that seems to me the result of preconceptions of 'the enemy' so to speak.
I think classic liberal thought and the many schools of thought that sprang from it attest to a great degree of respect for the individual and his sovereignty, however that also includes to grant him freedom to sin and freedom to fail, and freedom to pursue his own goals insofar he does not infringe upon the rights of others. It also means that it doesn't go without saying that A's misfortune justifies the coercion of B by C.
____
Quoting Benkei
And similarly that big government leads to worse abuse by politicians. it's up to you to decide which of the two you find more appalling, but my position should be clear.
Quoting Benkei
The Netherlands and perhaps the world at large is in dire need of people who can wield power responsibly. When I look at the Dutch government and parliament today, I see the exact opposite. I'm not hopeful, but perhaps I would feel differently if such individuals were around today.
I don't see the trend towards corruption reversing any time soon, if at all. Though they might exist, I can't think of any examples in which such a trend was successfully reversed.
Quoting Benkei
Perhaps you can elaborate this erosion of the welfare state. I've always thought Dutch social security to be fairly extensive.
I'm also not sure whether this erosion, if there truly is such a thing, isn't the result of it becoming unaffordable under the weight of our aging population.
Further, if in a country with social security like the Netherlands has, there still is a problem with poverty (which I may agree there is, to some extent) perhaps there is merit to the idea that it isn't within the government's capability to alleviate poverty even if it is given the power and resources to do so.
Lastly, liberal theory does not collectively reject all forms of social spending. For example, this is what Hayek said about it:
____
Quoting Benkei
I don't think solidarity that's forced at gunpoint is solidarity at all.
Additionally, I think it's up to individuals to combat social injustice, and not up to governments to define ideas of justice to this end.
The current distrust we see in government, I believe, is due to the arbitrariness of the rule of law, the way laws are taken from their intended context and abused to suit the needs of the government, and the speed with which laws are passed whenever it suits the government. All the while the government has itself has proven to be the worst perpetrator of injustice. True injustice. Literally having ruined innocent people's lives to an extent even the most malignant individual could not conceive and having taken zero responsibility for it. It genuinely makes me sick to think of it.
Quoting Benkei
I agree. The current problems of our political system go deeper than differences based on ideology.
Quoting Benkei
I struggle to see how capitalism is responsible for all of that, or how a departure from capitalism would solve it. But I'm open to hearing ideas.
Theres plenty of reasons. Google Bretton Woods. Do the minimal amount of work. This system was abandoned in 71, and the financial sector has grown since then, being deregulated and creating
complex financial instruments that makes no contribution to the real economy.
I will mention one specific policy which changed in 1982 which Im particularly interested in. Thats the SEC rule about stock buybacks. Rule 10(b)-18, more specifically. This was repealed my Shad, a Reagan appointee. William Lazonick has done great work on this and its effects on corporations and the economy. The effects have been massive and awful. Only one of many examples, but an especially important one.
Quoting Tzeentch
Nope. Ive said many times that I respect Friedman, for example, and take him seriously however wrong or misinterpreted I think he is.
I'm glad we've cleared that up then.
I will have a look at the policy you named.
Observation:
Financial regulation of the financial sector was done after the '29 crash and usually referred to laws like the Banking act of 1933 (the Glass-Steagal act). Bretton Woods refers to a currency system where the dollar was pegged to gold and other currencies to the dollar and was done after WW2.
Financial deregulation meant that the Glass-Steagal act was overturned in 1999 and, as usually happens with financial deregulation, things ended up in a speculative bubble, a crash and a banking crisis in 2008.
But luckily the underlying problems were not addressed, the market's natural response of deflation wasn't allowed and ...we are here were we are now.
That's too much to write online, particularly at this time, but it's already interesting to me that what is obvious to me, isn't to you. At the same time, I think we agree on quite a few issues about what's wrong in our country so an important part of our moral intuitions are aligned. We differ in our assessment what caused them and therefore differ in what we think it would take to solve them. We're going all over the place (kind of by necessity, but still). I'm not sure how to get this back to a manageable subject for discussion.
Quoting Tzeentch
These statements always rub me the wrong way. You see force, I see democratic cooperation/social contracts and contracts need to be enforced. What we saw in the 70s was a strong government that had broad support from society and not just the parliamentary coalition partners.
As an aside, coalition agreements back then fitted on an A4 - certainly part of the problem as the coalition agreement is a non-democratic instrument now used to lock-in voting behaviour of the coalition parties' members.
Bretton Woods was intentional in scope, and the financial industry is global. But yes, perhaps emphasizing Glass-Steagal is better. Although its claimed that 1999 was the year of its repeal, it was essentially destroyed long before that.
I would suspect that with the financial deregulation in the 1980s.
The Savings & Loans crisis still went along "the old" lines with people actually ending up in jail. But they weren't Wall Street. Financial markets have for a long time (if not always) been like the henhouse guarded by foxes.
I see both, honestly.
I see a certain need for government, and a certain need to enforce rules that allow people to live together in cooperation, but I also see that at its essence government is predicated on violence and coercion.
Under circumstances, I can accept that as a necessary evil. However, I will never be able to step over the fact that it is a deeply flawed method of organizing human coexistence. When carried out by an individual we recognize the use of violence as almost universally wrong, yet when carried out by a collective we don't bat an eye. I don't hold such a double standard, and will advocate minimization of the use of force at every opportunity.
Quoting Tzeentch
Any system of organizing society is based on rules, which are useless without enforcement of those rules. If you murder, which is against the rules in most societies throughout history, you suffer the consequences as determined by that society.
Our principle shouldn't simply be against the use of force, it should be against illegitimate power. We should all come down much harder on private power, especially in the hands of the few owners of multinational corporations (which, incidentally, own the government), rather than the government. Those in government are elected leaders, and so are somewhat accountable to their constituents -- the voters. It's weak, but it's still there. Private power has no such accountability. Corporations are run undemocratically.
Human beings are fundamentally social creatures. Just look at families. Care for others, concern for peoples needs, friendship, kinship, community involvement, etc., are just as much a part of human nature as tendencies of violence, hatred, and competition. For all the libertarian talk about the failure of government, what's conspicuously missing is a critique of private power -- of plutocracy, for example. Or of corporate governance. I think because, ultimately, they're in favor of private power and anti-democracy.
Here I agree with Chomsky:
It's easy to talk in generalities of states and power and endlessly repeat phrases like "monopoly of violence" or "taxation is theft," but that's not what's interesting to me. What's interesting is where this general view, and the basic principles comprising this view, lead people in terms of real policies and real issues. If they lead, say, to voting for someone like Donald Trump, or being consistently opposed to climate action, or the defense of racism and xenophobia, or to successful programs like social security, etc., then I think that tells you a lot. It tells me, anyway, that despite the perhaps well-intended clinging to "libertarian" principles, the application in the real world is an absolute disaster. (Ironically, this is exactly the critique leveled at socialism.)
Ending it with "predicated on violence and coercion" doesn't sound like seeing it both though but I'll take your word for it and think that you probably have a much lower limit for what should be the government's job than I and consider the current setup too broad.
What kind of government activities are you against? I seem to recall you thought the lock downs were inappropriate. (We'll not rehash that discussion here, I disagree with that position during the immediate pandemic but agree the current permanent change is unacceptable as it removes the case-by-case oversight of Parliament). Any other things?
Ownership creates that accountability. If you have started a business, invested in it and operate it, it's success or failure depends on you. Even in an cooperative it's the members of the enterprise, not others, who have this accountability. What is collective (effects others) should regulated the laws your business operates in.
Besides, government ownership means that power is in the hands of a managerial class and the citizens have their few representatives to act as owners.
I don't know where to start. This quite frankly sounds insane.
If you own something, you are responsible for it. What's insane about that?
I believe the best mode for humans to coexist is voluntary. That's how I and most people (including most business!) conduct themselves every day. I don't desire to live in a society in which voluntariness cannot be achieved, but alas I have little choice.
That is not feasible for a modern state. It needs violence and threat of violence.
Quoting Xtrix
I disagree.
Violence, threat of violence and coercion are all clearly definable along the lines of physical force.
Illegitimate power is essentially undefinable, so I could never agree to trusting governments, as flawed and corrupt an instrument as they are, with defining such a term.
Quoting Xtrix
Private power and multinational organisations are two seperate things, though. I might agree with you that the power of multinational organisations may need to be curbed. I would do so specifically on the grounds that their power is now seeping into governments - an instrument of force - putting an instrument of force in the hands of private individuals.
We need to delineate, and we need to delineate clearly.
To point at the power of multinationals and conclude therefore private ownership (capitalism) needs to go (I'm not sure if you're arguing that, but I certainly have seen it suggested on this forum) is several bridges too far for me.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not defending libertarianism here, but I don't think that's missing at all in liberal thought.
Friedman certainly never spared the robber barons, and at the same time he questioned whether government coercion was the right way to change that situation. Sometimes it was!
Quoting Benkei
Government being predicated on those things is an unfortunate yet inescapable reality in my mind - our entire work of thought pertaining to government should be thoroughly drenched in that understanding, lest we forget its evils.
Quoting Benkei
I'm not sure if you're asking what I believe the role of government should be in general terms, or in more specific terms in what recent policies I object to. Both would be very lengthy subjects.
During the covid epidemic I believe we saw the Dutch government bend, stretch and manipulate our system of law to a degree that is far beyond the scope of the problems we have discussed so far. A government that does not follow the rule of law both in spirit and in action, is an entirely different beast.
No it doesnt. Unless youre talking about some co-ops - but thats not what Im talking about.
Corporations have zero accountability to the public. Theyre run undemocratically. Ownership doesnt change that. The workers could own the enterprise and run it democratically, if they so desire.
Quoting ssu
Im not talking about government ownership either, although its preferable to private tyranny - at least the public has some input.
Quoting Tzeentch
But you do: you can leave the country. Just like you can quit your job totally voluntary. Or, you can try to change the institution. In the former case, you have the power to vote, to protest, to petition, to speak with your elected leader (in the case of local and state reps, this is fairly easy -- obviously not as easy with federal representatives), run for office yourself, etc. In the latter case, there are no democratic means -- you have no vote in the board of directors or who your boss or CEO is. You can advocate for yourself or form a union, but you can be fired for nearly any reason, at any time. They tell you what to wear, what's being produced, what time to show up, when to eat lunch, etc. -- and then, after you and all of your fellow coworkers have run the machines or done the paperwork, generating loads of profit, they will decide what to do with it. You have no say in it.
Voluntary cooperation is of course desirable. That doesn't negate the need for rules.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's not really feasible anywhere, really. It's good to have rules we can all agree on, but there's bound to be instances where not everyone does.
Anyway -- long term, I'm in favor of the dissolution of the state. So I'm not here to defend it. There's plenty to criticize.
Quoting Tzeentch
Just replace "power" with "illegitimate use of force," then. Same thing. If "power" is too abstract for you.
Quoting Tzeentch
Who's asking you to? I said OUR principle should be looking for structures of power, dominance, control, etc., and checking for their legitimacy. I think use of force, for example, can be justified at times.
Quoting Tzeentch
Then we are in agreement, because that's exactly what's happened.
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't think we have to go that far. I would much prefer workers own and run where they work, and do so democratically. You can have private ownership and not have the institution or organization or corporation be run as an oligarchy. Just as you can have a political system not run as a plutocracy.
Quoting Tzeentch
Really? He repeatedly claims they're a myth.
In the case of work you do have a say. Isn't your choice to sign a contract with an employer completely voluntary? You may even start your own if that is unappealing to you. And if that fails too, you can even be unemployed.
My 'social contract' with my government has no such voluntary elements. In fact, they never had me sign anything!
Quoting Xtrix
I distinguish between the use of physical force - violence, coercion, etc., and other kinds of power.
To me, while both can be problematic, physical force is more clearly visible and definable, and easier to argue against on the basis of fundamental human rights.
So illegitimate use of physical force I can agree with. Illegitimate use of any kind of force (which is essentially as fuzzy as the word 'power'), I cannot.
Quoting Xtrix
I don't think the use of physical force is ever just. Justice implies an element of goodness - I don't believe violence possesses any such quality. Though, sometimes its use may be excused (self-defense) or begrudgingly accepted as an evil necessary to prevent worse (government).
I agree that we may look beyond the use of physical force, and also be critical of other power structures. However, I cannot in principle agree with using physical force as a means to tackle power structures that do not rely on physical force. Sometimes we must accept it as the only way, but I cannot accept it as a conscious method.
Quoting Xtrix
Some common ground at last. :smile:
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Xtrix
Not exactly. He discusses the relationship between the 19th century capitalists and the ordinary worker, and claims that it was not strictly exploitative, but to a large degree mutually beneficial.
A second argument he has made is that 'robber barons', those who seek to exploit others, are not avoidable. Our choice is whether such individuals function through capital or through government coercion, and he views the former to be the lesser of two evils.
A co-opt or a stock company are far closer to each other than you think.
Quoting Xtrix
They have to abide to the existing laws. You cannot deny that.
Quoting Xtrix
Look, there is either private ownership or public ownership. A cooperative, an association and even a non-profit organization are private. If you aren't a member of them, you have no democratic say their actions.
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah, that's called being an entrepreneur.
As this is a philosophy forum, the underlying theory should be considered. Just what are you talking about here with "democracy". And there otherwise is this seemingly huge divided between owners/entrepreneurs and workers.
Let's understand what a company / a business is. It actually is just a longer contract of a service. This is crucial to understand:
Let's say you go a get a haircut from a barber. Now, what is your responsibility to the barber? Many would say nothing: you just pay for the service of the barber and everything rest the barber takes care himself or herself. But hold on, what if you would be the barber's only customer? The income of the barber would depend only on you coming to get a haircut. Would it be the same? Actually no. If the barber only cuts your hair, somehow doesn't have the option to take any other customers, then the barber is like a worker to you, even if you don't have the contract of service like when a company hires an employee. You might try to act like it's just a normal service when actually you have a private barber. The barber can only opt to cut your hair or find a totally new job.
Hence every business enterprise can basically outsource everything: a business doesn't need employees as it can use hired workers, entrepreneurs or other companies and just buy their services. Yet you can see the obvious downside here: after every contract, the service provider can just walk away and opt to give its services to another customer. And this is why the need for longer contracts, where the service provider is an employee.
When you understand the above, then think just what is the question that you have mind when you argue that there isn't "democracy" in a business enterprise.
Your choice to work anyone is, technically, voluntary. You can quit.
Your choice to stay in the country is, technically, voluntary. You can leave.
Quoting Tzeentch
Most jobs dont have contracts. My job is at-will, for example. Never signed anything. So what? Its still an agreement. Remaining in a country, same thing. If you dont like it, you can try changing it or you can leave. No one is forcing you to be here. No one has a gun to your head. It may be a pain in the ass to leave, sure. Its often a pain in the ass to quit a job, too.
Quoting ssu
They can be the same, in fact. A co-op can issue stock. Whats your point?
Quoting ssu
Yes and they wouldnt exist without the law. They also use their power to shape those laws.
Im not sure what youre arguing anymore. The Fortune 500 companies Im talking about are run undemocratically. Theyre run by the board of directors and the CEO. The board is chosen by major shareholders (the owners). These people a small group of 20-50 make all the major decisions. Thats the structure of most corporations, and it is NOT democracy your talk of accountability notwithstanding.
Quoting ssu
There are private-public partnerships. The non-profit I worked for was a mix.
Regardless, whats the relevance of this remark? Im talking about the internal structure of corporations: corporate governance.
A worker-owned enterprise is not Government-owned. I wanted to emphasize that point. Workers owning and running their workplace is my preference.
Quoting ssu
It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship.
Quoting ssu
Rule by the demos.
Quoting ssu
See above. Im talking about corporate governance. If youre in favor of an undemocratic, top-down way of organizing companies, thats your issue. Im in favor of democratizing the workplace. Co-ops are often a good example. Having the ability to fire your boss; deciding the appropriate levels of wages; deciding together what to produce, where and how much; and crucially, deciding what to do with the profits of the enterprise. Theres no reason business cant be run this way, and in fact have been. Its stifled in this current system we live in, at least in the US, but its possible. Thats what I want to see more of.
The norm, which I outlined above, is destroying businesses and the planet and is a form of tyranny. Im not in favor of that.
Your use of the word "technically" implies you yourself see the issue with that statement.
Quoting Xtrix
In the case of government there was never even any agreement. Man is simply press-ganged into coming along. By the time they are able to question it, they have spent decades firmly rooting themselves into that society.
Quoting Xtrix
You cannot in one sentence reel against capitalist exploitation of workers, implying their labour is performed involuntary, and in the next imply that switching jobs is the same as switching countries.
If you want to use such an uncompromising standard in discussing human affairs then I'm afraid we'll have to start the conversation over, and we'll see where that uncompromising standard brings us.
As many of the owners today are institutional investors and mutual funds, the role of the employed managerial class is the most important. The owners of a corporation, which is represented by the board, which that the CEO's and other employed managers report to, are themselves similar managers. Hence you have a true managerial class, where the few rare Bill Gates / Elon Musk types are more of an oddity. This is the world we live in: few large oligopolies in every market segment and then thousands of small companies.
The definition of accountability is "an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions".
Whatever you say, the responsibility of one's actions are defined in law. You can have an effect on many thing, but it's another thing to be responsible for them. Corporations can increase the wealth of the society and also when the stop their activities, those effects can be detrimental to the region where they in the past have been a large employer.
But just where do you draw the line for accountability? The law defines it. If the management does poor business decisions and the corporation goes bankrupt, that in itself isn't a crime. If the technology changes and the corporation is unable to cope with the change, is that a crime? It's poor management, lousy work. But not something that breaks the law.
You simply have to define more accurately just where do you see the problem of accountability.
Quoting Tzeentch
Youre right: the choice to feed your family or starve isnt really much of a choice at all. So in reality, most jobs arent voluntary. People are forced to work them by pressures beyond physical force.
Quoting Tzeentch
In the case of language there was never agreement either. You acquire whats around you.
Theres much more freedom with the government and the law of the land. Dont like the laws? Work to change them, or leave. No one is forcing you to stay in the country.
Quoting Tzeentch
Staying at a job is as voluntary as staying in the country, yes. No one is physically forcing you to do either. Leaving either could involve a lot of work and hardship, true but thats life. Here Im just applying conservative/libertarian logic. Personally I think its complete nonsense, but whats good for one is good for another.
Quoting Tzeentch
What uncompromising standard?
You wish to differentiate between voluntary and involuntary activities, aligning the former with job agreements and the latter with laws/government. Im simply pointing out the silliness and simplicity of this interpretation.
Better to stick with what Friedman says about corporations versus government regarding money. This voluntary stuff holds no water.
Asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard own decent amounts of shares in many corporations. Theyre major shareholders, but not controlling shareholders.
Still, I do agree that the CEO and a handful of other executives is generally more important. They themselves are hired and answer to the board. Sometimes the chairman is also the CEO, sometimes he or she is also the controlling shareholder or all three in some cases (Zuckerberg, for example). Makes no real difference to my argument.
Quoting ssu
The laws and regulations have changed a great deal over time. In some eras you have better laws, more tightly regulated business; in others, looser or non-existent regulations or outright regulatory capture. All of that is worth discussing.
But none of it is relevant to my point. Even in the golden age of capitalism, in the 50s, when corporations were better regulated and better run before the neoliberal assault they were still run undemocratically. Still just a handful of people owners, managers, etc., maybe 20-50 people, making all the important decisions. That is what Im arguing against.
Im not talking about accountability in that sense. Accountability is everywhere businesses are accountable to law and to shareholders; they have, in the past, taken some responsibility towards their employees and communities and customers. But, again, thats a red herring.
The public has no input on the decisions of the corporation. Workers have no input either. None are allowed a seat at the table. Decisions on what to do with the profits that all employees helped generate are ultimately in the hands of a oligarchy. They are not accountable to their workers, or the community, or the government. There is no vote, no election, no forum for public feedback, nothing.
You're comparing apples to oranges. When one lives in absolute poverty and those are your only options I might agree that employment isn't voluntary, but there's not a modern country in the world in which those are your only options, and the free market is largely to thank for that.
Quoting Xtrix
"Much more freedom" how?
How is it easier to migrate to another country, which essentially implies one also needs to find different employment, than it is to find only different employement? (Ironically, the only time this point of view might have had some merit is in 18th - 19th century America, in which immigration was completely unregulated.)
And the idea it is easier to change the law than it is to change employer is equally something I cannot imagine you genuinely believe.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
What you're doing is departing from all sense of proportion - something which is absolutely necessary to have a constructive debate about human affairs.
Also, how come you ignored about 75% of my earlier post?
There is no free market. Another myth.
Those are not your only options. Yeah, tell that to the millions of people in near poverty in the United States, living paycheck to paycheck. You may want to gloss over it, but that's your own deal.
In any case, it matters not: you're still free to leave the country just as someone is "free" to leave their job if they don't like the conditions. As long as we're being unsympathetic, let's be consistent.
Quoting Tzeentch
You can leave; you have no choice about what language you acquire.
Quoting Tzeentch
I was referring to the acquisition of language.
But regarding the ease of leaving the country -- sometimes it's easier, sometimes it isn't. Depends on the situation. Mostly it's going to be a hassle, I'm sure. But it's still an option. Thus, living in the country is voluntary. As voluntary as staying in a job.
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't say that. It can be just as easy, or at times harder, to leave the country than it is to leave an employer. Laws are hard to change; corporate bylaws are also hard to change.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, I'm not. You -- and every other advocate of "free markets," small government, etc. -- always like to raise the idea that jobs are voluntary, and make voluntary agreements a crucial component of what's considered an ideal, or close to ideal, condition. You point to contracts with employers as voluntary, and that no such contract exists with the government. But you simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're welcome to leave the country -- no one is forcing you to stay. So by staying and living in this country -- just as staying and working in a corporation -- you consent to the rules. Don't like the rules and conditions? Sorry, but you can leave.
If we're going to apply simplistic notions of "voluntary" behavior to work, there's no reason not to apply it to governments.
Quoting Tzeentch
Which? Point me to the relevant passages -- perhaps I did miss something. I scrolled through a few but didn't notice.
Quoting Xtrix
Of course there is a free market. Perhaps not absolutely free, but that's besides the point. It's exactly the low level of regulations of and interference with the market one finds in a free capitalist society that provides people with a certain degree of choice, and I will maintain that it gives even the poorest some degree of freedom when it comes to choosing their employer and employment.
Quoting Xtrix
Obviously when something incurs a sufficiently high cost, it can no longer said to be voluntary. I've already said that for someone living in dire poverty, choice of employment may not be voluntary.
However, in what world is an impoverished worker freer to leave the country than he is to find a different employer? Again, you're throwing all sense of proportion out of the window, and that will make reasonable debate impossible.
Quoting Xtrix
The vast majority of people have plenty to choose from when it comes to employment, even unskilled workers.
I don't believe there are so many people who can truly be said to have no alternatives whatsoever, even by reasonable standards, but to the degree that there are I can agree that they are in a precarious situation and their relationship with their employer isn't entirely voluntary.
Quoting Xtrix
You don't apply this standard yourself, so why would I take this argument serious?
By the time one even has the chance to leave a country, usually several decades into one's life, one has become firmly rooted in that society. Not to mention it would require a considerable investment of time and money. Where does your impoverished worker get that? Or is the impoverished worker only the norm when it suits your argument?
And ultimately, this isn't even a choice you can make on your own. You need the approval of both your country of birth and your country of destination, in other words, you need to conform to laws, and laws are enforced through violence, so you're not 'free to leave' at all.
This attempt at making a change in employment the same as migrating is just silly.
Quoting Xtrix
These:
Quoting Tzeentch
____
Quoting Tzeentch
_____
Quoting Tzeentch
I don't confuse the two. I think that usually those think that capitalism is immoral and a world without private property would be moral. Yet all we have is laws. Furthermore, that "moral" world without private property has been tried again and again, with absolutely horrible results.
Quoting Xtrix
That is a good topic to discuss, I agree.
Quoting Xtrix
And now the idea of a stakeholder is widely accepted. And you have here, just to give an example, Nordic corporatism
So what democracy do you have in mind?
Quoting Xtrix
And just what ought to be the input of people who don't have a clue what the corporation does?
Quoting Xtrix
:roll:
Have you had a job? I would disagree here.
Quoting Xtrix
Well, I guess if they don't pay the workers, the workers will not work. If they don't follow the laws the government has given, they will be in trouble quickly anywhere.
For you this "oligarchy" seems to be part of some kind of "Illuminati".
Not free in the least. Created, maintained, regulated, and intervened in on every level by the state. The idea of a free market is a fantasy.
What it really means is: "free markets" for working people, massive state intervention for corporate America. We have a state-capitalist system, sometimes described as a bailout economy. It's rigged for the wealthy and monopolies. Nothing free about it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Sorry, but this is like listening to a fairytale. So much has been written about it that I don't know where to begin other than to refer you to Ha-Joon Chang, David Harvey, Lynn Stout, William Lazonick, Chomsky, Richard Wolff, Gary Gerstle, etc. -- just off the top of my head.
The state subsidizing and bailing out industries, from defense contracts and Big Ag to publicly funded research/development to tax breaks, the state is there constantly. They lobby the state for what they want, and they know they need a very large corporate nanny state to survive. Free markets serve as a great cover for everyone else, as they run to pick up their government bailouts. A nice story.
The "certain degree of choice" is also an illusion. The "choice" between a Ford and a Chevy, or a thousand brands of toothpaste. That's supposed to demonstrate the wonders of the "free market" -- all the wonderful choices we have. Little is said about the fact that what people actually need, and want, is public transportation for example. Reminds me of the "choice" between democrats and republicans -- that's supposed to demonstrate we have a robust debate and real choice. If you buy into all of that, I don't know what else to do for you. It's really a joke when you look at it a little more.
Quoting Tzeentch
No, you're just not listening. I'll say it once more, and number the points for clarity:
(1) You stated that voluntary association is a key difference between employment and government.
(2) I'm saying that one also has the choice to leave a country if one does not like the laws.
(3) Both are voluntary. No one has a gun to your head. You're free to choose.
Now, you say when there's "sufficiently high cost," it's no longer voluntary -- even without the threat of violence. Yes, that's my point, and this situation is much more prevalent in the case of employment than you let on.
I haven't once said that a worker is "freer" to leave the country than find a different employer. Not once. So I'd argue making things up is also an impediment to "reasonable debate."
Quoting Tzeentch
And you have plenty of countries to choose from if you don't like this one. Is that an argument?
To be absolutely clear: if you understand the absurdity of my claim, you should understand the absurdity of yours. "Plenty to choose from" is irrelevant. If slaves had plenty of masters to choose from, is that a point in favor of the system of slavery?
Quoting Tzeentch
Oh, there's plenty of alternatives. Be a wage slave at Wal Mart, or at Cosco, or at Target, or at McDonalds, or at Burger King, or at an Amazon warehouse. Lots of options. What about the option NOT to be a wage-slave? Or to work at a worker-owned/run enterprise? Those choices simply aren't presented in this system. You have this master or that master -- or starvation. That's the choice. (I'm waiting for the "start you own business" claim here.)
Sure, you can refuse to work...and I guess that's an argument. In that case, you're also free to leave the country if you don't like the rules. In place of this kind of thinking, I encourage people to change the rules -- whether in the workplace or in society.
For all the talk about being "free to choose," free to leave your job, etc., there's very little discussion about why they have to leave in the first place. How about simply improving conditions? We wouldn't say that taking kids away from abusive families is the only solution to child abuse -- we want to end child abuse.
And I want to end private tyrannies and wage slavery. I want workers to control their workplaces and to make decisions together. Bezos doesn't run the Amazon warehouses, the workers do. The Waltons don't run any WalMart store you go to, the workers do. At the bare minimum, I at least want to see workers receive a livable wage.
Quoting Tzeentch
I absolutely apply it to myself. I'm in this country voluntarily. I'm simply demonstrating how little that actually means, outside academic discussion.
Quoting Tzeentch
I fixed your statement. I'm glad you see the point. Having a job is about as voluntary as leaving the country. True, you can argue that it's technically voluntary -- and that's true -- but it overlooks so much as to be callous.
Quoting Tzeentch
You're still free to leave. No one said it was easy, and no one is coercing you through threat of violence to stay. You complain that it's difficult; yeah, so's leaving a job. In every case? No. Plenty of people can leave their jobs easily. Plenty of people can leave the country easily too.
Quoting Tzeentch
I never once said it was the "same." They're very different things. But according to your standards, they're both VOLUNTARY: No one is forcing you to stay. I'll keep repeating this until you decide to read it, I guess.
You're missing the point. My point is the determine whether the use of force/power/authority/control/domination is legitimate or not. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Mostly it isn't -- it's a hard test to pass -- but it's possible.
Quoting Tzeentch
I didn't say just, I said legitimate. So take "just" out of it if you prefer, it really doesn't matter to the point I was making.
Quoting Tzeentch
Which is mostly nonsense. But I skipped this one because I don't want to have a length debate on Friedman here. I intend to start a thread about the man in the future.
China isn't so horrible.
Quoting ssu
As lip service. Until corporations are governed democratically, it's window dressing.
Quoting ssu
Where's "here"? I'm talking mostly about the US, not Scandinavia. But I think it's true, there's a lot to learn from the Nordic model.
Quoting ssu
The corporation operates in a community, and to the extent that they employ people in that community, have buildings in that community, effect traffic in that community, and have environmental effects in that community, I think the community has more than a clue indeed, and should have some input. There should be community outreach and meetings with the local governments. Some of this takes place, but mostly it doesn't.
Quoting ssu
Then you're just ignoring what I'm writing -- and it's getting tiresome. Re-read what I wrote. If you want to have a conversation with an imaginary interlocutor you've concocted out of thin air, you're free to.
Neither the workers, nor the community, nor the customers, have any say whatsoever in the major decisions of the company I have already outlined. Zero. If you don't understand this point, you have no clue how corporations are run.
Really? Compared to what? North Korea? :roll:
Even if they (the CCP) say there still Marxist-Leninists, they do have private property (especially after Mao). With so many billionaires and real estate bubble bursting, I don't think the country qualifies for a true communist state. Basically it's a fascist state: a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and government control of strategic industries. It's only been given this Socialist veneer in rhetoric.
Quoting Xtrix
I refer here to the Nordic countries. Do note that this is an international forum
Quoting Xtrix
Yet wouldn't that "community outreach" look to you as window dressing? And if they have meetings with local governments, what's on the issue? Increasing job positions in the community? I guess every local government would usually like that. And what about the people?
In reality, the "community", the people likely won't give a shit about a corporation if they don't work there. Likely the only reason they would want to complain about something. Now if that complaint is justified, wouldn't it be ought to be covered by laws and regulations?
Quoting Xtrix
Zero? That is simply not true. Your picture is far too black and white exaggerations. And I notice you have the urge to talk about "the workers", perhaps referring to them as this mythical downtrodden class. Even to talk about employees, you would have to admit that there's many types of employees, mid-level staff and managers below the executive class. These are people that executive have to listen. And basically, if you run down your company for short term profits, guess what, sooner or later the company is a former company.
In many ways compared to the US. Im well aware theyre the current bogeyman. Theres plenty I dont like about China. But you mentioned horrible results regarding private property. And China just isnt that horrible. In fact economically its a powerhouse, and millions have been raised out of poverty.
Quoting ssu
Predictably. Just jump right into what you meant to say initially: anything horrible = communism, anything good = capitalism. :yawn:
Incidentally, I dont think its communist either for very different reasons. Not because some private property exists at the margins.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, you just dont know what youre talking about. Having lived in several cities and towns in the US, Ill just leave you to your reality.
Quoting ssu
Thats because you dont know how a corporation functions. I cant help that.
They have zero say.
Quoting ssu
And thats happened more and more.
It is true that they have raised millions from poverty and don't face starvation as they did in truth with the failed Maoist experiments. But what is has been is a gigantic building spree and the use of cheap labor only goes so far. And their self-made hurdle they made for themselves with the one-child policy is now going to bite them hard. So I'm not sure just how great powerhouse China actually is. Let's look after a couple of years.
Quoting Xtrix
I've worked in corporations, but have you?
Completely misses the point, but sure. Let's look at the US in a few years, for that matter. The replacement rate is low here as well.
Quoting ssu
Yes. Profit and non-profit. Completely beside the point, but there's an answer.
US demographics is far better, thanks to immigration.
Quoting Xtrix
And you think in those profit and non-profit organizations the managers didn't listen one iota at their workforce about anything? Nope, zero. They had their information from God (or something) and preached it to the organization without wanting to hear any feedback?
It's 1.9 in the US; replacement rate is 2.1. China is 1.15, and one of the lowest. They're both too low.
Quoting ssu
Considering I was a manager, I can tell you that the answer is easy: of course they listen to their workers. Sometimes they even become friends. I've worked with people I like and don't like. Staff meetings were frequent.
This is all nice to talk about, I suppose. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I was talking about before.
And you believe people haven't written about the virtues of a free capitalist economy? You could list a hundred writers, in the end its about the rational arguments, so lets stick to those and not to lists of names.
Quoting Xtrix
You can characterize it any way you like. You'll struggle to find a freer system anywhere else - and yet that system in its current shape is crucially flawed. Clearly, the answer to those flaws it not more government, and neither is it to end private ownership.
That would be communism, which already has been tried and it has failed several times.
Quoting Xtrix
You would've preferred to live in the Soviet Union? There the government makes the choices for you. Your housing, your occupation, your one type of bread that's available, etc. There the impoverished worker indeed has no alternatives.
Your position doesn't make any sense. On the one hand you reel against the terrible economic freedoms, and how those freedoms are responsible for all the terrible things that befall people in society, and on the other hand you deny such freedoms exist! So what is it going to be?
Quoting Xtrix
And I've repeatedly argued this type of argument throws all sense of proportion out of the window. The idea we're freer to choose the country we live in than we are to choose our occupation is just silly.
Quoting Xtrix
No, when someone says "Work for me or starve to death", I think that's clearly coercion.
Quoting Xtrix
What exactly do you believe I am claiming?
I have no issue in maintaining a sense of proportion. There's a significant difference between an average worker who has plenty of choice regarding his occupation, and someone who is economically completely cornered.
We can't treat those the same, as you would try to treat choice of work and choice of nationality the same.
One does not choose what country they are born in, the country in which they build their existence and roots, and the laws to which they are subjected.
That people may eventually be in a position to change that conditions does not change government's essential nature - violence and coercion.
Quoting Xtrix
Nonsense. You're free to do all of those things. Worker-owned/run enterprises? How many people don't work independently for themselves or in small groups?
All of those things are out of reach if one doesn't have any good ideas, initiative or a desire to incur the risk of investment.
And I believe here we are getting to the real meat and potatoes of the anti-capitalist idea - that building a business is something that should magically happen to us, without any effort, without any intellectual effort to produce a good idea, without any investments that incur risk. It reeks of entitlement.
If you want to have stability, no responsibility and no risk, you're free to be a "wage slave", whatever that means. And even in those situations a person can grow if they want to, but if they work resentfully, believing they deserve more without actually working for it, believing that because they work a simple job, there are no skills for them to develop there, it won't get them very far and in this case their supposed poverty is self-imposed.
Quoting Xtrix
That's not the choice for an average worker. What a caricature. It's very telling that your argument rests on such a skewed view of what the average working person looks like.
What you describe is the choice for someone who is socially and economically completely cornered and has nothing to fall back on. As far as I know there are many charitable or government-run organisations that ensure that even such a person does not have to fear starvation - and that is a good thing.
Quoting Xtrix
You're now going to compare workers to abused children?
Very characteristic that you should choose this metaphor, because it showcases exactly what is wrong with a state-centric solution to all perceived problems. People are not children, and they don't need a parent-government to guide their life's choices.
Quoting Xtrix
See my point about the costs incurred by business-owners.
But why are you not free to set up a business according to your ideal? It sounds wonderful - all that's left is for you to take your idea to the market.
Actually, I'm sure there already are plenty of businesses that operate more or less on that concept.
When applied to a large scale it probably will run into the problem that the larger the democracy, the less efficient it becomes. The only reason states can get away with being democratically run is because states can get away with being extremely inefficient. Businesses can't. States have a monopoly on their violent trade, after all.
So what then? Would you like government to impose this democratic system on business, even if it is completely inefficient? This is again sounding more and more like full-blown communism.
It's worth noting that while history's capitalist projects could not provide everything, it's pretty clear that history's communist projects failed to provide anything.
Quoting Xtrix
Then what is this rant about employment and wage slavery about? All of it is voluntary in your view. What is the problem?
Quoting Xtrix
You have a chance to work towards leaving your job from the moment you accept it. The same does not apply to a child that's born in a certain country. In fact, the child never accepts anything. The two aren't remotely comparable.
And at the same time, if a worker truly is in a situation that is comparable - that from the moment of their working life they were press-ganged into a job that they could somehow never leave, in which they cannot accumulate any wealth or learn any skills that could provide him with an alternative, I would have no problem acknowledging that is problematic and obviously not considered as voluntary. I strongly disagree with your attempt to generalize this idea, though.
Quoting Xtrix
For the average worker it's true - it's completely voluntary.
For some people living in dire poverty it is no longer true, and overlooking that would be callous, but that is something I have never argued for.
So if you don't believe your own words, you may now also stop pretending that you're representing mine.
Quoting Xtrix
Of course I am. I'm bound to my system, my nationality, by many laws. If I were to ditch all of that by burning my identity papers and crossing a border somewhere, I'd be an outlaw.
If it were the case I could do so without any legal (that is to say violent/coercive) penalty, I would agree. People in the 18th - 19th century were free to get on a boat and travel to the United States, for example.
Quoting Xtrix
Legitimate implies lawful - I can agree to an extent.
I believe both physical force and non-physical power or control need to abide by laws, preferably laws which are 'set in stone' in a constitution, clearly delineating the rights of citizens.
Preferably set in stone, precisely because government cannot be allowed to seep into the cracks. If it is allowed to do so, it will pervert the system in its favor over time.
___________________
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
The reason it is relevant, is because legitimacy (lawfulness) can be tested independent of government, since all are equal before the law.
Societal notions of justice cannot in my view legitimize violence.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm looking forward to it. :ok:
Since free markets dont exist, and nearly every country is a state-capitalist one often called mixed economies this statement is just meaningless. Might as well say were the greatest country on earth, despite some flaws. A nice mythology, but impossible to measure.
Quoting Tzeentch
More myth. Neither the Soviet Union nor China are really communist, as even youve mentioned and neither really failed, incidentally.
Friedman-type free enterprise systems have been tried, however and failed very badly indeed.
Quoting Tzeentch
Since the flaws like the crash of 2008 was largely due to insane behavior by an industry that was deregulated Yeah Id say the answer is more Government. Ditto for monopolies that inevitably arise over and over again.
Funny to see people double down, though. The push for free markets results in failure, and the answer is I guess they werent free enough! Meanwhile during the era of tight banking regs, there were no crashes. But since the government can do no right, it must have been something else. Market fundamentalism 101.
Sorry not convincing.
Quoting Tzeentch
What freedoms? The freedom to be a a wage slave or starve to death? That freedom? Or the freedom to choose between a Dodge and a Ford?
No, I dont say these things dont exist. Calling it freedom of choice is ridiculous, of course much like your use of voluntary. But still as phenomena, they exist. No one is denying it.
Quoting Tzeentch
I never once said that. So Ill point you to what I said, yet again, and encourage you to read it until you understand it. Ive been as clear as I can be. Its interesting to watch this, however you simply wont allow yourself to understand it. Pyschologically interesting.
Quoting Tzeentch
No one says that.
Quoting Tzeentch
And tens of millions of people in the US, and hundreds of millions across the globe, are in the latter camp. You and others want to pretend theyre in the former but that too is a convenient mythology for market fundamentalists.
And it says nothing about the system of wage slavery itself, nor the fundamentally immoral structure of corporations and employer-employee relation. So even if every employee had plenty of choice, it would say nothing about the system.
Quoting Tzeentch
Theyre not the same. I never once said they were. But both can be considered voluntary in your sense. If no one is putting a gun to your head, or even saying work or starve (which doesnt happen), then youre free to leave your job. Thus its a voluntary agreement.
Quoting Tzeentch
And the fact that someone can be in a position to change their jobs does not change capitalisms essential nature exploitation and economic means of coercion.
Quoting Tzeentch
Youre free to go to the moon, too.
The fact that you think people have the option not to work for wages because small businesses exist is laughable. Its just that easy to market fundamentalists.
So far this is like corresponding with libertarian cliches.
Quoting Tzeentch
:lol:
Those stupid, lazy people with no drive! If only they took more risk and tried harder then they too could be a Jeff Bezos.
Good lord.
Quoting Tzeentch
Yeah, because thats definitely whats happening. Stupid, lazy, entitled people with no drive looking for handouts.
Cue Jeffrey Lebowski.
Quoting Tzeentch
Stupid, lazy, entailed, and with self-imposed poverty.
In other words: no one to blame but themselves. Got it. Thanks for not concealing your pathological worldview appreciated. Im happy to have helped smoke it out.
Quoting Tzeentch
:lol:
:up:
Ill skip the rest. Not interested in cliches Ive heard a thousand times before. Be well.
It is very easy to vilify the other side if one believes the choice is between the socialist heaven and the liberal hell. After all, how could one consciously choose hell over heaven?
However, Nirvana, dear socialists, is not for this world, and our choice is not between heaven and hell. Our choices pertain to the limbo we find ourselves in.
And our fundamental choice is simple - it is between government control, the medium of which is coercion, and individual control, the medium of which is capital.
The real question is not whether we want our saintly leaders to deliver us from evil through benevolent policies.
The real question is whether we want the Jeff Bezoses of this world to discharge their power through coercion or through capital.
Those are the two flavors we may choose for our shit sandwich, and one glance at history should make the answer of that question simple. To answer the former would mean a leap back in time, back to the era of absolutists, which mankind has spent thousands of years trying to wrestle itself free from.
Capitalism is a socialist bugaboo, and isnt the mark of any one system. There has not been any regime that was not concerned with the ownership and management of capital, including the most collectivist and centralized of regimes, the difference being only that collectivism transfers the ownership and management of capital from private hands to the hands of the State.
Statism is the prevailing orthodoxy, and thats the primary ingredient in all the shit sandwiches were eating these days.